luctor et emergo

You can give me as complicated an example as you like, I'm not really as thick as I may come across in print. Not everybody who breaks one rule, is going to break all the rules. Of course not. But it is a fact that most rogue traders will break multiple rules, especcially if compliance is going to incur (un-neccessary in their eyes) added cost.

If you can reach a foul water drain from the boat, it probably drains straight into the canal, so that would be be option three...

I suppose that depends on where you dunk your bucket (ooerr missus ), I have seen some pretty stagnant spots where all the floating crud gathers (no, not a plastic marina.. ) The flowing water should be fine. I have looked at using water from the canal, with a suitable filter. Depending on the size etc of the tank, any sediment should settle on the bottom, and clean(ish) water can be taken from the top. It's got to be beter than wasting tap water. Incidentaly, my parents home (in the Netherlands) uses surface (rain) water that has been gathered in the water courses in the estate, after it has been filtered, for the toilets. The whole estate has been plumbed for that, saving large amounts of tap water.

Per what? liter? Gallon? I recently needed new rear brakes (two disks and pads) on our car. Non franchised dealer (but dealing exclusively in Saab though), £256.00 . Local 'nation wide tyre company, £138 and fitted an hour or so later. Sure, they are probably not genuine Saab disks, but on a 11 year old car I don't need gebuine parts. Always shop around.

It's not naive. It's experience. It would be naive to think that somebody who does not bother to get properly licenced (generally, not speaking about the trader mentioned earlier, as I don't know him, or his circumstances, or limiting to boats) would then comply with other regulations. The main reason for not complying is to save money, or because compliance is too cumbersome.

Hmm, I have emailed BW to get some information and clarification with regards to just this issue (licencing a boat for a pump-out service). To date I have not had a reply (other than a courtesy 'thank you for your enquiery, I have forwarded it .. ). I have no intension of doing a buisiness like this un-licenced, even if BW is unable to enforce it's rules and lawes, the EA is. As an HGV driver I am only to aware of the practice of running unlicenced, uninsured, and undercuting the rates of legitimate hauliers. It puts the legitimate hauliers out of business, and the public at risk (these kind of companies don't tend to bother with maintenance either, nor insurance). As I understand it, there are three ways top deal with the waste. Collection by a legit land side disposal haulier. Pump it into an Elsan or pump-out (presumably when no ones looking.. ). Dump it in the canal or a field. An illigal trader won't boither wityh the first option (costs money, and is inconvinient) so he will either block your Elsan, or dump it in the canal. Nice.. I did wonder why a colleage of mine refered to the canal as that open sewer'. He also recons that the best use of the canals would be to cover them with a concrete road way, using them as sewers whilst gaining valuable trunk road space... I get a distinct feeling that BW is not really interested in the canals, but only in making a quick buck from the assets, before abandoning them to the forces of nature. Maybe I should buy a dredger...

What?

Thanks everybody for your respones, most helpfull indeed. And entertaining even...lol I am currently working as a HGV driver on tankers, so I am aware of the need to baffle a tank (depending on shape and size), and the need to distribute the weight, as low, and close to the middle as possible. To be honest, converting a standard NB would be a last option, but if the tank is positioned in the forward part, separated from the rear by a solid bulkhead (with a suitable sealed access door), 'living with 4 tons of sh*t, , should not be the biggest problem. The tank is sealed at any rate. Using canal water for rinsing is an option I thought of, and something I am going to check with BW. I am waiting for a reply to some other questions I have sent them, so we shall see. Disposing of the effluent is a good one, I thought I just find a quiet spot on the canal and ... NO, only joking... . I have already confirmed one means of disposal, but that would increase the cost to me, and thus the cost to the customer. I would like to keep it between £10 and £15, but may have to consider up to £20. That would however entail a regular collection, up to twice a month, on a 'contract base', i.e. where I would emty your tank even if you are not on board. I thouhgt about the butty option, but finding a suitable butty is going to be as tricky as a ex-work boat. Having a hull built is probably going to be to expensive. At least initially. Chris, how many boats (approx) are there on the overpopulated K&A ? And is there a rough idea how many of those are 'liveaboards'? Cheers

I'm looking at a possibility to convert a NB to carry a large tank, plus all the gear that is needed for pumping out (other boats that is). Ideally I would get my hands on one of BW old working boats (the floating skips are perfect for my needs), but failing that, I could place a tank in the front of a NB, and re-fit the rear of the cabin to live in. I have my eyes on what I think is a suitable boat, but how much weight will a 36' NB carry? I'm thinking in the region of a 1000 gallon tank, and also a smaller tank to carry water (to rinse the PO tanks.). Thanks

Hmm, sleeping of a hang over, whilst the kids steer the NB down stream under a closed bridge arch...

I may be joking, but we both know that there are boaters out there with this attitude.

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 ??