The Rules...

[Supermalc]

I'll not But just remember......wood floats, steel doesn't

[blackrose]

How can I put this politely ....... I DID NOT CHANGE COURSE !!!

 

I might have moved slightly closer to the NB when I saw the cruiser coming up from behind.

 

Yes, in your original post you said you'd moved closer to the narrowboat (i.e. changed course), in order to let the cruiser pass.

 

I'm only going on what you told us.

Edited January 1, 2007 by blackrose

[DHutch]

I'll not But just remember......wood floats, steel doesn't

Wood also spinters a lot more than 22ton of welded steel!

[Hairy-Neil]

I've encountered this situation before where an overtaking cruiser ends up broadside on the stem post of the NB it has just overtaken and no third boat was involved in this instance. It also occured on a narrow canal

 

And the cruiser's steerer accused me of deliberately ramming him too.....

 

I believe its largely down to the draw of the water past both sides of the NB. As your bow draws level with the bow of the NB there is then a force acting upon the cruiser, pulling the boat to the right. In your case it would also have been made worse by the river flows and possibly currents caused by the bridge.......and as you say, compounded by inexperience.

 

but surely anyone with a grain of commonsense, would have realised what was about to happen....

 

 

Perhaps the NB steerer was also inexperienced like many are on tidal waters.

Edited January 1, 2007 by Hairy-Neil

[bottle]

Supermalc

 

Before you get a complex about everyone having a go at you .

 

I think your 'story' is a salutary tale to all of us to expect the unexpected.

 

May you get out on the water as much, if not more than you wish this year.

[nipper]

Supermalc

 

Before you get a complex about everyone having a go at you .

 

I think your 'story' is a salutary tale to all of us to expect the unexpected.

 

May you get out on the water as much, if not more than you wish this year.

hear hear!

[Supermalc]

I believe its largely down to the draw of the water past both sides of the NB. As your bow draws level with the bow of the NB there is then a force acting upon the cruiser, pulling the boat to the right. In your case it would also have been made worse by the river flows and possibly currents caused by the bridge.......and as you say, compounded by inexperience.

Perhaps the NB steerer was also inexperienced like many are on tidal waters.

 

Neil - it was down to the 4ft to 5ft wash from the passing cruiser......trust me

 

And the NB steerer was YET ANOTHER clueless boater, who shouldn't be left in charge of a rubber duck in the bath, let alone a NB.

 

 

I think your 'story' is a salutary tale to all of us to expect the unexpected.

 

Absolutely spot on Keith.

Edited January 1, 2007 by Supermalc

[nipper]

Neil - it was down to the 4ft to 5ft wash from the passing cruiser......trust me

 

And the NB steerer was YET ANOTHER clueless boater, who shouldn't be left in charge of a rubber duck in the bath, let alone a NB.

Absolutely spot on Keith.

 

Oh dear! I feel this could go even further now!

 

So, in for a penny and all that!

 

Not a Hire Canal Boat and a Timeshare Cruiser perchance?

[Hairy-Neil]

Oh dear! I feel this could go even further now!

 

So, in for a penny and all that!

 

Not a Hire Canal Boat and a Timeshare Cruiser perchance?

 

They are seldom allowed on the tidal Trent....

[nipper]

Neil - it was down to the 4ft to 5ft wash from the passing cruiser......trust me

 

And the NB steerer was YET ANOTHER clueless boater, who shouldn't be left in charge of a rubber duck in the bath, let alone a NB.

Absolutely spot on Keith.

 

must of taken a very long time to overtake the Canal Boat, Supermalc, to get to know the helmsman that intimately?

Anyway, It's stopped raining, the suns shinning, the winds dropped, I'm off down to see how the boats faired over the holidays.

[Hairy-Neil]

Neil - it was down to the ......trust me

 

Not getting at you Supermalc. Just pointing out that this can happen WITHOUT the 4ft to 5ft wash from the passing cruiser.

 

I'd been boating extensively for 20 years when this happened to me in the role of the NB steerer AND had slowed down to let it past too. I was quite shocked at the time.

 

I guess I'm I YET ANOTHER clueless boater, who shouldn't be left in charge of a rubber duck in the bath, let alone a NB?

[Supermalc]

I'd been boating extensively for 20 years when this happened to me in the role of the NB steerer AND had slowed down to let it past too. I was quite shocked at the time.

 

I guess I'm I YET ANOTHER clueless boater, who shouldn't be left in charge of a rubber duck in the bath, let alone a NB?

 

I know your're joking But entirely different, as you had slowed down, not just carried on in an arrogant way, as this chap did

 

Yes it does take a long time to pass a long NB. Just as it takes a long time to pass in front of a large ship. I have not done this. I have no intention of doing this, as it is on the sea, and I get sea sick. But if you try to pass in front of a large liner, you will find it runs over you, unless you have a sports cruiser/fast fisher etc. By the time you see it, you have not time to pass in front.

 

I could also maybe give the same analogy on the road. On a normal two-way road you are passing a lorry. The road is straight, but up a slight hill. All vehicles are allowed to do 60mph. The lorry is doing 55mph, so you do 65mph to get past. However a car is coming the other way at 90 mph, and is unseen when you start to pass. You misjudge the hill slightly and find you can go no faster. The car coming towards you does slow down, and veers onto the grass to miss you, but you HAVE to turn into the path of the lorry, which does not slow down until it has hit the side of your car, pushing you in front of him.

 

The tachograph of the lorry shows the driver did not slow down, and will be held accountable in part for the accident. He could be charged with driving without due care, reckless or dangerous driving.

 

This is a purely hyperthetical case, and poetic license must be used, but it is the only way I can think of to describe a similar circumstance.

[blackrose]

I'm not trying to stand up for the narrowboat owner as I wasn't there and didn't see the incident, but you seem to be venting your anger at him rather then the owner of the boat that pushed you in front of him.

 

Unlike on a narrow canal, if someone was trying to overtake me on a wide tidal river I wouldn't see any reason to slow down to let them pass. Do you think the narrowboat owner had time to slow and avoid you once your boat had been pushed in front of him, or do you really think he rammed you intentionally?

 

You mention a 4ft - 5ft wash from the passing cruiser. Don't you think anyone creating this type of large wash should consider the clearance they give overtaking boats?

Edited January 1, 2007 by blackrose

[John Orentas]

Most of us know that there are some strange effects that occur when two boats pass or overtake on a canal, the boat that is about to be overtaken appears to, or does actually accelerate making the manoeuvre that much more difficult, when completing the overtake it is usually necessary to add power to complete the move. Also when overtaking or just passing in opposite directions the two boats are inevitably drawn into each others wake as they pass.

 

I think these effects can often make people think that other boaters are being deliberately obstructive.

Edited January 1, 2007 by John Orentas

[Supermalc]

I'm not trying to stand up for the narrowboat owner as I wasn't there and didn't see the incident, but you seem to be venting your anger at him rather then the owner of the boat that pushed you in front of him.

 

I'm not venting any anger at anyone. If fact when we moored together shortly afterwards at the pub, I deserved a medal for holding my tongue.

 

The simple fact remains. The NB owner should have know I would not have had time to clear him before the following boat came up to us, and slowed down to let me past, plain and simple. As you say. You were not there, and EVERYONE afterwards who I spoke to agreed with me.

 

Now that's it..... FULL STOP.

 

It happened ages ago. I had no need to post about it, or tell anyone. And it doesn't matter in the slightest. It also doesn't matter how much huffing and puffing with indignation people do, no matter how many. It will not change the facts one bit.

 

I actually wrote the rules out, and printed them on my boat for a far worse incident, that happened to me upstream, when I met 2 large boats, coming downstream fast, and despite my being on the right hand side of the deeper channel, in the proper place, they came at me head on, only swerving at the last moment. Then waving their fist at me, as if how I DARE be on the part of the river they wanted, in a small old boat. I bet he drove a BMW. If I had not been so scared, and got the name and number, I would have reported them, and BW would have supported me with the complaint.

[Hairy-Neil]

I think these effects can often make people think that other boaters are being deliberately obstructive.

 

I remember a time steering a loaded butty on a long line behind a loaded motor on the Grand Union in the Milton Keynes area. A small GRP cruiser decided he was going to overtake......Thats 71' 6" of boat, 100' of cotton line then another 71' 6" of motor boat, both drawing probably 3' 6". .......Bear in mind the loaded condition meant we weren't about to leave the deep water channel.

 

Well, the cruiser nipped past the butty no bother, it being a dumb vessel, and was soon hovering behind the motor's counter. It didn't do so well getting past the motor boat though. Made steering the butty difficult too as the tow line cuts the corner on even the shallowest of bends. And the motor steerer can't just stop and let him go by.......the butty has no means of stopping in a hurry and would have made matchwood of him.

 

Eventually, not without a lot of "canal rage" he got by the pair. We passed him less than half an hour later, he was tied up outside a pub. What was that all about?

[Supermalc]

Oh dear! I feel this could go even further now!

 

So, in for a penny and all that!

 

Not a Hire Canal Boat and a Timeshare Cruiser perchance?

 

No I spoke to the wife of the elderly couple later.

 

There aren't many, if any hire boats around here.

[Hairy-Neil]

and EVERYONE afterwards who I spoke to agreed with me.

 

Is dificult not to in a face on situation.....

 

When the government were closing down the pits the miners etc in public were all 100% agreed that they would fight their pit closure. When it came to a secret ballot they voted 4 : 1 across the board to take the redundancy package....

[Supermalc]

Unlike on a narrow canal, if someone was trying to overtake me on a wide tidal river I wouldn't see any reason to slow down to let them pass.

 

 

Do you think the narrowboat owner had time to slow and avoid you once your boat had been pushed in front of him, or do you really think he rammed you intentionally?

 

 

You mention a 4ft - 5ft wash from the passing cruiser. Don't you think anyone creating this type of large wash should consider the clearance they give overtaking boats?

 

The reason he should have slowed down was we were approaching an obstacle i.e. the bridge, even though there was room for at least 3 abreast.

 

As I've said he went into neutral when I got washed in front of him.

 

I suspect the cruiser also thought the NB would allow me to pass, so we would all be clear and safe when his wash caught us. Obviously he didn't see the incident, as he came over the radio to thank me. At the time I wasn't sure if it was him, or the NB owner being sarcastic. So I didn't reply.

[MartinClark]

I actually wrote the rules out, and printed them on my boat for a far worse incident, that happened to me upstream, when I met 2 large boats, coming downstream fast, and despite my being on the right hand side of the deeper channel, in the proper place, they came at me head on, only swerving at the last moment. Then waving their fist at me, as if how I DARE be on the part of the river they wanted, in a small old boat.

 

If these were barges on the Trent, then they would have needed to take the outside of the bend to keep in the deeper water. It would have been your responsibility to move over and pass them on the wrong side. I'm not surprised they waved their fists at you!

[Supermalc]

If these were barges on the Trent, then they would have needed to take the outside of the bend to keep in the deeper water. It would have been your responsibility to move over and pass them on the wrong side. I'm not surprised they waved their fists at you!

 

No Martin - these were not the gravel barges. They were private fast 'binliner' type boats, speeding to get out to sea. As I was on the shallow side of the deep channel I was in the correct place to pass. It is just after the bend near Normanton Strakes, and if you check the chart, it clearly shows the channel is on the left side of the river going upstream. I was in the center, even right of centre of the river, when they came down aiming for my wrong side. It could be with plenty of water it would not have mattered where I was, however I have been told by many to keep to the chart. I'm sure a gravel barge couldn't swerve across the river, even if it wanted to.

 

I've never experienced a problem with any professional, just the weekend plonkers who think their expensive boats give them ownership of the river.

Edited January 2, 2007 by Supermalc

[Supermalc]

Is dificult not to in a face on situation.....

 

Not for me I can assure you

 

 

I remember a time steering a loaded butty on a long line behind a loaded motor on the Grand Union in the Milton Keynes area. A small GRP cruiser decided he was going to overtake......Thats 71' 6" of boat, 100' of cotton line then another 71' 6" of motor boat, both drawing probably 3' 6". .......Bear in mind the loaded condition meant we weren't about to leave the deep water channel.

 

Well, the cruiser nipped past the butty no bother, it being a dumb vessel, and was soon hovering behind the motor's counter. It didn't do so well getting past the motor boat though. Made steering the butty difficult too as the tow line cuts the corner on even the shallowest of bends. And the motor steerer can't just stop and let him go by.......the butty has no means of stopping in a hurry and would have made matchwood of him.

 

Eventually, not without a lot of "canal rage" he got by the pair. We passed him less than half an hour later, he was tied up outside a pub. What was that all about?

 

Last year we joked about a 'clueless' boater we came across. Well I've now met his sister, his cousin, his mistress's son, his uncle's cousin twice removed, his mother in laws friends sister etc. etc.

 

Having only been boating a few years, I've been caught out by inexperienc a few times, though thankfully I've been competent from nearly the beginning. Probably people are mixing these up, hence the reason they are getting their posts so wrong.

Edited January 2, 2007 by Supermalc

[blackrose]

The simple fact remains. The NB owner should have know I would not have had time to clear him before the following boat came up to us, and slowed down to let me past, plain and simple.

 

But surely by the same token the cruiser owner should have known this too and not overtaken before the bridge. Why is it that out of the 3 of you, the person whose boat was going the slowest and was being overtaken by 2 other boats at the same time takes all the blame? I know he's got a responsibility to avoid a collision but I'm afraid I don't get your logic of blame apportionment.

 

It seems to me that the cruiser shouldn't have been trying to overtake a boat which was itself overtaking and he should have waited until after the bridge.

Edited January 2, 2007 by blackrose

[Grasshopper]

I could also maybe give the same analogy on the road. On a normal two-way road you are passing a lorry. The road is straight, but up a slight hill. All vehicles are allowed to do 60mph. The lorry is doing 55mph, so you do 65mph to get past. However a car is coming the other way at 90 mph, and is unseen when you start to pass. You misjudge the hill slightly and find you can go no faster. The car coming towards you does slow down, and veers onto the grass to miss you, but you HAVE to turn into the path of the lorry, which does not slow down until it has hit the side of your car, pushing you in front of him.

The tachograph of the lorry shows the driver did not slow down, and will be held accountable in part for the accident. He could be charged with driving without due care, reckless or dangerous driving

 

I'm fascinated by this analogy. A car overtakes a lorry with inadequate visibility because of a hill (it doesn't matter the speed of the oncoming vehicle, if he can't see the road is clear then it is inadequate). In doing so, he exceeds the speed limit (there is no legal right to do this to overtake). The oncoming car is also exceeding the speed limit. In trying to avoid a collision, they hit the lorry and it is the lorry driver's fault because he didn't brake!

 

I sincerely hope never to meet you on the road whilst driving.

 

Let's face it, the only reason that the lorry driver wouldn't instinctively brake in that situation would be because he was taken completely unaware by the dangerous activity going on around him. He was probably in a state of shock.

 

In an ideal world, one always tries to anticipate the stupid things people around you might do but the trouble is that people are so creative in their stupidity that sometimes you just don't see it until it happens.

 

I rather suspect the NB owner found himself in precisely that position. One moment he is cruising along safely and then suddenly he finds himself in a dangerous situation not of his creation. Ideally he would have foreseen it and slowed before it happened but as blackrose says, I can't see that he is the primary cause of the situation anymore than the lorry driver. In both cases I would say that they are the ones with most to feel aggrieved about.

 

As for people agreeing with you, most of us do that to avoid an argument when we sense that nothing we are going to say is going to change someone's mind. Otherwise we'd spend all day in fruitless arguments trying to correct whatever nonsence that the Daily Mail had published that morning.

[magnetman]

As it happened to me once, I think that overtaking should be done with great care and attention because the cambelt likes to break at this point. Lucky for me it was just as I got back into the lane in front of the lorry that the belt shredded.

Overtaking can only be done if there is full certainty of a clear road, taking into account unexpected circumstances like cambelt and people doing 90. Anything else is just dangerous.

Edited January 2, 2007 by magnetman