Jump to content

Really


luggsy

Featured Posts

10 hours ago, roland elsdon said:

I cannot see how any surveyor would pass a boat with a pyrex dish as the door glass...

Well it is the correct type of glass for a stove door.

The kitchen does have a fire extinguisher and blanket. Escape should be easy as a light kick would get you through any cabin side. The gaps in the roof are a charming and novel way to meet the high level ventilation recommendations and acts as a flue for the gas heater. The cooker sloping in to the wall means it can't topple over. The "builder" has definitely read at least some of the BSS requirements.

No bids yet, despite the seller having 100% positive feedback.

The next and bigger project will be something to see!

Edited by Jen-in-Wellies
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rumsky said:

Now if only you could get that inboard engine working again to produce 1.21 gigawatts of power, you could travel back to a time when it was a perfectly useable boat. 

 

36CB16F5-11B5-4CE1-9BFF-5CB9D5CB7888.jpeg

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

You could argue that he cannot pass it unless the boat passes the 'ventilation' guidelines.  If it is not a 'required' requirement than however daft it may seem he cannot fail it.

 

He cannot fail the boat because of the pyrex-dish fire door (unless there is something else that is actually non-compliant)

 

There is some confusion as to the meaning of the BSS certificate (some even think it means the boat is safe, won't sink and is equivalent to a survey)

Remember, the BSS is not intended to 'protect' the occupants, it is intended to protect the :

1) Water from pollution

2) Passers by on the towpath

3) Passing boats and boaters.

 

The argument for the introduction of the CO alarms in 2019, was not for the protection of the boat occupants, but for the protection of passers-by (weak argument in my book !)

Ludicrous, back in 1990s they wanted us to extend our in engine room 6 inch diesel fillers through the roof but this is now legal.../

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, roland elsdon said:

Ludicrous, back in 1990s they wanted us to extend our in engine room 6 inch diesel fillers through the roof but this is now legal.../

Their mission statement (in their own words)

 

The Boat Safety Scheme

The Boat Safety Scheme, or BSS, is a public safety initiative owned by the Canal & River Trust and the Environment Agency. Its purpose is to help minimise the risk of boat fires, explosions, or pollution harming visitors to the inland waterways, the waterways' workforce and any other users.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Murflynn said:

...............................    but it could be argued that the boat-owner and his crew/guests are included in those 'visitors'.

I think that has been argued previously, and fell down on some technicality.

 

eg: If the intention was safety of people on the 'subject' boat them ventilation would be compulsory (it isn't), sources of CO would be rigorously tested (cracks in SF stove doors ?) they aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, roland elsdon said:

So how come co2 monitoring if crt dont care about occupants.

besides a flaming bomb moored abreast easily causes more flaming bombs

 

CO, not CO2. It's carbon monoxide that kills instantly. Eventually carbon dioxide will probably get us all indirectly, but that's a global issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, roland elsdon said:

So how come co2 monitoring if crt dont care about occupants.

Answered in post number 17, page 1 of this thread.

 

But you can read the full detail and justification on the BSS website, all you need to do is click the link below.

 

In the past two years new information about the potential risk to boaters presented by CO has brought the need for action into focus. From the recent evidence collected, people and their pets aboard their own boats are at medium risk of CO poisoning from sources of CO generated outside of the boat by others e.g. the use of engines and appliances on adjacent boats.

The recently identified potential risk cannot be controlled by boat owners themselves. The risk is enhanced by the fact that CO is a hidden danger.

The circumstances fall within the remit of the Scheme to have in place measures that protect boat owners from the activity of others. In these circumstances a mandatory new BSS Requirement is warranted, as opposed to an ‘Advice check’.

 

https://www.boatsafetyscheme.org/about-us/co-alarm-consultation/

 

 

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Answered in post number 17, page 1 of this thread.

 

But you can read the full detail and justification on the BSS website, all you need to do is click the link below.

 

In the past two years new information about the potential risk to boaters presented by CO has brought the need for action into focus. From the recent evidence collected, people and their pets aboard their own boats are at medium risk of CO poisoning from sources of CO generated outside of the boat by others e.g. the use of engines and appliances on adjacent boats.

The recently identified potential risk cannot be controlled by boat owners themselves. The risk is enhanced by the fact that CO is a hidden danger.

The circumstances fall within the remit of the Scheme to have in place measures that protect boat owners from the activity of others. In these circumstances a mandatory new BSS Requirement is warranted, as opposed to an ‘Advice check’.

 

https://www.boatsafetyscheme.org/about-us/co-alarm-consultation/

 

 

The risk to others is a rather odd and tenuous way to introduce CO monitors into BSS. Why not just say it's important to fit CO alarms to keep boaters safe in their own boats and, whilst not the remit of the BSS, the BSS is the most effective way of controlling it? Rhetorical question Alan - I don't expect you to have the answer! :D

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Sea Dog said:

The risk to others is a rather odd and tenuous way to introduce CO monitors into BSS. Why not just say it's important to fit CO alarms to keep boaters safe in their own boats and, whilst not the remit of the BSS, the BSS is the most effective way of controlling it? Rhetorical question Alan - I don't expect you to have the answer! :D

 

Its a fair question, and I don't have the answer.

The 'law of the land' does not allow the 'authorities' to interfere with the personal liberties by dictating / controlling dangerous acts that do not impinge on others, however, (as has been suggested) what about 'innocent' visitors or family aboard the boat, do they not have a right to live even if the boat owner decides to commit suicide ?

 

The fact that a boat owner who killed his family by CO poisoning as a result of his modifications to a generator, was found guilty of manslaughter might suggest that there could be a justification for enforcing the installation of CO monitors - there would then be arguments about "I haven't modified anything so I shouldn't have one" or "I boat single handed so you cannot make me have one".

 

You would not think that the boating community was against the introduction of CO alarms and that they could see the benefits of a £20 life saver without being told that they MUST have one.

 

I would suggest that equivalents would be the introduction of motorcycle helmets or seat-belts in cars and there use made mandatory - there did not seem to be any conflict about 'liberties' and safety when they were introduced.

 

I wonder if this is relevant ?

 

Attorney-General v. Great Eastern Railway Co. (1880) 5 App.Cas. 473, Lord Blackburn said, at p. 481: 'where there is an Act of Parliament creating a corporation for a particular purpose, and giving it powers for that particular purpose, what it does not expressly or impliedly authorise is to be taken to be prohibited; ...

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, blackrose said:

I don't get it! What's so special about this pile of crap? You don't need to go on eBay to see such junk, just have a look around your local waterway. They're all over the place.

I agree that you can find shed boats everywhere. What is special here is the discrepancy between the extreme shedness of the boat and the apparent pride with which the seller describes it. I don't know if he is just talking it up in the hope that a mug buyer on ebay will actually pay £8k for it, of if he is genuinely proud of it and blind to its shedness and his complete lack of any skill in fitting it out.

Jen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, blackrose said:

 

CO, not CO2. It's carbon monoxide that kills instantly. Eventually carbon dioxide will probably get us all indirectly, but that's a global issue.

how many times do we have to point this out?

one might conclude that there are folk out there who didn't pay attention to third form science lessons - surely not?    :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 08/01/2020 at 23:43, luggsy said:

Just had a look again and it now says:

Quote

This listing was ended by the seller because there was an error in the listing.

I wonder which part the seller decided was in error?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
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
  • 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.