Jump to content

Boat sunk, by Stag Party?


Bewildered

Featured Posts

29 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

CRT have a policy so I understand, of not prosecuting byelaw infringements. Time this changed, perhaps. 

 

Absolutely. BW/CaRT became so pixilated on s.8 as the most satisfyingly punitive measure, that byelaw prosecutions came to be seen as worthless due to what one misguided judge called “derisory” penalties. Other navigation authorities – notably the EA – see it otherwise, and are the exemplar in this respect.

 

As to the hire boat activities, plenty of byelaws are applicable to the related circumstances -

 

13. Every vessel navigating on any canal shall at all times be navigated with care and reasonable consideration for all persons using the canal or being on the banks thereof and in particular in such a manner as will not obstruct the passage of any other vessel using the canal or involve risk of collision or endanger the safety of other vessels or their moorings or cause damage thereto or to the banks of the canal or to any part of the Board’s property.

14. No person shall navigate a power-driven vessel on any canal at a speed over the bed of the canal greater than the following:- (c) On any canal or part thereof other than those to which paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof apply, a speed of 4 miles per hour . . .

16. No vessel shall overtake or pass another vessel on any part of any canal without observing due precautions to avoid danger or risk to either vessel or the canal or to any works, person or property.

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.

 

And just possibly –

 

52. The master of any vessel using any canal shall be responsible for the safety and security of the vessel and its mooring and shall be answerable to the Board for any damage done by such vessel or by any person employed about the same to the canal, vessels, goods and property of the Board in or on any part of the canal;

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, dmr said:

He does have two boats I believe , the other boat is literally a  (possibly)  mobile scrap yard. I think one plan is to use the money donated to put a cabin onto this boat, but I don't know if he will part with the crap. These boats are a major eyesore. I have very mixed feelings about how boats on the cut should look but as the Canals are dependent upon public money to survive I have limited patience for those who go out of their way to aggravate or upset the public. 

 

I was having my anti-high speed cycling rant to CaRT again recently and a point raised is that many towpath visitors want to see more "pretty" boats and less scruffy ones. We all have our part to play in protecting our way of life.

 

...............Dave

This is always going to be a tough call. We were moored next to a boat at Fenny last week and I talked to the chap and after about ten minutes he said Oh do you live full time on the boat then? With a suprised look on his face. I immediately new what he meant as we dress err normal, don't have weird hair and there is absolutely nothing on our roof other than pole, ladder etc, no boxes, bikes, wood or other mess. As long time liveaboards we have learnt to keep the roof clear, our first boat had crap on the roof but when we sold that in 94 we have kept mostly clear since. I told him we had lived aboard for yonks and he stated we were not at all like the gypsies he normally encountered. He was a nice enough chap and I have loads of mates with crap on the roof ? But who says who or what is right and how do you draw a line?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strange thing that at the turn of the century boats had to be registered as a dwelling and were subject to health inspection yet now...

 

my class warfare comment was aimed at the hooray henrys  incidentaly not the boatowner. The mr turd oh sorry cant delete toad poop pooping in their wange wovers on the woad are the same ilk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

I am not saying hire boats should be banned. They are an important part of canal boat life and essential for the continuation of the network. I am saying that they should not be under the control of someone 'under the influence' as per the law.

Byelaw 44 is pretty wooly with regards drinking.

 

"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"

 

Very open to interpretation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

Byelaw 44 is pretty wooly with regards drinking.

 

"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"

 

Very open to interpretation. 

Surely the moment they collide with something and or navigate in ways not allowed (speeds breaking wash etc) they are showing themselves to not have proper control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, NigelMoore said:

Absolutely. BW/CaRT became so pixilated on s.8 as the most satisfyingly punitive measure, that byelaw prosecutions came to be seen as worthless due to what one misguided judge called “derisory” penalties. Other navigation authorities – notably the EA – see it otherwise, and are the exemplar in this respect.

 

I think you have said in the past that CRT are the only body able to mount a prosecution under the byelaws. Is there a duty on CRT to prosecute breaches or are they entitled to decide not to? Is there any mechanism to make them apply the law?  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jerra said:

Surely the moment they collide with something and or navigate in ways not allowed (speeds breaking wash etc) they are showing themselves to not have proper control.

Yes, this exactly - drink if you like, but be prepared to have the book thrown at you if it all goes wrong and you are found to be under the influence.

 

It's the opposite thinking to the drink-driving laws, where the precise amount of alcohol permissible is regulated.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nut said:

what ever the facts , he needs help so lets help, a little compassion goes along way

Get real, why should other people look after him? when he can't even look after himself or his boat, Too many tree huggers with the luvvy dovey, peacy, huggy atitude coming on the canals, people have got to take responsibility of their own actions and life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ditchcrawler said:

The one with a tree down on it at Rugby is looking for some monetary help as well

Yes, I saw a funding appeal for this. If I recall correctly, there was a reference that it was to cover shortfalls in insurance payouts, such as them being liveaboards and needing to rent alternative accommodation. This may be a heads-up for liveaboards to consider their level of insurance cover should their boat be made uninhabitable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I think you have said in the past that CRT are the only body able to mount a prosecution under the byelaws. Is there a duty on CRT to prosecute breaches or are they entitled to decide not to? Is there any mechanism to make them apply the law?  

 

They may be the only body enabled to prosecute under their own byelaws (whether the CPS would or could take it up I don’t know).

 

There is always discretion permitted as to any decision to prosecute. I imagine that the only ‘duty’ to do so would be wrapped up in the duty to govern the waterways for the benefit of its users. I am dubious as to whether any mechanism exists to “make them apply the law” under such a duty; it would probably be seen as falling within the ambit of managerial decision; not to be questioned – at least at County Court level.

 

It would be interesting to know whether affected individuals could undertake to prosecute on their own behalf. I used to think that that was not possible in any circumstances except where demonstrable personal damage was suffered, but I am less certain now, and whether byelaw offences – as distinct from primary statute offences - could be relied upon for such personal prosecutions I do not know.

 

Certainly, I would think that evidence of criminal breach of byelaws leading to personal injury could be cited as relevant in a civil suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dr Bob said:

The CRT or the boat hirer have to take control over these drunken crews. It is of course an offense to drive a boat under the influence. I am sure @Alan de Enfield can pop up the relevent legislation. Drunken skippering of a boat is dangerous and shouldnt be tolerated.

The Railways and Transport Safety Act states that it is illegal to operate a boat whilst over the drink-drive limit.

 

80 Non-professionals

(1) This section applies to a person who—

(a) is on board a ship which is under way,

(b) is exercising, or purporting or attempting to exercise, a function in connection with the navigation of the ship, and

(c) is not a person to whom section 78 or 79 applies.

 

(2) A person to whom this section applies commits an offence if his ability to exercise the function mentioned in subsection (1)(b) is impaired because of drink or drugs.

 

(3) A person to whom this section applies commits an offence if the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit.

 

(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for subsection (3) not to apply in specified circumstances. 

 

81 Prescribed limit

(1) The prescribed limit of alcohol for the purposes of this Part is—

(a) in the case of breath, 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres,

(b) in the case of blood, 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres, and

(c) in the case of urine, 107 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres.

 

(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations amending subsection (1).


Enforcement
82 Penalty A person guilty of an offence under this Part shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, to a fine or to both, or

(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.

 

 

 

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dr Bob said:

I am not saying hire boats should be banned. They are an important part of canal boat life and essential for the continuation of the network. I am saying that they should not be under the control of someone 'under the influence' as per the law.

You have to prove they are under the influence when they are arrested at the scene. That involves getting the police on scene when the boat is first stopped and collect evidence that would convict them in a court.  I also think withholding a large deposit without evidence of miss doings would be a dodgy whicket   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

The Railways and Transport Safety Act states that it is illegal to operate a boat whilst over the drink-drive limit.

 

80 Non-professionals

(1) This section applies to a person who—

(a) is on board a ship which is under way,

(b) is exercising, or purporting or attempting to exercise, a function in connection with the navigation of the ship, and

(c) is not a person to whom section 78 or 79 applies.

 

(2) A person to whom this section applies commits an offence if his ability to exercise the function mentioned in subsection (1)(b) is impaired because of drink or drugs.

 

(3) A person to whom this section applies commits an offence if the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit.

 

(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for subsection (3) not to apply in specified circumstances. 

 

 

I believe this applies to commercial skippers, in charge of a boat or ship carrying fare-paying passengers or cargo, not narrowboats where the steerer either owns their own private boat or is one of a party of hirers.

 

For narrowboats there is no legal blood or breath alcohol limit, only the requirement quoted earlier that they mustn't be so drunk as to be incapable of safe navigation -- which is in itself difficult to prove even if there is an accident, since sober people who are not skilled have accidents too...

 

Boatyards can have their own terms and conditions in the hire agreement so they can throw people off the boat in cases like the stag party, but it doesn't give them any rights to breathalyse the culprits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A possible response from CaRT might be to try to enforce stricter no drinking rules as they would find this more palatable than facing up to the hire companies. This would impact on all decent boaters, most of whom are able to handle a boat after a pint or two, after all its only 3mph. It will not really fix the stag boat problem, most will just ignore the rule as they are already ignoring all the other rules, or at best we will have a sober steerer with a load of drunks still shouting abuse at moored boats.

 

.............Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

I believe this applies to commercial skippers, in charge of a boat or ship carrying fare-paying passengers or cargo, not narrowboats where the steerer either owns their own private boat or is one of a party of hirers.

Section 79 applies in those instances. 

Section 80 is for non-professionals  and applies to any person who :

 

21 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

is exercising, or purporting or attempting to exercise, a function in connection with the navigation of the ship, and

(c) is not a person to whom section 78 or 79 applies.

 

Section 78 = Professional (paid) people on duty

Section 79 = Professional (paid) people off duty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheBiscuits said:

Yes, this exactly - drink if you like, but be prepared to have the book thrown at you if it all goes wrong and you are found to be under the influence.

 

It's the opposite thinking to the drink-driving laws, where the precise amount of alcohol permissible is regulated.

What has to "all go wrong" to be found under the influence?

 

After all the police would have to be involved and have reason to take a breatholizer test.

 

This would have to be a fairly major incident at 4mph.

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.