Are boaters getting more selfish or is it just the world in general

[peterboat]

7 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

So if I read that correctly 1.3 means that I don't have to abide by or learn all these toot toot codes, which I am sure is the same conclusion that was come to years ago.

I read the bit that said private pleasure vessels and that was it we don't count very confusing 

[Tony1]

8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The MCA regs cover Inland Waterways and have special rules for vessels acarrying less than 12 passengers -

 

7.1 The Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/75) implement the Convention on International Regulations for

 

 

The rules for shipping distress signals definitely apply in my case- even with my imaginary shipmates aboard there are only three of us. 

I moored near Whixall junction late one Sunday evening last summer.

Due to a critical failure in the vessel's logistics management systems, I discovered that I was completely beerless, and this after a long hot day's cruising. 

In my view this clearly warranted a distress signal of some sort, but I don't have a VHF radio or a distress flare, and I wasn't clear on the correct authority to report a beer shortage. 

I considered boarding a nearby boat and bludgeoning the crew to steal their booze, but they were only about 85 years old, and they had a jack russell, so I didn't fancy my chances. 

 

 

[agg221]

51 minutes ago, Tony1 said:

 

The rules for shipping distress signals definitely apply in my case- even with my imaginary shipmates aboard there are only three of us. 

I moored near Whixall junction late one Sunday evening last summer.

Due to a critical failure in the vessel's logistics management systems, I discovered that I was completely beerless, and this after a long hot day's cruising. 

In my view this clearly warranted a distress signal of some sort, but I don't have a VHF radio or a distress flare, and I wasn't clear on the correct authority to report a beer shortage. 

I considered boarding a nearby boat and bludgeoning the crew to steal their booze, but they were only about 85 years old, and they had a jack russell, so I didn't fancy my chances. 

 

 

I think this is where you need the more surreptitious approach of wine-syphoning.

 

Silicone tube in through the window, into the bottle, then suck it through and either keep going or syphon it neatly into your glass. Avoid the uncouth with wine boxes.

 

Success is dependent on giving absolutely no signals at all to alert anyone to your intent or even your presence.

Alec

Edited September 12, 2022 by agg221

[Hudds Lad]

6 hours ago, agg221 said:

I think this is where you need the more surreptitious approach of wine-syphoning.

 

Silicone tube in through the window, into the bottle, then suck it through and either keep going or syphon it neatly into your glass. Avoid the uncouth with wine boxes.

 

Success is dependent on giving absolutely no signals at all to alert anyone to your intent or even your presence.

Alec

I’d always wondered what happened to the Humphreys when they grew up  

[Jerra]

Out of interest how many sea going vessels with less than 7 foot beam have a shallow enough draft to use narrow canals?

[Alan de Enfield]

9 hours ago, peterboat said:

I read the bit that said private pleasure vessels and that was it we don't count very confusing 

 

I agree it is not the most clear example of the writing of rules.

 

Definition of Vessels covered by these regulations :

 

“Inland waterway non-passenger vessel” means a vessel that does not go to sea, and does not carry more than 12 passengers as part of its normal operations, including but not restricted to:- - dry freight vessels; - tanker vessels; - container vessels; - workboats, including specialist vessels such as crane barges or dredgers; - 2 - - tugs and pushers.

 

Section 1.3 then goes on to say :

 

 

Re-written into bite-sized bullet points :

 

1) It does not generally include private pleasure vessels. 

2) Private pleasure vessels still come under some of the MCA Rules 

3) The MCA Rules which apply to private pleasure vessels are a) Navigation Rules** & b ) Pollution Rules.

4) There may be additional rules issued by other authorities (Harbour Master etc etc)

 

** Colregs (Section 7)

Edited September 13, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[Tacet]

9 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The MCA regs cover Inland Waterways and have special rules for vessels carrying less than 12 passenger - for many of the rules a privately owned craft is exempt EXCEPT for NAVIGATION & Pollution Reqirements.

 

So, your privately owner NB does come under the MCA Navigation Rules (section 7):

 

7 International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea

7.1 The Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/75) implement the Convention on International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea2 – usually known as the “COLREGS”. These regulations apply to vessels on waters that are navigable by seagoing vessels, which include most Category D inland waters, and some Category C

 

The 1996 regulations only apply to ships and seaplanes.  But there doesn't appear to be a definition of ship within the same regs.

[Alan de Enfield]

20 minutes ago, Tacet said:

The 1996 regulations only apply to ships and seaplanes.  But there doesn't appear to be a definition of ship within the same regs.

 

 

Are the ones you are referring to for the Inland Waterways ? (I wouldn't have thought we'd have many 'seaplanes' operating) or for Coastal Waters ?

 

I'm guessing that the regs I quoted would overule any earlier versions.

 

The ones I quoted are "Inland Waterways" and are from 2014 which I believe is the latest edition.

 

 

 

Edited September 13, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[enigmatic]

9 hours ago, Tony1 said:

 

The rules for shipping distress signals definitely apply in my case- even with my imaginary shipmates aboard there are only three of us. 

I moored near Whixall junction late one Sunday evening last summer.

Due to a critical failure in the vessel's logistics management systems, I discovered that I was completely beerless, and this after a long hot day's cruising. 

In my view this clearly warranted a distress signal of some sort, but I don't have a VHF radio or a distress flare, and I wasn't clear on the correct authority to report a beer shortage. 

I considered boarding a nearby boat and bludgeoning the crew to steal their booze, but they were only about 85 years old, and they had a jack russell, so I didn't fancy my chances. 

 

The appropriate signal in this circumstance is apparently to raise the Jolly Roger on your midship mast, or send your parrot on a recce mission.

Sadly, as nobody understands Colregs, the only thing that seems to happen when I try this is that neighbouring stag do hire boats cheer.

[Momac]

 

The definition of a ship doesn't come into it .

 

So where a canal or river is capable of navigation by a sea going vessel the Colregs  are applicable.

By the way the Colregs are legal requirements so ignorance of the law is not an excuse in the event of an accident.

 

 

 

 

[Tacet]

8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Are the ones you are referring to for the Inland Waterways ? (I wouldn't have thought we'd have many 'seaplanes' operating) or for Coastal Waters ?

 

I'm guessing that the regs I quoted would overule any earlier versions.

 

The ones I quoted are "Inland Waterways" and are from 2014 which I believe is the latest edition.

 

 

 

Yes.  I was looking at the 1996 regulations you quoted a few posts back as applying the Colregs to the UK  

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/75/regulation/2/made.

I am not claiming expertise in the Colregs  subject, but MGN 469 is a guidance note and does not overrule a Statutory Instrument 

[Tony1]

14 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

The appropriate signal in this circumstance is apparently to raise the Jolly Roger on your midship mast, or send your parrot on a recce mission.

Sadly, as nobody understands Colregs, the only thing that seems to happen when I try this is that neighbouring stag do hire boats cheer.

 

What is it with stag do's? Suddenly you get Tim from Accounts, a model citizen all his life, going full gangsta because his homies are all in town. 

By 11am he'll be standing on the roof with a can of special brew and nodding at everyone they pass, like 'thats right motherf***er, this here boat is baaad.' 

 

Edited September 13, 2022 by Tony1

[peterboat]

1 hour ago, Tony1 said:

 

What is it with stag do's? Suddenly you get Tim from Accounts, a model citizen all his life, going full gangsta because his homies are all in town. 

By 11am he'll be standing on the roof with a can of special brew and nodding at everyone they pass, like 'thats right motherf***er, this here boat is baaad.' 

 

Thankfully not here, however we do have party boats which are similar! I was mooned by a very nice lady on one recently! I was traumatised I tell you

Edited September 13, 2022 by peterboat
Bloody spull chucker

[Tacet]

16 minutes ago, MartynG said:

 

The definition of a ship doesn't come into it .

 

So where a canal or river is capable of navigation by a sea going vessel the Colregs  are applicable.

By the way the Colregs are legal requirements so ignorance of the law is not an excuse in the event of an accident.

 

 

 

 

The Colregs are international regulations. Therefore they are only legal requirements on the Trent & Mersey canal insofar as UK law makes them so.

The nit-picky discussion is the details of the UK legal application.

[Tony1]

12 minutes ago, peterboat said:

Thankfully not here, however we do have party boats which are similar! I was joined by a very nice lady on one recently! I was traumatised I tell you

 

Tbh your modern hen party is, if anything, worse than the stags. You can at least try to reason with a gang of drunks, but the ladies are on a whole different level of wildness. 

And that's not me slating them, I think its great.

Great, but scary.

 

 

[Graham Davis]

48 minutes ago, MartynG said:

 

The definition of a ship doesn't come into it .

 

So where a canal or river is capable of navigation by a sea going vessel the Colregs  are applicable.

By the way the Colregs are legal requirements so ignorance of the law is not an excuse in the event of an accident.

 

 

 

 

 

Is a CANAL narrow boat a "sea going vessel"?

By definition I doubt it.

Therefore they do not apply.

[dixi188]

8 minutes ago, Tony1 said:

 

Tbh your modern hen party is, if anything, worse than the stags. You can at least try to reason with a gang of drunks, but the ladies are on a whole different level of wildness. 

And that's not me slating them, I think its great.

Great, but scary.

 

 

Going through Bath a few years ago we passed a big party boat with a hen party in progress. They had a stripper and whilst he was still wearing a small apron at the front we had the view of his backside. I thought not nice, but wife thought it was ok.

[Alan de Enfield]

8 minutes ago, Graham Davis said:

 

Is a CANAL narrow boat a "sea going vessel"?

By definition I doubt it.

Therefore they do not apply.

 

It is not 'the boat' that determines the need for Colregs compliance, BUT the 'waters' which require Colregs compliance.

 

 

[enigmatic]

1 hour ago, Tony1 said:

What is it with stag do's? Suddenly you get Tim from Accounts, a model citizen all his life, going full gangsta because his homies are all in town. 

By 11am he'll be standing on the roof with a can of special brew and nodding at everyone they pass, like 'thats right motherf***er, this here boat is baaad.' 

 

1 hour ago, Tony1 said:

Tbh your modern hen party is, if anything, worse than the stags. You can at least try to reason with a gang of drunks, but the ladies are on a whole different level of wildness. 

And that's not me slating them, I think its great.

Great, but scary.

Last time I navigated past a hen do they asked me if I was the stripper!

[David Mack]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I agree it is not the most clear example of the writing of rules.

 

Definition of Vessels covered by these regulations :

 

“Inland waterway non-passenger vessel” means a vessel that does not go to sea, and does not carry more than 12 passengers as part of its normal operations, including but not restricted to:- - dry freight vessels; - tanker vessels; - container vessels; - workboats, including specialist vessels such as crane barges or dredgers; - 2 - - tugs and pushers.

 

Section 1.3 then goes on to say :

 

 

Re-written into bite-sized bullet points :

 

1) It does not generally include private pleasure vessels. 

2) Private pleasure vessels still come under some of the MCA Rules 

3) The MCA Rules which apply to private pleasure vessels are a) Navigation Rules** & b ) Pollution Rules.

4) There may be additional rules issued by other authorities (Harbour Master etc etc)

 

** Colregs (Section 7)

I think you are reading too much into Section 1.3. The regulations quoted apply to non-passenger vessels, which specifically exclude private pleasure vessels. Section 1.3 merely notes that some requirements, including safety of navigation aspects and pollution prevention, may also apply to such craft, and that other authorities may also have their own rules. Section 1.3 does not specify which navigation safety and pollution rules apply, or to which types of private pleasure vessels they may or may not apply - I imagine the rules around high speed sports boats would differ from those for kayaks for example. Navigation Authorities have their own bylaws and terms and conditions, and most require a current Boat Safety Certificate, but you would need to find other MCA regulations applying to inland private pleasure vessels to find out what MCA rules (if any) actually apply.

Edited September 13, 2022 by David Mack

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, MartynG said:

The definition of a ship doesn't come into it .

 

So where a canal or river is capable of navigation by a sea going vessel the Colregs  are applicable.

By the way the Colregs are legal requirements so ignorance of the law is not an excuse in the event of an accident.

 

 

 

 

Which is why I was asking if there are many (any?) seagoing vessels with a beam f less than 7 feet and a drought small enough to allow them to navigate narrow canals.  If not it would seem colregs apply to some canals and not others.

[David Mack]

17 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

 

Last time I navigated past a hen do they asked me if I was the stripper!

And did you oblige?

[enigmatic]

1 minute ago, David Mack said:

And did you oblige?

I decided against naked navigation, on the grounds it was February 🤣

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Which is why I was asking if there are many (any?) seagoing vessels with a beam f less than 7 feet and a drought small enough to allow them to navigate narrow canals.  If not it would seem colregs apply to some canals and not others.

 

There is quite a high mileage of canals suitable for boats over "7 feet beam", and, if there are no 'seagoing vessels' under 7' 6" beam then those narrow-canals would, presumably, not be subject to Colregs.

 

Canals capable of accomodating seagoing vessels of (say 10 or 12 or 14 feet beam) and suitable draft would be subject to Colregs.

[MtB]

3 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

There is quite a high mileage of canals suitable for boats over "7 feet beam", and, if there are no 'seagoing vessels' under 7' 6" beam then those narrow-canals would, presumably, not be subject to Colregs.

 

Canals capable of accomodating seagoing vessels of (say 10 or 12 or 14 feet beam) and suitable draft would be subject to Colregs.

 

 

The problem is, does "accommodating seagoing vessels" mean all seagoing vessels, including supertankers? Or just one of them, say the smallest of motor boats?