Improving the basics for new boaters.

[FredDrift]

You probably know if the training you have received is of reasonable quality if, when the trainer hops back on to the bank with a cheery wave you feel comfortable and confident enough to carry on 'alone'.

 

My first hire / narrowboat experience was with Valley Cruises and the training / handover was interesting and informative. Once left to our own devices we went on our way gently but persistently weaving from side to side as one does on ones first hire (funny how it went dead straight for him, probably runs on rails al la Disney for short way either side of the hire yard) confident in my newly acquired knowledge / ability to at least stay out of harms way and not imperil other canal users - alarm or amuse them a little perhaps but not cause them any real danger. Best of all, I knew I could phone with any difficulties or queries connected with our progress around the midlands.

 

As a four or five times per year hirer I have not experienced a truly bad training event - one perhaps took for granted an experience level based on what I had said rather than what I did but largely the level of training has been tailored to the meet the need.

 

I am not sure that any formalisation of training leading up to a 'hirer passport' is necessary given the almost complete absence of harmful mayhem on the canal system. Indeed, such a qualification may be counter-productive insofar,

• as has already been suggested, matey getting his passport today for a short break may not hire again for years but still feel 'fully qualified' or
  

• The boatyard / less scrupulous hirer may take the 'passport' as read and skimp on training time / quality.
  

My view - just one of many differing view heres - is leave things as they are, don't fix it if it ain't broken. New hirers tend to be cautious, old hands tend to be careful - probably the same as the majority of owners.

 

HN

[DHutch]

So I take it you'd be happy to let a novice having viewed a 15 minute video and 30 minute (if you're lucky) practical instruction go out on your boat? lol

If it where suitably insured and emotionally unentangled (like every hire boat) then yes.

 

If a randomer came up to me in a lock and said he was interested in getting a boat, talked for 10minutes, and asked if he could have a steer to the next lock, 90% of the time i would let him. I'd keep an eye non him a little but i would be fine with it and would probability leave him at the helm briefly to stoke the fire if i needed it which it often does.

 

With my car however, i am hesitant to let even a very good friend who has his own car(s) and license drive it even on a private road.

 

 

Daniel

[Mick and Maggie]

You think you are right, i think i am right. One of us is wrong.

 

No one is wrong in a worthwhile exchange of opinion and ideas!

 

What you have is a simple difference of opinion. The issues get discussed, that's perfectly acceptable for most people. However, as some one new on here, the impression I get is that for you, it's always black or white, good or bad, right or wrong, I am right, end of discussion. Whilst others it would seem can see various shades of grey or can appreciate another persons perspective. They might not agree with it, and say so, but they still accept it for what it is. Another persons alternative position or opinion.

 

It has been said before and will no doubt be said again. There are a large number of canal blogs and forum's to choose from on the internet. The more worthwhile blogs have a certain character of their own to share. Humour, wildlife, travel log and dear diary seem to be the main thrusts. However, when you go to the forums, there is a different ethos altogether.

 

There are the usual day-to-day contributors, the bread and butter of the forum. Each offering their own personal view on a plethora of different ideas and topics. There are those who digresses who seem to want to allways go off at a tangent from the main topic thread. But that reflects how people enjoy a conversation in day-to-day life. There are those who want to inject humour into everything. Then there are the non-contributors, in the sense that they only want to pick spots of others. Adding little if any sensible content to the main thrust of the thread. Who set out to be deliberatly confrontational. Last but not least, bringing up the rearguard, are the pedantics. In otherwords a real world mixture of types and pesonalities.

 

Then there are the "Tub Thumpers" those fat, red faced guys and gal's with weird beards. Seemingly to be seen shouting "rubbish - rubbish" all the time. Whose whole remit in life is to stick it to everyone else. I can see them in my minds eye. Sat up at night pouring their venom and spleen over every letter of every word. What does this create - only a barrier with heavily entrenched sides. What good does it achieve - err.. nothing actually. Perhaps it is a replacement for something quite fundamental that's missing from their lives. Maybe, it gets hard for them late at night, leaving them as frustrated individuals, relief only coming from taking a swipe at everyone and everything.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

No one is wrong in a worthwhile exchange of opinion and ideas!

 

What you have is a simple difference of opinion. The issues get discussed, that's perfectly acceptable for most people. However, as some one new on here, the impression I get is that for you, it's always black or white, good or bad, right or wrong, I am right, end of discussion. Whilst others it would seem can see various shades of grey or can appreciate another persons perspective. They might not agree with it, and say so, but they still accept it for what it is. Another persons alternative position or opinion.

 

It has been said before and will no doubt be said again. There are a large number of canal blogs and forum's to choose from on the internet. The more worthwhile blogs have a certain character of their own to share. Humour, wildlife, travel log and dear diary seem to be the main thrusts. However, when you go to the forums, there is a different ethos altogether.

 

There are the usual day-to-day contributors, the bread and butter of the forum. Each offering their own personal view on a plethora of different ideas and topics. There are those who digresses who seem to want to allways go off at a tangent from the main topic thread. But that reflects how people enjoy a conversation in day-to-day life. There are those who want to inject humour into everything. Then there are the non-contributors, in the sense that they only want to pick spots of others. Adding little if any sensible content to the main thrust of the thread. Who set out to be deliberatly confrontational. Last but not least, bringing up the rearguard, are the pedantics. In otherwords a real world mixture of types and pesonalities.

 

Then there are the "Tub Thumpers" those fat, red faced guys and gal's with weird beards. Seemingly to be seen shouting "rubbish - rubbish" all the time. Whose whole remit in life is to stick it to everyone else. I can see them in my minds eye. Sat up at night pouring their venom and spleen over every letter of every word. What does this create - only a barrier with heavily entrenched sides. What good does it achieve - err.. nothing actually. Perhaps it is a replacement for something quite fundamental that's missing from their lives. Maybe, it gets hard for them late at night, leaving them as frustrated individuals, relief only coming from taking a swipe at everyone and everything.

 

The forum awaits with interest the photo of the bearded lady!

[alan_fincher]

There are the usual day-to-day contributors, the bread and butter of the forum. Each offering their own personal view on a plethora of different ideas and topics. There are those who digresses who seem to want to allways go off at a tangent from the main topic thread. But that reflects how people enjoy a conversation in day-to-day life. There are those who want to inject humour into everything. Then there are the non-contributors, in the sense that they only want to pick spots of others. Adding little if any sensible content to the main thrust of the thread. Who set out to be deliberatly confrontational. Last but not least, bringing up the rearguard, are the pedantics. In otherwords a real world mixture of types and pesonalities.

 

Then there are the "Tub Thumpers" those fat, red faced guys and gal's with weird beards. Seemingly to be seen shouting "rubbish - rubbish" all the time. Whose whole remit in life is to stick it to everyone else. I can see them in my minds eye. Sat up at night pouring their venom and spleen over every letter of every word. What does this create - only a barrier with heavily entrenched sides. What good does it achieve - err.. nothing actually. Perhaps it is a replacement for something quite fundamental that's missing from their lives. Maybe, it gets hard for them late at night, leaving them as frustrated individuals, relief only coming from taking a swipe at everyone and everything.

I like to think I can keep people on their toes by aspiring at any point in time to be any of those you have described, without getting stereotyped into one particular mould.

 

I struggle with the last one though. Whilst not slim, I can't really be described as fat, have little tendency to red faces, but (mainly, and shame on me wanting to call myself a boater!), have never really been able to grow a beard of any substance.

 

Seriously though, I quite like your analysis, particularly that in the first of the two paragraphs above.

 

As you say the forum represents the same mixed tapestry as you get in real life. I'm always pleased when I do meet up with people from the forum in the flesh, at "banters" or at other times, that such meetings are pleasurable, even in cases where I have at some previous point on the forum to disagree with somebody fairly comprehensively!

 

I've yet to meet "Phylis" though, so will reserve judgement on that one, until the occasion actually arises. (Sorry couldn't resist!....).

 

I still don't think any formal "certification" of canal users would be a good idea though, in the over-regulated world we all sometimes like to escape from. Hppay to discuss it with you over a pint, if ever we meet.

[Natalie Graham]

Last but not least, bringing up the rearguard, are the pedantics.

 

I think you will find that should be pedants not pedantics.

[sebrof]

It's interesting that most people here acknowledge that the canal is an extraordinarily safe place to be, but have still managed to get bogged down in a discussion of how best to introduce some new, and wholly unnecessary, form of regulation.

 

With little or no instruction, people buy, rent, or borrow boats and happily set off down the cut with very little risk of injury to life or limb, and little prospect of doing serious damage to their boat or anybody else's.

 

And yet, seven pages of discussion have ensued about passports, training, audited logs, and God knows what. For goodness sake, as one person has already said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And it ain't broke.

 

The cost of any sort of formal training, and all the administrative nonsense that would inevitably follow, would be much greater than the money saved in having fewer accidents. And it's the thin end of the wedge. Voluntary now; compulsory in future.

 

Somebody mentioned offshore sailing. Has there been any reduction in accidents at sea since it became almost impossible to charter a boat without a yachtmaster's certificate? I don't know, but I seriously doubt it.

 

Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains. Those who wish for yet more regulation in an already over-regulated world are just asking to be enslaved. Madness.

[floatingphil]

Good idea but 2 hours tuition although better than nothing wouldnt change much. Its all experience and you can't control what the hirers do after the instructor leaves them to get on with it. Its all practice and common sense. A 17 year old can pass the driving test but look what happens with many after that.

 

Good idea though and certainly wouldnt harm esp if its included in the hire charge. I think some novices would jump at the chance as ive met some pretty nervous 1st timers. Im always happy to help where I can, not that im expert

 

Phil

[sueb]

Are any of the people who have criticised the hand over procedure hire boaters or are they private boaters? I don't feel that the posts reflect what hire boaters have found.

Sue

[Mick and Maggie]

to introduce some new, and wholly unnecessary, form of regulation.

 

I did not mention of any form regulation, just instructing to be to a recognised syllabus for the handover of a boat. Which will apply to all first time boaters hiring a craft and is also documented. But don't think that regulation will not happen.

 

..... And it's the thin end of the wedge. Voluntary now; compulsory in future.

 

If you are not accepting voluntary now, so it will be compulsory later, and I will explain why!

 

We are all living in a European wide nanny state. Where Health and Safety combined with a system of No Win No Fee Litigation are now the acceptable norm. Where the state thinks we need to be protected from ourselves.

 

Accidents do occur on the canals, sometimes fatal. Some fatalities have been reported on this forum. It only takes one coroner to link that the poor quality of a handover combined with a lack of experience had led to a fatality. If the accident was adjudged to be avoidable then his or her recommendations will be for compulsion in training. The formal aspects of training will then obviously apply to everyone.

 

The driver for additional certification will then be the state mantra. Your insurance provider will not only want to see a boat safety certificate but also some form of formal, tested and documented qualification. A uniform lack of standards and self regulation will then lead to state regulation. Look at what is happening in Europe now with regards to safety standards on canals. Most UK boats will not conform to the current European standards even now. It will get more stringent with time.

 

This is not a new system. Look at what happened with motorcycles. It started with compulsory restrictions in engine size, then the wearing of compulsory helmets. Then came compulsory off road basic training. Then came the different licence standards, restricted by time and engine power. this was quickly followed by a three part driving examination. Now it is new changes to the driving test to include a speed swerve manoeuvre. Meddle and change for the sake of change are the norm.

 

It happened with coastal craft.... how long before it comes to inland craft. The European quangos love to meddle. Wake-up and smell the coffee - its either self regulate now or state regulation later.

 

State regulation from Europe, will come. Given enough time, the regulation will come via the back-door from Europe anyway. I can imagine the EU directive is being edited in draft form as we write.

 

It looks dire because it is dire, we are not making the preparations for self regulation. Like it or not, it is coming to a canal near you.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I did not mention of any form regulation, just instructing to be to a recognised syllabus for the handover of a boat. Which will apply to all first time boaters hiring a craft and is also documented. But don't think that regulation will not happen.

 

 

 

If you are not accepting voluntary now, so it will be compulsory later, and I will explain why!

 

We are all living in a European wide nanny state. Where Health and Safety combined with a system of No Win No Fee Litigation are now the acceptable norm. Where the state thinks we need to be protected from ourselves.

 

Accidents do occur on the canals, sometimes fatal. Some fatalities have been reported on this forum. It only takes one coroner to link that the poor quality of a handover combined with a lack of experience had led to a fatality. If the accident was adjudged to be avoidable then his or her recommendations will be for compulsion in training. The formal aspects of training will then obviously apply to everyone.

 

The driver for additional certification will then be the state mantra. Your insurance provider will not only want to see a boat safety certificate but also some form of formal, tested and documented qualification. A uniform lack of standards and self regulation will then lead to state regulation. Look at what is happening in Europe now with regards to safety standards on canals. Most UK boats will not conform to the current European standards even now. It will get more stringent with time.

 

This is not a new system. Look at what happened with motorcycles. It started with compulsory restrictions in engine size, then the wearing of compulsory helmets. Then came compulsory off road basic training. Then came the different licence standards, restricted by time and engine power. this was quickly followed by a three part driving examination. Now it is new changes to the driving test to include a speed swerve manoeuvre. Meddle and change for the sake of change are the norm.

 

It happened with coastal craft.... how long before it comes to inland craft. The European quangos love to meddle. Wake-up and smell the coffee - its either self regulate now or state regulation later.

 

State regulation from Europe, will come. Given enough time, the regulation will come via the back-door from Europe anyway. I can imagine the EU directive is being edited in draft form as we write.

 

It looks dire because it is dire, we are not making the preparations for self regulation. Like it or not, it is coming to a canal near you.

 

Most hire boat companies already self regulate and subscribe to the British Marine Federation code.

 

Perhaps we should be asking why formulation of the MCA code, which places the onus on navigation authorities (albeit on a voluntary basis) is taking so long.

 

Did anyone actually read the links I provided earlier or were they too boring?

[casper ghost]

Here's my odd take on licences. I'd only issue a licence to steerers who have been steering boats for at least 25 years. That'll clear the way abit, shouldn't have too many queues at locks with that.

[magpie patrick]

This is not a new system. Look at what happened with motorcycles. It started with compulsory restrictions in engine size, then the wearing of compulsory helmets. Then came compulsory off road basic training. Then came the different licence standards, restricted by time and engine power. this was quickly followed by a three part driving examination. Now it is new changes to the driving test to include a speed swerve manoeuvre. Meddle and change for the sake of change are the norm.

 

Yes, but motor cyclists were, and still are, getting killed in their hundreds every year, and are statistically far more likely to be killed (per vehicle kilometre) than car drivers, and crash helmets have saved countless lives. The same can not be said of canal boaters.

 

In addition, it isn't easy to change drivers in a car while it is moving, and when hiring one(seeing as we are still adressing hirers) you name the drivers. Woe betide you if you let another person drive when you haven't informed the hire company, or at least if you have an accident while they are driving.

 

the point has been made that hiring last year doesn't mean that you are well equipped this year, and certainly that having hired once two years ago means the hirer has forgotten everything. Decent instruction every time (but not two hours) and ride the first few hundred yards with them is the way forward. Dave suggested that the quality of instruction should be monitored.

 

Looking at your passport proposal, just suppose I hire with five male friends, and it's me that get's the passport, next year, I decide to go again, only this time, it's with my wife and another couple. I'm potentially with three people who've never been before, and five people who had exactly the same experience as me haven't got passports. In the hire car scenario, I would be the only driver on both occasions, but not on a boat.

 

Your proposal is paper for papers sake, and as has been pointed out by others, potentially counter productive.

 

Accidents do occur on the canals, sometimes fatal. Some fatalities have been reported on this forum. It only takes one coroner to link that the poor quality of a handover combined with a lack of experience had led to a fatality. If the accident was adjudged to be avoidable then his or her recommendations will be for compulsion in training. The formal aspects of training will then obviously apply to everyone.

 

Sadly some fatal accidents do occur, but the inquest awaits the MAIB investigation if there is one (and in fatalities there nearly always is). So far the MAIB have stuck with making recommendations as to the navigation authority should monitor near misses and design out the risk. This even occured after the dreadful incodent on the L and L where four disabled people died, in which to my mind their should have been a recommendation on crew procedure at locks.

[sebrof]

It is not inevitable that compulsion will come, but it will if people don't fight it. And suggesting new voluntary schemes is the thin end of the wedge.

 

I think it is very patronising to suggest that the hire-boat industry don't know what they are doing when they hire a boat to an inexperienced person. They have a very powerful commercial incentive to ensure that their boats are returned in good condition, and they take whatever steps they deem necessary to minimise problems resulting from hirer inexperience. If they didn't, they'd soon be out of business.

 

Obviously different businesses, and different hirers, will have different ideas about what constitutes adequate instruction, but that's life.

 

People who compare motor-cycling with canal-boating are just playing into the hands of the H&S lobby. It's an absurd comparison, for reasons that Magpie Patrick has stated.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Sadly some fatal accidents do occur, but the inquest awaits the MAIB investigation if there is one (and in fatalities there nearly always is). So far the MAIB have stuck with making recommendations as to the navigation authority should monitor near misses and design out the risk. This even occured after the dreadful incodent on the L and L where four disabled people died, in which to my mind their should have been a recommendation on crew procedure at locks.

 

It is worth pointing out that the Maritime & Coatguard Draft Hire Boat code is the outcome of a recommendation following MAIB investigation into the self-drive hire boat “Breakaway V” capsize on the River Bure in 2003, resulting in the loss of one life.

 

MCA were recommended to form and chair a working group of key interested parties including inland navigation authorities, local authorities, and the hire boat industry, to draw on current best practice to:

1. Agree on how licensing regimes operated by inland navigation and local authorities can be co-ordinated to ensure full coverage of the UK inland waterways, and to seek the empowerment of appropriate inland navigation authorities to license if required.
   
2. Develop within 24 months, a national code of safe practice for boats let for hire on inland waterways, to include, as a minimum, requirements for hire boat construction, stability, fitness for purpose, life saving equipment, and handover procedures.
   
3. Liaise with the DTI to clarify the impact of the requirements of the RCD on any national code of practice and licensing requirements for pleasure craft let for hire, and provide ongoing advice to the DTI regarding deficiencies and areas of concern in this respect.
   

..... but seven years later the code still is still not implemented.

 

NABO did have some input into these deliberations to protect private boaters.

Edited April 18, 2010 by Allan(nb Albert)

[RLWP]

The MAIB don't have any canal accidents in their list of current investigations

 

Richard

[Ray]

I started as a hirer. I've since progressed (?) to owning my own boat. I've also borrowed a mate's boat for a week's holiday

 

I've worked for a small hire boat company and been responsible for both pre-departure hand over instruction and boat handling tuition. Did I do either right and whether I did or I didn't, who would say one way or the other. And, for that matter, who would say that anyone charged with on-the-spot checks of instructors would have the same view of my methods as someone else? How many times have people on here (and elsewhere) mentioned about the apparent differences in boat surveyor capabilities/skills for example?

 

I've also been working on trip boats, initially as ordinary crew but subsequently as skipper, since before the current licencing came about. The requirements for me to initially qualify for (and subsequently renew) my licence were/are far simpler than those of my more recently qualified colleagues. Are they better able because they've got more documented "qualifications" than me or am I better able than them because I have more practical experience but only the licence?

 

As a skipper either of a trip boat or of a private boat I need to assess the capabilities of the people on boats that I may encounter. I may recognise the boat heading towards me but I won't necessarily know until they are much closer whether the person I believe is the owner (who I may recognise) is aboard or whether they have lent the boat to a friend who hasn't been on a boat before. I've seen what I perceive to be good and bad boaters on private boats, on hire boats and on trip boats!

 

I'm inspected annually by the MCA as are the trip boats that I skipper. I've seen what I would call good and bad inspectors with, in one instance of which I'm aware but didn't witness, an inspection consisting of the inspector boarding the vessel, looking at the engine and then disembarking, a process that took just a few seconds! He probably knew all about see going vessels but b*gger all about canal boats.

 

Our trip boats ply a limited area and the MCA inspectors recognise this. however, after umpteen years of annual inspections, we've just been tasked with having to add the vessel's name to all the life saving equipment that we carry, something that we should have been doing ever since the post Marchioness clamp down. Is it really necessary? This is just one example of the seemingly unrecognised difference between inland waterways and other boating areas.

 

I've tutored crew of hire boats - and we must remember day hire boats fall into that category as well - and subsequently discovered that the crew on the boat later on have not been the crew that were on it at the start. Unless spot checks are made continuously there's nothing to stop the orginal crew (with or without "passports") swapping with others and then swapping back just before the boat is returned to the base.

 

We know of instances when hire boats have left with the full and insured level of crew, have gone under the nearest bridge and embarked several more who have then alighted just before the boat is returned to the base.

 

I understand the concept that the OP was originally trying to support but I think that we are better hoping that things remain largely unchanged from now - which isn't necessarily perfect - otherwise over a space of a very few years enforced restrictions will gradually come about. They'll be as hard to police then as the 60/40 fuel split is now but the knock on effects could be devistating - ask anyone who is running low on fuel and can't find a boatyard that is still selling fuel because of the added hassle of doing so these days.