"Michael Askin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I agree in some way with Adrians comments - but there still has to be >an onus on the moving boat not to cause damage to other boats moving >or otherwise. I think you will find even in france this is still the >case - part of the colregs?
I believe the colregs are aimed at the avoidance of collisions, and I certainly don't condone speed that is fast enough to increase that risk. Also, although I'm not sure, I think they do not apply in inland waterways. >How fast is always a tough call - I'm quite happy for people to pass >me at a high rate on my home mooring as I'm virtually bolted to the >bank, but all my neighbours (some double moored) are not so well >moored. But you are making my point. Your neighbours appear not to be properly moored. Why should they expect passing boats to make allowances for that? >The problem is that once ropes start to go slack (due to >stretching) the yanking can easily pull even heavy pins out Which is why, when you are moored to pins, it is essential to check them quite frequently. >When mooring on holiday you can not always guarantee the quality of >the bank you have to moor to. Which is why you should choose your mooring carefully, to make sure you use only those that provide good holding ground for your pins. "Have to"? -- you can always moor somewhere else, although I accept it might be somewhat farther from the pub. "D. Wasser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >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. Yes. e.g. power gives way to sail. Although in fact on inland waterways the sailing or rowed craft are often far more manoeuvrable than the powered ones. >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. Not quite. Both parties have control. On a motorway (freeway), pedestrians are not allowed. If a ped ventures (by his own volition) out on to one, drivers will surely try to avoid him, but this may increase the hazard as it is all too likely to cause vehicle collisions. In the same way, on a waterway, a moorer should not tie up in a place where his presence is likely to cause an obstruction or hazard to traffic, or tie up inadequately. If he does not follow that principle, then I think he is improperly imposing himself on the passing traffic, and must accept the responsibility for the consequences. "Nick Boersema" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >You Are unlikely to enjoy boating in North America than as we are cursed >with nothing but no wake zones. In fact, the whole waterway network is effectively a no-wake zone, and I support that. In my original posting, I expressly supported *only* speeds less than that which creates a breaking wash. >One further thought. Considering that much of the canal systems you are on >are designed for a speed range of. oh I don't . how fast my horse can pull >my boat? Ya lets just blast along. The fastest horse boats (e.g. "swift boats" which carried passengers) on the waterways travelled at up to three times the current speed limit for motor craft. "Roger Millin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >you will never convince Adrian that others even have a point worth considering A calumny! I try *always* to consider the points of others. But I agree with them only if they are supported by what seem to be good grounds. Repetition isn't a good ground. I do also think that being in a minority isn't the same as being wrong. Adrian . Adrian Stott 07956-299966
