Does the Road Traffic Act apply to the waterways?

[Black Ibis]

It's been suggested to me that the Road Traffic Act applies to the waterways as well as the roads, making every unreported scrape a hit and run case.

 

Now, to me this sounds like nonsense - surely every scrape of one boat against another where details are not exchanged is not a crime?

 

But I am not well versed enough in legalese to know where to find evidence that it does or does not apply to the waterways as well as the roads. All help appreciated!

 

Edit

It appears that only in Section 4 (driving under the influence of drink or drugs)does the Act apply to "mechanically propelled vehicles" as well, which apparently includes boats http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/40/section/4

Edited February 26, 2015 by Black Ibis

[Jerra]

Surely with a name like Road Traffic Act it is unlikely to apply. No doubt somebody will be along to put me right!

[Paul C]

Simple answer: no

 

More detailed answer: certain sections of the law relating to vehicles still applies "other than on a road" - for example, if a motorcycle were on a towpath.

[Guest]

It's been suggested to me that the Road Traffic Act applies to the waterways as well as the roads, making every unreported scrape a hit and run case.

Now, to me this sounds like nonsense - surely every scrape of one boat against another where details are not exchanged is not a crime?

But I am not well versed enough in legalese to know where to find evidence that it does or does not apply to the waterways as well as the roads. All help appreciated!

Who suggested this?

[Black Ibis]

This was suggested to me by a fellow boater who thinks that other boats hitting him have committed a crime and should be prosecuted as such, if they don't report it.

Edit

It appears that only in Section 4 (driving under the influence of drink or drugs)does the Act apply to "mechanically propelled vehicles" as well http://www.legislati...91/40/section/4

Edited February 26, 2015 by Black Ibis

[GoodGurl]

This was suggested to me by a fellow boater who thinks that other boats hitting him have committed a crime and should be prosecuted as such, if they don't report it.

Edit

It appears that only in Section 4 (driving under the influence of drink or drugs)does the Act apply to "mechanically propelled vessels" as well as vehicles http://www.legislati...91/40/section/4

[Black Ibis]

To be absolutely clear, I don't agree with this boater, I think it's a bunch of rubbish, but he is taking this very seriously and is planning a protest against other river users based on this, so I'm not going to challenge his assumptions without evidence.

[Paul C]

The Road traffic act doesn't apply to boats. I'm sure there's a byelaw somewhere which could have been broken, if a boat hits another boat in anything more than a minor nudge situation. He'd be better pursuing the correct legislation......

[zenataomm]

This was suggested to me by a fellow boater who thinks that other boats hitting him have committed a crime and should be prosecuted as such, if they don't report it.

 

 

I suggest this "Fellow Boater" has taken up the wrong pastime, and if he goes around shouting the odds he'll have a shelf life of a couple of days.

[NB Lola]

Ah hem. The other boater is totally correct. The Road Traffic Act applies to cars, boats and planes, as well as trains, moving trebuchet, donkeys, horses, cuddly ducks crossing the road in a line, wide mouth frogs and loonies.

[Martin Megson]

Edit

It appears that only in Section 4 (driving under the influence of drink or drugs)does the Act apply to "mechanically propelled vessels" as well as vehicles http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/40/section/4

 

I'm afraid you've misquoted - it actually states "mechanically propelled vehicles".

[Black Ibis]

I'm afraid you've misquoted - it actually states "mechanically propelled vehicles".

Oh yes, but this does apparently cover boats.

[madcat]

Sounds like a wide mouth frog loony has bought himself a boat. There's always one

[johnmck]

A waterway is not a "Road" as defined by the Road Traffic Act.

[Guest]

Well lock me up now, I seemingly have left many a scene of an accident.

 

I have had loads of unintentional contact with other boats, some my fault some not.....it's what happens.

 

Whoever suggested this to the Op has had a very large slice of cheese slide off their very large cracker.....

[Paul C]

Oh yes, but this does apparently cover boats.

 

Are you sure??

 

 

Definition of a Motor Vehicle

The term 'motor vehicle' is defined in section 185(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and section 136(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as "a mechanically propelled vehicle, intended or adapted for use on roads".

Although this is the legal definition, ultimately it is a matter of fact and degree for a court to interpret as to whether or not a vehicle is a motor vehicle at the time of the incident.

The term mechanically propelled vehicle is not defined in the Road Traffic Acts. It is ultimately a matter of fact and degree for the court to decide. At its most basic level it is a vehicle which can be propelled by mechanical means. It can include both electrically and steam powered vehicles.

Intended or adapted for use on roadsis also not defined by statute and again ultimately a matter for the court to decide based on the evidence before it.

There has, however, been extensive case law on the subject and the main point that emerges is what is known as the reasonable man test as per the following cases:

Burns v Currell [1963] 2 All ER 297

B was found sitting in a go-kart. The kart had a rear-mounted engine, a tubular frame, a single seat, silencer, steering wheel and column, but had no handbrake, horn, springs, driving mirror or wings. There was evidence that B had only used the go-kart on the unadopted road once. He was convicted and he appealed on the grounds that the go-kart was not intended or adapted for use on roads and was thus not a motor vehicle to which the regulations applied.

The Appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed. The test to be adopted was the 'reasonable man test'. There must be sufficient evidence before the justices to prove beyond reasonable doubt that such a 'reasonable man' looking at the go-kart would say that one of its uses would be a use on the road.

DPP v Saddington Times 1.11.2000

S drove an unregistered motorised scooter called a 'Go-Ped' on a road whilst disqualified and uninsured. The vehicle had a 22.5cc engine and was definitely a mechanically propelled machine. However, to prove the two most serious offences, the machine also had to be a motor vehicle, i.e. a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on a road.

At the hearing the magistrates found that the 'Go-Ped' fell far below statutory standards and would not satisfy road traffic legislation relating to motor vehicles. They decided that the vehicle was not a motor vehicle. The DPP appealed by way of case stated and also asked the Court to declare that the machine was a motor vehicle.

The courts held that the Go-Ped was a motor vehicle.

DPP v King [2008] EWHC 447 (Admin)

K was stopped by police whilst riding a 'City Mantis' electric scooter on a public road. The scooter looked like a bicycle except that it did not have any pedals or other means of manual propulsion and it was capable of speeds up to 10 miles per hour. K was charged with driving a motor vehicle whilst disqualified and with no insurance.

At trial the issue arose regarding whether the scooter was a motor vehicle. K was acquitted and the case was passed to the High Court following the decision of the trial judge for definitive determination of whether a 'City Mantis' electric scooter was a motor vehicle as defined in the 1988 Act. The Appeal was allowed and the case was remitted with a direction to convict. The scooter was a motor vehicle according to section 185 of the 1988 Act.

 

Only certain offences have been updated to use the term "mechanically propelled vehicle" instead of "motor vehicle". "Motor vehicle" is defined as "A mechanically propelled vehicle, intended or adapted for use on roads".

 

I think you'd have an uphill struggle trying to get a judge to believe the legislation for ROAD Traffic Act, when it refers to a mechanically propelled vehicle, applies also to boats on rivers and canals.

[Martin Megson]

To be absolutely clear, I don't agree with this boater, I think it's a bunch of rubbish, but he is taking this very seriously and is planning a protest against other river users based on this, so I'm not going to challenge his assumptions without evidence.

 

I can see your fellow boater's thinking but I believe the road traffic act is the wrong vehicle (excuse the pun). I think he would need to sue the offending boater for damages to the value of putting right any damage caused. In much the same way as, for example, someone scratching a parked car with a push chair.

[Raz]

It has been a few years since I have had to make reference to this legislation, so I have got my "big blue book" out, but the definition in law of a motor vehicle is "A mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads".

 

A mechanically propelled vehicle can be further defined in a far wider way and would include steam driven as well as electric vehicles for example, but crucially would have to be "intended or adapted for use on roads". A mechanically propelled vehicle can remain to be such even with its engine removed. (Get caught sleeping your hangover off in a scrap car, and you may possibly still be prosecuted for being in charge of a vehicle while under the influence - if it is in a place to which the public have access of course. Strange isn't it).

 

A road is defined as "A highway and any other road to which the public has access and includes bridges over which roads pass".

 

These definitions are used at court to prove that offences have been committed. It is the same throughout British Law - everything has to have a definition, and to prove an offence, the article used to commit the offence has to fulfill the definition, or no offence can have been committed.

 

These definitions for mechanically propelled vehicles are made within the Road Traffic Act, and as such have no bearing on what happens on waterways, except perhaps using mechanical propelled vehicles on towpaths, as they may be classed under the definition to be a road. There is also specific legislation for using mechanically propelled vehicles on land other than a road. So, for example riding an off road motorcycle in a field without permission of the land owner is an offence that can be prosecuted.

 

I would suggest the the legislation used for boats on water involved in collisions, particularly coastal and commercial inland waterways are the International Regulations For Preventing Collisions At Sea. Here vessels have to be equipped in certain ways, similar to the construction and use regulations that apply to using mechanically propelled vehicles on roads, as well as the way that vessels are navigated, similar to the rules of the road found within the relevant Highways act ashore.

 

However, as many inland canals were once operated by private companies, they often have their own legislation, or Bye-Laws that were laid down years ago, and still apply. The bye-laws will now be enforced by the relevant navigation authority.

 

I certainly don't believe for one minute that the Road Traffic Act relates in any way to vessels using Canals and Rivers. The drink driving rules will also not come from the road traffic act, but will be specific legislation within the waterways and seaways navigation rules.

[Bimbly1]

Road Traffic Act 1988 S192(1) defines road as "any highway and any other road to which the public has access and includes bridges over which a road passes."

The Highway Code says that it is important to note that references to "road" generally include footpaths, bridleways and cycle tracks, and many roadways and driveways on private land, including many car parks.

 

No mention of waterways or boats. So the definitive answer to the OOP is no, the RTA does not cover waterways.

[GoodGurl]

also a boat is not a vehicle it is a craft.

[Peter X]

Road Traffic Act? No, this numpty is just bluffing, making up the law to suit his purposes in an argument.

 

Please don't tell him this, but he might get somewhere with the common law offence of "trespass to goods" if he can show that the other boater could reasonably have expected the collision. Also the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 might be relevant.

[bizzard]

also a boat is not a vehicle it is a craft.

What about the Amphicar, DKW Duck, Amphibious Ford jeep.

[Paul C]

What about the Amphicar, DKW Duck, Amphibious Ford jeep.

 

 

What about when a broken down car is towed by another?

[bigste]

No road traffic act on the canals but civil law does apply. For instance if you hit another boat and sail on it is a crime. It is up to you to report it or the damaged party to sue you. You cannot go around damaging other boats willy nilly. There are waterways laws as laid down by the CRT. For instance there is a speed limit on all waterways. The police would not prosecute but CRT certainly could. If a speeding boat caused you boat to tip over you could prosecute the offender because it's their negligence that caused it. You may have a job proving it though, as in all court cases it has to be proved.

[Guest]

No road traffic act on the canals but civil law does apply. For instance if you hit another boat and sail on it is a crime. It is up to you to report it or the damaged party to sue you. You cannot go around damaging other boats willy nilly. There are waterways laws as laid down by the CRT. For instance there is a speed limit on all waterways. The police would not prosecute but CRT certainly could. If a speeding boat caused you boat to tip over you could prosecute the offender because it's their negligence that caused it. You may have a job proving it though, as in all court cases it has to be proved.

But the OP refered to the odd unreported scrape and now we have moved on to someone capsizing somebodies boat, which surely is a whole different ball game, and something you should report that you had done.?

 

I think a sense of perspective is required here.