Volockies at Grindley Brook

[IanD]

12 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Point of order M'lud.  It was you who elevated them to the level of teachers not me.  You may have noticed I have been arguing they aren't and don't infact aren't supposed to teach.

So why did you suggest they were teaching?  It was just an attempt, not a good one, to bolster an argument only you are having.   You think for reasons I don't understand that because a number of us don't want others interfering with our locks we don't value volunteers.   We just don't value them as pretend lock keepers.

Nobody other than you has said we are anti volunteers.  personally I just want them to do what they are trained to do, ask me if I want their help and accept it gracefully when I say no.   I am happy for them to do everything else i.e. help those who want help, paint beams, cut grass clear by-washes or anything else that is needed.  I am not anti volunteer I just want them to follow their training, is that really too much to ask?

Nobody other than you has suggested they should be either.   I fully understand volunteering having done lots of volunteering for various organisations over the decades.

 

I repeat because you don't seem to understand, just because I and others want them to do what they are trained to do, which is ask if we want/need help, that is not condemning them.  Unless of course they don't follow their training and take away my main enjoyment of being on the canal.   I find nothing wrong in condemning somebody for not following their training. 

 

In most of my volunteering roles if I didn't follow my training I would very quickly have got the "order of the boot".

I never said they were teachers, you put that forward. I said people could learn from them.

 

I understand that you don't want them interfering in your lock working, and I agree they shouldn't do this if they're asked not to, which is supposedly what they're told to do when trained.

 

Being given "the order of the boot" as a volunteer implies that there is somebody overseeing you who is more senior and can kick you out. This is not the case with volockies, CART does not have an army of "volocky-checkers" going round to make sure they're all working to specification, the system relies entirely on self-supervision.

 

This means there will inevitably be some irritating or annoying or even incompetent volockies among the competent ones; if you're not willing to put up with some of them "not following their training", what do you suggest the alternative is -- sack the lot of them? Regular yearly "volocky-MOT" tests? CART "volocky-checkers" going round checking they're up to scratch? Sending offenders to "volocky-retraining" camps? Volocky "star ratings" from passing boaters?

 

Go on, what's your solution that will actually work in real life as opposed to inside your head?

 

You claim to understand how volunteering works and more specifically how this applies to volockies, but you're not demonstrating much evidence of this... 😞

Edited September 23, 2022 by IanD

[Jerra]

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

I never said they were *teaching* novices, you did. And has as been pointed out, volockies don't -- and can't -- be "lock teachers".

 

I said novices could *learn* by watching or being helped by volockies, which is a very different thing, and how human beings -- indeed, most animals -- learn to do most things... 😉

By implication you did.  You implied novices would learn from the lock keepers demonstration and said:

 

On that basis, no teaching by demonstration -- pretty much, all teaching -- would ever work.

 

So clearly you felt the volunteers working the lock were demonstrating and novices would learn, generally known as teaching and learning.  If you didn't mean that one of your "defences" of volunteers, who incidentally aren't under attack apart from in your mind, falls flat on its face.

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, Jerra said:

By implication you did.  You implied novices would learn from the lock keepers demonstration and said:

 

On that basis, no teaching by demonstration -- pretty much, all teaching -- would ever work.

 

So clearly you felt the volunteers working the lock were demonstrating and novices would learn, generally known as teaching and learning.  If you didn't mean that one of your "defences" of volunteers, who incidentally aren't under attack apart from in your mind, falls flat on its face.

 

I didn't imply it, you read it into what I said.

 

Yes, novices will learn from watching others, as in all walks of life.

 

But clearly volockies are not, have never been, and can never be *teachers*, as several people -- including me -- have pointed out.

 

Telling kids *really firmly* that drugs/drink/smoking is bad for them won't make them all stop.

Telling drivers *really firmly* that they shouldn't speed won't make them all stick to the speed limits.

Telling volockies *really firmly* that they should ask nicely whether boaters want help and smile if they refuse won't make them all do it.

 

I'm sure people are getting *really* bored with you trying to twist my words into something I never said and me then batting yours back at you in a game of "volocky-tennis", so I'm going to stop trying.

 

I'm still waiting for you to suggest how you think volockies could be forced to do what you want them to do... 😉

Edited September 23, 2022 by IanD

[Jerra]

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

I never said they were teachers, you put that forward. I said people could learn from them.

Two thoughts if they are doing some thing and people are watching to learn they are whether you like it or not.

 

The second there is no quality control so CRT don't know if novices are learning the correct things or not.

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

I understand that you don't want them interfering in your lock working, and I agree they shouldn't do this if they're asked not to, which is supposedly what they're told to do when trained.

The whole point is boaters should not have to ask.  I have been told a number of times by CRT they are trained to ask if people want/need help.

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Being given "the order of the boot" as a volunteer implies that there is somebody overseeing you who is more senior and can kick you out. This is not the case with volockies, CART does not have an army of "volocky-checkers" going round to make sure they're all working to specification, the system relies entirely on self-supervision.

Complaints will come in whether there is an immediate supervisor or not.  While volunteering I have frequently been working with no supervision miles from anywhere but have often been told when I got back to base, a party going past said what a good job you were doing.   When I have queried the training about asking if help is needed I have always been asked which lock it happened at.

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

This means there will inevitably be some irritating or annoying or even incompetent volockies among the competent ones; if you're not willing to put up with some of them "not following their training", what do you suggest the alternative is -- sack the lot of them?

The problem is I can count on the fingers of one hand how often I have been asked if I want help.  It is the norm to go ahead assuming you want the help.

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

Regular yearly "volocky-MOT" tests? CART "volocky-checkers" going round checking they're up to scratch? Sending offenders to "volocky-retraining" camps?

Regular reminders of the protocol and the very occasional visit by a "secret shopper" be they gongoozler or boater would suffice. Volunteers in any organisation should have some oversight and quality control or they are basically a liability.

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

Go on, what's your solution that will actually work in real life as opposed to inside your head?

Dead simple.  Do as they are trained approach with a nice cheery greeting and the question would you like help.  Very simple.  Plus some form of oversight as I can't honestly believe any reputable organisation turns loose volunteers without some form of oversight.

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

You claim to understand how volunteering works and more specifically how this applies to volockies, but you're not demonstrating much evidence of this... 😞

I have claimed to have done a lot of volunteering and do understand it.  I feel the not demonstrating that is more owing to your closed mind on the subject of volunteers.   You seem to feel that because they are volunteers they can do no wrong, this is not the case with any volunteer in any organisation.

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Two thoughts if they are doing some thing and people are watching to learn they are whether you like it or not.

 

The second there is no quality control so CRT don't know if novices are learning the correct things or not.

The whole point is boaters should not have to ask.  I have been told a number of times by CRT they are trained to ask if people want/need help.

Complaints will come in whether there is an immediate supervisor or not.  While volunteering I have frequently been working with no supervision miles from anywhere but have often been told when I got back to base, a party going past said what a good job you were doing.   When I have queried the training about asking if help is needed I have always been asked which lock it happened at.

The problem is I can count on the fingers of one hand how often I have been asked if I want help.  It is the norm to go ahead assuming you want the help.

Regular reminders of the protocol and the very occasional visit by a "secret shopper" be they gongoozler or boater would suffice. Volunteers in any organisation should have some oversight and quality control or they are basically a liability.

Dead simple.  Do as they are trained approach with a nice cheery greeting and the question would you like help.  Very simple.  Plus some form of oversight as I can't honestly believe any reputable organisation turns loose volunteers without some form of oversight.

I have claimed to have done a lot of volunteering and do understand it.  I feel the not demonstrating that is more owing to your closed mind on the subject of volunteers.   You seem to feel that because they are volunteers they can do no wrong, this is not the case with any volunteer in any organisation.

 

Go on then -- how might this oversight work ("volocky-MOT"? "volocky-checkers"?) and where would the money come from? Like with HR, how do you stop personal dislikes (e.g. yours) resulting in volockies being unfairly booted out?

 

Your last line is laughable, it seems you haven't read a thing I've written. Do I really have to go back and pull out the last ten posts where I've repeatedly said they're not all perfect, some are annoying and/or possibly incompetant, some ignore the training advice?

 

My point is that in spite of this -- because no organisation or its staff is perfect, they all have some duffers -- they are overall a positive benefit to the canals and boaters.

Edited September 23, 2022 by IanD

[Jerra]

7 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

I didn't imply it, you read it into what I said.

Implication is exactly that, not saying clearly and leaving a very obvious conclusion to be drawn.

7 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Yes, novices will learn from watching others, as in all walks of life.

 

But clearly volockies are not, have never been, and can never be *teachers*, as several people -- including me -- have pointed out.

I have never stated they are teachers however if people are learning from them they are being taught.   Being taught however it is done is the process of learning.

7 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Telling kids *really firmly* that drugs/drink/smoking is bad for them won't make them all stop.

Telling drivers *really firmly* that they shouldn't speed won't make them all stick to the speed limits.

Telling volockies *really firmly* that they should ask nicely whether boaters want help and smile if they refuse won't make them all do it.

Nobody has or is suggesting(other than you) anything about really firmly.  However if people are trained to do something and don';t follow the training then why bother training them.   If the not asking was in the minority I would agree but sadly it isn't.  When you talk to many of the volunteers about why they do it the main reason given is they like working the locks.   They don't say so but clearly if you are there because you enjoy the physical working of the locks then you will take care not to ask.

 

Volunteering IMO and when I do it is for the good of the organisation and I don't give  a damn about what they set me to do.  Some times I particularly enjoy it so its a bonus but volunteering should be about the good of the organisation not, oh great I can have a couple of days a week doing something I really enjoy and can't normally get chance to do.  It is amazing when you chat to them how many aren't and never have been boaters,

7 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

I'm sure people are getting *really* bored with you trying to twist my words into something I never said and me then batting yours back at you in a game of "volocky-tennis", so I'm going to stop trying.

 

I'm still waiting for you to suggest how you think volockies could be forced to do what you want them to do... 😉

 

[Jerra]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Go on then -- how might this oversight work ("volocky-MOT"? "volocky-checkers"?) and where would the money come from? Like with HR, how do you stop personal likes or dislikes resulting in volockies being booted out?

I have given you some suggestions already. First however let me correct your misaprehension over sight of a volunteer is not a MOT it is good management of a resource and protection of an asset (the organisations reputation).

 

However I will repeat some "secret shoppers" (you do know the system don't you) they could even be volunteers who had proved them selves (not close to where they would be checking).  A simple check list e.g. did the follow any laid down protocols, was what they were doing safe, were people happy with what was going on, did the volunteer act in a suitable way.   I am sure you have had enough experience of managing/check on others during your life to work out a suitable check list.

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

Your last line is laughable, it seems you haven't read a thing I've written. Do I really have to go back and pull out the last ten posts where I've repeatedly said they're not all perfect, some are annoying and/or possibly incompetant, some ignore the training advice?

The problem is it is too many who fit into a umber of those categories, mainly because there is no oversight of volunteers.

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

My point is that in spite of this -- because no organisation or its staff is perfect, they all have some duffers -- they are overall a positive benefit to the canals and boaters.

I have never claimed all volunteers will ever be perfect I would settle for the majority being good.  IMO they aren't because for what should be only part of the job they put a lot of emphasis on it and don't do as they are trained.

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, Jerra said:

[snip] When you talk to many of the volunteers about why they do it the main reason given is they like working the locks.   They don't say so but clearly if you are there because you enjoy the physical working of the locks then you will take care not to ask.

 

Volunteering IMO and when I do it is for the good of the organisation and I don't give  a damn about what they set me to do.  Some times I particularly enjoy it so its a bonus but volunteering should be about the good of the organisation not, oh great I can have a couple of days a week doing something I really enjoy and can't normally get chance to do.  It is amazing when you chat to them how many aren't and never have been boaters,

 

Hoorah, finally something we agree on, why many (most?) volockies do it 😉

 

Your view on volunteering is very laudable and I'm sure a lot of volockies share it -- but also people volunteer because they enjoy it, not just out of a sense of duty.

 

I'm aware that many aren't boaters, I talk to them too. And funnily enough I seem to find very few of them arrogant and overbearing, unlike some other posters -- maybe it's the way I talk to them?

[IanD]

8 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I have given you some suggestions already. First however let me correct your misaprehension over sight of a volunteer is not a MOT it is good management of a resource and protection of an asset (the organisations reputation).

 

However I will repeat some "secret shoppers" (you do know the system don't you) they could even be volunteers who had proved them selves (not close to where they would be checking).  A simple check list e.g. did the follow any laid down protocols, was what they were doing safe, were people happy with what was going on, did the volunteer act in a suitable way.   I am sure you have had enough experience of managing/check on others during your life to work out a suitable check list.

The problem is it is too many who fit into a umber of those categories, mainly because there is no oversight of volunteers.

I have never claimed all volunteers will ever be perfect I would settle for the majority being good.  IMO they aren't because for what should be only part of the job they put a lot of emphasis on it and don't do as they are trained.

 

I'm perfectly aware of how "secret shoppers" work, but unless they too are verified and checked the risk is that personal dislikes of a volockies manner -- like several people have described -- leads to an unfair "rating", it's the same difficulty as any HR department faces. The simple fact is that any checking/supervision system which is fair and can't be gamed and isn't susceptible to personal bias takes money and people, and CART don't have any of either to spare.

 

Maybe we're just arguing about how many volockies are "good" and how many are "bad", but it seems that beauty is in the eye of the beholder here -- I think most are good or at least adequate, you think too many are bad, MtB seems to think they're all the spawn of the devil. Perhaps this just sums up people's attitude to life in general, optimistic or pessimistic -- or maybe whether some boaters think they're a superior form of canal life and volockies are an inferior one? 😉

Edited September 23, 2022 by IanD

[Rob-M]

Not all volockies like working the locks, I had one recently say to me "I don't come here to do the locks and it's all I've been doing today".  I suggested he go and do something else whilst I worked the lock myself and how he was fortunate that my wife had worked one lock five times to help clear his queue.

[tree monkey]

16 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

Go on then -- how might this oversight work ("volocky-MOT"? "volocky-checkers"?) and where would the money come from? Like with HR, how do you stop personal dislikes (e.g. yours) resulting in volockies being unfairly booted out?

 

Your last line is laughable, it seems you haven't read a thing I've written. Do I really have to go back and pull out the last ten posts where I've repeatedly said they're not all perfect, some are annoying and/or possibly incompetant, some ignore the training advice?

 

My point is that in spite of this -- because no organisation or its staff is perfect, they all have some duffers -- they are overall a positive benefit to the canals and boaters.

Oversight of any staff, whether paid or volunteer is a fundamental part of any organisation, how it's done depends on the organisation but as Jerra suggested, secret shopper type visits and direct oversight by the volunteer manager on  routine visits should be a normal part of any volunteers week.

 

Additional monitoring of the complaints system is often a useful way of flagging issues and if used correctly can often nip problems in the bud but as also suggested there will come a time where some volunteers are just not right for the organisation and they should be (kindly) shown the door.

 

It comes down to supervision in the end, staff of any type need supervision, the problem in my opinion is good supervision is often lacking, it's a skill not everyone has and supervising volunteers has the added issue of balancing the quality of work by unpaid labour against the standards required by the organisation 

[magpie patrick]

30 minutes ago, IanD said:

Being given "the order of the boot" as a volunteer implies that there is somebody overseeing you who is more senior and can kick you out. This is not the case with volockies, CART does not have an army of "volocky-checkers" going round to make sure they're all working to specification, the system relies entirely on self-supervision.

 

 If this really is the system (in which case it's even worse than I think it is) then it is only a matter of time before there is an accident and a volunteer lock keeper is implicated. Typically there are around twenty cillings a years and a few more sinkings on top of that, and every now and then there is a fatality - given the role that some volockies have awarded themselves (reach for the paddles without checking) there is going to be hell to pay - it won't matter what the rights and wrongs of the incident are - the investigators will find that some volockies "interfere" and proving the particular lockie signed a piece of paper six months ago won't count for much even if they are blameless. 

[IanD]

17 minutes ago, tree monkey said:

Oversight of any staff, whether paid or volunteer is a fundamental part of any organisation, how it's done depends on the organisation but as Jerra suggested, secret shopper type visits and direct oversight by the volunteer manager on  routine visits should be a normal part of any volunteers week.

 

Additional monitoring of the complaints system is often a useful way of flagging issues and if used correctly can often nip problems in the bud but as also suggested there will come a time where some volunteers are just not right for the organisation and they should be (kindly) shown the door.

 

It comes down to supervision in the end, staff of any type need supervision, the problem in my opinion is good supervision is often lacking, it's a skill not everyone has and supervising volunteers has the added issue of balancing the quality of work by unpaid labour against the standards required by the organisation 

 

All true -- except that volunteers are not staff, they're not paid, and good supervision is indeed often lacking because -- surprise, surprise -- it costs money, and needs people. Both of which companies will invest in order to monitor (valuable) employees who they pay and have invested money in, but CART has difficulty doing for unpaid volunteers, especially ones who can just walk away if they don't like being told off.

 

The point anyway is that only *some* boaters seem to think that volockies are terrible, probably a much higher proportion on CWDF where the experienced grumpy boaters (who seem to dislike volockies) gather as opposed to hire boaters or new liveaboards, so this discussion is very much self-selecting and not a representative sample of all boaters.

 

From what I've seen when actually out boating -- including talking to other boaters including hirers and newbies -- most people's experience of volockies is a positive one, or at least neutral. And the same the other way -- volockies think a few boaters are a*seholes, but some think the number of such is higher than others -- exactly the equivalent of what we're discussing here... 😉

Edited September 23, 2022 by IanD

[IanD]

10 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 If this really is the system (in which case it's even worse than I think it is) then it is only a matter of time before there is an accident and a volunteer lock keeper is implicated. Typically there are around twenty cillings a years and a few more sinkings on top of that, and every now and then there is a fatality - given the role that some volockies have awarded themselves (reach for the paddles without checking) there is going to be hell to pay - it won't matter what the rights and wrongs of the incident are - the investigators will find that some volockies "interfere" and proving the particular lockie signed a piece of paper six months ago won't count for much even if they are blameless. 

 

After initial volocky training, does anyone from CART go out and run "MOT tests" on them afterwards i.e. supervision, or are they just left to get on with it and have fun?

 

From the accidents (especially fatal ones) I've read about, most (all?) of them were caused by boater errors, not volockies. Which shouldn't be surprising, because the vast majority of lock passages are worked by boaters without any assistance.

 

So worrying about whether an ill-trained volockie might cause an accident is almost certainly the wrong thing to focus on, better *boater* training -- especially hire boats -- would save far more lives/accidents than better *volocky* training.

 

Not what some boaters want to hear of course, it's far easier to blame somebody else... 😉

Edited September 23, 2022 by IanD

[tree monkey]

8 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

All true -- except that volunteers are not staff, they're not paid, and good supervision is indeed often lacking because -- surprise, surprise -- it costs money, and needs people. Both of which companies will invest in order to monitor (valuable) employees who they pay and have invested money in, but CART has difficulty doing for unpaid volunteers, especially ones who can just walk away if they don't like being told off.

 

The point anyway is that only *some* boaters seem to think that volockies are terrible, probably a much higher proportion on CWDF where the experienced grumpy boaters (who seem to dislike volockies) gather as opposed to hire boaters or new liveaboards, so this discussion is very much self-selecting and not a representative sample of all boaters.

 

From what I've seen when actually out boating -- including talking to other boaters including hirers and newbies -- most people's experience of volockies is a positive one, or at least neutral. And the same the other way -- volockies think a few boaters are a*seholes, but some think the number of such is higher than others -- exactly the equivalent of what we're discussing here... 😉

They are staff, unpaid staff but staff nonetheless and deserve proper supervision,  if the organisation is unable to properly supervise them they shouldn't have them

[Iain_S]

50 minutes ago, Jerra said:

(snip)

The problem is I can count on the fingers of one hand how often I have been asked if I want help.  It is the norm to go ahead assuming you want the help.

(snip)

Often the "ask" is non-verbal: volocky standing by a paddle and looking quizzically at the steerer. Never found that a problem, and it's a lot more efficient than walking the length of the lock to have a conversation before assisting.

[Rob-M]

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

After initial volocky training, does anyone from CART go out and run "MOT tests" on them afterwards i.e. supervision, or are they just left to get on with it and have fun?

There are lead volunteers who should be performing the supervision and checking that the required training is being completed.  The lead volunteer will report to a CRT task manager.

[IanD]

6 minutes ago, Rob-M said:

There are lead volunteers who should be performing the supervision and checking that the required training is being completed.  The lead volunteer will report to a CRT task manager.

 

The problem is not whether the training has been completed, it's whether volockies then follow it -- for example, *asking* boaters if they want help instead of *assuming* they do. If the lead volunteer is just as likely to get this wrong as the other volockies -- or maybe more so because they're more "senior" -- this doesn't really help... 😞

 

There's no way that all volockies are ever going to be the well-trained paragons of virtue than some think they should be, the best we can hope for is that they're mostly friendly and helpful and not dangerous -- which generally seems to be the case, with (hopefully) a few exceptions.

 

Except according to those who get totally wound up by being helped when they didn't want it, or think all volockies are evil and should be got rid of... 😉

Edited September 23, 2022 by IanD

[magpie patrick]

8 minutes ago, IanD said:

From the accidents (especially fatal ones) I've read about, most (all?) of them were caused by boater errors, not volockies. Which shouldn't be surprising, because the vast majority of lock passages are worked by boaters without any assistance.

 

None has happened yet, but when accidents involving volunteers happen there is a rigorous investigation - I've detailed knowledge of two such investigations where it was the volunteer who was the fatality, in one case every last procedure had been followed and aside from minor comments on process nothing more was done, in the other the investigation dragged on for years with interview under police caution - the main difference wasn't the cause of the accident, it was that process had demonstrably been followed in one and not in the other.

A blithe "well the chances are pretty small" doesn't cut it

[Arthur Marshall]

I don't know where other posters have been boating, but over the last couple of years I've been round the 4 counties, the Ashby and to Llangollen and, when I've got in the lock, every single vlockie I've run into has asked me first if I wanted help (they may of course already have got the lock ready for me to go in while I was out of speaking range) and when I agreed  have waited for my signal before winding paddles.

There may be problems in other areas, or I may be being treated differently because I'm solo, but I really don't recognise the problems. There aren't enough locks with blokes in attendance to stop anyone working 90% of the locks themselves without any arguments.

Whether a lockie is a boater or not is irrelevant,too. Most people who like canals don't have a boat. They wouldn't be doing it if they weren't enthusiasts.

It's a big fuss about buggerall. We know their training now says they should check with the boater (it didn't, originally). If you meet one that doesn't, email CRT and tell them and they'll probably sort it.I

Edited September 23, 2022 by Arthur Marshall

[magpie patrick]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

There's no way that all volockies are ever going to be the well-trained paragons of virtue than some think they should be, the best we can hope for is that they're mostly friendly and helpful and not dangerous -- which generally seems to be the case.

 Could you show me the list of heritage railway pile-ups because not all volunteer signalmen and drivers are the paragons of visture they should be? I think you'll find they are....

[IanD]

14 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

None has happened yet, but when accidents involving volunteers happen there is a rigorous investigation - I've detailed knowledge of two such investigations where it was the volunteer who was the fatality, in one case every last procedure had been followed and aside from minor comments on process nothing more was done, in the other the investigation dragged on for years with interview under police caution - the main difference wasn't the cause of the accident, it was that process had demonstrably been followed in one and not in the other.

A blithe "well the chances are pretty small" doesn't cut it

 

I'm not being blithe, but I understand risk. If you think badly-trained volockies are such a big risk, I suggest you provide some evidence -- how many cillings/sinkings/fatalities were caused by volockies?

 

If the answer if "none" (or "almost none") then I suggest that you're scaremongering... 😉

 

12 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 Could you show me the list of heritage railway pile-ups because not all volunteer signalmen and drivers are the paragons of visture they should be? I think you'll find they are....

 

Now you're being ridiculous, because 100% of the trains are driven by volunteer drivers and signalled by volunteer signalmen, so inevitably 100% of human-error accidents will be caused by volunteers. And there won't be many of those because of high levels of training, funded by selling tickets.

 

I'd estimate that the vast majority (99%?) of lock transits are done by boaters without volockies, meaning 99% of lock accidents will be caused by boaters.

 

Do you actually understand risk calculations and accident statistics? If you want to reduce risk you start with the biggest causes of accidents and work down from there. For canals I expect volockies are so far down the list as to be of no consequence whatsoever... 😉

Edited September 23, 2022 by IanD

[Jerra]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

Hoorah, finally something we agree on, why many (most?) volockies do it 😉

 

Your view on volunteering is very laudable and I'm sure a lot of volockies share it -- but also people volunteer because they enjoy it, not just out of a sense of duty.

 

I'm aware that many aren't boaters, I talk to them too. And funnily enough I seem to find very few of them arrogant and overbearing, unlike some other posters -- maybe it's the way I talk to them?

I have never suggested they are arrogant or overbearing.   I state as fact the vast majority prefer to ignore their training so that they can carry out their enjoyment at the expense of the enjoyment of others, albeit a minority like myself.   I also find that if you ask them not to help they often do so with very poor grace, if following their training i.e. not working the lock if the boater doesn't want them to, is a problem they are volunteering in the wrong organisation IMO.

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I have never suggested they are arrogant or overbearing.   I state as fact the vast majority prefer to ignore their training so that they can carry out their enjoyment at the expense of the enjoyment of others, albeit a minority like myself.   I also find that if you ask them not to help they often do so with very poor grace, if following their training i.e. not working the lock if the boater doesn't want them to, is a problem they are volunteering in the wrong organisation IMO.

 

That doesn't agree with what I've found, or other posters on here. Maybe it's the way you ask (or tell...) them not to work the lock? 😉

 

If they don't meet your exacting standards, which organisation -- presumably canal-related, since that's what they're interested in -- do you think they should be volunteering in?

 

It seems to me that you're complaining because their idea of fun conflicts with yours, and you think yours should take priority even if lots of other people are perfectly happy to let the volockies have *their* fun... 😉

[Jerra]

24 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I don't know where other posters have been boating, but over the last couple of years I've been round the 4 counties, the Ashby and to Llangollen and, when I've got in the lock, every single vlockie I've run into has asked me first if I wanted help (they may of course already have got the lock ready for me to go in while I was out of speaking range) and when I agreed  have waited for my signal before winding paddles.

There may be problems in other areas, or I may be being treated differently because I'm solo, but I really don't recognise the problems. There aren't enough locks with blokes in attendance to stop anyone working 90% of the locks themselves without any arguments.

Whether a lockie is a boater or not is irrelevant,too. Most people who like canals don't have a boat. They wouldn't be doing it if they weren't enthusiasts.

It's a big fuss about buggerall. We know their training now says they should check with the boater (it didn't, originally). If you meet one that doesn't, email CRT and tell them and they'll probably sort it.I

You are lucky.  It will be over three years since anybody asked me.   We did the 4 counties earlier in the year not a single volunteer asked if I wanted their help they just pitched in and did the lock.