Actual use of anchors in emergencies on UK canal/river network

[Momac]

On 30/09/2022 at 11:14, IanD said:

 

 

[if you're bored with this and hate maths and probabilities, look away now...]

 

I don't hate maths but expect the probability of people reading beyond that remark is very low.

Will you not bother with a lifejacket on the same basis?

 

Edited October 1, 2022 by MartynG

[LadyG]

Stop squabbling, fgs

[Wanderer Vagabond]

14 hours ago, Midnight said:

It's a bit like wearing a crash helmet when cycling - you don't need one until you fall off!

That is actually opening a whole new can of worms, you don't need a cycle helmet until you fall off on your head. As a cyclist of many years riding, and one who does not wear a helmet, I have come off twice (diesel and ice) but made a point of not landing on my head. The works of a 91 year old, lifelong cyclist, Mayer Hillman are worth reading on the subject (https://mayerhillman.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/cycle-helmets.pdf) in that the 'protection' that you might think they give you is illusory. To have some sort of protection you'd need to be wearing something more like a full face motorcycle helmet, and on the subject, those I had dealings with in fatal car accidents have died from head injuries (a side impact is excellent for sticking your head through the drivers door window) so why isn't it compulsory for all car drivers and passengers to wear helmets?

[Midnight]

9 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

That is actually opening a whole new can of worms, you don't need a cycle helmet until you fall off on your head. As a cyclist of many years riding, and one who does not wear a helmet, I have come off twice (diesel and ice) but made a point of not landing on my head. The works of a 91 year old, lifelong cyclist, Mayer Hillman are worth reading on the subject (https://mayerhillman.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/cycle-helmets.pdf) in that the 'protection' that you might think they give you is illusory. To have some sort of protection you'd need to be wearing something more like a full face motorcycle helmet, and on the subject, those I had dealings with in fatal car accidents have died from head injuries (a side impact is excellent for sticking your head through the drivers door window) so why isn't it compulsory for all car drivers and passengers to wear helmets?

 

When I hit a large hole and fell off riding across the moors where I live I landed on my head against a large rock and damaged my helmet.  Thinking about how much damage the helmet sustained, I've had illusions of a fractured skull ever since. You have the ability to make a point of not landing on your head - you're a superstar. 

 

 

Edited October 2, 2022 by Midnight

[IanD]

All this "squabbling" is demonstrating is that different people have different attitudes to risk, and different risks to start off with, and that just because something is "right" for one person doesn't mean it's "wrong" for another one -- in spite of what some people think, and then try and tell others to do as they do...

 

Which is exactly what I said... 😉

 

P.S. I forget to say, thanks to all those who provided information about their experiences -- on both sides of the discussion 🙂

Edited October 2, 2022 by IanD

[Paul C]

It would be a boring world if we all avoided 'risky'/dangerous things. Sure, there's an argument for mitigating that risk if its an easy step (like, wearing a seat belt in a car, for example) but this topic has proven that selecting and deploying an anchor from a narrowboat isn't necessarily easy.

 

I think it boils down to, "what is the minimum asked for by your insurance company" because while one could ignore that and break the law re: no insurance, I think the majority would agree that staying legal is sensible. And insurance policies vary - a lot.

 

Just as, some travel insurance policies exclude base jumping, ice climbing, scuba diving etc from their cover.

[IanD]

19 minutes ago, Paul C said:

It would be a boring world if we all avoided 'risky'/dangerous things. Sure, there's an argument for mitigating that risk if its an easy step (like, wearing a seat belt in a car, for example) but this topic has proven that selecting and deploying an anchor from a narrowboat isn't necessarily easy.

 

I think it boils down to, "what is the minimum asked for by your insurance company" because while one could ignore that and break the law re: no insurance, I think the majority would agree that staying legal is sensible. And insurance policies vary - a lot.

 

Just as, some travel insurance policies exclude base jumping, ice climbing, scuba diving etc from their cover.

I'm sure they do vary, but none of the narrowboat policies I could find (I posted an example) said that an anchor was required to go out onto rivers or tidal waters, but did say these waters were "transit only" -- presumably a different policy suitable for a cruiser or yacht would be needed in this to spend more time on them, and maybe these would require an anchor (but I didn't look).

[Paul C]

24 minutes ago, IanD said:

I'm sure they do vary, but none of the narrowboat policies I could find (I posted an example) said that an anchor was required to go out onto rivers or tidal waters, but did say these waters were "transit only" -- presumably a different policy suitable for a cruiser or yacht would be needed in this to spend more time on them, and maybe these would require an anchor (but I didn't look).

 

Can you post the link again, and also point out where it mentions "cruising area" and it being "transit only"? Its not on the GJW documents you posted earlier.

[Midnight]

4 hours ago, IanD said:

All this "squabbling" is demonstrating is that different people have different attitudes to risk, and different risks to start off with, and that just because something is "right" for one person doesn't mean it's "wrong" for another one -- in spite of what some people think, and then try and tell others to do as they do...

 

Which is exactly what I said... 😉

 

P.S. I forget to say, thanks to all those who provided information about their experiences -- on both sides of the discussion 🙂

Squabbling??

Exchange of ideas and experiences surely. My bad experiences and your ba...   ...oh never mind, I'll still buy you a pint if we meet on the cut or maybe river 😆

[Mike Todd]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

I'm sure they do vary, but none of the narrowboat policies I could find (I posted an example) said that an anchor was required to go out onto rivers or tidal waters, but did say these waters were "transit only" -- presumably a different policy suitable for a cruiser or yacht would be needed in this to spend more time on them, and maybe these would require an anchor (but I didn't look).

Ours says "Permitted cruising range: Inland non-tidal waters of United Kingdom but including inter-connecting tidal stretches for direct access to Inland Navigation Systems"

 

Whilst it is not quite as explicit as 'transit only' I would very much expect that the insurer would want to take that exception if a claim  was being made!

[Alan de Enfield]

19 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Ours says "Permitted cruising range: Inland non-tidal waters of United Kingdom but including inter-connecting tidal stretches for direct access to Inland Navigation Systems"

 

Whilst it is not quite as explicit as 'transit only' I would very much expect that the insurer would want to take that exception if a claim  was being made!

 

Ours says (words to the effect)  Vessel must be suitable for, and equipped for, the waters on which it is being used.

 

Our coverage is as below, (except in Summer it is extended to include Norway / Sweden / Denmark)

 

 

[GUMPY]

3 hours ago, Paul C said:

 

Can you post the link again, and also point out where it mentions "cruising area" and it being "transit only"? Its not on the GJW documents you posted earlier.

With GJW you just call them up and tell them where you want to go and they usually cover it for free.

In my case when I wanted to go to the Medway, Blackwater and Crouch they did. I just gave them the dates and they said OK confirmed by a letter to say I was covered for that period and locations.

[peterboat]

On 27/09/2022 at 15:07, IanD said:

I know the subject of anchors is a contentious one and what is the best choice has been argued to death, but I have a different question...

 

For those boating regularly on the canal/river network -- meaning, including rivers which are commonly (but occasionally, for a particular boater) travelled on like the Trent and Ribble Link and Avon and Severn, but not tidal waters/estuaries or mooring up in them -- how many boaters on CWDF have ever had to actually deploy an anchor in an emergency on a river like these, for example due to loss of power?

 

My suspicion is that even though many (most? all?) boats which occasionally venture out onto such rivers have them on board, actually deploying them in anger is an extremely rare occurrence. Certainly on the hire boats I've been on which have had them onboard (because of possible routes onto rivers) there has never been any instruction or training about how to use them, which suggests that they're there as an insurance/box-ticking exercise not because they're ever expected to be used -- or indeed, useful, since a lot of them (small Danforths, short chain, short rope) would probably be about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

 

 I'll pre-empt Alan insisting that a high-performance anchor/chain/warp is *absolutely* essential because a narrowboat once went over a weir (or one saved him when moored off a lee shore in a gale...) by saying I'm looking for experiences of boaters who've had to deploy one themselves, and why, and where... 😉

 

 

I have seen a Dutch barge deploy one on the Trent, I towed him to Torksey when he got a carpet tangled in his prop. Only other  times.es is in Yachting when we regularly used them 

[IanD]

5 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

Ours says "Permitted cruising range: Inland non-tidal waters of United Kingdom but including inter-connecting tidal stretches for direct access to Inland Navigation Systems"

 

Whilst it is not quite as explicit as 'transit only' I would very much expect that the insurer would want to take that exception if a claim  was being made!

That's what the policy I posted said, the implications is if you want to be on rivers or tidal waters all or most of the time you need a different policy, not the "narrowboat" one.

[IanD]

5 hours ago, Midnight said:

Squabbling??

Exchange of ideas and experiences surely. My bad experiences and your ba...   ...oh never mind, I'll still buy you a pint if we meet on the cut or maybe river 😆

"Squabbling" was in quotes because it wasn't my term... 😉

 

It was in response to you bringing up life lifejackets -- to which my answer would be "no, I'd wear a lifejacket on a river" based on my assessment of the risk of falling in and drowning 🙂

8 hours ago, Paul C said:

 

Can you post the link again, and also point out where it mentions "cruising area" and it being "transit only"? Its not on the GJW documents you posted earlier.

I'm on my phone in Toronto Airport so not so easy -- IIRC the exact term wasn't "transit only" but that was the meaning.

[Momac]

14 minutes ago, IanD said:

 

 

..., I'd wear a lifejacket on a river" based on my assessment of the risk of falling in and drowning 🙂

But not on a canal?

[IanD]

4 minutes ago, MartynG said:

But not on a canal?

No.

[Alan de Enfield]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

No.

Maybe re-do your risk assessment based on the time of year.

 

Ice on lock surrounds - slip - deep cold water - bang head on way down - cold water shock - thick winter clothes too heavy to climb out when wet

[Wanderer Vagabond]

19 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Maybe re-do your risk assessment based on the time of year.

 

Ice on lock surrounds - slip - deep cold water - bang head on way down - cold water shock - thick winter clothes too heavy to climb out when wet

How many boaters on the canals do you actually see wearing lifejackets? If they aren't volunteer or full time lockies, virtually no-one.

[IanD]

26 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Maybe re-do your risk assessment based on the time of year.

 

Ice on lock surrounds - slip - deep cold water - bang head on way down - cold water shock - thick winter clothes too heavy to climb out when wet

Yes that's all possible, and *very* occasionally (how often?) kills people. So does crossing the road and driving a car -- in fact far more people die from falling down the stairs than drowning on the canals, so maybe I should get a bungalow? Life is not risk-free... 😉

 

If you want to wear a lifejacket on the canals in winter or all year, go ahead, that's your choice (so did you do that before you left the canals?) But please don't imply that my decision not to is ill-considered or uninformed, because it's neither, it's my choice -- and as pointed out above, one that is shared by the vast majority of canal boaters.

 

(CART workers wear them because it's a condition of their employment (elf'n'safety), volockies do because it's a requirement to be one)

Edited October 2, 2022 by IanD

[Momac]

Just now, Wanderer Vagabond said:

How many boaters on the canals do you actually see wearing lifejackets? If they aren't volunteer or full time lockies, virtually no-one.

I agree but I  expect canals are plenty deep enough to drown in and not always easy to climb out at the sides  . Plenty of opportunities for slips trips and falls.

 

And not all canals are shallow .

 

 

 

[IanD]

3 minutes ago, MartynG said:

I agree but I  expect canals are plenty deep enough to drown in and not always easy to climb out at the sides  . Plenty of opportunities for slips trips and falls.

 

And not all canals are shallow .

 

 

 

The Panama canal is even bigger... 😉

[Wanderer Vagabond]

13 hours ago, Midnight said:

 

When I hit a large hole and fell off riding across the moors where I live I landed on my head against a large rock and damaged my helmet.  Thinking about how much damage the helmet sustained, I've had illusions of a fractured skull ever since. You have the ability to make a point of not landing on your head - you're a superstar. 

 

 

Not really, whilst walking I have fallen over on a number of occasions and not managed to fall on my head. Likewise, I go ice skating and occasionally go down (often when taken out by some youngster) and miraculously have never fallen on my head either. Do you lead with you head or something?

 

Had you read the Mayer Hillman document you would have seen that the helmet that you wore is designed to be damaged on impact. The impact that they are designed to absorb is the impact that a small child would sustain falling off a stationary cycle. For real protection you would need to be wearing something like a motorcycle full face helmet, which many BMX riders do now indeed use. The actual protection you get from the standard helmet is minimal but the risks are increased because a) people wrongly believe they have greater protection than they actually have so take more risks and b) surveys show that drivers will pass closer to cyclists wearing helmets than they will to cyclists not wearing helmets (https://www.cyclingnews.com/news/research-indicates-drivers-pass-closer-to-helmet-wearers/) and since the biggest cause of death for cyclists is being run over by a car, your helmet will serve no purpose whatsoever should that happen (and if vehicles are passing closer to you, the likelihood of that is increased).

[Paul C]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

That's what the policy I posted said, the implications is if you want to be on rivers or tidal waters all or most of the time you need a different policy, not the "narrowboat" one.

 

My understanding is that policies treat canals/some rivers differently than other rivers (inc tidal), ie they don't distinguish between canals and typically cruised rivers (say, the Weaver or the upper parts of the Severn) but they do treat lower reaches of them ie the tidal sections you might typically use differently; this is where "transit" comes in because some rivers eg Ribble are semi-regularly used by canal boats, whereas you'll find many more narrowboats using the Weaver/upper Severn etc. Indeed some may choose to moor on there more or less permanently and perhaps occasionally visit canals.

 

Regarding life jackets on canals, in the same way as rivers are massively different, so are different canals. Most of the ones cruised on are sufficiently shallow to stand up in, thus a life jacket isn't needed (but probably is for kids, who are shorter and can't stand up on the bottom of them). Life jackets have other distinct safety advantages in edge cases such as being knocked out or otherwise incapacitated, but then there's different kinds of life jackets (indeed there's also "buoyancy aid"), some can turn a person face up, others can't. BUT they are bulky to wear and can catch on fittings on a typical canal boat, especially if you go from bow-stern through the inside of the boat. So they're a complete PITA to wear, restrict movement and their benefit is marginal anyway.

[Momac]

It does look like anglers are at greater risk of accidental death than motorboaters 

https://www.rospa.com/rospaweb/docs/advice-services/leisure-safety/inland-waters-risk-assessment.pdf