luctor et emergo

The problem with this is the application, or lack of, of 'common sense'. If a competent young child is competently supervised, than there should not be a problem. But there is a foolhardy minority, who will ruin it for others, by ignoring 'common sense', because it does not apply to them. The same thing as with drinking on the boat, and boating on the tidal Thames (two issues which are currently hotly debated in separate threads). I mean, to that brigade, it is probably a god given right to be sat in the lounge, drinking alcohol, whilst the young'uns steer the boat under a red sign bridge arch... after all, nobody has been killed like that yet, so it is o.k.... bottums up...

But why should a narrow boat have to obey the rules, or learn those confusing signals? They have been 'steering' on the canals for years, and never a scratch on their boat.

I think so, the coats that most are wearing look like army overcoats. It's only 1950, they even get ration books at the beginning of the film. Very interesting, thanks for the link.

What? Can you speak up please?

What about eyesight?

Yes, these sober drivers are a danger. They should be banned..

I don't know about it being pious, or kneejerk. Before the drink drive laws for cars came into force, they were pooh-poohed by the drivers of the time.

I would expect that if such a licence came into force, existing boaters would be granted 'grandfather' rights. The only reason I can see for there not being a 'drink/driving' ban on boating, is because of the difficulty of detection/enforcement. Are there any statistics on accidents on the canal? Do people routinely report accidents, or are they just shrugged off? There was a recent tread about a member who's tiller was ripped off during his absence. No details left behind by the culprit, how often are boats damaged by an unknown boat? Just wondering.

I won't go into the "slower than a car, so it's less critical" argument... I wonder what the insurance will say when they realise that they have to pay out because the steerer was drunk? Or if somebody gets hurt?

Well, only as far in that the Police need to check for illigal drivers, who are not insured, and are a danger to other road users. Not displaying a licence disk is only a nuisance, but is not going to ruin other peoples lives.

Technically that is true. What astaunds me is that the Judge reckoned that he was a "moderate risk"... three times over? He should have either not been fined at all, or have been heavily punished. Is there something different about boating, that it is acceptable to be drunk, and bump into other boats?

From the artice: three times over the limit, and just a £60 fine. A total bill of £160 hmmm, not much of a deterent, especially considering the unlikelyhood of being caught and prosecuted. In a car they would have trown the book at him, and even when you are over the limit on a bicycle you can get a driving ban.

Sardines ?? Femail ??

Sorry, it may be convenient, but it looks like the most soul destroying place to be moored. Next to a busy road, open to the public, ....

On the other hand, you could shout 'BOOO' very loudly, when they pass.

As..?

You're on your boat, you do what you like. If you want to have a quiet smoke, do it. No obligation to talk to passers by, just like if you are in your garden.

Ahh, will we ever see those days again? When a works canteen was a happy place, to find a moment of respite from the job? Instead of the sterile place of punishment that it is now, where you must feel like an inconvinience to the company... As a matter of fact, most places connected with truck driving seem to have a healthy disregard for all the recent PC rules and regulations. Most drivers stil smoke in the cab, and the smoking ban that should be observed in buildings (like drivers break rooms, briefing rooms etc ) seems to be an adviory rule at best. And whilst I don't smoke anymore, I have no problem with my colleages lighting up. I used to smoke, and if there is one thing I hate more than dog owners who let there dog foul the pavement, it is sanctemonious ex-smokers. edit to add 'smoke' to clarify..

Like seatbelts and airbags, this is just another one of those 'solutions' to counter man's (and woman's) inability to be careful. I can just see the headlines in America now. Litigation laywers will do a brisk trade. As for a few drunken lads, a dare, and a trip to hospital....

I see a difference in opinion based on peoples experience with the paint, in much the same way as it is in the scale model building world. Some swear by Acrylics, some swear by Enamels. In effect, both have their unique properties, which when used correctly (or sometimes in-correctly, for special effects) give a good result. Most objection comes through a lack of technique, which results in some people denouncing a certain paint type (or brand) as 'useless'. For example, Tamiya acrylic paint is widely regarded as being un-brushable (as with a hand brush as opposed to an airbrush), which I don't agree with, because I often apply it with a brush. The 'secret' is in using the right brush, and correctly thinning the paint (I know, that seems obvious, but there you go..) It seems to me that Hammerite smooth has its use above the waterline, but certainly not below. That is what I was trying to find out. Thanks very much. ** off to check on industrial buckets of Hammerite...***