Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
nicknorman

I never did like Steve Haywood

Featured Posts

41 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Unfortunately that is what boaters have to put up with when (some) canal boaters get on rivers.

 

It was intentional - even if he 'couldn't stop' because he was 20 tonnes and had a trad engine, he could have turned away instead of turning towards the boat.

 

When approaching a mooring you turn to approach from the down stream side to have better slow-speed control - approaching from upstream in (say) a 2mph flow, and maintaining (say) 2 mph to retain steering means you are approaching the mooring at 4mph, doing it 'correctly' means you can approach at virtually zero speed and still maintain steering.

 

He was in the wrong - no question.

 

and ferry glide into a tight mooring space.

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fI don't do Twitter, but if that comment at the end from Haywood is on it, can the link to the video be added to his twitter account and re-tweeted, so that his followers can see the other side?

Edited by dor
  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

The chap should send a copy of his video to the editor of canal boat to enquire if this is the sort of behaviour they encourage from their team.

 

 

I’m outraged!!!


There is no reason for anyone outraged by this vid not to send the link to the editor of CB mag. The more sending it, the better. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If, as Mr Haywood suggests, this was a hire boat, then the obvious step to take would be reporting the incident and any damage to the hire company to deal with.

 

Either the hire company or their insurance company, or if private the owner, could take out civil &/or criminal damage proceedings to recover costs of any damage. There may not have been anything visible of course, but a collision like that could have compromised the structural integrity in ways which a surveyor could possibly assess for the purpose.

 

If prosecuting for criminal damage, there does not even have to be deliberate intent proven; being reckless of any consequence in the action leading to the damage is sufficient.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Laurie.Booth said:

Email & link sent to the Editor of the publication.

Ditto. Why? Because I don't want Narrow Boat users to get tarnished with this particular brush.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before getting to carried away and complaining to the 'papers' do we know 'for sure' that :

 

1) This was Steve Haywood's boat

2) He was the skipper at the time

 

It would be all too easy for any Richard Cranium to pluck a name out of the air.

 

Is the skipper definitely recognised as Steve Haywood ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shocking act! Any small childen on the cruiser could have been thrown off the boat or unbalanced. Clearly ignorant of the CollRegs and Thames regulations. I am glad I don't provide his insurance.

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Sadly Chris McGine appears only to be 'acting editor'. 

 

https://www.canalboat.co.uk/contact-us

 

Deputy Editor Martin Ludgate might be a better person to bring into the loop.

 

martin.ludgate@archant.co.uk

 

 

 

I think its just that the Archant IT guys are a bit iffy (they have a habit of cocking up the CB forums and don't moderate posts when asked) and have not updated that bit yet.  I have been dealing with Chris for two years now and think he has been confirmed as editor, certainly the editor@ email address goes to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

 

I think its just that the Archant IT guys are a bit iffy (they have a habit of cocking up the CB forums and don't moderate posts when asked) and have not updated that bit yet.  I have been dealing with Chris for two years now and think he has been confirmed as editor, certainly the editor@ email address goes to him.

 

Oh there is a Canal Boat forum? 

 

So there is! Last post, 81 days ago...

 

http://forums.canalboat.co.uk/forums-1224/general-forum

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was clear that both boats were going for the same mooring.

However the narrowboat was disobeying the colregs . 

The cruiser was the stand on vessel . The narrowboat was the give way vessel. Had the cruiser not required the mooring the narrowboat should have passed him port to port, which was obviously not going to happen. 

 

While it seems the narrowboat owner is some sort of journalist he seems to be  novice boater unaware of the rules of the road as defined in the  colregs. 

 

  • Greenie 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MartynG said:

It was clear that both boats were going for the same mooring.

However the narrowboat was disobeying the colregs . 

The cruiser was the stand on vessel . The narrowboat was the give way vessel. Had the cruiser not required the mooring the narrowboat should have passed him port to port, which was obviously not going to happen. 

 

While it seems the narrowboat owner is some sort of journalist he seems to be  novice boater unaware of the rules of the road as defined in the  colregs. 

 

He's had that boat a long time now, really he should know better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Unfortunately that is what boaters have to put up with when (some) canal boaters get on rivers.

 

It was intentional - even if he 'couldn't stop' because he was 20 tonnes and had a trad engine, he could have turned away instead of turning towards the boat.

 

When approaching a mooring you turn to approach from the down stream side to have better slow-speed control - approaching from upstream in (say) a 2mph flow, and maintaining (say) 2 mph to retain steering means you are approaching the mooring at 4mph, doing it 'correctly' means you can approach at virtually zero speed and still maintain steering.

 

He was in the wrong - no question.

There is often very little flow on the Thames, and often even less near the bank, it is usually perfectly safe to moor up when heading downstream unless its a very very tight gap, though narrowboats should not be going for tight gaps between plastic or wooden boats. 

It has only been when navigating on yellow boards that we have felt to need to turn to face upstream.

 

In fact, occasionally when there are moored boats, there can even be a gentle reverse flow at the bank.

 

..................Dave

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I emailed the video to editor@canalboat.co.uk as that is the address printed in the magazine.

 

 

  • Greenie 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.