After 4 Years Of Fighting - C&RT Settle Out Of Court

[Nightwatch]

There's hazards all around the system. Boats prefer water on the outside of the hull.

Accidents happen. Accidents are avoidable.

 

I except that there is a potential for mishaps.

 

As long as I'm aware of a potential risk, I would be alert to such and stay awake.

 

CRT, please can you not just issue a warning to boaters and other users, and perhaps place a sign where there are,for example, underwater hazards?

 

Coming up the Bingley Five Rise recently, I was informed of overhanging stones,that the boat could have caught on, numerous times. We didn't catch as I was aware. We don't need signs for everything, but............

 

As a motorist I am aware that there's a sharp bend and advised to slow down.

[Alan de Enfield]

CRT, please can you not just issue a warning to boaters and other users, and perhaps place a sign where there are,for example, underwater hazards?

 

 

 

Playing 'Devils Advocate' for a moment :

 

Every lock has a painted 'sign' showing he position of the 'cill' - how many boats per year get 'cilled' even though there is a sign ?

[Dave_P]

And how often have we heard boaters moaning about too many signs cluttering up the cut.

[Nightwatch]

Playing 'Devils Advocate' for a moment :

 

Every lock has a painted 'sign' showing he position of the 'cill' - how many boats per year get 'cilled' even though there is a sign ?

Good point. I can only say for myself. We came through the lock in question a couple of months ago, none the wiser that there was an additional hazard. We were on our own but had we been with another boat,possibly with novice boaters the story may well have been different.

I'm not having a dig at CRT, I believe in general terms that are doing a job that needs doing. Management maybe a bit detached but the guys on the ground are fine.

And how often have we heard boaters moaning about too many signs cluttering up the cut.

 

Yeah but,yeah but.......

Some signs are obviously not required. However, some are.

[Mike Todd]

Privatization on the cards. Ala Bridgewater? They can charge what they like.

I wonder if that would remain open or of interest to Peel were it not for the huge amount of development land that endowed it. The lack of locks (anyone looked at the state of the former connections to it?) means that the cost of maintenance is much lower - also has anyone tried using their 'customer facilities'? Make CaRT's look quite palatial at times!

[Mac of Cygnet]

 

Playing 'Devils Advocate' for a moment :

 

Every lock has a painted 'sign' showing he position of the 'cill' - how many boats per year get 'cilled' even though there is a sign ?

 

And how many of those boaters have successfully sued CRT? None, because they had due warning of the hazard.

[Guest]

How or why this hasn't / wasn't properly investigated bewilders me. Has anything been done about it now - can't read the article as works internet has identified it as "a compromised website"

 

Be interesting to read discussion on this rather than getting side tracked into pages and pages of legal discussion that Martin started with provoking comments about closing the north,

 

Pardon me for discussing an aspect of this on a discussion forum.

 

I see it is a as a very tempting proposition and very real risk that is all, you do know about how the waterways were previously allowed to fall into a state of such disrepair that they became un- navigable I take it?, and that pre-dated the huge Health and Safety/litigiousness culture we currently have.

 

I don't know where you boat but perhaps you are not aware just how quiet some parts of the Northern system are particularly when compared to the Midlands and South, they could easily justify doing it on at least some parts of it on H&S/cost grounds I would say.

 

The other aspects to discuss are not precluded by this particular tangential point BTW so please feel free to add something relevant as you see fit.

[Guest]

Erecting signage regarding a hazard that stems from how a lock is constructed (Ie with a cill) is I would say different from erecting one to alert somebody to something that really should be repaired.

 

My very basic understanding of the law gained from work is that a hospital would not absolve itself of blame by erecting a 'warning wet floor' sign in the staff canteen if the source of the leak was a freezer that had been leaking for weeks on end and had gone un-repaired.

 

It would suffice pending a repair being carried out within a reasonable repair turn around time but if this was still there weeks/months afterwards we would still have been liable because we didn't take reasonable steps to completely eliminate the hazard.

 

So in short and IMHO just sticking a few signs up doesn't necessarily get CRT off the hook if a boat hangs up on a known hazard caused by lack of prompt maintenance.

Edited November 22, 2016 by MJG

[Guest]

I have often wondered what the precise terms of CRTs licence to operate the network actually requires them to do in terms of outputs for the system. I suspect they don't have the ability to unilaterally close a waterway as that would require an Act of Parliament. Government are unlikely to be interested. Too much fallout for too small a cost saving come the crunch.

 

Like railways there always seems to be a suspicion that the powers that be have an agenda for closure despite a quarter of a century where the evidence is pretty much solely one of expansion.

 

JP

I would add to that "in some areas."

[Dave_P]

To those who are planning next year's cruising - head north.

 

Use it or lose it!

[Guest]

How or why this hasn't / wasn't properly investigated bewilders me. Has anything been done about it now - can't read the article as works internet has identified it as "a compromised website"

 

Be interesting to read discussion on this rather than getting side tracked into pages and pages of legal discussion that Martin started with provoking comments about closing the north,

Actually I don't believe Martin's comments are provoking on this subject. Thought provoking perhaps. Back in the '60's BWB were trying to "lay off" some waterways, and I recall being dragged to rallies as a kid, aboard my late dad's boat in protest of these closures. Also the Bridgewater would have been shut following the breech of '71 had us boaters not have had rallies, lobbied the various bodies etc.etc. The risks are very real in a cash strapped system; maybe not what we want to hear. Nowt is new under the sun, and if we are not careful I believe it is a real possibility that some lesser used waters could get axed.

To those who are planning next year's cruising - head north.

 

Use it or lose it!

Edited November 22, 2016 by Guest

[Dave_P]

Erecting signage regarding a hazard that stems from how a lock is constructed (Ie with a cill) is I would say different from erecting one to alert somebody to something that really should be repaired.

 

My very basic understanding of the law gained from work is that a hospital would not absolve itself of blame by erecting a 'warning wet floor' sign in the staff canteen if the source of the leak was a freezer that had been leaking for weeks on end and had gone un-repaired.

 

It would suffice pending a repair being carried out within a reasonable repair turn around time but if this was still there weeks/months afterwards we would still have been liable because we didn't take reasonable steps to completely eliminate the hazard.

 

So in short and IMHO just sticking a few signs up doesn't necessarily get CRT off the hook if a boat hangs up on a known hazard caused by lack of prompt maintenance.

Quite right. Under HASAWA, CRT would be required to undertake a risk assessment to identify potential hazards and then take steps to minimise that hazard. As always, reasonableness comes into it. Any court would consider that the reasonable response to a dangerous fault would be to repair that fault within a reasonable time period. During that time period, a warning sign would be appropriate. But the sign does not permanently address the fault because the risk posed would still be greater than if the fault was fixed. Therefore a prosecution under HASAWA or following legislations and regs would likely be successful.

[Guest]

Quite right. Under HASAWA, CRT would be required to undertake a risk assessment to identify potential hazards and then take steps to minimise that hazard. As always, reasonableness comes into it. Any court would consider that the reasonable response to a dangerous fault would be to repair that fault within a reasonable time period. During that time period, a warning sign would be appropriate. But the sign does not permanently address the fault because the risk posed would still be greater than if the fault was fixed. Therefore a prosecution under HASAWA or following legislations and regs would likely be successful.

That is how I see it. By placing a sign to warn of an unusual problem, they have acknowledged that the problem exists. I suspect that is how a court would view the situation.

[Arthur Marshall]

To those who are planning next year's cruising - head north.

 

Use it or lose it!

Trouble is, it's likely to cost you an extra forty quid now on the Bridgewater. That in itself is bound to cut down numbers of people wanting to spend a couple of weeks on the L&L.

I don't understand why they haven't put a sign up though - there's one everywhere else! The one at Beeston iron lock warns of a bulge which as far as I know has never affected any boats shorter than seventy foot, and only then if there are two of them.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Arthur Marshall

[Nightwatch]

Is the stonework in question always been protruding or is it happened in the last few years. We boat on a canal system that is a few years old. The more of us that realise the issues the better. It's not like walking across ASDAs car park is it.

[Geo]

 

Playing 'Devils Advocate' for a moment :

 

Every lock has a painted 'sign' showing he position of the 'cill' - how many boats per year get 'cilled' even though there is a sign ?

 

But how many would get cilled every year if the signs and markings were not there. I suspect a whole lot more, myself included.

 

As an aside as CRT have settled out of court my educated guess is that the Court Order contained the words "without any admission of liability" or similar. Thus the probability is CRT still have not admitted to themselves that they were responsible or that they should have repaired the lock wall. The missing or never been erected signs suggest to me that CRT do not believe they are liable else and easy way out in the future there would be signs.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Geo

[rubblequeen]

Do you think a simple advisory sign telling boaters to only lock one boat at a time, would help?

[j04n]

We don't need more signs! I'm relatively new to boating but have lost count of how many times I have read about how 'life threateningly dangerous' locks can be. Even well maintained locks due to risks of fenders snagging on ladders or boats on overhangs etc. Therefore we must not allow ourselves to be distracted and maintain our concentration at all times whilst using them. Sound advice it is too. Yet how many times do you see boaters chatting with there new found friends often not even looking at their boat until their OH yells when something is not right. We should enter every lock with the mind set that all of the horrible incidents we have read about could happen to us and conduct ourselves accordingly. After all we wouldnt drive down the M1 with a cup of tea in hand chatting with the passengers in the back seat whilst making eye contact. Here we have a guy who remembered that he hard turned his windlass exactly 6 times, new that it took exactly 44 turns to open the paddle fully but clearly neglected to keep an eye on his boat. It really pisses me off that in this day and age so many think that everything that goes wrong is somebody elses fault? And before any smart arses say 'well lets just hope it never/ or does happen to you and see if you feel differently then'. It may well, as with the best of intentions I am just as guilty as most of being easily distracted when I should know better but I am certain I wont be looking to blame anybody else.

[Geo]

Do you think a simple advisory sign telling boaters to only lock one boat at a time, would help?

 

From what I have read probably yes, as long as it also stated to put the boat on the undamaged side of the lock.

[Geo]

We don't need more signs! I'm relatively new to boating but have lost count of how many times I have read about how 'life threateningly dangerous' locks can be. Even well maintained locks due to risks of fenders snagging on ladders or boats on overhangs etc. Therefore we must not allow ourselves to be distracted and maintain our concentration at all times whilst using them. Sound advice it is too. Yet how many times do you see boaters chatting with there new found friends often not even looking at their boat until their OH yells when something is not right. We should enter every lock with the mind set that all of the horrible incidents we have read about could happen to us and conduct ourselves accordingly. After all we wouldnt drive down the M1 with a cup of tea in hand chatting with the passengers in the back seat whilst making eye contact. Here we have a guy who remembered that he hard turned his windlass exactly 6 times, new that it took exactly 44 turns to open the paddle fully but clearly neglected to keep an eye on his boat. It really pisses me off that in this day and age so many think that everything that goes wrong is somebody elses fault? And before any smart arses say 'well lets just hope it never/ or does happen to you and see if you feel differently then'. It may well, as with the best of intentions I am just as guilty as most of being easily distracted when I should know better but I am certain I wont be looking to blame anybody else.

 

I hope you never get a boat snagged in a lock. The time it takes from snagging to sunk can be less than a couple of minutes. Also I would ask that you remember boating is in part a social activity thus chatting etc is all part of it. The problems in this lock are hidden and unusual thus need marking just as at every lock there is a reminder about the cill.

 

With regard to your remarks about the owner now knowing how many turns to open the paddle etc I suspect that information was gathered after the event and not before or during.

 

As for blaming others it is human nature to blame others. However in this case I believe the blame lays with poor or nonexistent maintenance, thus the fault lays with CRT.

Edited November 22, 2016 by Geo

[Nightwatch]

I may be incorrect, but the sticker signs on lock beams warning of the cill is a relatively new addition. Perhaps the last ten years. The painted indicator on the coping stones have been there for ages.

[Geo]

I may be incorrect, but the sticker signs on lock beams warning of the cill is a relatively new addition. Perhaps the last ten years. The painted indicator on the coping stones have been there for ages.

 

Have to admit I have never noticed signs on lock beams, but that could be that I leave lock operation to my crew who enjoys doing it and does not enjoy steering the boat. It was the painted markings on the coping stones I was thinking of.

[j04n]

 

I hope you never get a boat snagged in a lock.

congratulations Geo ....... couldnt have gone to a more worthy contender!

[IanD]

Before blaming boaters for not being careful, there's a big difference between known hazards that occur in every lock and boaters should be expected to be aware of (hanging up on the cill), and unusual ones which shouldn't be there and occur in one (or a very few) locks -- for example the fact that Hurleston locks are exceptionally narrow and boats can get stuck there, or in this case locks on the L&L with hidden and unexpected underwater protrusions.

 

Regardless of why the hangup risks are there (age of canal system, subsidence, poor maintenance) once CART know about them they are legally required to either warn people (as a minimum) or fix them (obviously preferable, if possible and justifiable). Not all risks can or should be fixed, if somebody wants to jump off Pontcysyllte it's difficult to stop them but then this hazard isn't exactly hidden.

 

This is no different to any other "elf'n'safety" issue -- and before going on about the problems caused by the modern litigation-driven society, this is a bit different to somebody tripping over a cracked paving-stone -- it's an abnormal hidden hazard which can sink boats or drown people, and not just theoretically, and it's obviously happened on multiple occasions if the reported comments from anonymous CART staff are true.

 

I suspect the problem is poor management higher up inside CART taking the view that putting up a warning sign could be taken as admission of liability if somebody sinks (or drowns) because they didn't fix it, so let's stick our fingers in our ears and go "la la la" and pretend we don't know about it even though the staff on the ground obviously do.

Edited November 22, 2016 by IanD

[Geo]

congratulations Geo ....... couldnt have gone to a more worthy contender!

 

Sorry I do not know what you are on about.

 

Never lost a boat yet, either on the canals or at sea, nor got a boat snagged in a lock, but then I have not been through the lock under discussion.