--- In [email protected], "Dorothy Robbie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Steve Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Adrian Stott wrote: > >> So I feel that mooring on-line should be considered to imply that you > >> tie up in such a way that you won't be disrupted by craft passing at > >> anything up to breaking-wash speed. This probably means good-sized > >> well-set pins, good-sized ropes, appropriate knots/hitches, and > >> spring lines. Also not mooring where it is dead shallow. And, if > >> you do come adrift, accepting that it is your fault, not that of the > >> passing traffic. > > > > *speechless* > > > > Steve > > NB Bream > > Why? It's what he always says. I don't know why people still bother to > challenge him. It's not as if he has any influence in the waterways > hierarchy, but people on this list seem to credit him with some sort of > superior knowledge and power by dint of .. what? his column in Waterways > World? The magazines are desperate, any of us could probably get column > inches by writing about cats, hedgehogs, recipes you can cook in one pot or > almost anything else that can remotely be linked to inland waterways. A > bigot who can excite controversy may get some magazine space, but that does > not mean his views are important. Just ignore him. > > Dorothy >
Having never travelled on a canal before, my opinion is that it would simply make sense for a vehicle under power to yield to (or slow down for) vehicles that are not under power. The vehicle that is moving is the one that can most affect the status quo, and is therefore the one most in control of what happens. With that power comes the responsibility to sensibly exercise control. All traffic laws governing planes, motor vehicles, bicycles, pedestrians, and yes, boats, seem to incorporate this principle. It's fine to call it a convention, but it's a convention for the simple reason that in most people's opinion, it's the sensible thing to do. There you go--only my second post, and I've waded into a controversy! Dave in RI
