Jump to content

Passing Sailing Boats on the Severn


Alway Swilby

Featured Posts

11 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Why would one override the other? CRT Bye Laws apply on CRT waterways, ANT Bye Laws on the Avon.

The BW Bye laws state :

"Bye-laws for the regulation of the canals belonging to or under the control of the British Waterways Board"

So if BW (C&RT) were to take over (amalgamate) with another waterway, whose bye-laws apply ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MHS said:

If the approaching yacht is racing and on port tack, a loud shout of “STARBOARD” may well get them to instinctively tack away from you!!

Quite right!? Probably work just as well even if they were on Starboard!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30/04/2018 at 18:28, Alan de Enfield said:

The BW Bye laws state :

"Bye-laws for the regulation of the canals belonging to or under the control of the British Waterways Board"

So if BW (C&RT) were to take over (amalgamate) with another waterway, whose bye-laws apply ?

The byelaws specifically applicable at the take-over date, of the waterways taken over.

 

Read through the "General Canal Byelaws" from 1965 to 1976, and you will see that byelaws passed with respect to differing sections of the BW portfolio were subject to differing byelaws until those were expressly abolished in favour of the more generally applicable set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30/04/2018 at 17:29, Iain_S said:

But there are boats which are capable of navigating both. For example, a Drascombe Coaster has a beam of 6'7", draught about 1' (centre board up) to 4' (centre board down) Able to traverse muddy ditches, and a very capable sea boat. Failing a local regulation, Colregs would apply anywhere one of these can go, and that connects to the sea, which would include the entire canal network, apart from detached sections.

 

When it comes to the applicability of maritime law to canals, case law affirms the general applicability of such law. The venerable case of Moore v Robinson, 1831 [yes, i have been around awhile] saw the Defendant plead that "the plaintiff had not such an interest in the boat & its tackle as would enable him to maintain trespass." It was argued that cited case law to the contrary had reference to "a ship, laden, and ready to sail for Dantzvick. It may be necessary that the master of a vessel navigating to foreign parts should have such full powers and authority as may confer upon him a possessory interest therein. But that is not so in the case of a mere boat plying on a canal" [the Aire & Calder], "where there does not exist such a necessity." 

 

The judgment was: "the cases are not distinguishable."

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.