Boat cilled fore end under water Lock 15 Grand Union - Stoke Bruerne

[Leo No2]

Just a heads up at this stage that there is a cilled boat (fore end well under water) in Lock 15 in the Stoke Bruerne flight. Mercifully no one hurt. CRT called but I can't imagine it being cleared for quite some time. Lock 15 is the second one going down the flight and at the 'top' end of the Long Pound as you come up the flight.

 

I don't have access to Facebook so if anyone wishes to copy it across to that platform to provide a similar 'heads up' please feel free to do so. I'll try and provide an update in the morning (awful weather out there at the moment) but imagine a stoppage notice will be on its way.

 

Stoppage notice now issued - https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/notice/9279/stoke-bruerne-lock-14-to-20

Edited September 3, 2016 by Leo No2

[tillergirl]

Copied onto a couple of pages, I expect it will get shared from those

[MissMax]

Glad no one is reported as hurt, still very bad shock for the people cruising.

[bigcol]

An news this morning??

[pig]

Moored between the tunnel exit and the museum yesterday. At about 6pm we noticed a boat go by with the steerer a third of the way through a bottle of scotch, and his missus with a bottle of wine on the go.

Later that evening saw this thread.

Sure enough it is this boat that's cilled.

The fire brigade and police attended, the steerer was arrested allegedly, being quite drunk. A lady who spoke to them before going through the lock confirmed this; she was concerned for their safety.

The boat is stern on the cill, front underwater. CART and RCR will attempt refloating today.

The bottles are still sitting on the sliding hatch....

Edited September 4, 2016 by pig

[DrRD211]

Floating again now

[alan_fincher]

I don't know if trying to post this will work? (Maybe only if you are a Facebook user, I'm not sure?

 

Linky,

 

I think I recognise the boat in question.

Edited September 4, 2016 by alan_fincher

[alan_fincher]

The fire brigade and police attended, the steerer was arrested allegedly, being quite drunk.

 

This is intriguing, as as far as I know there is no crime connected with being intoxicated when in control, (or not in control!), of a canal boat. If it is true, it would be interesting to know what the actual reason for the arrest was.

[Jrtm]

No but if you cause damage while drunk it can be turned into an offence and insurance wont pay out if its found your drunk

[pig]

I don't know, Alan, but someone suggested he was "getting gobby" with the police, so. I suppose drunk and disorderly may be the cause.

[Paul C]

No but if you cause damage while drunk it can be turned into an offence and insurance wont pay out if its found your drunk

 

I'm not sure that's true - I can't see why insurance would refuse to pay out. It might be that there's a clause in the insurance agreement, even so I'd expect the insurance company can't put a clause in to invalidate their 3rd party responsibility. For example if there's damage done to CRTs infrastructure, I'd hope CRT would make a claim against the relevant insurer, and that insurer would pay out. Otherwise it would become a long drawn out legal issue or another cost for CRT to bear.

[john6767]

We have just started up Buckby locks, very busy lots of people have turned round and come back this way because of the stoppage at SB.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

This is intriguing, as as far as I know there is no crime connected with being intoxicated when in control, (or not in control!), of a canal boat. If it is true, it would be interesting to know what the actual reason for the arrest was.

It's a criminal offence under the Byelaws to be intoxicated to the extent that you are not in control of the boat, I believe.

[Geo]

It's a criminal offence under the Byelaws to be intoxicated to the extent that you are not in control of the boat, I believe.

 

And I suspect the Police will apply the same rules on the level of alcohol they do to a vehicle driver.

 

eta 15 plus tonnes of boat even at 4mph is a very dangerous bit of kit

Edited September 4, 2016 by Geo

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

And I suspect the Police will apply the same rules on the level of alcohol they do to a vehicle driver.

 

eta 15 plus tonnes of boat even at 4mph is a very dangerous bit of kit

I very much doubt it ...

 

You are attempting to give the police powers they do no posses other than in relation to traffic offenses.

 

**** Edited to add - The Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 does provide for boat related drink diving offenses (both maritime and inland) including alcohol limits. However, this particular provision has never been brought into use.

Edited September 4, 2016 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Geo]

I very much doubt it ...

 

You are attempting to give the police powers they do no posses other than in relation to traffic offenses.

 

If it is an offence under the Bylaws then I suspect the prosecution can be undertaken by the police not just by the trust. If it is not I suspect there is a marine law that could well give them the power.

[Guest]

If I had been drinking, I would be more worried about my insurance copping out on me, than the cops arresting me.

[Chertsey]

Maritime law does not apply to the canals

Road Traffic law does not apply to the canals

 

"15 plus tonnes of boat even at 4mph is a very dangerous bit of kit"

No it isn't, really, not when in the form of a canal boat.

 

While they clearly have caused inconvenience to many, the people in this case appear to have been a danger only to themselves.

[Guest]

Maritime law does not apply to the canals

Road Traffic law does not apply to the canals

 

"15 plus tonnes of boat even at 4mph is a very dangerous bit of kit"

No it isn't, really, not when in the form of a canal boat.

 

While they clearly have caused inconvenience to many, the people in this case appear to have been a danger only to themselves.

There does seem to be very few accidents overall, when the number of boats on the water are taken into account. I have seen a good few near misses though!

I never drink at the tiller; I find I spill most of it.

[Alan de Enfield]

Maritime law does not apply to the canals

Road Traffic law does not apply to the canals

 

 

 

The Railways & Transport Act of 2003 DOES apply to the canals.

 

Non-professionals

(1) This section applies to a person who—

(a) is on board a ship which is under way,

(b ) is exercising, or purporting or attempting to exercise, a function in connection with the navigation of the ship, and

© is not a person to whom section 78 or 79 applies.

 

(2) A person to whom this section applies commits an offence if his ability to exercise the function mentioned in subsection

(1)( b ) is impaired because of drink or drugs.

 

(3) A person to whom this section applies commits an offence if the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit.

 

Prescribed limit

(1) The prescribed limit of alcohol for the purposes of this Part is—

(a) in the case of breath, 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres,

(b ) in the case of blood, 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres, and

© in the case of urine, 107 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres.

 

(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations amending subsection (1).

Enforcement

82 Penalty A person guilty of an offence under this Part shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, to a fine or to both, or

(b ) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.

 

Interpretation

(1) In this Part—

(a) “ship” includes every description of vessel used in navigation, and

(b ) a reference to the navigation of a vessel includes a reference to the control or direction, or participation in the control or direction, of the course of a vessel.

 

 

The 1965 Canal Byelaws also apply as the following section shows :

 

No person shall navigate any vessel on any canal or take any part in the navigation, mooring or handling of any vessel on the canal whilst under the influence of drink to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vessel.

Edited September 4, 2016 by Alan de Enfield

[Geo]

 

The Railways & Transport Act of 2003 DOES apply to the canals.

 

Non-professionals

(1) This section applies to a person who—

(a) is on board a ship which is under way,

(b ) is exercising, or purporting or attempting to exercise, a function in connection with the navigation of the ship, and

© is not a person to whom section 78 or 79 applies.

 

(2) A person to whom this section applies commits an offence if his ability to exercise the function mentioned in subsection

(1)( b ) is impaired because of drink or drugs.

 

(3) A person to whom this section applies commits an offence if the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit.

 

Prescribed limit

(1) The prescribed limit of alcohol for the purposes of this Part is—

(a) in the case of breath, 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres,

(b ) in the case of blood, 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres, and

© in the case of urine, 107 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres.

 

(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations amending subsection (1).

Enforcement

82 Penalty A person guilty of an offence under this Part shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, to a fine or to both, or

(b ) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.

 

Interpretation

(1) In this Part—

(a) “ship” includes every description of vessel used in navigation, and

(b ) a reference to the navigation of a vessel includes a reference to the control or direction, or participation in the control or direction, of the course of a vessel.

 

 

The 1965 Canal Byelaws also apply as the following section shows :

 

No person shall navigate any vessel on any canal or take any part in the navigation, mooring or handling of any vessel on the canal whilst under the influence of drink to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vessel.

 

Thank you Alan I knew I had seen it somewhere

[MartinC]

 

I'm not sure that's true - I can't see why insurance would refuse to pay out. It might be that there's a clause in the insurance agreement, even so I'd expect the insurance company can't put a clause in to invalidate their 3rd party responsibility. For example if there's damage done to CRTs infrastructure, I'd hope CRT would make a claim against the relevant insurer, and that insurer would pay out. Otherwise it would become a long drawn out legal issue or another cost for CRT to bear.

 

Most marine policies include a general exclusion of claims arising from reckless action. As this is a general exclusion it applies to all sections of the policy including the third party liability section. Was this a reckless action?

 

Slightly off subject, but in the 1970s the only insurance company that was prepared to provide motor insurance for foreign armed forces members based in UK had a general exclusion which applied if the underwriters considered that the driver was under the influence of alcohol. This meant that the insurers would have to pay out for compulsory risks (at that time only third party personal injury) but would (and did!) reclaim any such payment from the insured.

 

Although CaRT require all boaters to have insurance there is no compulsory liability of the type that applies to motor accidents. Possibly there should be?

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

The Railways & Transport Act of 2003 DOES apply to the canals.

 

Non-professionals

(1) This section applies to a person who—

(a) is on board a ship which is under way,

(b ) is exercising, or purporting or attempting to exercise, a function in connection with the navigation of the ship, and

© is not a person to whom section 78 or 79 applies.

 

(2) A person to whom this section applies commits an offence if his ability to exercise the function mentioned in subsection

(1)( b ) is impaired because of drink or drugs.

 

(3) A person to whom this section applies commits an offence if the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit.

 

Prescribed limit

(1) The prescribed limit of alcohol for the purposes of this Part is—

(a) in the case of breath, 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres,

(b ) in the case of blood, 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres, and

© in the case of urine, 107 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres.

 

(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations amending subsection (1).

Enforcement

82 Penalty A person guilty of an offence under this Part shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, to a fine or to both, or

(b ) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.

 

Interpretation

(1) In this Part—

(a) “ship” includes every description of vessel used in navigation, and

(b ) a reference to the navigation of a vessel includes a reference to the control or direction, or participation in the control or direction, of the course of a vessel.

 

 

The 1965 Canal Byelaws also apply as the following section shows :

 

No person shall navigate any vessel on any canal or take any part in the navigation, mooring or handling of any vessel on the canal whilst under the influence of drink to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vessel.

Thanks for quoting the relevant part of the Act and Byelaws. With regard to the Railways and Transport Safety Act, the part quoted is not yet in force. My understanding is that for 13 years the Secretary of State has been considering what exemptions and variations should apply ...

 

One of the sticking points is that many navigation/harbour authorities, including CaRT, already have local laws which deal with the issue but are rarely used. Another, which has already been touched upon, is that risk to others from drunk helmsmen is not as high as train/car drivers or pilots.

[Paul C]

I don't think you can automatically make the assertion that any actions under the influence of alcohol are deliberately reckless (others may disagree). So while an exclusion for recklessness may be valid in an insurance policy, an exclusion for being in charge while under the influence seems unlikely. After all, where would they get their evidence? The police aren't going to make the results of their breath test available to anyone else but themselves/CPS for a possible prosecution. And finger-pointing/opinions of other boaters aren't going to be robust enough evidence. The owner would have to basically confess, or a successful prosecution for an alcohol-related offence come about for the insurers to decline to pay out.

 

Although CaRT require all boaters to have insurance there is no compulsory liability of the type that applies to motor accidents. Possibly there should be?

 

As I understood it, the insurance requirement CRT makes to obtain a licence demands exactly that - compulsory liability (to (their) property, ie 3rd party liability.

[Geo]

I don't think you can automatically make the assertion that any actions under the influence of alcohol are deliberately reckless (others may disagree). So while an exclusion for recklessness may be valid in an insurance policy, an exclusion for being in charge while under the influence seems unlikely. After all, where would they get their evidence? The police aren't going to make the results of their breath test available to anyone else but themselves/CPS for a possible prosecution. And finger-pointing/opinions of other boaters aren't going to be robust enough evidence. The owner would have to basically confess, or a successful prosecution for an alcohol-related offence come about for the insurers to decline to pay out.

 

As I understood it, the insurance requirement CRT makes to obtain a licence demands exactly that - compulsory liability (to (their) property, ie 3rd party liability.

 

I think you will find the following exclusion clause from the Saga Inland Waterways Policy would allow them to avoid paying out. I have seen similar in other policies.

 

5. Exclusions This clause is paramount and no claim shall be allowed in respect of: (a) loss, damage, liability or expense intentionally caused or incurred by, or with the consent of, any insured, or arising from unseaworthiness resulting from any act or omission of any insured person;

 

I suspect the failure to keep the helm fit and able to properly capable to helm and control the boat would be classified as an omission by the insured person

 

eta As for the police revealing the reasons for arrest etc. I suspect that if asked by the Insurer for a report on the incident the police would supply the information or certainly if a judge ordered it.

Edited September 4, 2016 by Geo