Drinking and boating

[Greylady2]

The two dont go together, but hey the sun is shining and the kids are on the roof of the self hire day boat.

 

(Happy Days until someone gets hurt or they crash into someone's pride and joy and drive off laughing)

 

In my worthless opinion, steering and drinking dont mix well.

 

Its one or other with me.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Greylady2

[gazza]

It would appear I am at liberty to drink more than most boaters as my boat boat weighing just over a ton has less kinetic energy than most.

In that case, fill yer boots

[Greylady2]

I think some perspective if needed regarding alcohol and reaction times, and the likely outcome of a collision at 60 mph vs a collision at 3 mph.

 

Car doing 60 mph (near but not at the maximum speed limit) travels 88 feet per second, so with a typical 0.3 second reaction time will have travelled just over 26 feet.

 

Boat travelling at 3 mph (near but not at the maximum speed limit) travels just over 4 feet.

 

So if we assume that drinking to the legal BAL doubles reaction times (don't know if this is true but I haven't found anything on Google that states anything other than "alcohol imparts reaction time", nothing stating how much alcohol is needed to double reaction times).

 

So is taking corrective action some 8-9 feet later really going to make much difference.

 

If we compare the kinetic energy of a 2000kg car travelling at 60 mph with a 15000 kg boat travelling at 3 mph we find the car carries over 53 times the kinetic energy.

 

I am sure someone in a kayak or a canoe would take any reasurance from that.

 

Most people get slowed reaction times from 2 pints.

 

Tis just my opinion.

[ditchcrawler]

On the Broads there are a few drownings each year and in most cases alcohol is involved, but it when they return to the boat after an evening in the pub, not while actually boating.

 

Was the chap who was escorted away by the police in the incident we are not mentioning charged with anything?

[BilgePump]

Regardless of whether someone has had three, two or none, blind corners etc should be approached as slowly as required so as to avoid any chance of collision. It should always be possible to stop a boat within significantly less than visible distance and there are some bridges where it is wise to approach at no more than the bare minimum needed to steer. At sensible speeds boats should be able to pass in some of the most contorted of ways but always under the control of both helms, who if needs be may have to gesture and communicate with each other. If someone can't operate the boat as well as they can normally then they have had one too many. This should be apparent to any helmsperson and I think many of us suspect this to be a little above the drink drive limit for the roads but not half a dozen cans of premium ale. Same however goes for phones and speed. Some people should stop reading Facebook/texting whilst at the helm and instead enjoy the scenery at a more sedate pace.

 

On stretches of water a person knows well, even after a pint, they may be far better equipped to deal with those dangers lurking around every corner compared to someone on those given waters for the first time, regardless of who has or has not had a pint of bitter. If you know that a certain feature of the canal makes only one angle feasible for a boat of a given length it is useful info and you'll line it up in a controlled manner. This may not be known to someone who is stone cold sober and has just made their way onto those waters and is bound to give their boat a bash. If the inexperienced boater is cautious enough they will get away with a slow little scrape of the coping stones and remember for next time. Going at full tilt, sober or drunk, and the risk of damage/injury is greatly increased.

 

About 15 years ago, when a friend and myself were moving another friend's boat we got clouted by a lads party on a hire boat near Llangollen. We were running our boat 'dry until moored for the night' but the hire boat's crew were three sheets to the wind and clueless re the waters or how to handle a long steel tube. It was obviously a bit slow for them because they seemed to think they could get it round a tight blind bend with the equivalent of a handbrake turn. Idiots. They were not only sozzled but the inappropriate speed for the conditions made them hitting something (us) an inevitability.

 

Personally I don't often have a beer whilst going along but I have in the past taken a boat out after having had a couple in the pub. My preference as a solo boater is to take a boat to near a decent pub and then have an ale tasting session and then stay over for the night moored up, returning the boat back next day. That is because I can stay over. Two guys I see regularly take out a little cruiser to the pubs near us but have to return to their mooring the same day. They're always in control and well equipped to make the journey. Have no issues with that.

 

Nobody is going to run out in front of you from between two moored boats but 16 tons of steel is plenty enough to cut a GRP cruiser in half so nobody should be flippant when it comes to booze and boats. For those who wish to eliminate danger as much as possible, mandatory lifejackets, hard hats and staying in the marina may be in order.

[BilgePump]

I think ditchcrawler's point is a very important one in the wider scheme of things. A lot of drownings happen when people stagger off pontoons or a boat is on a swinging mooring and someone rows out to it drunk. Once, and once is enough, I've flipped a dinghy after a session in the pub and ended up in the middle of a lake. No lifejacket on and you realise very quickly the gravity of the situation.

 

When it comes to the canals I wonder if there are any figures regarding injuries and alcohol breaking them down into boaters and non-boaters. Just the sheer presence of the canal is a hazard. Water next to a bar/nightclub, what could possibly go wrong?

[DHutch]

Quite honestly I am not interested in comparing the kinetic of a car which is designed to absorb the energy and cushion anyone it hits. Whereas a boat trapping someone between the boat and an obstacle even at 1 mph will do the person great harm. I suspect it will do more harm that a modern car will do if it hits someone at 20 mph.

 

I think I would rather be in a boat hitting something solid at 3-4mph, than a in car doing 20/30mph head to head or into a solid object. Or being hit by a car at the speed as a pedestrian.

 

As said, unlike a car where pedestrian impacts are a very real risk, running over or crushing someone in a boat collision is hugely less likely.

 

 

While some boats with undersized props as is common will perform less well, our boat with its large 'fan' will stop from 3-4mph in more like half its length.

 

 

As said, I think a far more real consideration is the ability to cope with an incident such as someone getting hit in the face with a windlass, or cilling a boat, or a fire.

 

 

 

Daniel

[Phil Ambrose]

I am perfectly capable of telling the difference and the signs were that he had been drinking. Thanks, however for your advice.

 

Howard

Where did I offer advice?

Phil

[alan_fincher]

 

I wonder if that sanctimonious kid recently joined this forum

 

Definitely worth a "greenie"!

 

I think your theory holds water!

[Bettie Boo]

 

Sounds good. Now I don't know how good my maths is today. 4 mph = 1760 x 4 x 3 feet/hour / 3600 = feet per second = 5.866 feet per second

 

So that 9 feet is going to disappear in about 1.5 seconds with a person who is relax on the stern of a slow boat. Reaction times are probably going to be between 0.7 secs and 3 sec. Accident investigators tend to use 1.5 seconds. So before anything happens on a boat it has gone another 8.8 feet and hit that problem feet away.

 

So begs the question how long does it take to stop a boat dead from 4 mph. I suspect the average narrow boat takes about 1 1/2 times its length. say for a 50 foot boat maybe 75 feet. So including reaction time say 84 feet to stop. The average stopping distance for a car at 30mph is 75.3 feet according to the driving test figures. So it appears that a boat at 4mph takes a greater distance to stop than a car at 30 mph and the boat probably takes longer stop. Just a thought or two

 

I won't argue with your maths, but just to say; I don't remember the last time we were able to travel at 4mph, I'd take a guess and say it was last summer on the river Lee.

 

On the GU, we normally can achieve between 2 - 3 mph top speed, depending on width, depth, moored boats and the condition of the bank sides, any more than that and we'd be making one hell of a bow wave.

 

I don't believe most boats travel on the canals at 4mph - some may, but IMO it's not the majority.

Edited September 6, 2016 by Bettie Boo

[howardang]

Where did I offer advice?

Phil

 

Ok. Phil, my post has been corrected!

 

Howard

[Phil Ambrose]

Ok. Phil, my post has been corrected!

 

Howard

Thanks.☺

Phil

[mross]

Here's a better view of the data relating to car crashes.

 

 

I think this shows that our drink drive limits are sensible and I will not operate a boat when legally intoxicated, but I will enjoy the odd glass of wine. Texting or using a hand-held mobile has been shown to be more dangerous ( and I think hands-free phones have been shown to be just as bad) I have missed my turn on the motorways many times, just by listening to radio 4! The helmsman needs to be paying attention and to be well rested.

[cuthound]

I am not sure where you get the reaction time of 0.3 second. The accepted figures I am aware of for RTC investigations are 0.7 sec to 3 seconds. Most investigators use 1.5 seconds as the average.

 

Quite honestly I am not interested in comparing the kinetic of a car which is designed to absorb the energy and cushion anyone it hits. Whereas a boat trapping someone between the boat and an obstacle even at 1 mph will do the person great harm. I suspect it will do more harm that a modern car will do if it hits someone at 20 mph.

 

So your boat is out of control if you do an emergency stop. Where it is going to end up is an unknown, it could end up hitting a boat, bank,bridge or lock gate etc not part of the original problem. How far would it take your boat to stop in a straight line?

 

Maybe a look at the Bylaws , 44 in particular: Intoxicated persons

 

44. 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.

 

Now it all depends on what the courts take as the amount of drink that would make a person incapable of having proper control

 

I hope your dog had an enjoyable evening.

 

Lots of info on human reaction times on Google, for example:

 

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Reaction_Time.aspx

 

None show anything like 1.5 seconds or longer, as I suggested earlier, perhaps these include "distraction time", where the subject was concentrating on something other than steering his boat, car etc?

 

The stopping distances in the Highway Code are based on a "thinking time" of 0.3 seconds, that's why I used it. Note this is about 50% longer than average, as measured by the scientific community.

 

Kinetic energy is what ultimately causes damage. Crush zones on cars are intended to absorb a percentage of kinetic emergy, but are not relevant to canal boats.

 

I try to ensure my boat is under control at all times, by observing what is happening around me and reacting accordingly. I have only once had to do an emergency stop, and that was on the day I bought it, to find out how quickly I could stop it if I had to.

 

As others have stated, not many pedestrians on canals, much more likely to impact an immovable object (bank, bridge, lock etc) or another boat.

 

The relevant phrase in Bylaw 44 is "to such an extent as to be incapable". A somewhat different scenario than someone who is at the driving BAL.

 

I enjoy a drink when boating, but am careful not to have more than 2 pints, so that I am under the BAL for driving.

 

My dog enjoys his training thanks, however he seems unable to transfer the learning into the real world when he sees another dog.

[dogless]

In our many years of boating, I cannot recall a single incidence of someone being injured as a consequence of drinking.

 

I have occasionally seen a day boat with an obviously 'windswept and interesting crew' who were not behaving in the best traditions of canal boating, but have not witnessed any actual injury.

 

My post wasn't intended to be a rallying cry against the demon drink, I was just mildly curious about others views.

 

We occasionally see boats cruising in a morning (before 10am) with cans of lager etc being drunk. It's noticeable, because whilst I love a beer or several, it's far too early for me. 'A chacon son gout' .

 

Whilst I understand the warnings from several posters of dire consequences would not the facts suggest many people drink and handle a boat quite happily and harmlessly ?

 

Thanks for all the comments anyway, I've enjoyed them all.

 

Rog

[Pluto]

IIRC, in 1976, when I was moored at Crabtree Lane, Burscough, a man who fell in off the back of a boat whilst having a pee was drowned after the boat reversed over him. Those on the boat had been drinking.

[Geo]

Lots of info on human reaction times on Google, for example:

 

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Reaction_Time.aspx

 

None show anything like 1.5 seconds or longer, as I suggested earlier, perhaps these include "distraction time", where the subject was concentrating on something other than steering his boat, car etc?

 

The stopping distances in the Highway Code are based on a "thinking time" of 0.3 seconds, that's why I used it. Note this is about 50% longer than average, as measured by the scientific community.

 

Kinetic energy is what ultimately causes damage. Crush zones on cars are intended to absorb a percentage of kinetic emergy, but are not relevant to canal boats.

 

I try to ensure my boat is under control at all times, by observing what is happening around me and reacting accordingly. I have only once had to do an emergency stop, and that was on the day I bought it, to find out how quickly I could stop it if I had to.

 

As others have stated, not many pedestrians on canals, much more likely to impact an immovable object (bank, bridge, lock etc) or another boat.

 

The relevant phrase in Bylaw 44 is "to such an extent as to be incapable". A somewhat different scenario than someone who is at the driving BAL.

 

I enjoy a drink when boating, but am careful not to have more than 2 pints, so that I am under the BAL for driving.

 

My dog enjoys his training thanks, however he seems unable to transfer the learning into the real world when he sees another dog.

 

I think you are missing an important thing about lab reaction test where the subject is expecting something to happen to which they must react, anticipation is active. A person's reaction to an incident which is unexpected and in their opinion unlikely to happen is different and has added times to get the time taken to avoidance action. In the first because it is expected and what is required of them are all known's so there is no perception time,no working out what to do time. In the case of an unexpected incident, the first thing that has to happen is the subject has to realise and see the is a problem that needs dealing with, then they have to workout what to do and how to do it. From experience as a result of those factor it is not uncommon for real life reaction to an incident to take between 0.7 sec and 3 sec and the norm used in investigations is 1.5 seconds. Perhaps this article might help, there are better but time is short I have to go out. http://www.technology-assoc.com/articles/reaction-time.html

 

Regarding comparing cars against boat it is impossible different environment, totally different reasons for being on the boat for the majority.

 

Like you I do my best to make sure I am in control of the boats and take notice of the environment and conditions that the boat is in. That means concentration on the job in hand.

 

I think one of the problems with incidents on the waterways, all, any data that is collected is not as far as I can see released into the public domain, thus we don't know. Also I suspect in the majority of cases people take themselves off to hospital if injured, if paintwork damaged go away and touch it up, boat damage again is quietly repaired. If an incident causes a stoppage yes it will be visible. I am not sure that a death is always visible nationally without a stoppage. I get the feeling that the navigation authority do their best but are between a brick and a hard place, If they publish all the data they have and make all incidents reportable and publish the data they scare the public away and are not doing their job of selling their product to the public.

 

lol I know what you mean dog enjoys the fuss and attention of training, but get out in the real world and expected to put it into action with no fuss etc they just do their thing.

 

correct figure typo

Edited September 7, 2016 by Geo

[andyberg]

I regularly have beer whilst cruising, never before lunch mind, its part n parcel of narrowboating and has been going on for years!

I even installed a beer fridge fitted where my Epping stove should be in my rear cabin so I can reach cold Stella's easy whilst single handing...

Far more important than keeping warm in there!!

[Naughty Cal]

In our many years of boating, I cannot recall a single incidence of someone being injured as a consequence of drinking.

 

I have occasionally seen a day boat with an obviously 'windswept and interesting crew' who were not behaving in the best traditions of canal boating, but have not witnessed any actual injury.

 

My post wasn't intended to be a rallying cry against the demon drink, I was just mildly curious about others views.

 

We occasionally see boats cruising in a morning (before 10am) with cans of lager etc being drunk. It's noticeable, because whilst I love a beer or several, it's far too early for me. 'A chacon son gout' .

 

Whilst I understand the warnings from several posters of dire consequences would not the facts suggest many people drink and handle a boat quite happily and harmlessly ?

 

Thanks for all the comments anyway, I've enjoyed them all.

 

Rog

This one always sticks in my memory.

 

https://www.gov.uk/maib-reports/capsize-of-hire-day-boat-breakaway-5-on-the-river-bure-norfolk-england-with-loss-of-1-life

 

Our first hire boat holiday was a week on one of Breakaway 5's sister craft Breakaway 1 shortly after this incident had occured.

[IanD]

Please everyone, get a sense of perspective. There are many activities where being under the influence increases the risk of causing death or injury to yourself or others and has done so on far more occasions then steering a narrowboat, including cooking chips when drunk and burning the house down, falling asleep drunk while smoking and burning the house down, crossing the road drunk and being run over, going for a drunken midnight swim and drowning, leaning on a balcony while drunk and falling off, riding a bike while drunk and falling under a truck -- how long a list would you like?

 

It's generally agreed that doing lots of things while paralytically drunk is a bad idea, including steering a narrowboat. Fortunately the law has the sense to only make being drunk an offence in itself when the risk -- especially to others -- is considered significant enough to need a specific law, which is the case for planes/cars/ships/trains/air traffic control.

 

For those saying that drinking (not to the point of being legless) and steering a narrowboat is *really* dangerous because horrible things *might* happen, perhaps you need to think about the real risks compared to many other everyday activities which people do perfectly legally after drinking and where nobody says they're automatically irresponsible idiots.

 

If you really disapprove so much of drinking and doing stuff, you'd almost certainly get a much bigger reduction in death and injuries by creating offences of frying chips/smoking/crossing the road/leaning on railings when drunk than narrowboating while drunk...

[IanD]

IIRC, in 1976, when I was moored at Crabtree Lane, Burscough, a man who fell in off the back of a boat whilst having a pee was drowned after the boat reversed over him. Those on the boat had been drinking.

And how about other incidents where accidents happened and they hadn't been drinking, or didn't happen and they had? My guess is that there are more death/injury accidents boating while sober than drunk, so on the same basis should we ban boating while sober?

 

(yes I know the statistical absurdity of this -- my point is that citing one accident to support your case proves nothing)

[Captain Pegg]

And how about other incidents where accidents happened and they hadn't been drinking, or didn't happen and they had? My guess is that there are more death/injury accidents boating while sober than drunk, so on the same basis should we ban boating while sober?

 

(yes I know the statistical absurdity of this -- my point is that citing one accident to support your case proves nothing)

 

It was an anecdote not a case.

[magnetman]

Maybe there is a case for a compulsory boat handling examination like the ICC required on continental waterways? Competence being the word.

 

Cue throwing up of hands. People who like a drink could take the test twice - once while sober and once while moderately intoxicated (6 units within an hour of test maybe) and if they can demonstrate 100% competence at this level their personal alcohol limit could be increased.

 

Your personal alcohol limit could be tattooed somewhere visible to a copper with a breathalyser.

[IanD]

Maybe there is a case for a compulsory boat handling examination like the ICC required on continental waterways? Competence being the word.

 

Cue throwing up of hands. People who like a drink could take the test twice - once while sober and once while moderately intoxicated (6 units within an hour of test maybe) and if they can demonstrate 100% competence at this level their personal alcohol limit could be increased.

 

Your personal alcohol limit could be tattooed somewhere visible to a copper with a breathalyser.

What is the case, exactly? How do you balance the (insignificant compared to many other things) risk reduction compared to the inconvenience caused to tens of thousands of people, 99.9% of who will never have the type of "accident" being discussed?

 

It's always possible for people with a "nanny state" mentality to find reasons why something they disapprove of should be banned or controlled, even when there's no evidence that the risk they're trying to avoid is of any significance whatsoever compared to all the other things that happen in life.

 

There is a general principle in law that people shouldn't be banned from doing something which has some risks but where the main potential harm is to themselves or other people voluntarily joining in with what they do and where the accident/death rate is small, otherwise we'd see bans on mountain climbing, parachuting, tightrope walking, motorbike racing, caving, boxing, and many other activities.

 

If tens or hundreds of people were killed or injured while drunk narrowboating every year and being drunk was shown to be the cause of the accidents then I'm sure a law would be brought in similar to that for driving, and nobody would argue with this. From reading up on fatal canal accidents (or boats sinking in locks) it seems that few or none of them had drink as a direct or even contributory cause, in most cases the cause was inattention or inexperience or distraction or failing to take the correct action to prevent the tragedy -- in other words, human error.

 

But in any case the risks are very low and serious incidents are rare -- I'll bet that statistically more people going on boating holidays are killed or injured driving to the boatyard than on the boat, even with inexperienced hirers. So there doesn't seem to be any real argument -- apart from fearmongering -- to either require private hirers/owners to take a "canalling test", or introduce blood/breath alcohol limits like for cars.

 

In fact the two are often linked, in most cases activities (like driving a car, or flying a plane) judged to be dangerous enough to need you to pass a test, there are also alcohol limits -- for exactly the reason that if it's dangerous enough to need a test, the increased risk due to alcohol is also significant. Narrowboating doesn't fall into this category, and hopefully never will...

[cuthound]

Sensible, well balanced post.

 

If I waant on the boat, and hence mobile phone, moored up and enjoying a beer, I would have given you a greenie!