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

[alan_fincher]

 

Suffice to say that if a court was presented with a case today where the blood alcohol levels were above those for a vehicle, aircraft or other vessel I suspect the court would consider that the defendant was incapable of having proper control of a vessel.

 

I doubt the Police have any powers whatsoever to breathalyse somebody that is steering a canal boat though, do they, (I'm talking about oridnary private boaters here, not masters of passenger carrying vessels, James!), so such a case can never be presented, surely?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Well I would hate to be nicked and spend a night in the cell just because a policeman had seen me drink 3 pints before walking home, I might add I wouldn't consider driving after drinking 1 pint as I would say that would effect my driving but I wouldn't say I was drunk

Trust me, no policeman is going to nick you just on the grounds of having seen you drink a few pints. Believe it or not they really don't want to be taking drunks to custody if they can possibly help it. If you were merely intoxicated there is a good chance they'd try to palm you off onto the NHS (I always used to try ) as it is a medical problem rather than a criminal problem. Occasionally drunks have the annoying habit of not waking up in the morning and the problems that causes you would not believe

[Geo]

Just a thought, I wonder what it costs to return a boat to its original state after being fully or partially sunk in a lock. At a guess £20/30K Which is more damage than the average vehicle accident costs to repair. Of course if there is a death in either, as there was in a recent sinking, those costs escalate.

[ditchcrawler]

Did you block a navigation and cause thousands of pounds worth of damage to anything on the way home?

I can do that without drinking. Lets face it, this year 1 may be drunk ( not proven yet) has cilled a boat, another 20 who have not been drinking have done the same thing. So is drink to blaim or just people getting it wrong. Banning drink wouldn't improve things much.

[alan_fincher]

Just a thought, I wonder what it costs to return a boat to its original state after being fully or partially sunk in a lock. At a guess £20/30K

 

Not in a case like this, where provided it was refloated sensibly, only the very front will have taken water. There have been recently reported cases of hire boats cilled in similar manner where they were perfectly OK to go out on the next week's hiring.

 

Obviously if the whole boat goes under it is a very different prospect, but with many cillings it doesn't, fortunately.

[Geo]

 

Not that you will find in most pubs, no

 

Richard

 

I will bow to your knowledge. Although I am aware of beers being served in certain pubs around where I used to live having high alcohol contents and discussions about their effect and amount needed to exceed the blood alcohol limits for driving and half a pint was the figure that was voiced.

[RLWP]

 

I will bow to your knowledge. Although I am aware of beers being served in certain pubs around where I used to live having high alcohol contents and discussions about their effect and amount needed to exceed the blood alcohol limits for driving and half a pint was the figure that was voiced.

 

Poor advice is often found in pubs

 

Richard

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Thanks for this Allan. I note Geo hasn't come back on this aspect.

 

Re the bye laws that do apply, they refer only to being under the influence of drink to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vessel. This would as stated above be a matter for subjective judgement; no concentration of alcohol is specified.

 

I am not by the way advocating that people should get drunk and cill boats, especially as this actually happened to my first narrowboat two or three owners later - a 32' boat cilled and sunk in a GU lock. However, I don't think there are many of us, are there, who would wish to see the same alcohol limits for driving a car applied to boating, given the differential in speeds and thus necessary reaction times? Cases like this are pretty rare, and injuries from them rarer still.

I guess that the purpose of a driving test, MCA qualification or NCBA qualification is, in part, to ensure the the person does have 'proper control'. However, private boat owners and hirers, in the main, have no qualification.

 

I would suggest that many more vessels suffer from 'lack of control' due to inexperience or lack of training than inebriation.

[Geo]

 

Not in a case like this, where provided it was refloated sensibly, only the very front will have taken water. There have been recently reported cases of hire boats cilled in similar manner where they were perfectly OK to go out on the next week's hiring.

 

Obviously if the whole boat goes under it is a very different prospect, but with many cillings it doesn't, fortunately.

 

I did specify sunk or partially sunk meaning water had entered the hull. Of the several that I have seen photos of this year they have been well flooded with water. From the OP "cilled boat (fore end well under water) in Lock 15" suggests a very high possibility of water having entered the hull. Now how far back it got as she was refloated will depend on whether the refloat was done by pumping that water out or by lifting the bows using buoyancy bags.

 

Maybe we will find out how badly damaged the boat is down the road.

[Paul C]

I can do that without drinking. Lets face it, this year 1 may be drunk ( not proven yet) has cilled a boat, another 20 who have not been drinking have done the same thing. So is drink to blaim or just people getting it wrong. Banning drink wouldn't improve things much.

 

It would be interesting to know how many locks the guy has done sober, without cilling the boat. Of course, one can never prove that it was the drink to blame but certainly a huge amount of comparative data on road accidents, and common sense, shows that alcohol can be a factor in those things. Not just driving but other accidents around the home and outside, etc. I guess its up to the police and CPS to determine if there's a case to be made in the public interest for pressing charges - after all he's already damaged the boat, the likelihood of an insurance payout is uncertain, he may have to stump up the refloating costs additionally etc etc.

 

My point is that the police don't see a problem with people who are merely drunk but otherwise behave themselves or limit the damage to themselves and their own property. But when things external to themselves (like, an incident which disrupts traffic eg a drunk trying to walk home on a motorway, or a rowdy passenger on an aeroplane forcing its return to the original airport rather than its original destination, or a drunk needing an ambulance to be called in a town centre tying up paramedics' resources/time etc) become a significant factor, AND there is a link to alcohol, then they feel action is appropriate. And its up to the courts to decide ultimately, too.

 

I don't think there is a direct comparison to drink-driving (motor vehicles, or commercial boats etc) because there is a widespread perception at least with motoring, that the potential risk to others is magnified to such an extent that prosecution even if the drunk driver didn't hit anything is in the public interest, as a deterrant and preventitive measure for possible future occurrences.

[RLWP]

So, was this guy actually arrested?

 

Richard

[Geo]

I guess that the purpose of a driving test, MCA qualification or NCBA qualification is, in part, to ensure the the person does have 'proper control'. However, private boat owners and hirers, in the main, have no qualification.

 

I would suggest that many more vessels suffer from 'lack of control' due to inexperience or lack of training than inebriation.

 

Are you making the case for all boaters to have to pass some form of certification?

[alan_fincher]

One of the images shows a situation where not a lot of water will have entered the cabin.

 

Any firm that normally deals with refloatings like this, (and it often seems to be RCR), will know how to void what water is in there flooding through the entire boat.

 

I think in this case internal damage will be light, unless someone did something particularly daft to re-float it.

[Geo]

So, was this guy actually arrested?

 

Richard

 

According to post 6 http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=86970#entry1877103yes

[Jerra]

I am a little puzzled by this thread. Normally the forum (well a number at least) take the we don't know what happened properly line but in this thread it seems to being taken that the helmsman was drunk.

 

As far as I can see all we know is that a 2/3 full bottle of whiskey was on view and presumably a glass. How do we know that the 1/3 had been consumed that day. Currently I am sat beside an almost empty bottle of whisky but only a couple of drinks have been drunk today.

 

The fact his wife was drinking doesn't have any bearing on his abilities and she could equally have had a bottle which had been opened previously.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Are you making the case for all boaters to have to pass some form of certification?

Absolutely not!

 

Have you passed some form of certification?

Edited September 4, 2016 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Geo]

I am a little puzzled by this thread. Normally the forum (well a number at least) take the we don't know what happened properly line but in this thread it seems to being taken that the helmsman was drunk.

 

As far as I can see all we know is that a 2/3 full bottle of whiskey was on view and presumably a glass. How do we know that the 1/3 had been consumed that day. Currently I am sat beside an almost empty bottle of whisky but only a couple of drinks have been drunk today.

 

The fact his wife was drinking doesn't have any bearing on his abilities and she could equally have had a bottle which had been opened previously.

 

Thinkthat info has come from post 6

Absolutely not!

 

Might it not be a good idea?

[Paul C]

I am a little puzzled by this thread. Normally the forum (well a number at least) take the we don't know what happened properly line but in this thread it seems to being taken that the helmsman was drunk.

 

As far as I can see all we know is that a 2/3 full bottle of whiskey was on view and presumably a glass. How do we know that the 1/3 had been consumed that day. Currently I am sat beside an almost empty bottle of whisky but only a couple of drinks have been drunk today.

 

The fact his wife was drinking doesn't have any bearing on his abilities and she could equally have had a bottle which had been opened previously.

 

Reread post #5, there's a bunch of info on it. I took the report that the guy had been arrested by the police for it, at face value.

[Jerra]

 

Thinkthat info has come from post 6

Post 6 says floating again now.

 

Reread post #5, there's a bunch of info on it. I took the report that the guy had been arrested by the police for it, at face value.

Post 5 was where I got my information re the drinking and quantity. Unless somebody was on board with them and said he has drunk 1/3 of a bottle how do you know it isn't as I suggested.

 

The arrest is alleged so might have happened might not. It doesn't until an arrest is proven tell us anything.

[ditchcrawler]

 

 

My point is that the police don't see a problem with people who are merely drunk but otherwise behave themselves or limit the damage to themselves and their own property. But when things external to themselves (like, an incident which disrupts traffic eg a drunk trying to walk home on a motorway, or a rowdy passenger on an aeroplane forcing its return to the original airport rather than its original destination, or a drunk needing an ambulance to be called in a town centre tying up paramedics' resources/time etc) become a significant factor, AND there is a link to alcohol, then they feel action is appropriate. And its up to the courts to decide ultimately, too.

I quite agree which is why I said I didn't think that being over the limit for driving made you drunk and someone else pointed out that if a police man thinks you are drunk which by the above standard I would be having consumed 3 pint then he should arrest me as I would be drunk in a public place. I think what we are talking about the extremes are miles apart.

[Paul C]

I quite agree which is why I said I didn't think that being over the limit for driving made you drunk and someone else pointed out that if a police man thinks you are drunk which by the above standard I would be having consumed 3 pint then he should arrest me as I would be drunk in a public place. I think what we are talking about the extremes are miles apart.

 

Police have discretion and limited resources though. They are not obliged to arrest everyone for every conceivable offence, although not doing so may come back and bite them in the arse. I imagine you got home okay with the 3 pints in you?

[Geo]

Absolutely not!

 

Have you passed some form of certification?

 

Ah I see you added to your post after I reply. The answer to your later question is yes.

Post 6 says floating again now.

Post 5 was where I got my information re the drinking and quantity. Unless somebody was on board with them and said he has drunk 1/3 of a bottle how do you know it isn't as I suggested.

 

The arrest is alleged so might have happened might not. It doesn't until an arrest is proven tell us anything.

Thick finger post 5

Post 6 says floating again now.

Post 5 was where I got my information re the drinking and quantity. Unless somebody was on board with them and said he has drunk 1/3 of a bottle how do you know it isn't as I suggested.

 

The arrest is alleged so might have happened might not. It doesn't until an arrest is proven tell us anything.

Fingers although my earlier link to it in Post 64 was correct

[RLWP]

According to post 6 http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=86970#entry1877103yes

'The steerer was arrested allegedly'

 

Was the steerer arrested or not?

 

Richard

[Paul C]

'The steerer was arrested allegedly'

 

Was the steerer arrested or not?

 

Richard

 

Post #5 is reasonable in the circumstances, pig speaks from being in the local area. I don't think we'll know solid details unless the boater themselves joins the forum and explains what happened, or its reported in the press. Even then of course, the story may not be accurate. If a further development occurs eg he is charged (and this is reported) then we may know more, but for now I don't think we're going to get solid evidential information. So, of course you're right we should be cautious in this particular instance although it doesn't prevent a discussion on interesting issues on a more generalised basis.

[Guest]

That is very simple to do. A police officer believe it or not can give evidence as an expert witness stating a person is drunk and this expert evidence will be accepted by a court. Having established that then a case for criminal damage caused by reckless behaviour can be made. Whether they will bother is another question but it can be done.

That for me,causes concern.. My brother in law employed a bloke who used to appear to be permanently drunk owing to some brain condition.

Edited September 5, 2016 by Guest