Does the Road Traffic Act apply to the waterways?

[Peter X]

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.

Indeed, a court would too. I'm pretty sure there's a general legal principle that a judge can throw a case out for being too trivial, and that if a collision had just for example scraped a little blacking off, that would be seen as trivial.

[bassplayer]

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

As is knitting...so it's all a bit woolly really...

[Iain_S]

(snip) 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).

(snip)

 

Although the statutary defence of there being no likelihood of driving would be pretty easy to prove!

 

(Agree with the snipped bits of your post, BTW)

 

Iain

[thunderbird]

Loonies could fit the bill here! As if all that is happening to our waterway experience isn't bad enough, heaven help us if skippers like this really exist!

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.

[Texasboater]

No Brakes on boats either.....surely that's against any Road Traffic Act!!

[GoodGurl]

No Brakes on boats either.....surely that's against any Road Traffic Act!!

Reverse? probly akin to the ford anglia back in the day for stopping distance,maybe worse.

[blackrose]

Surely the clue is in the name, "Road" Traffic Act,

 

I think this boater should be named so that anyone spoting the boat can bump against it as they pass for a laugh.

[David Mack]

The Road Traffic Act does not apply. I can't see that any criminal act has occurred and so nobody can be prosecuted. If he tries to pursue this with the police he will be laughed out of the police station - it won't get anywhere near a court.

 

If someone else has damaged his boat he can take civil action. But no lawyer is going to take up the case for a few bumps and scrapes.

[NigelMoore]

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.

 

The original canal byelaws do not, in fact, “still apply”. They ceased to have effect in 1965, when the new General Canal Byelaws [drafted under the powers of the BTC Act of 1954] were approved.

 

The only exceptions to the general abolition were those byelaws affecting the inland waters as were drafted under the Explosives and Petroleum Acts.

 

The primary legislation however does still apply, except where/if specifically repealed.

[billS]

I think the police will get pretty fed up if we report every time I come into contact with other boats - especially when sharing locks...

 

"Sarge, this guy has reported that he had 29 collisions between Devizes and Foxhangers..."

[BruceinSanity]

The Road Traffic Act does not apply. I can't see that any criminal act has occurred and so nobody can be prosecuted. If he tries to pursue this with the police he will be laughed out of the police station - it won't get anywhere near a court.

If someone else has damaged his boat he can take civil action. But no lawyer is going to take up the case for a few bumps and scrapes.

Absolutely! The maxim is "De minimis non lex curat" : the law is not concerned with trifles.

[roland elsdon]

so what happens when this loony hits the bank does he report himself to to the council for damaging their property or, blame them for leaving a bit of bank sticking out. I believe in marine law culpability is normally shared, certainly my retort when bouncing off those moored in winding holes lock stages or bends insufficient to allow passage in the deep water...

[Top cat]

Absolutely! The maxim is "De minimis non lex curat" : the law is not concerned with trifles.

So if I collide with and damage bowl of jellied fruit topped off with custard and cream, I won't get prosecuted?

 

T C

Edited February 27, 2015 by Top cat

[Alan de Enfield]

I think the police will get pretty fed up if we report every time I come into contact with other boats - especially when sharing locks...

 

"Sarge, this guy has reported that he had 29 collisions between Devizes and Foxhangers..."

 

Obviously a visitor to the area then, as the locals probably don't even realise there are any locks in that section

[Pluto]

As different boats have fenders of differing shape and design for protection for when they hit something, some built in and some added later, the legal arguments could be lengthy. For example, as canals were built for heavy commercial boats which would often 'bump' against each other in some way, is a person putting a lighter boat on a canal being negligent, in that it is not fit for purpose?

[BruceinSanity]

So if I collide with and damage bowl of jellied fruit topped off with custard and cream, I won't get prosecuted?

T C

I just won a little bet with myself!

[Black Ibis]

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.

You say under civil law it is a crime. This is also what this loony believes. Can anyone point me to where I'd find this legislation? His boat is wooden you see, so potentially any knock could do significant damage. He says each time he's hit chunks are taken out.

 

Also he is not on CRT water, but on the River Cam, if that makes any differencr, and the other boaters he refers to are manually propelled rowing craft.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Black Ibis

[billS]

and the other boaters he refers to are manually propelled rowing craft.

 

That makes all the difference!

 

He now gets my full support! Sod reality - go Loony! Hang the blighters (or sue them at least.).

[Machpoint005]

You say under civil law it is a crime. This is also what this loony believes. Can anyone point me to where I'd find this legislation?

 

How can a civil offence be a criminal offence? It's one or the other, never both.

 

According to my dictionary a vehicle has to have wheels. And an Amphicar or whatever can be both a vehicle and a craft, but not at the same time.

[furnessvale]

 

How can a civil offence be a criminal offence? It's one or the other, never both.

 

According to my dictionary a vehicle has to have wheels. And an Amphicar or whatever can be both a vehicle and a craft, but not at the same time.

This was discussed in another thread not too long ago.

 

For the Road Traffic Act and most other road legislation it needs to be more than a vehicle, it needs to be a "motor vehicle" which has its own specific definition which no boat could ever meet.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Giant]

For the Road Traffic Act and most other road legislation it needs to be more than a vehicle, it needs to be a "motor vehicle" which has its own specific definition which no boat could ever meet.

 

I dunno, I saw an amphibious Robin Reliant on eBay a while ago.

 

This one.

[RLWP]

I just won a little bet with myself!

 

Would you have won more if I had got in first?

 

Richard

[bizzard]

For a good read check out the adventures of Ben Carlin and his wife who in his ex WW2 Ford amphibious jeep ''Half safe'' crossed the Atlantic. There is a book ''Half safe''. I don't think he bumped into anything though.

[David Mack]

You say under civil law it is a crime. This is also what this loony believes. Can anyone point me to where I'd find this legislation? His boat is wooden you see, so potentially any knock could do significant damage. He says each time he's hit chunks are taken out.

 

Also he is not on CRT water, but on the River Cam, if that makes any differencr, and the other boaters he refers to are manually propelled rowing craft.

 

Its just the normal law that applies anywhere where one person considers that another person has damaged his property.

 

In this case there have been rowing boats on the Cam for an awful lot longer than this chap has kept his boat there. So when he decided to keep a boat on this part of the Cam, one might conclude that he should have chosen a boat suitable for the conditions he would be likely to encounter. As it is, if his boat is vulnerable to the sort of collision that might occur in the normal course of events, then his boat is not fit for purpose. That means firstly that he has limited redress against anybody, and secondly in the event of a significant incident, his insurers may decide that the damage is not covered.

 

We have seen in another recent thread here that a boater whose boat was apparently reduced to a virtual wreck by the failings of a professional has been told that he will need to put substantial sums of money at risk if he wants to start legal action. I suspect your Cam boater will be told the same if he tries to pursue the legal avenue.

[cuthound]

No, if it did we would also be prosecuted for driving on the wrong side of the road