Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2018 10:59:12 GMT
I had a little discussion with a lock keeper the other day. A volunteer Thames lock keeper not an EA officer. She reckons she can order me to turn my engine off in the lock even if mine is the only boat. I told her the byelaws specifically allow you to leave it running she said she was in charge and didn't care about byelaws.
Section 50 (c) of the Thames navigation licensing bye laws 1993 specifically says you do not have to turn engine off if you are the only vessel in the chamber.
This is the rule I have worked to for over 25 years of boating on the River.
So it got me wondering is this lock keeper authorised to overrule section 50(c)? My engine is very quiet and clean running so unlikely to cause a nuisance.
Section 50(c) requires masters to switch off engines after securing bow and stern. Horwver the last sentence is this "Provided that the provisions of this paragraph of this Byelaw shall not apply to a vessel when no other vessel is passing through the lock ..."
|
|
|
|
Post by bargemast on Jul 30, 2018 11:48:54 GMT
I had a little discussion with a lock keeper the other day. A volunteer Thames lock keeper not an EA officer. She reckons she can order me to turn my engine off in the lock even if mine is the only boat. I told her the byelaws specifically allow you to leave it running she said she was in charge and didn't care about byelaws. Section 50 (c) of the Thames navigation licensing bye laws 1993 specifically says you do not have to turn engine off if you are the only vessel in the chamber. This is the rule I have worked to for over 25 years of boating on the River. So it got me wondering is this lock keeper authorised to overrule section 50(c)? My engine is very quiet and clean running so unlikely to cause a nuisance. Section 50(c) requires masters to switch off engines after securing bow and stern. Horwver the last sentence is this "Provided that the provisions of this paragraph of this Byelaw shall not apply to a vessel when no other vessel is passing through the lock ..." You do know that C&RT are reading this forum too, don't you ?
Because of what you wrote, this volonteer Thames lock keeper, may find herself getting a staff job offer of C&RT, as that's the sort of people they like.
Not caring about laws and bye-laws is the perfect quality for the more important C&RT staff workers (that don't seem to work much on anything useful).
Peter.
|
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 30, 2018 12:25:28 GMT
It is slightly more tricky than it might at first appear. The immediate answer is that no, an officer of the navigation authority cannot over-rule the byelaws.
Whether volunteers can be considered an officer of the authority might be open to question, but I suspect that they could be so considered.
A potential hiccup is byelaw 58, which states that “The master of every vessel shall obey and conform to the directions of any Officer of the Authority relating to the use navigation mooring or unmooring of such vessel.” There is no saving provision to the effect that such directions must be reasonable, or even in accord with byelaws, which would have been desirable.
Nonetheless, it seems doubtful – did refusal result in a prosecution – that a court would be happy with an arbitrary denial of so specific an exemptive clause in the byelaws, and especially not with any assertion that the whim of an officer in charge could justify bald dismissal of byelaws on grounds that they were subject to that whim.
|
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Jul 30, 2018 12:34:05 GMT
Why would she want you to turn off your engine? If her request seems reasonable, then why not just turn it off, saving pollution and saving fuel?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2018 12:40:17 GMT
Foxy the fire master worries about saving fuel and pollution...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2018 13:33:22 GMT
Cheers Nigel  I will turn the engine off if requested to. It wasn't about my engine in this instance but she reckoned she could order me to switch off even if it was just me. The subject came up because she was hollering at a boater to switch off. He was the only boat in the lock I was waiting for gates to close so I could walk across (had just paid for a visitor license in the lock office with the real keeper) and I idly mentioned that if there was one boat in the lock blah blah bye laws blah blah exemption she said "not when I'm in charge" and kept shrieking at the bloke to turn it off. This is what got my goat. Nigel has as always furnished me with the perfect answer to my query which is that it is not that simple. regular switching off of diesel engines is not good for them and also means the starter motor gets used more. Better to leave it running, which is why I do so in locks if alone in the chamber. The amount of pollution is infinitesimal. Obviously single handing, as I always do an have done since I started boating (I have never had any crew on my boats and don't want or need that) there is more scrambling about when entering a deep lock as you have to secure bow and stern lines before switching off engine (which I do if other boats are in the lock) but as the bylaw specifically allows me to avoid this extra scrambling and journey to the helm when its just me I avoid it. Its not particularly arduous but why do it if you are allowed not to. I do wonder how she would cope with a narrow boat with a semi diesel in it. All lock keepers I have come across before will not ask you to switch off unless there arrrr other boats. |
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 30, 2018 13:54:06 GMT
I had a little discussion with a lock keeper the other day. A volunteer Thames lock keeper not an EA officer. She reckons she can order me to turn my engine off in the lock even if mine is the only boat. I told her the byelaws specifically allow you to leave it running she said she was in charge and didn't care about byelaws. Section 50 (c) of the Thames navigation licensing bye laws 1993 specifically says you do not have to turn engine off if you are the only vessel in the chamber. This is the rule I have worked to for over 25 years of boating on the River. So it got me wondering is this lock keeper authorised to overrule section 50(c)? My engine is very quiet and clean running so unlikely to cause a nuisance. Section 50(c) requires masters to switch off engines after securing bow and stern. Horwver the last sentence is this "Provided that the provisions of this paragraph of this Byelaw shall not apply to a vessel when no other vessel is passing through the lock ..." She is obviously an inadequate person with a tiny penis, looking for power to make herself feel better. Why not report her to the EA for being a stroppy power-mad bylaw-ignoring cow? |
|
|
|
Post by Stumpy on Jul 30, 2018 14:07:26 GMT
I had a little discussion with a lock keeper the other day. A volunteer Thames lock keeper not an EA officer. She reckons she can order me to turn my engine off in the lock even if mine is the only boat. I told her the byelaws specifically allow you to leave it running she said she was in charge and didn't care about byelaws. Section 50 (c) of the Thames navigation licensing bye laws 1993 specifically says you do not have to turn engine off if you are the only vessel in the chamber. This is the rule I have worked to for over 25 years of boating on the River. So it got me wondering is this lock keeper authorised to overrule section 50(c)? My engine is very quiet and clean running so unlikely to cause a nuisance. Section 50(c) requires masters to switch off engines after securing bow and stern. Horwver the last sentence is this "Provided that the provisions of this paragraph of this Byelaw shall not apply to a vessel when no other vessel is passing through the lock ..." She is obviously an inadequate person with a tiny penis, looking for power to make herself feel better. Why not report her to the EA for being a stroppy power-mad bylaw-ignoring cow? Sounds like the ex Mrs Stumpy  |
|
|
|
Post by erivers on Jul 30, 2018 14:18:46 GMT
Not sure if it adds anything to Nigel's wise words but there is an "Interpretation" section in the Thames Byelaws 1993.
It defines an "Officer of the Authority" as meaning "any person employed by the Authority and authorised by writing under the hand of the Regional Secretary to carry out the provisions of these Byelaws".
I very much doubt that volunteers would have been specifically authorised in writing as required.
Interesting one, and although I personally much prefer it if engines are always turned off in locks and see this as a reasonable request, I wonder if the rather officious sounding volunteer in this case would have denied the OP his public right of navigation through the lock had he refused to comply.
|
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Jul 30, 2018 14:45:57 GMT
I suppose the danger is by the time you e finished arguing, another boat would come along and then you’d be required by the bylaws to stop your engine
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2018 14:49:05 GMT
In this particular case I came through the next lock with another boat so I did switch off. And the real lock keeper was there. I asked him about it and he was very reasonable and we had a giggle about it. He didn't know the answer and said he'd look at the byelaws.
I do actually vaguely know the woman as I have been on her boat (itinerant in the local area) with a friend of mine. She is definitely officious. Prison officer as I understand it.
It would be interesting to see if she did refuse the PRN. that would be quite eye opening. Her reasoning was if anything goes wrong (because of leaving engine running) it is she who gets the blame for it. I don't think that's the case either.
I don't really see any accidents waiting to happen with a diesel engine. I suppose its possible someone might wrap a rope around the Morse control and something silly might happen if forward or reverse gear and throttle were applied when the rope went tight. Then there is the noise and communications issue. It would be awful to have to shout.
Worth remembering that when the bye laws around powered vessels were originally made there were a lot of petrol powered boats around, and some electric ones. The combination of these could have some interesting pyrotechnic effects !
The main thing with diesel is the smoke nuisance. I would have thought revisions would have been made to take this into account in 1993 which is the date of the bylaws. I believe this particular one (turn off unless you are only boat) goes back to Thames Conservancy days though. I think it was NRA running the Thames navigation at the time of the 1993 amendments. It does seem odd that they wouldn't do a turn off engines blanket arrangement perhaps with a reasonable in the circumstances clause in there. I have seen a narrow boat with a Bollinger being locked through alone deliberately at another lock years ago so they did not have stop the engine. There arrrr all sorts of different lock keepers but most of them arrrr very pleasant.
|
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Jul 30, 2018 15:38:47 GMT
Worth remembering that when the bye laws around powered vessels were originally made there were a lot of petrol powered boats around, and some electric ones. The combination of these could have some interesting pyrotechnic effects ! The date the byelaws were made is not especially significant [though I understand your point]; the current byelaws were reviewed when the 2010 Order was being drafted, with the result that half a dozen were revoked, and the penalties section amended. From your viewpoint, that reinforces the exemptive clause, because it too could have been revoked in 2010 had it been considered redundant or unwarranted. The 1993 byelaws themselves repealed and replaced those of 1952 & 1957, so [at least from my perspective] the current byelaws are fairly modern and reflective of present day conditions and uses. If anything, I would imagine that No.50 was more concerned with pollution nuisance to others, and with the ability to hear any instructions from the lock-keeper - both perhaps affected by running diesels more than with other engines. |
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Jul 30, 2018 16:09:13 GMT
an interesting thread and as normal when Nigel is involved, educational
|
|
|
|
Post by patty on Jul 30, 2018 16:22:41 GMT
an interesting thread and as normal when Nigel is involved, educational Yes ..I feel that my knowledge is expanding..I do like to read factual stuff but rarely retain it long..to much trash vying for prominence |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2018 16:28:10 GMT
an interesting thread and as normal when Nigel is involved, educational Exactly |
|
