Jump to content

Legal applicability of International Regs on Canals


Keeping Up

Featured Posts

Yes I agree it should. I maintain, m'Lud, that it counts as a bend for the boat entering from the side arm (up the middle of the letter T and turning through 90 degrees) but NOT for the boat going straight along the top of the T. Mine was the latter, going straight ahead, although as it happens I had sounded my horn but only because there is a sign on the bridge requesting you to do so as there may be canoeists ahead.

 

So - if your 'legal team' want something in law to 'hang their hat on' they can use the General Canal Bye Laws of 1965, which clearly state that the other boat should have used sound signals and he didn't.

The General Canal Bye Laws make no (specific) requirement for the helm to have an additional person in the bows, I would argue that you are not at fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Just to update this topic and round it off nicely, we pursued this ourselves through the Small Claims Court which cost £60 (it's a sliding scale according to the size of the claim). The claim went to mediation rather than to a full court hearing; it's a lot cheaper that way.

 

Today we received a bank transfer from the hire company, re-imbursing the full amount of our insurance excess, plus our court costs, plus a contribution towards the cost of our taking the boat from Milton Keynes to Stoke-on-Trent for repairs (a reduced amount because in theory we could have had the boat repaired at somewhere nearer to home instead of by its original builder).

 

All in all it was probably as good a result as we could have hoped for for without risking a lot more money in a full court hearing.

Well done

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure everybody is delighted that sense has prevailed.

 

However, the Small Claims Court is probably not the best place to determine questions of maritime law, and to my mind two questions remain unanswered.

 

The first is, what constitutes a proper lookout? In my view a helmsman alone can be considered capable of keeping a proper lookout if his vision is not obscured.

 

The second is, do the Colregs apply to the canals (defined for the sake of argument as being waterways accessible through locks of not more than 4 metres wide)? In my view not, but despite searching I haven't found any support for this view (and also nothing against it), except for this:

 

There have been changes to the Collision Regulations (COLREGS) and a regulatory change is forthcoming that will align the Inland Navigation Rules with the COLREGS.

 

This suggests that the Colregs DON'T apply to inland waterways, otherwise there would be no benefit in aligning the two sets of rules, or indeed in having any rules that are already covered by the Colregs. The only problem is that this statement relates to the USA, not to the UK. However, it establishes a principle that Colregs don't automatically apply to inland waterways.

 

I am aware that the Colregs state: "These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels.", but I would argue that the canals are not navigable by seagoing vessels, since these are vessels designed to be used on the sea, and are too big to enter normal UK canals.

 

Furthermore, the Environment Agency publishes its own regulations for the rivers under its control, and these are in many instances not in line with the Colregs.

 

So, if this hapens again, quote the foregoing. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure everybody is delighted that sense has prevailed.

 

However, the Small Claims Court is probably not the best place to determine questions of maritime law, and to my mind two questions remain unanswered.

 

The first is, what constitutes a proper lookout? In my view a helmsman alone can be considered capable of keeping a proper lookout if his vision is not obscured.

 

The second is, do the Colregs apply to the canals (defined for the sake of argument as being waterways accessible through locks of not more than 4 metres wide)? In my view not, but despite searching I haven't found any support for this view (and also nothing against it), except for this:

 

There have been changes to the Collision Regulations (COLREGS) and a regulatory change is forthcoming that will align the Inland Navigation Rules with the COLREGS.

 

This suggests that the Colregs DON'T apply to inland waterways, otherwise there would be no benefit in aligning the two sets of rules, or indeed in having any rules that are already covered by the Colregs. The only problem is that this statement relates to the USA, not to the UK. However, it establishes a principle that Colregs don't automatically apply to inland waterways.

 

I am aware that the Colregs state: "These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels.", but I would argue that the canals are not navigable by seagoing vessels, since these are vessels designed to be used on the sea, and are too big to enter normal UK canals.

 

Furthermore, the Environment Agency publishes its own regulations for the rivers under its control, and these are in many instances not in line with the Colregs.

 

So, if this hapens again, quote the foregoing. :-)

 

I fear that your argument falls at the first hurdle.

 

Whilst it is certainly the case that the vast majority of vessels on narrow canals are NOT seagoing, that isn't the test.

 

The test is that the waters are navigable by seagoing vessels. So, even if almost none of the boats on the canals are seagoing, some are, and that means that COLREGS apply in the first instance.

 

The fact that BW byelaws override some of COLREGS is allowed for, so the position on the canals is that where there is a bye-law, that takes precedence. Where the bye-laws are silent, COLREGS applies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I fear that your argument falls at the first hurdle.

 

Whilst it is certainly the case that the vast majority of vessels on narrow canals are NOT seagoing, that isn't the test.

 

The test is that the waters are navigable by seagoing vessels. So, even if almost none of the boats on the canals are seagoing, some are, and that means that COLREGS apply in the first instance.

 

The fact that BW byelaws override some of COLREGS is allowed for, so the position on the canals is that where there is a bye-law, that takes precedence. Where the bye-laws are silent, COLREGS applies.

 

So, doesn't apply on the Brecon and Abergavenny then, or Windermere, or Coniston, or Lough Corrib (unless having once been connected counts

 

This is the OECD defintion (Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation)

 

Definition: Floating marine structure with one or more surface displacement hulls.

 

Context: Hydrofoil, air cushion vehicles (hovercraft) and barges are included. Vessels under repair are included. Vessels suitable for inland navigation but which are authorised to navigate at seas (mixed seagoing and inland waterways vessels) are excluded.

 

This is of course for statistical purposes, but it is a definition of sea going vessel that is internationally recognised

Edited by magpie patrick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I fear that your argument falls at the first hurdle.

 

Whilst it is certainly the case that the vast majority of vessels on narrow canals are NOT seagoing, that isn't the test.

 

The test is that the waters are navigable by seagoing vessels. So, even if almost none of the boats on the canals are seagoing, some are, and that means that COLREGS apply in the first instance.

 

The fact that BW byelaws override some of COLREGS is allowed for, so the position on the canals is that where there is a bye-law, that takes precedence. Where the bye-laws are silent, COLREGS applies.

 

I think you are expressing an opinion, and dressing it up as fact.

 

As far as I know, the Colregs definition of sea-going hasn't yet been tested in a court, and until it is, your opinion will remain just that - an opinion.

 

Furthermore, I didn't refer to the BW/CART byelaws. I referred to the EA regulations, which are sometimes very different from the Colregs, and yet make no mention of the Colregs. By contrast, PLA regulations explicitly recognise the Colregs, and say that the Colregs apply, except where supplanted by PLA regulations.

 

Here are the EA byelaws. It is clear that the EA don't think the non-tidal Thames is covered by the Colregs:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/289785/LIT_8635_5361a8.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.