Lack of platforms at locks

[GuyBarry]

5 hours ago, Graham Davis said:

I suspect that is debateable legally.

Why don't you just go down the offical CaRT Volunteering route,  and stop all the petty semantics on here about "ownership" (post #77)? Doing it that way you get the backing of CaRT if anything ever went wrong.

 

I expect I probably will do when they start their training next February.  However, it's extremely unlikely that they'd use me at Weston Lock - they only use volunteers at the flight at the start of the canal.  Which means that if I helped out at Weston Lock I'd still be "freelancing", and wouldn't have the backing of the C&RT.

 

I spoke to my friend at Bath City Boat Trips today and he's agreed to add me to his crew list.  He's been working commercial boats for 20 years and he's quite happy to testify that I've been fully trained in lock operation.

[MtB]

6 hours ago, RLWP said:

There is a totally non-controversial way for you to help out. On a lock flight, go ahead and set the next lock(s) for a boat. You can't be endangering a boat as there won't be one there

 

And it's a very acceptable way of helping out and speeding a boat up a flight

 

Likewise, closing up after a boat leaves a lock is very much appreciated

 

Some of the best volunteer lockies we have come across (official or not) have been doing these things

 

Richard

 

Totally agree. This is FAR more help to me as a single hander than any stranger telling me 'stay on the boat and I'll work you through'. 

 

Those words to me are an instant trigger for me to get off the boat as quick as I can, especially if s/he has a windlass in hand. If something begins to go wrong, one is generally totally helpless to do anything from the boat. One needs to be on the bank. 

[RLWP]

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Totally agree. This is FAR more help to me as a single hander

It's a lot of help for any boat, not just single handers. Lock wheeling is a traditional and valued form of help

 

Mind you, we outpaced a couple of volockies on the Stratford. They started off setting ahead but eventually ended up closing up behind

[Horace42]

6 hours ago, zenataomm said:

You can't be in charge without responsibility, a CEO can end up in court through the actions of an employee they are in charge of.

You can delegate authority, you can not delegate responsibility on its own. 

Isn't it called 'buck-passing'....

[David Mack]

8 hours ago, GuyBarry said:

But who counts as "crew"?

 

I have an occasional arrangement with the owner of one of the trip boats that I set the lock for him.  He phones me a few minutes before he's due there, and I fill or empty it as required, in exchange for a small consideration.  Am I part of the "crew"?

 

Not only are you crew, but if you are being paid even a small consideration, that makes you legally professional crew. In which case the drug and alcohol provisions of the Transport and Works Act 1992 apply to you.  Can you confirm that you are aware of and fully comply with these requirements?

[GuyBarry]

17 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

Not only are you crew, but if you are being paid even a small consideration, that makes you legally professional crew. In which case the drug and alcohol provisions of the Transport and Works Act 1992 apply to you.  Can you confirm that you are aware of and fully comply with these requirements?

I haven't read them but will go and check.

 

EDIT: Yes, I've read through and believe that I'm not guilty of an offence under the Transport and Works Act 1992.

Edited July 5, 2018 by GuyBarry

[nicknorman]

Blimey some folk do like to make other people's lives difficult and create problems where there are none! No wonder this forum has a bad reputation for putting of newcomers.

[zenataomm]

38 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

Blimey some folk do like to make other people's lives difficult and create problems where there are none! No wonder this forum has a bad reputation for putting of newcomers.

I don't disagree.

 

However and equally sadly we live in a litigious world.

Where there's a blame there's a claim the adverts scream at us, no win no fee is the other one.  And it's a two way street …….

 

"M'lud my client's boat was sunk when the accused, an untrained nor qualified professional opened a paddle unexpectedly.  He claims he told my client he wasn't approved , but from the bottom of a deep lock and over the sound of his engine, he thought he was agreeing to someone saying his boat was nice.  My client requires a positive civil action in his favour and the accused's home be seized and sold to recompense my client for the loss of his boat."

 

"M'lud my client is claiming compensation for the trauma he sustained when he obeyed the request of a boatowner who instructed him to lift that ….. and then open the other ….. My client has no formal training, nor is he a boater, he was totally reliant upon the boat owner.  Imagine his horror when the boat sank with people trying to escape? My client requires a positive civil action in his favour and the accused's home be seized and sold to recompense my client for the trauma he sustained"

 

Sure, it may only happen once in a hundred years, but the courts are already full of such activity and the adverts are getting more frequent.

I'd prefer to sleep at night by avoiding such risks ….. sadly.

[nicknorman]

12 minutes ago, zenataomm said:

I don't disagree.

 

However and equally sadly we live in a litigious world.

Where there's a blame there's a claim the adverts scream at us, no win no fee is the other one.  And it's a two way street …….

 

"M'lud my client's boat was sunk when the accused, an untrained nor qualified professional opened a paddle unexpectedly.  He claims he told my client he wasn't approved , but from the bottom of a deep lock and over the sound of his engine, he thought he was agreeing to someone saying his boat was nice.  My client requires a positive civil action in his favour and the accused's home be seized and sold to recompense my client for the loss of his boat."

 

"M'lud my client is claiming compensation for the trauma he sustained when he obeyed the request of a boatowner who instructed him to lift that ….. and then open the other ….. My client has no formal training, nor is he a boater, he was totally reliant upon the boat owner.  Imagine his horror when the boat sank with people trying to escape? My client requires a positive civil action in his favour and the accused's home be seized and sold to recompense my client for the trauma he sustained"

 

Sure, it may only happen once in a hundred years, but the courts are already full of such activity and the adverts are getting more frequent.

I'd prefer to sleep at night by avoiding such risks ….. sadly.

It's very easy to catastrophise with this sort of story. Folk who listen will no doubt become even more risk averse and choose to stay at home watching the telly (whereupon they will die early due to obesity / lack of exercise). I call it scaremongering. Has it ever actually happened? No, it hasn't, so I don't think it is helpful to suggest such things. One simply cannot go through life worrying about the worst that could (im)possibly happen (even though it never can) and still find life worth living.

 

The bottom line is that your post is entirely fantasy and as such, not very nice.

Edited July 5, 2018 by nicknorman

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, nicknorman said:

Blimey some folk do like to make other people's lives difficult and create problems where there are none! No wonder this forum has a bad reputation for putting of newcomers.

Didn't expect to be giving you a greenie on this thread

30 minutes ago, zenataomm said:

I don't disagree.

 

However and equally sadly we live in a litigious world.

Where there's a blame there's a claim the adverts scream at us, no win no fee is the other one.  And it's a two way street …….

 

"M'lud my client's boat was sunk when the accused, an untrained nor qualified professional opened a paddle unexpectedly.  He claims he told my client he wasn't approved , but from the bottom of a deep lock and over the sound of his engine, he thought he was agreeing to someone saying his boat was nice.  My client requires a positive civil action in his favour and the accused's home be seized and sold to recompense my client for the loss of his boat."

 

"M'lud my client is claiming compensation for the trauma he sustained when he obeyed the request of a boatowner who instructed him to lift that ….. and then open the other ….. My client has no formal training, nor is he a boater, he was totally reliant upon the boat owner.  Imagine his horror when the boat sank with people trying to escape? My client requires a positive civil action in his favour and the accused's home be seized and sold to recompense my client for the trauma he sustained"

 

Sure, it may only happen once in a hundred years, but the courts are already full of such activity and the adverts are getting more frequent.

I'd prefer to sleep at night by avoiding such risks ….. sadly.

Don't share a lock, it could be you.

[GuyBarry]

7 hours ago, zenataomm said:

 

"M'lud my client's boat was sunk when the accused, an untrained nor qualified professional opened a paddle unexpectedly.  He claims he told my client he wasn't approved , but from the bottom of a deep lock and over the sound of his engine, he thought he was agreeing to someone saying his boat was nice.  My client requires a positive civil action in his favour and the accused's home be seized and sold to recompense my client for the loss of his boat."

 

So what about the time when I helped to stop a boat from sinking?  The trip boat was going down through the lock and a narrowboat was alongside it (the lock is wide enough for this, comfortably).  On this occasion, though, the narrowboat crew didn't secure their boat properly and it started to overturn.  The owner of the trip boat yelled out "Close the paddles!" and I raced down to the lower end and did so.  (As a result I now know not to leave the paddles when they're in operation.)  The narrowboat's engine flooded and it had to be pulled backwards out of the lock.  If I hadn't been there to close the paddles it could have sunk and might possibly have brought the trip boat down with it.

[Jerra]

50 minutes ago, GuyBarry said:

 If I hadn't been there to close the paddles it could have sunk and might possibly have brought the trip boat down with it.

Well done on prompt action, but if you hadn't been there somebody else would have been there to operate the paddles.

[GuyBarry]

6 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Well done on prompt action, but if you hadn't been there somebody else would have been there to operate the paddles.

There was someone on the other side, but no one else on my side.  The person on the other side would have had to cross and drop the paddle on my side.  Those few crucial seconds could have made all the difference.

[Jerra]

2 minutes ago, GuyBarry said:

There was someone on the other side, but no one else on my side.  The person on the other side would have had to cross and drop the paddle on my side.  Those few crucial seconds could have made all the difference.

They may have made the difference but the normal situation for many, is a single person working the lock, so not unusual and disaster are avoided by single lock handlers.

 

Perhaps a more experienced lock handler wouldn't have had to "race down to the lower end" being already there or even spotted the problem before it developed to such a bad situation.

 

None of this detracts from your prompt action but I do feel you aren't quite recognising the responsibilities and dangers of being the person handling the bank side.

[X Alan W]

20 hours ago, furnessvale said:

Interesting that my experience of breasting dissimilar length boats is quite different.

 

Whilst sterns together allows one bow to enter first, I have found the devil's own job in getting the first boat neatly alongside the lock, especially with wind or water flow, such that the second boat's bows can take a nasty clout from the wing wall before you are aligned.

 

For what it is worth, I always tie bows together  and steer from the longer boat so that both bows neatly enter together as if they were a wide beam.

 

George

I found the same as you works better bows level problem is there is not always a good way of tying the shorter boat the longer one may not have any  method of tying off

[GuyBarry]

1 minute ago, Jerra said:

Perhaps a more experienced lock handler wouldn't have had to "race down to the lower end" being already there or even spotted the problem before it developed to such a bad situation.

 

 

Yes, I take your point about that, and as a result I now always stay with the paddles when they're in use.  It's all a learning experience.

 

The more I do this, the more I'm aware of the responsibilities and dangers of the role.  I'm sure I'd benefit from formal training, but the crew on the trip boat are very knowledgeable and have made me aware of a lot that I didn't know before.  As I said above, they're going to put me down on their crew list now in order to avoid any legal issues.

[mayalld]

12 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Totally agree. This is FAR more help to me as a single hander than any stranger telling me 'stay on the boat and I'll work you through'. 

 

Those words to me are an instant trigger for me to get off the boat as quick as I can, especially if s/he has a windlass in hand. If something begins to go wrong, one is generally totally helpless to do anything from the boat. One needs to be on the bank. 

 

Quite.

 

The trouble is that it isn't as much fun for the putative helper.

 

Somebody who actually wants to help will do just this. Somebody whose "help" is more about wanting to play won't.

 

By way of an example, we were recently moored at the bottom of Bosley for the night, it was around 7pm, and I had wandered up the flight with the grandchildren and their dog. A boat was coming down, so on the way back, we opened the top gates for them.

[Athy]

19 hours ago, mayalld said:

 

 

 

As to the legal situation; an untrained crew member has authority to operate a lock, because he or she is part of the crew of a boat, and CRT say that they can operate locks. You have no such authority, and you shouldn't touch them.

You have raised, en passant, a point which affects most of us. What about the crew of a different boat? By this I mean, when a boat arrives at a lock and there's already one going through, or there is a queue to go through it, a crew member from the newly-arrived boat goes to help with operating the paddles and gates. Most of us do it, and mostmof us don't think much of a boat crew who don't join in. It speeds locking and breeds camaraderie. It is a Good Thing.

 

But, is it also a Liable Thing? If someone from another boat is helping at the lock, and there is an accident, could he be hauled over the legal coals? If so, we could have a culture in which everyone stays on their own boat, drinks their coffee and watches the crew who are working their own boat through the lock. This would be a Bad Thing.

 

Would it not? 

Edited July 6, 2018 by Athy

[alan_fincher]

10 minutes ago, GuyBarry said:

Yes, I take your point about that, and as a result I now always stay with the paddles when they're in use.  It's all a learning experience.

 

The more I do this, the more I'm aware of the responsibilities and dangers of the role.  I'm sure I'd benefit from formal training, but the crew on the trip boat are very knowledgeable and have made me aware of a lot that I didn't know before.  As I said above, they're going to put me down on their crew list now in order to avoid any legal issues.

 

The problem I'm having with your posts is that they fully acknowledge that there was a lot you were not aware of when you first started doing this.

 

Even leaving you pesonally out of this, and just taking the putative example of someone who is keen, has acquired a windlass, and turns up at thelock-side waiting to help, any boater accepting that help is actually potentially being assisted by someonee who may not know a lot, and who could implicate them in something dangerous.

 

I don't want anybody's "learning experiences" putting me at grater risk than I need to be.

 

Nearly 50 years ago, I used to do more or less exactly what you are - turn out and assist boats through our local locks.  These days I'm aware of several places on the system where interested people still do the same.  The problem, of course, when such a person appears, and you have never met them before, is you don't know whether they are highly experienced, or have literally just found a windlass that someone has managed to leave behind at the lock, and are now keen to find out what it is like to use one.

[GuyBarry]

12 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

 

The problem I'm having with your posts is that they fully acknowledge that there was a lot you were not aware of when you first started doing this.

 

I never intended to start doing it at all.  I just used to sit by the side of the lock and watch the boats going through, as many people do.  Then people started asking me to help out with the gates from time to time, and that's all I did.  I knew the owner of the trip boat personally and after I'd been helping him with the gates for a while I asked whether I could have a windlass and help out with the paddles.  He agreed to let me have one of his spare windlasses and gave me some basic training.  Both he and his crew member have been very helpful.  The fact that they trust me enough now to put me on their crew list shows that I must be doing something right.

 

So I don't regard myself as just some random person with a windlass.  I do, however, appreciate your concerns about people just turning up at locks with windlasses - but how do you stop them?  Anyone can buy a windlass - they're £15 at Bath Marina.  I've found two just lying around since I started helping out at the lock.  What procedures can you possibly put in place to prevent people from using them, beyond closing the lock off to the public completely?

[RLWP]

Just now, GuyBarry said:

What procedures can you possibly put in place to prevent people from using them

On an empty lock, nothing. On a lock with my boat in it - I'm sure strong language would be sufficient

 

Richard

[Horace42]

11 hours ago, zenataomm said:

I don't disagree.

 

However and equally sadly we live in a litigious world.

Where there's a blame there's a claim the adverts scream at us, no win no fee is the other one.  And it's a two way street …….

 

"M'lud my client's boat was sunk when the accused, an untrained nor qualified professional opened a paddle unexpectedly.  He claims he told my client he wasn't approved , but from the bottom of a deep lock and over the sound of his engine, he thought he was agreeing to someone saying his boat was nice.  My client requires a positive civil action in his favour and the accused's home be seized and sold to recompense my client for the loss of his boat."

 

"M'lud my client is claiming compensation for the trauma he sustained when he obeyed the request of a boatowner who instructed him to lift that ….. and then open the other ….. My client has no formal training, nor is he a boater, he was totally reliant upon the boat owner.  Imagine his horror when the boat sank with people trying to escape? My client requires a positive civil action in his favour and the accused's home be seized and sold to recompense my client for the trauma he sustained"

 

Sure, it may only happen once in a hundred years, but the courts are already full of such activity and the adverts are getting more frequent.

I'd prefer to sleep at night by avoiding such risks ….. sadly.

Rephrased - Boater's case: 

"I am a fully trained, fully competent and experience boater, and was fully in control of my boat and it sank entirely due to a mistake made by an untrained, incompetent helper who opened a paddle thinking I had given approval. But as I had not given approval, and not expecting the paddle to be opened, the water rushed in totally unseen by me, and without my knowledge, to the extent the water level in the lock rose totally unnoticed by me, and the incompetent helper not trained in recognizing boats in trouble and thus failing to warn me that my boat was in danger of sinking. The very first  indication to me that something was wrong, and thus outside my control,  was when I was up to my ankles in water - by then it was too late - and my boat just sank. We experienced boaters need protection from untrained lockies."

 

 

[Athy]

4 minutes ago, Horace42 said:

Rephrased - Boater's case: 

"I am a fully trained, fully competent and experience boater, and was fully in control of my boat and it sank entirely due to a mistake made by an untrained, incompetent helper who opened a paddle thinking I had given approval. But as I had not given approval, and not expecting the paddle to be opened, the water rushed in totally unseen by me, and without my knowledge, to the extent the water level in the lock rose totally unnoticed by me, and the incompetent helper not trained in recognizing boats in trouble and thus failing to warn me that my boat was in danger of sinking. The very first  indication to me that something was wrong, and thus outside my control,  was when I was up to my ankles in water - by then it was too late - and my boat just sank. We experienced boaters need protection from untrained lockies."

 

 

Tee-hee.

That would sink without trace in court, I think.

[Boat&Bikes]

3 hours ago, Athy said:

You have raised, en passant, a point which affects most of us. What about the crew of a different boat? By this I mean, when a boat arrives at a lock and there's already one going through, or there is a queue to go through it, a crew member from the newly-arrived boat goes to help with operating the paddles and gates. Most of us do it, and mostmof us don't think much of a boat crew who don't join in. It speeds locking and breeds camaraderie. It is a Good Thing.

 

But, is it also a Liable Thing? If someone from another boat is helping at the lock, and there is an accident, could he be hauled over the legal coals? If so, we could have a culture in which everyone stays on their own boat, drinks their coffee and watches the crew who are working their own boat through the lock. This would be a Bad Thing.

 

Would it not? 

Usually a bad thing. Not on the two occasions that I suffered boat paint and pepper mill damage last summer though.

[Athy]

11 minutes ago, ianali said:

Usually a bad thing. Not on the two occasions that I suffered boat paint and pepper mill damage last summer though.

The mind boggles; they threw a pepper mill at your boat and it chipped the paint?

Lucky you were already a seasoned boater.