Legal applicability of International Regs on Canals

[Paul C]

 

No, wrong. I was going straight on along the canal, at Factory Junction, travelling eastwards from Wolverhampton towards Birmingham.

 

The other boat came from the side (Dudley direction) at literally full speed and did a classic "straight-on at T-junction" into the side of my boat, hitting it at the bows which were projecting about 2ft through the bridge-hole before the junction. I had slowed to a virtual standstill under the bridge, because my crew would need to get off to go and set the locks, so even if I had had a lookout on the bows in the well-deck they'd still have been under the bridge so it wouldn't have made any difference.

 

Yes I had used the horn (as requested by the notice on the bridge that dates back to when there used to be a canoe club near there) but the other party didn't use theirs.

 

In that case (taking your word for positions etc and not having a map of the area to hand) you're 100% in the right, which leads to my scratching my head why your legal team are unwilling to pursue it. If you are unable to proceed because of them, at least ask for the insurance premium you paid for "legal cover" back, because it appears to be less than useless! I have always unticked it on my car insurance and saved £20-25/year.

 

There is the option of finding and using your own legal advice, or pursuing it directly against (the insurance company of) the hire firm too. I can't remember the amount for small claims court though - £5000? But more nowadays?

[Paul C]

EDIT: Having now looked at a map of the area I'll confirm my opinion, you were 100% in the right.

[Keeping Up]

I did take plenty of pictures at the time - the damage was significant, and necessitated the entire starboard bow being cut out and replaced. Even the gunwales on the other side needed repainting because we were rolled sideways on to the towpath coping stones. My insurers were completely satisfied, and immediately agreed to pay for the cost of the repairs less of course my policy excess, but there were many other uninsured losses which I am also trying to claim (such as the cost of travelling to and from the yard for repairs) amounting to several hundred pounds.

 

The hire company concerned have simply refused to talk to us, or to the insurers, or to the legal people; they have ignored phone calls, emails, and even registered letters. They are clearly hoping we'll just give up and go away, and the legal people seem to want to go down the same path because it's too much bother.

[Paul C]

I think there's an insurance ombudsman somewhere? Failing that.....small claims court. The fact that they've paid the insured damage will be big evidence in your favour.

[Tacet]

 

 

 

So;

 

1. The entire connected inland waterways system is connected to the sea.
2. The entire connected inland waterways system can be navigated by seagoing vessels.

 

 

 

However, there are boats that are seagoing that can navigate the canals. The fact that they seldom do (and indeed that a particular canal hasn't seen such a boat in living memory) doesn't alter the fact that the canal is navigable by seagoing vessels.

 

 

So why the implication that the non-connected inland waterways are not subject to the Regs? It is possible for the same seagoing vessel to navigate, say, the Mon & Brec even if it needs lifting-in.

[john6767]

I think there's an insurance ombudsman somewhere? Failing that.....small claims court. The fact that they've paid the insured damage will be big evidence in your favour.

I can't see how there is any doubt that the hire boat was at fault, and having seen the damage to the boat I know they hit very hard so were going at a speed where they were going straight into the bank had you not been there.

 

That being the case can't you just bill them for the amount, and then take them to the small claims court. Perhaps it is really in not that simple I don't know!

[MtB]

 

 

1. The entire connected inland waterways system can be navigated by seagoing vessels.

 

Or more accurately, a very few seagoing vessels Most cannot. So small a subsection of seagoing vessels as to be negligible where narrow canals are concerned, in my opinion as a plumber.

 

[billS]

Who were the hireboat company? Just so we know to be extra vigilant when we see one of their boats approaching.

[Alan de Enfield]

I think there's an insurance ombudsman somewhere? Failing that.....small claims court. The fact that they've paid the insured damage will be big evidence in your favour.

 

I am very sorry to say that Insurance doesn't appear to work like that.

 

Last August my wife (with Son and DIL in the car) had a very serious accident when they were T-boned by a driver coming out of a minor road onto a main A-Road.

To cut it short - the Other drivers insurers have admitted liability, they have paid out for our car, they have paid our out-of pocket expenses but we are now (over £100,000 of legal fees - it soon racks up at £260 per hour) into a compensationl claim as the DIL may never work again due to breaking her back).

 

The 3rd parties insurers have said that whilst they admit their client was at fault and caused the accident, the severity of the injuries was down to my wife not avoiding the tree they hit as they were pushed off the road, they are suggesting that my DIL sues my wife for damages.

 

Our legal team are laughing at the suggestion but we are awaiting a court date, or for the other insurers to back down and pay-up.

 

Fortunately our legal costs are covered as I ticked the box "legal cover optional".

[Grebe]

Back in 2012 in BW days we spent a day with the BW harbour master on the SSYN accompanying Humber Princess to Rotherham. We discussed how BW were at that time the navigation authority and their rules applied. We didn't discuss lookout arrangements but did youch on sound signals. He expected the correct soun signals to be used even if the puny horn on a narrowboat would probably not be heard in a big barge. BW (C&RT) sound signals do no tmatch colregs.

 

It has taken me a bit of digging but I've found my pdf copy of the 1965 BW regs. Hope they attach ok.

 

ps. Many on this forum and broads forums jump straight to the colregs when in fact local by laws (byelaws in old BW speak) are the prime definers of the rules.

 

pps struggling to attach a pdf file. Any help available?

Edited March 22, 2016 by Grebe

[Paul C]

I'll leave it with you - I have only ever "used" insurance, as in, had to claim against someone, once. It went smoothly but it was a smaller collision, and a smaller sum of money involved. I did receive advice (can't remember who from) that legal cover was basically useless, and to not bother. I don't know if its genuinely useful in a proportion of cases but it sounds like you're having some bad luck with it all. Anyway, I hope you get the cases speedily resolved.

[Athy]

Who were the hireboat company? Just so we know to be extra vigilant when we see one of their boats approaching.

...and to be extra vigilant if we think that there's the slightest chance of trying to get any sense or common courtesy out of them, yes.

 

I guess that the name has been withheld on purpose.

[Keeping Up]

Thanks everyone and please keep the suggestions coming. I have a copy of the 1965 BW regs and have emailed the legal people, who are clearly more used to seagoing or river incidents (they couldn't understand why I said there was no current on the BCN and couldn't even tell them the state of the tide at the time). I've told them why the BW rules take precedence (rule 13 seems to cover it) as well as explaining why I consider that my looking out from the stern was anyway "proper and adequate" as would have been required by the International regs if they had applied. I'll await their response, by which time hopefully there'll be more ammunition on here too. If they refuse to proceed, I wonder if I have any other options (marine ambulance-chasers perhaps?)

[Grebe]

I'm so glad you've got them. I reckon my attachment post failed because of the file size.

 

Section 12 (4) sound signals

Section 13 Care and consideration in navigating

Section 20 Vessels turning or turning into a canal

Section 23 (1) Locks and Bridges

 

All seem to be relevant.

[Keeping Up]

...and to be extra vigilant if we think that there's the slightest chance of trying to get any sense or common courtesy out of them, yes.

 

I guess that the name has been withheld on purpose.

 

Correct

[Tiggs]

Can any of you legal experts out there say definitively whether or not the "International regulations for the prevention of collisions at sea" apply in law to the canals of the BCN around Birmingham?

 

The rules for navigation on CRT canals are given in schedule 5 of your license conditions.

 

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/654.pdf

 

This and the advice and instructions in the boaters handbook mentioned in the conditions are what you should do.

 

I doubt if there is anything applicable to canal boating that is not covered by this and therefore the international sea regulations are not applicable to the BCN.

 

(Also I would interpret 1 a) and 1 of the international regs as meaning that they were not applicable to our small canals anyway)

Edited March 22, 2016 by Tiggs

[cheshire~rose]

How completely absurd!

 

If it were necessary to have a lookout on the bow of a narrowboat to comply with cruising regulations then it would be impossible for anyone to singe hand a boat without breaking the regulations.

 

I am certain of this were the case then CRT and insurance companies would have been clamping down on individuals handling a boat without a crew long before now.

 

I hope they get it sorted for you soon.

[George94]

How much experience does your legal team have? Their conclusion regarding a lookout seems bizarre. Every helmsman is himself a lookout, and only needs another lookout if his view is impaired.

 

Think about it. If they are right, every single-handed sailor is in breach of the Colregs. But I am quite sure that isn't the case. In my view the breach is one of common sense, and it's committed by your legal team.

[David Mack]

BW Byelaws attached for those who don't have a copy.

 

The other boat has clearly not complied with Byelaw 20:

 

"Vessels turning in or into any canal shall do so in such a manner

as not to cause obstruction or interference to any other vessel

using the canal."

 

Since you were proceeding along the straight route, and they were coming in at 90 degrees, its clear they should have given way to you.

 

I would also agree that you being on the stern of the boat should be an adequate lookout for the movement you were making, but in any event, this is irrelevant, as any possible absence of lookout at the bow cannot have contributed in any way to the severity of the collision.

 

You have obviously been let down by your lawyers, so I would go along with the suggestion of simply taking the hire company and the other hirer to the small claims court.

BW_General_Canal_Bye-laws.pdf

[baz gimson]

if the hire company are a limited company, get a court judgement on the debt then hit them with a winding up order.

[cuthound]

How much experience does your legal team have? Their conclusion regarding a lookout seems bizarre. Every helmsman is himself a lookout, and only needs another lookout if his view is impaired.

 

Think about it. If they are right, every single-handed sailor is in breach of the Colregs. But I am quite sure that isn't the case. In my view the breach is one of common sense, and it's committed by your legal team.

I wonder if this had been a collision between two cars whether the legal team would be insisting on him having a man with a red flag preceeding him?

[ditchcrawler]

I think we are talking about high sea lawyers here who are use to dealing with incidents on tidal waters.

[John G]

I wonder if this had been a collision between two cars whether the legal team would be insisting on him having a man with a red flag preceeding him?

I think a better analogy would be a long vehicle reversing without a banksman. But in the case of inland waters, and in particular narrow canals, it should be easy to demonstrate the convention of the steerer being a suitable lookout. This together with the use of the horn by the OP makes this look quite straightforward to my not-legally-trained mind.

[mayalld]

 

 

 

So why the implication that the non-connected inland waterways are not subject to the Regs? It is possible for the same seagoing vessel to navigate, say, the Mon & Brec even if it needs lifting-in.

 

Because COLREGS explicitly state that they only apply to the sea and waters connected to the sea.

[George94]

I think we are talking about high sea lawyers here who are use to dealing with incidents on tidal waters.

 

 

I am inclined to the opposite view - that the team has no experience in this field at all and is grasping at straws.