A polite plea to dawdlers.

[haggis]

Not worth continuing the discussion but it doesn't really matter whether it was you or your wife who worked the lock I was still left to close up after you.  

[GUMPY]

3 minutes ago, haggis said:

Not worth continuing the discussion but it doesn't really matter whether it was you or your wife who worked the lock I was still left to close up after you.  

I think you got away lightly there 😉🤔

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, haggis said:

Not worth continuing the discussion but it doesn't really matter whether it was you or your wife who worked the lock I was still left to close up after you.  

 

The only time I would do that would be if another boater suggested I jump back on my boat and said they would deal with the paddles and gates.

 

Which I have done for other boaters.

[MtB]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1a_4CN4onA&ab_channel=Blur

 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, MtB said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1a_4CN4onA&ab_channel=Blur

 

 

[haggis]

12 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

The only time I would do that would be if another boater suggested I jump back on my boat and said they would deal with the paddles and gates.

 

Which I have done for other boaters.

I will often say I will close up for other boats but not at broad locks when I would have to cross gates ( I try not to have to do that) and there are enough lock labourers on the other boats. 

[Guest]

Just now, haggis said:

I will often say I will close up for other boats but not at broad locks when I would have to cross gates ( I try not to have to do that) and there are enough lock labourers on the other boats. 

 

And I wont knowingly expect another boater to close up after me.

 

 

[nicknorman]

8 hours ago, MartynG said:

 

The RYA covers all aspects of boating  while the Highway Code does not.

It seems to me the Colregs are certainly applicable on a tidal river or any water where a sea going vessel can travel eg Aire and Calder.  But you are entitled to your opinion. Arguably the Colregs might not apply to the smaller canals but why would you not observe them anyway? 

For the last time, the BW bylaws are the applicable laws for the canals and specifically include the Aire and Calder. It is not my opinion, it is easily proven fact.

 

if you think the Colregs are the applicable rules then every canal boat moving at night must have compliant nav lights. Which they don’t. And could you explain the point of the BW bylaws?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

54 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

For the last time, the BW bylaws are the applicable laws for the canals and specifically include the Aire and Calder. It is not my opinion, it is easily proven fact.

 

if you think the Colregs are the applicable rules then every canal boat moving at night must have compliant nav lights. Which they don’t. And could you explain the point of the BW bylaws?

Since you were the one who raised the BW bylaws perhaps it should be you who explains what the point of the BW bylaws are since there is no-one enforcing them. On the other hand, taking part in an offshore race during which a collision occurred between two of the boats (of which I was on neither) the insurance company, referencing the COLREGS decreed that the boat (on port tack) that had failed to give way to a boat on starboard tack was responsible for the ensuing collision and settled the insurance claim accordingly.

 

I'd be interested to see how an insurance company would settle with your approach to overtaking, "We collided because he wouldn't give way to me overtaking him" somehow I don't think that would wash. Given the lack of any enforcement of either COLREGS or BW bylaws it would be in the realms of insurance claims where they gain any relevance.

[nicknorman]

1 minute ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Since you were the one who raised the BW bylaws perhaps it should be you who explains what the point of the BW bylaws are since there is no-one enforcing them. On the other hand, taking part in an offshore race during which a collision occurred between two of the boats (of which I was on neither) the insurance company, referencing the COLREGS decreed that the boat (on port tack) that had failed to give way to a boat on starboard tack was responsible for the ensuing collision and settled the insurance claim accordingly.

 

I'd be interested to see how an insurance company would settle with your approach to overtaking, "We collided because he wouldn't give way to me overtaking him" somehow I don't think that would wash. Given the lack of any enforcement of either COLREGS or BW bylaws it would be in the realms of insurance claims where they gain any relevance.

Well I can’t disagree with your point “no-one is enforcing them”. But then again there are loads of other laws that don’t get enforced such the one about not serving drunk people in pubs, not dropping litter and many many others. As you kind of allude to, it is the existence of the law that can be relevant in a civil court case, rather than whether or not it is enforced.

 

And also according your hearsay there was no prosecution under the “Colregs” after the collision you mention. Same same.

 

For an offshore race clearly the COLREGS, or rather the UK law that reflects the COLREGS, are the applicable law and any insurance company is going to cite them. So it would be for an insurance claim on the canals, the applicable UK law is the BW bylaws. I really don’t see the difficulty with this concept.

 

But being realistic, what is the likelihood of an insurance claim arising over one steel narrowboats overtaking another? Probably never happened. As far as I’m concerned this debate is about how we should be behaving in order to be compliant with the (by)law rather than the likely outcome of not complying with them.

 

Perhaps you are only concerned with penalty, but personally I prefer to try to do the right thing because it’s the right thing, not for fear of the penalty. Yes I know I might be unusual in that view.

[Mike Todd]

On 30/05/2023 at 11:42, Iain_S said:

Wouldn't happen.

1) Boat being overtaken has priority, and it is up to the overtaking boat to keep clear

2) Boat travelling downstream has priority. Therefore the upstream bound WV would alter course.

The quoted Byelaws and the Colregs are saying the same thing. They are not contradictory.

A version of the Pholosophical Donkey problem.

One point that seems to have beeb missed in the difference between overtaking and opposed passing is the length over which necessary conditions have to exist, eg width and depth. To pass, little more than the length of the boat is needed as shown in the traditional docey-do manoeuvre. Overtaking requires many boat lengths, depending the speed differential.

[IanD]

15 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

A version of the Pholosophical Donkey problem.

One point that seems to have beeb missed in the difference between overtaking and opposed passing is the length over which necessary conditions have to exist, eg width and depth. To pass, little more than the length of the boat is needed as shown in the traditional docey-do manoeuvre. Overtaking requires many boat lengths, depending the speed differential.

Not missed in the slightest, the distance needed for an overtake -- much more than an opposite-direction pass -- was pointed out ages ago, during the discussion about when/where it was safe to overtake.

[ditchcrawler]

Well the cruiser who was following me passed me in less than 3 boat lengths as did the canoe, My boat length not theirs

[TheBiscuits]

55 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

To pass, little more than the length of the boat is needed

 

If the two boats are heading in opposite directions and both moving, it actually takes less than a boat length to pass by ...

[Paul C]

3 hours ago, M_JG said:

 

The only time I would do that would be if another boater suggested I jump back on my boat and said they would deal with the paddles and gates.

 

Which I have done for other boaters.

On another thread, you mentioned that you always pull over regularly when towing a caravan, to let the queue of people that's built up behind you to pass. However, there are many A-roads where its not possible to pull over regularly because there is nowhere to safely pull over, so you're either not pulling over, or doing it in daft places.

 

Its a not-too-difficult judgement to decide which party is telling the truth or not in the boating example above.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Paul C said:

On another thread, you mentioned that you always pull over regularly when towing a caravan, to let the queue of people that's built up behind you to pass. However, there are many A-roads where its not possible to pull over regularly because there is nowhere to safely pull over, so you're either not pulling over, or doing it in daft places.

 

Its a not-too-difficult judgement to decide which party is telling the truth or not in the boating example above.

 

There you go again, sticking your oar in trying to cause an argument for the sake of it. The very thing you accused me of recently. Utterly pathetic hypocrisy.

 

I said where it is safe to so and on lots of A roads it's not possible to get up to the 60 mph limit any way with 40 or 50 (my limit when towing) being a safe max.

 

60 mph is a limit, not a target.

 

Oh and for the record I'm not saying somebody is not telling the truth I'm saying recollections differ.

 

So run along and go and try and cause an argument for the sake of it with somebody else.

[IanD]

56 minutes ago, M_JG said:

 

There you go again, sticking your oar in trying to cause an argument for the sake of it. The very thing you accused me of recently. Utterly pathetic hypocrisy.

 

I said where it is safe to so and on lots of A roads it's not possible to get up to the 60 mph limit any way with 40 or 50 (my limit when towing) being a safe max.

 

60 mph is a limit, not a target.

 

Oh and for the record I'm not saying somebody is not telling the truth I'm saying recollections differ.

 

So run along and go and try and cause an argument for the sake of it with somebody else.

Perhaps before accusing somebody else of spoiling for an argument, you should re-read the first and last paragraphs of what you just posted? 🙂

 

They read as if they were written to deliberately cause offence and provoke an argument, and then blame somebody else for it -- but I'm sure you'd never do that... 😉

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

Perhaps before accusing somebody else of spoiling for an argument, you should re-read the first and last paragraphs of what you just posted? 🙂

 

They read as if they were written to deliberately cause offence and provoke an argument, and then blame somebody else for it -- but I'm sure you'd never do that... 😉

 

Oh I just knew you would chip in trying to cause an argument for the sake of it. 

 

Do you not realise how hypocritical your post is too?

 

Unbelievable.

 

 

[1st ade]

Could members please cease the endless 'sniping' and attempted point scoring (my spell checker tried to put 'pint scoring' which might be nearer the mark..)

[nicknorman]

5 minutes ago, 1st ade said:

Could members please cease the endless 'sniping' and attempted point scoring (my spell checker tried to put 'pint scoring' which might be nearer the mark..)

Seems a little odd to have deleted my post comparing the goings on with Thunderboat, ie hinting at the same point you are making, whilst you retained all the actual sniping. But I’m sure your intentions were good.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Seems a little odd to have deleted my post comparing the goings on with Thunderboat, ie hinting at the same point you are making, whilst you retained all the actual sniping. But I’m sure your intentions were good.

 

Along with my reply to your post but hey ho....

[Mike Todd]

5 hours ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

If the two boats are heading in opposite directions and both moving, it actually takes less than a boat length to pass by ...

At some point the two boats will be alongside when the extra width requirement has to be met.

[TheBiscuits]

3 hours ago, Mike Todd said:

At some point the two boats will be alongside when the extra width requirement has to be met.

 

Ah. I see what you mean, it would be best not to try it in a narrow lock! 

[1st ade]

8 hours ago, nicknorman said:

Seems a little odd to have deleted my post comparing the goings on with Thunderboat, ie hinting at the same point you are making, whilst you retained all the actual sniping. But I’m sure your intentions were good.

My apologies - first time I've acted as a Mod on a mobile phone (as opposed to a proper PC...)

 

It won't happen again

[IanD]

11 hours ago, M_JG said:

 

Oh I just knew you would chip in trying to cause an argument for the sake of it. 

 

Do you not realise how hypocritical your post is too?

 

Unbelievable.

 

I rest my case. Bye bye, again... 🙂

11 hours ago, 1st ade said:

Could members please cease the endless 'sniping' and attempted point scoring (my spell checker tried to put 'pint scoring' which might be nearer the mark..)

Gladly 🙂

Edited June 1, 2023 by IanD