Generator usage

[rusty69]

35 minutes ago, MartynG said:

I asked the question because it is relevant.

If no rules/laws are being broken then you should deal with it by accepting it as being normal or move on.

Presumably the solution is to then accept it, or find ways of reducing the noise, as the OP says they are (or were) on a, strong stream warning. 

 

I doubt you asked the question because you didn't know the answer. Perhaps it would then be better to offer some solutions instead? 

[booke23]

55 minutes ago, MartynG said:

I asked the question because it is relevant.

If no rules/laws are being broken then you should deal with it by accepting it as being normal or move on.

 

As already pointed out earlier in the thread:

 

Extract from canal bylaws 1965:

 

39. No person shall commit any nuisance in or on any canal.

[MtB]

1 hour ago, MartynG said:

I asked the question because it is relevant.

If no rules/laws are being broken then you should deal with it by accepting it as being normal or move on.

 

But rules/laws ARE being broken, as has now been pointed out twice in this thread. 

[doratheexplorer]

49 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

But rules/laws ARE being broken, as has now been pointed out twice in this thread. 

Actually, we don't know that.  The decision of whether a nuisance has been committed would typically fall to an authorised person with the professional experience needed to make that call. Factors contributing to that decision wouldn't just be limited to how long and at what time of day the generator was run.  Other considerations include the volume of the noise, the actual tonality of the noise and how far away the nearest receptor is.  Then the "man on the Clapham omnibus" comes in - would this noise be considered a nuisance by the average person or is this a case where the person complaining is particularly sensitive to noise?

 

Until all that is done, we do not know whether bylaw 39 has been breached.  Of course, I'm not aware of CRT investigating any noise complaints in that way, nor actively enforcing the bylaws.  The Local Authority would normally have an interest in a noise complaint but the legislation they use does not work with noise sources which can move, so the most they might do is have a word with the person making the noise.

[MtB]

None of the twaddle posted above applies.

 

The OP finds it a nuisance, therefore a nuisance is being caused. Q.E.D. 

 

 

[ditchcrawler]

2 hours ago, MartynG said:

I asked the question because it is relevant.

If no rules/laws are being broken then you should deal with it by accepting it as being normal or move on.

I wouldn't say its normal but unless you want to tackle the person about their behaviour then the only option is to move on. Last time I knocked on the boat moored against my stern at 1030 at night to ask when his engine was going off I thought one of us would end up in the canal.

[doratheexplorer]

4 minutes ago, MtB said:

None of the twaddle posted above applies.

 

The OP finds it a nuisance, therefore a nuisance is being caused. Q.E.D. 

 

 

Its a nuisance in the opinion of the OP.  That does not mean any rules or laws have been broken.

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, MtB said:

None of the twaddle posted above applies.

 

The OP finds it a nuisance, therefore a nuisance is being caused. Q.E.D. 

 

 

So since some moorers find passing boats a nuisance, we should ban boat movements on the canals? How about people who move in next to church and complain about the bells, or next to a pub and complain about the noise?

 

There are people who are justified in finding something a nuisance and there are those who are just being intolerant of behaviour that many would find acceptable, so any "it's a nuisance" claim needs somebody without an axe to grind to investigate it and decide whether it is or it isn't -- you can't just take the word of somebody who claims it's a nuisance...

 

(note that I'm not saying the OP isn't justified in this case, just that claiming something is a nuisance doesn't make it so...)

Edited December 4, 2023 by IanD

[MtB]

Typical of the gold plating the British love to do. 

 

The OP finds it a nuisance therefore to him, it IS a nuisance. 

 

End of. 

 

[doratheexplorer]

3 minutes ago, MtB said:

Typical of the gold plating the British love to do. 

 

The OP finds it a nuisance therefore to him, it IS a nuisance. 

 

End of. 

 

The highlighted sentence above is true, but nobody is claiming otherwise.  This is therefore a standard strawman argument.

 

The point being disputed is whether any bylaws (or other relevant rules) have been broken. 

 

You say yes. 

 

I say, not until the existence of a nuisance and been independently confirmed by a suitable person, with the necessary experience to make that judgement.

 

[magnetman]

Where is the individual of non specified gender on the Clapham Omnibus when you need them?

[IanD]

5 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Where is the individual of non specified gender on the Clapham Omnibus when you need them?

Complaining about the nuisance of somebody sitting next to them who stinks of garlic? 😉

[magnetman]

21 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

The highlighted sentence above is true, but nobody is claiming otherwise.  This is therefore a standard strawman argument.

 

The point being disputed is whether any bylaws (or other relevant rules) have been broken. 

 

You say yes. 

 

I say, not until the existence of a nuisance and been independently confirmed by a suitable person, with the necessary experience to make that judgement.

 

There must be a legal definition of nuisance somewhere. 

"...and public nuisance, where the defendant's actions "materially affects the reasonable comfort and convenience of life of a class of Her Majesty's subjects";^[

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuisance_in_English_law

[truckcab79]

Does this forum ever just get bored of arguing and just…I don’t know….answer the questions or talk about boats?   🙄

[magnetman]

 

So it comes down to reasonable comfort. Maybe sound pressure level meter is needed here. 

3 minutes ago, truckcab79 said:

Does this forum ever just get bored of arguing and just…I don’t know….answer the questions or talk about boats?   🙄

Being moored near someone who is antisocially using a noisy generator is a very Boaty topic and actually quite serious. 

It really can detract hugely from the relaxed enjoyment of the best activity ever devised which is being on a Boat. 

 

 

 

You could argue 'then untie and carry on' but in some situations this is not feasible. I think the OP has worked out they are better moored away from others to reduce the chance of the nuisance. 

 

 

Edited December 4, 2023 by magnetman

[doratheexplorer]

16 minutes ago, truckcab79 said:

Does this forum ever just get bored of arguing and just…I don’t know….answer the questions or talk about boats?   🙄

Are you new here?

[StevieN]

All very well having bylaws, but if the Canal and River Trust are not going to uphold them (as the FOI in this article alleges)

then, as the "perp" in this instance is running a genny during the times permitted, who is to say he can't, irrespective of what a bylaw states?

https://narrowboatworld.com/13592-the-general-canal-guidelines

[Momac]

[magnetman]

Endangering the morals is interesting.

 

If someone is committing a nuisance and it endangers your morals so much that you then go and kill them very badly can you later argue to the judge that they had endangered your morals and that your actions were justified ? 

 

 

10 minutes ago, StevieN said:

All very well having bylaws, but if the Canal and River Trust are not going to uphold them (as the FOI in this article alleges)

then, as the "perp" in this instance is running a genny during the times permitted, who is to say he can't, irrespective of what a bylaw states?

https://narrowboatworld.com/13592-the-general-canal-guidelines

 

It has been established that the CRT do not enforce byelaws but I wonder what happens if the byelaw being infringed is affecting an individual rather than being against the Trust themselves.  

 

If the person affected were to seek legal redress what would the CRT do ? Would they just say 'go away we don't do byelaws' ?

 

 

Edited December 4, 2023 by magnetman
typos

[wakey_wake]

We're hearing the social approaches, and how they don't suit everyone for various reasons.

We're hearing the legal approach, which basically doesn't work at all?

There are the technical or internal responses of being somewhere else, or finding a way to cope with how things are.

 

I propose another technical solution of the form "my generator / solar / battery bank <delete as appropriate> is quieter than yours and large enough to supply both of us. How about I run you a shoreline and you can take up to 500 watts to a total of 2 kW hour, and you switch your generator off? And if you take more than two amps it's going to blow the fuse and I won't want to replace it until 9am tomorrow."

 

It will need safety considerations, and probably has other problems. Is it new? Has anyone every done it?

[ditchcrawler]

49 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Being moored near someone who is antisocially using a noisy generator is a very Boaty topic and actually quite serious. 

It really can detract hugely from the relaxed enjoyment of the best activity ever devised which is being on a Boat and arguing on the internet.. 

 

Just added a wee bit to you statement 

[truckcab79]

32 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Are you new here?

😂😂😂. Compared to most but not so new that I  haven’t realised that every post seems to be answered by 1% solid information and 99% arguing about something only vaguely related.  Still not sure if nobody knows anything or they just like to argue the toss over everything. 😂😂😂. 

[Arthur Marshall]

In the end, a nuisance in law is what a court decides. Someone running a genny for hours isn't really causing a nuisance unless the exhaust is poisoning you , he's being irritating and possibly annoying, but that's just what people are. Sometime it's possible to change things tactfully, usually it isn't. I've had two altercations at midnight with boats moored next to me running engines, neither ended well, and one with a guy kicking off his engine at 5am on a Sunday who turned it off apologetically, explaining he'd lost his watch and had no idea of the time!

Mind you , the parrot was the worst...

People are simply best avoided. And parrots.

NB I never practice the trombone if there's another boat in sight.

 

5 minutes ago, truckcab79 said:

😂😂😂. Compared to most but not so new that I  haven’t realised that every post seems to be answered by 1% solid information and 99% arguing about something only vaguely related.  Still not sure if nobody knows anything or they just like to argue the toss over everything. 😂😂😂. 

We know everything and agree about very little.

[frahkn]

44 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Endangering the morals is interesting.

 

If someone is committing a nuisance and it endangers your morals so much that you then go and kill them very badly can you later argue to the judge that they had endangered your morals and that your actions were justified ? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course you can, why not?

  

A potentially more successful argument might be "they were alien demons about to take over the world".  If you are going for an insanity defence you may as well make it a bold one.

[magnetman]

Always important to bear in mind that internet forums, due to the way they function, will tend to attract ultracrepidarians. 

 

Its an interesting phenomenon well described in this short arrrticle. 

 

https://psychology-spot.com/we-are-surrounded-by-ultracrepidarian/