Children on top of narrowboats

[magpie patrick]

The Merchant Shipping (Passenger Ships) (Safety Code for UK Categorised Waters) Regulations 2010 apply to all passenger carrying ships in UK categorised waters, most of the canal system is category A so that is covered, a few bits are category B

 

The regulations, in section 3.3.h, states that these regulations cover any "ship" carrying more than 12 passengers

 

The regulations as a whole require any ship covered by the regulations to have a valid passenger ship safety certificate. The job of issuing the certificate falls to the Maritime and coastguard agency.

 

If you haven't got a valid certificate, the moment the thirteenth passenger steps on, regardless of how many passengers the boat is designed for, you are breaking the law.

[mayalld]

Can you supply any evidence to support postulation 1? What is your definition of an incident? Your previous citation of someone bobbing up immediately before a low bridge is not an example of someone being on a roof. My kids have been on the roof many times, the worst "incident" they've been involved with is being hit by a branch. Which, amazingly, did not result in any injury or fatality. I see no increased danger from their being on the roof than any where else on the boat.

 

Isn't all this just "oooh look at them, they're not doing it right" prurient finger pointing?

 

Whilst I appreciate that it is fashionable to burn the witch here, and I further appreciate that the fact that I decline to subscribe to groupthink makes me a prime target for a bit of witch burning, because you can be safe in the knowledge that the mob will follow....

 

No, it isn't.

 

I related the example because it was something that I witnessed. Another poster mentioned that he has heard of a decapitation by bridge. Neither are evidence of the regularity incidence of such incidents, and neither involcved somebody who was "on the roof".

 

What such tales do tell us is that if somebody is "outside the profile of the boat", and the boat enters a bridge hole, tunnel or similar, where there is a restricted loading gauge, the forward momentum of the boat will be such that if there is insufficient space for the body in it's present form, the result will be the alteration of the form of the body, rather than stopping the motion of the boat.

 

Notice that I said that there was a high probability, not a certainty. Of course, there will be incidents where nobody is maimed or dies, but the simple fact is that if somebody is on the roof of a boat, and the boat passes through a low bridge with insufficient clearance for the person to pass through, they are going to be a mess.

[Naughty Cal]

Can you supply any evidence to support postulation 1? What is your definition of an incident? Your previous citation of someone bobbing up immediately before a low bridge is not an example of someone being on a roof. My kids have been on the roof many times, the worst "incident" they've been involved with is being hit by a branch. Which, amazingly, did not result in any injury or fatality. I see no increased danger from their being on the roof than any where else on the boat.

 

Isn't all this just "oooh look at them, they're not doing it right" prurient finger pointing?

 

I think it probably is and it should be pointed out that it isnt just kids who spend a lot of time on the roofs of boats. Adults are just as guilty. Chilling out on the cabin roof whilst underway is a good way to enjoy a cool drink on a hot summers day, listening to the water lapping on the bow of the boat.

[Nine of Hearts]

Whilst I appreciate that it is fashionable to burn the witch here, and I further appreciate that the fact that I decline to subscribe to groupthink makes me a prime target for a bit of witch burning, because you can be safe in the knowledge that the mob will follow....

 

No, it isn't.

 

I related the example because it was something that I witnessed. Another poster mentioned that he has heard of a decapitation by bridge. Neither are evidence of the regularity incidence of such incidents, and neither involcved somebody who was "on the roof".

 

What such tales do tell us is that if somebody is "outside the profile of the boat", and the boat enters a bridge hole, tunnel or similar, where there is a restricted loading gauge, the forward momentum of the boat will be such that if there is insufficient space for the body in it's present form, the result will be the alteration of the form of the body, rather than stopping the motion of the boat.

 

Notice that I said that there was a high probability, not a certainty. Of course, there will be incidents where nobody is maimed or dies, but the simple fact is that if somebody is on the roof of a boat, and the boat passes through a low bridge with insufficient clearance for the person to pass through, they are going to be a mess.

 

All well and good, but I don't believe this topic is called "people oustside the profile of the boat when it is entering a tunnel". And your last post made a direct reference to people on the roof running an increased risk, with an hysterical reference to serious injury and death. I'll admit that being on the roof is probably less safe than sitting in the well deck, but on a narrowboat on a canal, the risk has gone from "hardly any" to "minimal".

[Gibbo]

I am rather fed up with this "safety first" age we live in.

 

Well said that man.

 

Shelter people from danger, and not only do they never learn to appreciate danger, they also have one hell of a boring life.

 

Length of life is not the important point. Quality of life is. And taking risks, smelling danger and getting injured is all part of the quality.

 

What a shit world this would be without motorcycle racers, free climbers, base jumpers, freedivers and all the other nutcases who continually risk their lives in the name of, dare I say it, excitement.

 

My 11 year old daughter loves rock climbing, and I actively encourage her to continue. The danger excites her.

 

Some arseholes would much prefer everyone to sit inside wrapped up in sponge padding incase they bruise themselves.

[mayalld]

Well said that man.

 

Shelter people from danger, and not only do they never learn to appreciate danger, they also have one hell of a boring life.

 

Length of life is not the important point. Quality of life is. And taking risks, smelling danger and getting injured is all part of the quality.

 

What a shit world this would be without motorcycle racers, free climbers, base jumpers, freedivers and all the other nutcases who continually risk their lives in the name of, dare I say it, excitement.

 

My 11 year old daughter loves rock climbing, and I actively encourage her to continue. The danger excites her.

 

The perception of danger in an environment where the dangers are controlled is a worid away from unpercieved dangers that are not properly controlled

[Moley]

Recognise this?

 

 

At one point, son did stand up and begin to walk back along the roof towards the stern, but was advised in no uncertain terms by his mother to sit down again!

[Guest wanted]

There is a balance to be had here isn't there? 'risk assessment' has a bad name, the fact is, is that we do it all of the time, not in the form filling sense but we judge what is dangerous and what is safe pretty much all of the time. This is learned behaviour which is normally gained as a child by taking risks or making mistakes. One upsetting fact of life is that people get hurt and or die, that’s just the way it is. If I had kids then my stance would be to let them on the roof but also teach them of the dangers and compromise with boundaries such as what to do at lock or bridge. No drama, no forms, just common sense.

[magpie patrick]

I think it probably is and it should be pointed out that it isnt just kids who spend a lot of time on the roofs of boats. Adults are just as guilty. Chilling out on the cabin roof whilst underway is a good way to enjoy a cool drink on a hot summers day, listening to the water lapping on the bow of the boat.

 

 

I think it's a bit more than that, use of the roof is safe enough (and around you except for the Glory Hole I should imagine it's perfectly safe) but needs a weather eye on what's going on around you. It's a good idea not to obscure the steerers view too much and he or she should be alert to the fect the people may not fit under a bridge at least in time to stop before they get there.

 

With Ripple, roof or otherwise, I always pointed out to anyone who borrowed her that she weighed 17 tonnes and was made of steel, if you got any part of you between her and any fixed object or steel boat, you would find the true definition of between a rock and a hard place.

 

Several years ago, when the Bow Back Rivers were still semi tidal, I was stemming a falling tide in reverse waiting to have enough headroom under the Northern Outfall Sewer, the boat engine was beginning to overheat and this was stressing me slighly when to heads popped up on the front well deck, I yelled at them to get down and they said they'd hold the boat off with there hands. This is not a situation where you are necessarily polite even to friends so I barked at everyone to get off the front deck into the cabin. I misjudged the moment to go under, not appreciateing the bridge sloped and got lower, we jammed, and when we got free oI found two chunky steel handrails had been crushed, and we were only crawling! A human body part wouldn't have stood a chance.

 

edited to add, I seem to have killed the debate about whether it's legal to have 13 people on a private boat...

Edited August 18, 2010 by magpie patrick

[mayalld]

All well and good, but I don't believe this topic is called "people oustside the profile of the boat when it is entering a tunnel". And your last post made a direct reference to people on the roof running an increased risk, with an hysterical reference to serious injury and death. I'll admit that being on the roof is probably less safe than sitting in the well deck, but on a narrowboat on a canal, the risk has gone from "hardly any" to "minimal".

 

Being on the roof of the boat is one example of being outside the profile of the boat.

 

I don't advocate a ban on people being on the roof. I do say, very clearly, that if there are people on the roof, or if it is possible that somebody may suddenly decide to get onto the roof, the steerer needs to be very aware that those on the roof are, very probably, NOT keeping a watch for any potentially dangerous situations, and that the steerer needs to do so.

 

And despite the piles of kindling that you seem to be stacking around my feet, reference to serious injury and death is not hysterical. Any risk assessment depends on two factors; probability of occurence and consequence of occurence.

 

Any formal risk assessment of sitting on the roof would conclude that, given the number of low bridges, there is a high probability of incident, and a serious consequence. As such the question of how to properly manage that risk arises.

[Naughty Cal]

I think it's a bit more than that, use of the roof is safe enough (and around you except for the Glory Hole I should imagine it's perfectly safe) but needs a weather eye on what's going on around you. It's a good idea not to obscure the steerers view too much and he or she should be alert to the fect the people may not fit under a bridge at least in time to stop before they get there.

 

The Glory Hole is fine to sit on the roof through, in fact its the best way to view the bridges through Lincoln.

 

Our boat is slightly different in that lounging around on the cabin roof you will still not be the highest point. The bow rails would be the first thing to hit an obstruction or the hood if the arch isnt folded.

 

Edited August 18, 2010 by Phylis

[Nine of Hearts]

Any formal risk assessment of sitting on the roof would conclude that, given the number of low bridges, there is a high probability of incident, and a serious consequence. As such the question of how to properly manage that risk arises.

 

I am not piling kindling around your feet, I am just pointing out massive flaws in your arguments.

 

Anyhoo. You say that a steerer should be aware of pople on the roof. Well, considering that most steerers are at the stern, they probably will be, unless your practice is to shut your eyes when approaching bridges. The incident you cited about someone popping up prior to one of these "lethal" bridge holes was precisely because they were not one the roof, but in the well deck out of sight of the steerer. Had they been on the roof, the steerer would no doubt have issued the warning earlier. To say that people run the risk of injury or death when on the roof is hysterical.

 

There is only a risk of injury to someone on the roof when approaching a bridge hole if the steerer is blind or has malicious designs on the roof passenger. Otherwise you just say, "look out, a bridge", and carnage is averted.

[Chertsey]

The Merchant Shipping (Passenger Ships) (Safety Code for UK Categorised Waters) Regulations 2010 apply to all passenger carrying ships in UK categorised waters, most of the canal system is category A so that is covered, a few bits are category B

 

The regulations, in section 3.3.h, states that these regulations cover any "ship" carrying more than 12 passengers

 

The regulations as a whole require any ship covered by the regulations to have a valid passenger ship safety certificate. The job of issuing the certificate falls to the Maritime and coastguard agency.

 

If you haven't got a valid certificate, the moment the thirteenth passenger steps on, regardless of how many passengers the boat is designed for, you are breaking the law.

So... do all boats come under the definition of 'passenger carrying', or only if they are taking paying passengers?

And does it set any limits to the number of crew?

[MoominPapa]

It's fine to have people on the roof of the boat as long as everyone knows their responsibilities. It's the steerer's responsibility to make sure that everything on the roof which could contact a low bridge has been removed before attempting to go under it. This includes chimneys, airers full of washing, and people. It's everyone else's responsibility to assist the steerer by not getting on the roof without his/her permission, and obeying the steerer when they ask that the roof be cleared.

 

Simples.

 

 

MP.

Edited August 18, 2010 by MoominPapa

[bargeeboy]

The Merchant Shipping (Passenger Ships) (Safety Code for UK Categorised Waters) Regulations 2010 apply to all passenger carrying ships in UK categorised waters, most of the canal system is category A so that is covered, a few bits are category B

 

The regulations, in section 3.3.h, states that these regulations cover any "ship" carrying more than 12 passengers

 

The regulations as a whole require any ship covered by the regulations to have a valid passenger ship safety certificate. The job of issuing the certificate falls to the Maritime and coastguard agency.

 

If you haven't got a valid certificate, the moment the thirteenth passenger steps on, regardless of how many passengers the boat is designed for, you are breaking the law.

 

Tha'ts the one been around for many years but facts are the same. The 12 plus 3 is arrived at because it has been certified I would suspect as with the 50 plus 3 !

[magpie patrick]

So... do all boats come under the definition of 'passenger carrying', or only if they are taking paying passengers?

And does it set any limits to the number of crew?

 

 

It does not differentiate between paying and non paying

 

it doesn't say anything about crew, that's the MCA's job

 

The MCA say

 

In determining the number ofpassengers, a passenger is “any person carried on a ship except:

 

1. a person employed or engaged in any capacity of the vessel’s business;

 

2. a person on board the vessel, either in pursuance of the obligation laid upon the master to carry shipwrecked, distressed or other persons, or by reason of any circumstance that neither the master nor the owner nor the charterer (if any) could have prevented or forestalled;

 

3. a child under one year of age”Leaving aside the fact that Ripple has a RCD plate that states maximum 8 passengers,

 

Take Ripple, leaving aside the fact she has a CE plate stating maximum 8 passengers, I think I would be skating on thin ice is I was to load on twelve friends and declare that I was their crew, although if I steered or only allowed others to steer under my supervision I might get away with it, and you'd be on VERY thin ice doing this with a hire boat as it is "self steer hire", that is, crewed by the passengers.

 

I think it's one of those things that we could try and pick holes in, but unless you had a proper paper trail they'll throw the book at you

[Chertsey]

Tha'ts the one been around for many years but facts are the same. The 12 plus 3 is arrived at because it has been certified I would suspect as with the 50 plus 3 !

The boats I'm talking about haven't been certified at all. So is 12+3 the legal default? In which case surely a private boat would also be allowed to carry 15 if 3 of them were designated crew (one to steer and two to keep people off the roof).

[magpie patrick]

Tha'ts the one been around for many years but facts are the same. The 12 plus 3 is arrived at because it has been certified I would suspect as with the 50 plus 3 !

 

The 50+4 would be certified by the MCA because of the 50, the MCA seem to have decided that 12+3 is okay for a "small passenger boat" (one carrying 12 passengers or less, but the MCA talks about the operation of passenger boats by businesses or organisations, not someone deciding that for today they are crew and will have twelve friends on board. That's not an operation.

 

Unlike BW, I wouldn't mess with MCA over enforcement, they have real teeth, and use them.

 

However, there is no legislation to make "small passenger boats" have a passenger ship safety certificate, if there was they'd do it...

[sociable_hermit]

People who are aware of the risks and have some common sense should be allowed on the roof.

 

Those who don't understand or don't have any common sense, shouldn't.

 

To a certain extent this guideline is self-policing, from a Darwinian perspective

[Guest User]

... didn't they used to chain them (children) to the chimney or somesuch ?

[BlueStringPudding]

I saw a narrowboat today travelling very fast (no this is not another thread about the speed of narrowboats.) on top of the boat were three children, guessing under 10 running up and down the boat jumping up with sticks and hitting the overhead trees. Not very safe I thought, however, as the boat went past I remembered that there was a low bridge ahead and ran outside to warn the parents, however, I was too slow and I saw the children still running on the roof away from the bridge and at the last minute dive down and lie on the boat..I nearly had a heart attack.

 

I am wondering why don't people think about safety? I was tempted to contact the hire company as perhaps they need to discuss safety in more detail to their customers or were the family just lacking any form of common sense?

 

I see that all the time round Cheshire, and used to see it a lot round Warwick and Stratford too. Some people are really thick. And deserve to have decapitated kids.

[Idunhoe]

At the end of the day the self policing idea probably works best and is almost certainly the only way some people will learn

[Chertsey]

The 50+4 would be certified by the MCA because of the 50, the MCA seem to have decided that 12+3 is okay for a "small passenger boat" (one carrying 12 passengers or less, but the MCA talks about the operation of passenger boats by businesses or organisations, not someone deciding that for today they are crew and will have twelve friends on board. That's not an operation.

 

Unlike BW, I wouldn't mess with MCA over enforcement, they have real teeth, and use them.

 

However, there is no legislation to make "small passenger boats" have a passenger ship safety certificate, if there was they'd do it...

'Small' presumably having nothing to do with the actual size of the boat?

[ditchcrawler]

The Glory Hole is fine to sit on the roof through, in fact its the best way to view the bridges through Lincoln.

 

Our boat is slightly different in that lounging around on the cabin roof you will still not be the highest point. The bow rails would be the first thing to hit an obstruction or the hood if the arch isnt folded.

 

I have seen bow rails and windscreens removed by the bridge in Gt Yarmouth and with the tide behind you stopping at the last minute is not an option. There have been people killed on the top of cruisers. I think its a case of being aware of what is happening around you

[Gibbo]

Any risk assessment depends on two factors; probability of occurence and consequence of occurence.

 

And that's the end of the story for the health and safety brigade.

 

A more important factor is "how muich fun will I have by doing this?"

 

The answer is "lots", so bollocks to the risk.