Children on top of narrowboats

[Naughty Cal]

Don't confuse supposed safety features with more likely sales / marketing features.

Now that all cars seem to be compared & tabulated for certainly crash test criteria then each new model can be advertised as "best in class" I wonder what percentage of cars actually drop on their roofs causing sufficient crush to affect the occupants, compared with the number of cars that pull out of T junction or roundabouts into the path of an ocoming taking a good hard hit in the weakest spot ?

Pure nonsense on the part of the safety regulators in my humble opinion, when I was hiring every week i refused to take Vauxhall Meriva's becuase I thought they had such bad visibility, now i can barely find one you can see out of adequately without extended rocking sideways.

Never mind bikes, in a Honda Civic you can loose a whole bus.

Never had the kids on the roof of the car though...

 

Which is why when mother offered us her car for a stupidly low price we declined. We though our Almera was poor for rear vision, the Honda takes the biscuit.

 

There was an accident almost outside the house I was living in some years ago. A car had set off from further up the road. It had travelled 50 yards and was doing between 10 and 15 mph when another car backed out of a drive between parked cars. The first car hit a concrete lamp post and the woman passenger, who was not wearing a seat belt, made a hole in the windscreen with her face. She needed rather a lot of stitches to her face and pieces of glass removing from her eye. Even at 15 mph unpredictable things can happen.

 

Unpredictable things can happen but i can guarantee you that a car wont back out of a drive on the way to the shop in my car from my. The topography of the estate means that only a few houses (ours included) can manage to get a driveway to work. None of these houses other than our own we pass on the way.

 

The worst we will get is free range kids/free range cats jumping out in the middle of the road. At 10 to 15mph you can easily stop for them.

 

Really?? well as you have now descended into childish drivel I am off to talk to the grown ups.

 

Good luck in finding them.

[Natalie Graham]

Don't confuse supposed safety features with more likely sales / marketing features.

Now that all cars seem to be compared & tabulated for certainly crash test criteria then each new model can be advertised as "best in class" I wonder what percentage of cars actually drop on their roofs causing sufficient crush to affect the occupants, compared with the number of cars that pull out of T junction or roundabouts into the path of an ocoming taking a good hard hit in the weakest spot ?

Pure nonsense on the part of the safety regulators in my humble opinion, when I was hiring every week i refused to take Vauxhall Meriva's becuase I thought they had such bad visibility, now i can barely find one you can see out of adequately without extended rocking sideways.

Never mind bikes, in a Honda Civic you can loose a whole bus.

Never had the kids on the roof of the car though...

 

I lost control of my 5 star NCAP Renault Megane when it aquaplaned on a stretch of road which was not properly maintained. (I know two other people who lost control on the same bit that morning and there was a fatality there the next time there was heavy rain.) The car rolled several times and cartwheeled, ending up on its roof in the middle of the road. I was hanging upside down by the seat belt. Journey of 3 1/2 miles for those who think it was not worth putting the seatbelt on for such a short journey.) I crawled out of the smashed windows and walked away completely uninjured. I now have another Megane and am more than happy to take a bit of extra care to see round the roof pillars in exchange for the safety in the event of overturning. I was also in a low speed collision with a Nissan on a car ferry which started in gear and jumped into the back of me. My Renault had not so much as a scratch on the paintwork the Nissan needed the front end rebuilding.

 

As to not wearing seat belts for short journeys, a colleague of mine went out from work to get petrol from the petrol station 100 yards away. Not worth putting the seat belt on. Police car was leaving said petrol station and spotted her. The police don't take into account, "I wasn't going very far" when applying the law.

[magpie patrick]

I lost control of my 5 star NCAP Renault Megane when it aquaplaned on a stretch of road which was not properly maintained. (I know two other people who lost control on the same bit that morning and there was a fatality there the next time there was heavy rain.) The car rolled several times and cartwheeled, ending up on its roof in the middle of the road. I was hanging upside down by the seat belt. Journey of 3 1/2 miles for those who think it was not worth putting the seatbelt on for such a short journey.) I crawled out of the smashed windows and walked away completely uninjured. I now have another Megane and am more than happy to take a bit of extra care to see round the roof pillars in exchange for the safety in the event of overturning. I was also in a low speed collision with a Nissan on a car ferry which started in gear and jumped into the back of me. My Renault had not so much as a scratch on the paintwork the Nissan needed the front end rebuilding.

 

As to not wearing seat belts for short journeys, a colleague of mine went out from work to get petrol from the petrol station 100 yards away. Not worth putting the seat belt on. Police car was leaving said petrol station and spotted her. The police don't take into account, "I wasn't going very far" when applying the law.

 

Well that's modern car safety very well demonstrated! Glad you're okay from that! I take more care in the Audi (no problem with rear vision) but in making the occupant safer they have increased the risk to other users.

 

On seat belts, I'm surprised people don't put them on, it's just a habit that I don't even realise I'm doing!

[Iain_S]

I think you are right about cars being thought of as too safe, no amount of gadgets can make up for the stupidity of some drivers who think they are invincible and the best driver in the world. My father in law would say I am a good driver but everyone else is a twat and thems the ones to watch out for.

 

Slightly I agree. The comfort and refinement of modern cars (IMO) insulate drivers from road hazards.

 

Actually, I feel that the whole risk assessment business needs research. My own feeling is that the number of accidents for any activity will vary as n x AR/PR where n = the number of people engaging in the activity, AR is the "actual risk" and PR is the "perceived risk", i.e. if something appears risky, participants take more care and the accdent rate is low. (There is a snag with this simple hypothesis in that "perceived risk" is subjective, and therefore not easy to measure.)

A good example is chicanes in roads to reduce speed; by any objective measurement, forcing opposing vehicles onto the same bit of road increases the actual risk. However, this is so obvious that the "perceived risk" is increased further and te net result is a reduction in the accident rate. (I'll admit here that I don't have any data to support this, but there must be some somewhere, or local authorities wouldn't put in so many )

However, I know of two cases where this went badly wrong. In one case, the chicane was at the start of a 30mph restriction, but was just over a slight rise, so that it was only visible at close range, and, at anything over 30mph, it was difficult to avoid, and impossible if there was a vehicle coming the other way. The second one was within a 30mph area, and was very visible, consisting of a raised flower bed about 4ft. high surrounded by wooden slats. Unfotunately, this meant that oncoming traffic was not visible. In both cases, the increase in the actual risk was greater than the increase in the perceived risk, and the accident rate increased dramatically until the "road safety" measures were removed.

 

Current risk assessments depend on the risk being identified, i.e. the "perceived risk" level is already high. (Difficult to avoid this, I suppose )

 

In the case of kids on the roof, the "perceived risk" may be very low, especially if the boat occupants are unfamiliar with thir environment (Compare with young children on roads, or many young drivers) and therefore the risk of an accident is increased.

 

Iain

[Naughty Cal]

In the case of kids on the roof, the "perceived risk" may be very low, especially if the boat occupants are unfamiliar with thir environment (Compare with young children on roads, or many young drivers) and therefore the risk of an accident is increased.

 

Can anyone point us to a case of a person being injured through sitting on the roof of their narrowboat?

[barge sara]

Not sure about not using seat belts for short journeys - how about just not using the car for short journeys?

Walk, cycle, catch a bus?

[Naughty Cal]

Not sure about not using seat belts for short journeys - how about just not using the car for short journeys?

Walk, cycle, catch a bus?

 

Walking and cycling are great but not very practical for doing the weekly shop. Buses, well they are a nuisance at best, but go no where near the shops you actually want to use and always have a smelly person on them.

 

The car well it goes where you tell it to, when you tell it to.

[Iain_S]

Can anyone point us to a case of a person being injured through sitting on the roof of their narrowboat?

 

Not personally, but 1) Where would it be recorded ? 2) Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it can't happen.

 

When I cross a road, I check the taffic, even though I haven't yet been hit by a car

Iain

[Rebsy]

I have been amazed at the number of replies to this post and am intrigued how the post has evolved with it's twists and turns. 

 

I would like to respond to a couple of  comments about the safety of children. I totally agree that children need to learn so that they can have their own awareness of Heath and safety, I agree that risk assessments formally and informally are probably done by all of us everyday, however even though the children were having  fun on the boat, I wonder if it occurred to the parents (may be as part of their risk assessment ) the consequences of potential ruined holiday, a very wet and shocked child , a trip to the hospital for something broken or worse. My guess and hope this family had a lovely holiday, but the question is.. Is it worth the risk? I know if I has saved and looked forward to a family holiday, I would not want anything to spoil it.  There are plenty of ways that children can learn to be aware of danger and have fun 'go ape' springs to mind but children standing on a boat and not know what's coming round the corner that  just does not make sense (and  is not worth the risk) 

[Natalie Graham]

Not sure about not using seat belts for short journeys - how about just not using the car for short journeys?

Walk, cycle, catch a bus?

 

Or, in the case of the colleague I mentioned, jerry can?

 

 

Buses, [...] always have a smelly person on them.

 

So whenever you go on the bus there's a smelly person on is there?

 

The car well it goes where you tell it to, when you tell it to.

 

Wow. Voice activated. Modern automotive technology just gets better and better.

[matty40s]

Phylis owns the only horse drawn Ford Sierra in the UK.

[Guest wanted]

Or, in the case of the colleague I mentioned, jerry can?

 

 

 

 

So whenever you go on the bus there's a smelly person on is there?

 

 

 

Wow. Voice activated. Modern automotive technology just gets better and better.

 

Phylis! is that you? eurghh!

[saltysplash]

Exactly which laws are being broken if more than 12 people are aboard a privately-owned narrowboat?

 

 

Copied from the MCA website re regulations for Pleasure craft

 

Pleasure craft can be considered to be vessels that are used for sport or recreational purposes only and are within the definition of SI 1998/2771 Merchant Shipping (Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure) 1998 as amended.

 

This document gives advice and some detail on what regulations apply. More specific information can be obtained by consulting the relevant regulations or by contacting the MCA.

 

Note - If more than 12 passengers are carried, irrespective of whether payment is made, the vessel is a “passenger ship” under the Merchant Shipping Regulations. A passenger may be considered as anyone onboard not involved with the running of the vessel. If it is intended to carry more than 12 passengers, notification should be made to the Agency’s local Marine Office. On a case by case basis, the local Marine Office may consider the granting of an exemption from the applicable Passenger Ship Regulations for a pleasure vessel carrying more than 12 passengers, on an occasional basis.

 

 

I think the key point is "A passenger may be considered as anyone onboard not involved with the running of the vessel"

[magpie patrick]

Copied from the MCA website re regulations for Pleasure craft

 

Pleasure craft can be considered to be vessels that are used for sport or recreational purposes only and are within the definition of SI 1998/2771 Merchant Shipping (Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure) 1998 as amended.

 

This document gives advice and some detail on what regulations apply. More specific information can be obtained by consulting the relevant regulations or by contacting the MCA.

 

Note - If more than 12 passengers are carried, irrespective of whether payment is made, the vessel is a “passenger ship” under the Merchant Shipping Regulations. A passenger may be considered as anyone onboard not involved with the running of the vessel. If it is intended to carry more than 12 passengers, notification should be made to the Agency’s local Marine Office. On a case by case basis, the local Marine Office may consider the granting of an exemption from the applicable Passenger Ship Regulations for a pleasure vessel carrying more than 12 passengers, on an occasional basis.

 

 

I think the key point is "A passenger may be considered as anyone onboard not involved with the running of the vessel"

 

Thanks Salty

 

as it happens, I've got a meeting with the MCA in a few weeks time to discuss safe operation of a barge traffic, I'll ask them the question regarding a privately owned pleasure boat then, as in, is the steerer a passenger

[Naughty Cal]

Phylis owns the only horse drawn Ford Sierra in the UK.

 

It is horse drawn, by about 150 of the little blighters

 

Phylis! is that you? eurghh!

 

Must be time for the annual shower.

 

Wheres the shower gel?

[Hairy-Neil]

Copied from the MCA website re regulations for Pleasure craft

 

Pleasure craft can be considered to be vessels that are used for sport or recreational purposes only and are within the definition of SI 1998/2771 Merchant Shipping (Vessels in Commercial Use for Sport or Pleasure) 1998 as amended.

 

This document gives advice and some detail on what regulations apply. More specific information can be obtained by consulting the relevant regulations or by contacting the MCA.

 

Note - If more than 12 passengers are carried, irrespective of whether payment is made, the vessel is a “passenger ship” under the Merchant Shipping Regulations. A passenger may be considered as anyone onboard not involved with the running of the vessel. If it is intended to carry more than 12 passengers, notification should be made to the Agency’s local Marine Office. On a case by case basis, the local Marine Office may consider the granting of an exemption from the applicable Passenger Ship Regulations for a pleasure vessel carrying more than 12 passengers, on an occasional basis.

 

 

I think the key point is "A passenger may be considered as anyone onboard not involved with the running of the vessel"

 

That clearly states COMMERCIAL USE, so keen to know how it is relevant to a private, non comercial pleasure craft.

[LEO]

and always have a smelly person on them.

 

P,

 

True, probably the same 'wrinkly' (who smelt of 'P') on their way to B&Q trying for the 60+ Wednesday shop, who was highlighted in a previous post on another topic.

 

Leo.

 

PS - The savings on the 60+ card are quite good useful!.

[Naughty Cal]

P,

 

True, probably the same 'wrinkly' (who smelt of 'P') on their way to B&Q trying for the 60+ Wednesday shop, who was highlighted in a previous post on another topic.

 

Leo.

 

PS - The savings on the 60+ card are quite good useful!.

 

Why would an old person smell of me?

[LEO]

Why would an old person smell of me?

 

P, too early in the moring for me! I was taking the urine out of 'wrinklies''

 

Leo.

[Naughty Cal]

P, too early in the moring for me! I was taking the urine out of 'wrinklies''

 

Leo.

 

Oh dear, i dont like the sound of that job

[Morat]

I have been amazed at the number of replies to this post and am intrigued how the post has evolved with it's twists and turns. 

 

I would like to respond to a couple of  comments about the safety of children. I totally agree that children need to learn so that they can have their own awareness of Heath and safety, I agree that risk assessments formally and informally are probably done by all of us everyday, however even though the children were having  fun on the boat, I wonder if it occurred to the parents (may be as part of their risk assessment ) the consequences of potential ruined holiday, a very wet and shocked child , a trip to the hospital for something broken or worse. My guess and hope this family had a lovely holiday, but the question is.. Is it worth the risk? I know if I has saved and looked forward to a family holiday, I would not want anything to spoil it.  There are plenty of ways that children can learn to be aware of danger and have fun 'go ape' springs to mind but children standing on a boat and not know what's coming round the corner that  just does not make sense (and  is not worth the risk) 

 

My position would be that the responsibility rests entirely with the parents (or guardians, or those acting in loco parentis) of the children. There will be times when being on the roof is dangerous, and times when it is a great place to be. The last thing I'd want to see is some more regulation where the application of common sense is enough.

 

Yes, I realise common sense is infact very rare - but I wonder if a reduction in regulation would increase the incidence in the population of common sense after a generation or three

[daves6guitars]

I have been amazed at the number of replies to this post and am intrigued how the post has evolved with it's twists and turns. 

 

I would like to respond to a couple of  comments about the safety of children. I totally agree that children need to learn so that they can have their own awareness of Heath and safety, I agree that risk assessments formally and informally are probably done by all of us everyday, however even though the children were having  fun on the boat, I wonder if it occurred to the parents (may be as part of their risk assessment ) the consequences of potential ruined holiday, a very wet and shocked child , a trip to the hospital for something broken or worse. My guess and hope this family had a lovely holiday, but the question is.. Is it worth the risk? I know if I has saved and looked forward to a family holiday, I would not want anything to spoil it.  There are plenty of ways that children can learn to be aware of danger and have fun 'go ape' springs to mind but children standing on a boat and not know what's coming round the corner that  just does not make sense (and  is not worth the risk) 

 

 

Yes of course it's worth the risk....go back to Dr Bradley's post on the first page....he hits the nail on the head perfectly. Sometimes unfortunate, even tragic events happen. That's life I'm afraid and always will be. Our society has become too risk averse and seems to have forgotten the meaning of a tolerable risk. I guess from your post you are meaning monetary risk as well as risk to life and limb. In which case you are probably more at risk of crashing your car on the way to your boat, or getting knocked down by a vehicle crossing the road. It amazes me that people have the bravery to leave the house sometimes, given the dangers to be found!! Apologies Rebsy, this rant is not specifically aimed at you, your's is a fairly balanced view...just that once I get started on H&S, there's no stopping me.....now where's that high vis wndlass!!??

 

Children are too mollycoddled now. Unless they experience danger, and sometimes, but rarely, suffer from it, they do not grow into adults who can appreciate the difference between exitement and danger. If I had kids playing on the roof, they would understand the danger, and enjoy it without perhaps being able to limit it to acceptable levels, but they wouldn't get hurt because I too would understand the danger. If you want to appreciate this attitude, look up Colin Mortlock, one of the best adventure training instructors ever, and read some of his writngs, in particular, the Adventure Alternative. Give kids (and adults) the chance of exitement, and at least apparent danger if not actual.

 

 

Well said!!!

[WJM]

My daughter is a powerful swimmer, very athletic and very confident both on and in the river. I recall once arriving at a jetty in a motorboat. She was on the roof and I was driving. I had a problem engaging reverse and the motorboat crashed into the jetty. My daughter was catapulted off the roof and landed head first in the river. I stopped the engine, tied up and walked away while she whooped and laughed as she pulled herself out of the river. The people around us were stunned at what to them was a terrible accident but to us was just a hoot. But we both know the river very well, plenty of depth, and we generally know what we are doing. Perception of danger is a lot to do with understanding and experience.

 

One man's near-catastrophy can be another man's amusement.

[matty40s]

My daughter is a powerful swimmer, very athletic and very confident both on and in the river. I recall once arriving at a jetty in a motorboat. She was on the roof and I was driving. I had a problem engaging reverse and the motorboat crashed into the jetty. My daughter was catapulted off the roof and landed head first in the river. I stopped the engine, tied up and walked away while she whooped and laughed as she pulled herself out of the river. The people around us were stunned at what to them was a terrible accident but to us was just a hoot. But we both know the river very well, plenty of depth, and we generally know what we are doing. Perception of danger is a lot to do with understanding and experience.

 

One man's near-catastrophy can be another man's amusement.

 

 

It wouldn't have happened if she'd had a seatbelt on.........

[Morat]

It wouldn't have happened if she'd had a seatbelt on.........

 

Seatbelt AND a BW spec lifejacket, surely

 

Also, shouldn't we have airbags on all narrowboats? and lifelines for anyone steering a cruiser stern?