Regulations

[bottle]

Having been a member of this forum for a little while now.

 

Would someone enlighten me as to why when; regulations, RCD etc. are mentioned they are pooh, poohed, by certain members who arrogantly think they know better.

 

This is not aimed at anyone in particular but, if the cap fits wear it, the attitude of "Us have always done it this way" cannot go on. Times move on. Keep up with modern thinking.

 

 

ps I put this in building and maintenance because this is where most of the problems are.

 

btw Harry Enfields grandad/neighbour comes to mind "You don't want to do it like that"

[David Schweizer]

I think that if you analyse many of the responses about RCD and BSS regulations you will discover that the input on this site has drawn attention to the unneccssary imposition of requirements to meet circumstances that will probobly hardly ever occur. This factor has been borne out by the recent relaxation of some of the more draconian requirements of the BSS scheme, leading to a more reflective approach when dealing with theoretical danger.

 

A good example my be that despite very rigid fire and safety regulations, particularly in relation to gas instalations, most fires on boats (at least around here)still seem to be caused by occupants knocking over oil lamps or candles, and there are no rules about them.

[Paul Evans]

One purpose of the Recreational Craft Directive (RCD) is to ensure that boats are built to a common standard throughout the European Union. This would ensure that a boat built in, say, Germany would meet the same standards as one built in France. The perceived problem with applying the RCD to narrowboats is that very few of them are moved out of the UK unlike boats built on the continent which can move between countries and jurisdictions relatively easily.

 

The difficulty with the RCD at the moment is that it is a self certifying process so a builder can certify that a boat has been built to standard and the uninitiated have little chance to argue. The only solution to that is to hire an independent, qualified and reputable surveyor who will inspect the boat as the build proceeds and provide certificates before you part with stage payments. Of course that costs you money!

 

There are suggestions that an independent inspectorate will be introduced to poilce the system but you can bet that you will end up paying the price!

[Jon]

You make an interesting point bottle, and thank you for the reasoned responses so far Paul and David.

 

Please lets not turn this into a personal slang match between members as other similar threads have.

 

Cheers

 

Jon

[Amicus]

The difficulty with the RCD at the moment is that it is a self certifying process so a builder can certify that a boat has been built to standard and the uninitiated have little chance to argue. The only solution to that is to hire an independent, qualified and reputable surveyor who will inspect the boat as the build proceeds and provide certificates before you part with stage payments. Of course that costs you money!

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You would have that situation if there was no RCD. You would have to decide if the builder was competent, or employ a surveyor. The fact of the RCD might make the builder take note.

[Paul Evans]

I agree that you would need a surveyor if there was no RCD. Trouble is at the moment you have to pay twice - once to the builder for the extra costs involved in providing the RCD documentation and again to the surveyor to check the builder knows what he is doing. Ah well! Such is life.......(Resigned groan).

[John Orentas]

Bottle.

 

I think you may have misunderstood some of the responses, it is not the content of the regulations that are criticised, more the ever increasing levels of bureaucracy and to some extent the 'jobs for the boys' mentality that is beginning to prevail.

 

To echo I think Davids sentiment that the rare major problems on narrowboats occur not to the ones that would fall into the net of the RCD the CE marking or even the safety schemes regimes anyway, but the authorities continue to whip willing horses.

 

Meanwhile an ever increasing band of of inspectors, assessors and bureaucrats of various of various kinds are expecting to be making a living directly from boat owners. Whether you consider that these people will give some sort of value for money or contribute anything worthwhile is a matter of opinion.

Edited May 3, 2005 by John Orentas

[bottle]

John

 

I may well have misunderstood some of the responses but not all. I agree that 'jobs for the boys' is a bad thing also the bureaucracy.

 

Narrowboats are inherently safe, the same as houses, and there are building regs. etc for houses.

These are 'policed' by inspectors/surveyors so why not for boats.

 

"You can make something fool proof but not idiot proof"

[Alan Saunders]

Having been a member of this forum for a little while now.

 

Would someone enlighten me as to why when; regulations, RCD etc. are mentioned they are pooh, poohed, by certain members who arrogantly think they know better.

 

This is not aimed at anyone in particular but, if the cap fits wear it, the attitude of "Us have always done it this way" cannot go on. Times move on. Keep up with modern thinking.

ps I put this in building and maintenance because this is where most of the problems are.

 

btw Harry Enfields grandad/neighbour comes to mind "You don't want to do it like that"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I bought an 8 year old boat in 1995 when compliance with the safety scheme was not required on BW or Environment Agency waters. I was very pleased that the boat came with a 'Certificate of Compliance'; it had been kept on the Bridgewater Canal where the scheme was enforced from the start.

 

Nevertheless, it cost me a hundred pounds of parts to comply with the new standards in 1999 whilst money spent by the previous owner was wasted on requirements that had been dropped. I had to replace the, perfectly adequate, flexible diesel fuel lines supplied by the engine manufacturer and replace the solid copper pipe to the solidly secured gas 'fridge with rubber tubing!

 

Fortunately (it was a close thing), I was not one of those forced to strip and rewire because PVC cable was in contact with polystyrene insulation! This time around (2004) was relatively straightforward and, as I understand it, the next time will be even easier.

 

The Building Regulations are a very sensible set of rules and are only applied retrospectively when the identified risk is great. The MOT test for cars now has non-safety requirements (e.g. cracks in number plate) but vehicles of any age can get a certificate if they are adequately maintained.

 

The reduced requirements of the scheme prove that the previous standards were unnecessarily onerous! Boat owners have spent thousands of pounds to meet bureaucratic requirements that have subsequently been proved unfounded. Initially, I was very keen on the BSS but due to the huge expense of complying to the latest standards I became disillusioned. Meanwhile I observe numbers of obviously dangerous boats - no BSS Certificate, no Licence & a danger to all of us.

 

IMHO those setting the requirements for the BSS have proved themselves inadequate. The arguments come not from me, but from highly qualified and very experienced marine engineers & surveyors, many of whom have left the scheme in protest.

 

Humbly, yours - Alan

[bottle]

Gentlemen

 

I thank you for reasoned and judicous views.