| Topic: | Rowers & Commercial shipping | |
| Posted by: | Nigel Moore | |
| Date/Time: | 12/03/10 13:33:00 |
| I do not believe that any one class of river user should so operate as to exclude others, most especially over “free water” where public rights of navigation hold sway. It was a frequent refrain throughout the Salvage Association Report that the Thames was a “free river” with attendant obligations on all users to comply with regulations and have consideration for each other. The Report is remarkable for a constant recurring theme – that rowers themselves were mostly placing themselves in danger: “The apparent total lack of knowledge by the rowers of the COLREGS and poor awareness of the Rowing Rules by both parties was also criticised”. “Amongst the rowing community widespread confusion, ignorance and/or failure to apply this response in particular increases the appearance of conflict in the regulations and the level of risk.” “the importance of keeping an effective lookout receives limited visibility and emphasis” “The causes appear to be a mix of lack of situational awareness or awareness of other user requirements, combined with the nature of rowing (use of set pieces, ending and resting at Bridges etc), but also on occasion wilful non-compliance.” “Another unfortunate element is the level of verbal abuse encountered from elements of the rowing community. Whilst also not being a one-sided phenomenon complaints of abuse by rowers have been a common theme throughout the survey process and an acknowledged problem within the rowing community. This has affected the relationship between the various river users.” “We believe that the rowing authorities still have much to do to generate sufficient attention amongst rank and file rowers to safety, knowledge of navigation rules, discipline and appreciation of other river users.” “The risk benefit of the Rowing Rules and wider set of regulations is reduced through non-application by rowers. Examples include rowing abreast, baulking and otherwise impeding the passage of other users, some occasions of crossing and proceeding down the wrong side of the fairway.” “Poor lookout is a fundamental problem that recurs within accident statistics and reduces the benefit of any rules.” “Other witnessed and anecdotal transgressions from the Rules and lack of consideration for other river users included: • Poor lookout and awareness of other vessels and physical obstructions. • Proceeding along the “wrong” side of the fairway, particularly when rowing with the stream • Rowing three abreast and blocking the channel for other users • Overtaking at inappropriate locations (approaches to Bridges) • Holding and slowing at inappropriate places (approaching and under Bridges) • Collision with and close approaches to stationary fixed and floating objects • Excessive speed of coach boats whilst not actively escorting • Excessive wash of coach boats • Lack of appreciation of the needs of other craft, particularly with respect to deep draught requirements. • Failure to recognise or respond to sound signals • Failure to take any action to avoid risk of collision • Rowing at night or in poor visibility without adequate lights • Baulking of vessels in the main channel • Offensive language to other river users, including Class V passenger vessels crowded with passengers, motor cruisers and PLA Harbour Services launches” It doesn’t make especially edifying reading. The collision risks were not down to large numbers of other river users – in fact the contrary if anything, because rowers got used to having the river to themselves especially in winter and did as they pleased. The other point of note is that it was not any conflict with commercial operators that gave rise to the survey in the first place, but rather a pleasure boat incident, in Syon Reach. In fact, there seemed far less conflict between commercial craft and rowers than there was between pleasure craft and rowers, largely due to the high degree of professionalism and knowledge of the commercial operators. “Whilst there were undoubted instances of problems between rowers and Class V vessels, and varying degrees of mutual respect, interaction of these two types of craft was not found to be the major concern amongst either the rowing community or the commercial operators.” Rowers colliding with each other and with fixed obstructions seem to be the greatest problem, but “Other than rower on rower situations the interaction of powered leisure users and rowing vessels is the main area of concern. This is twofold e.g. risk of collision through incorrect avoiding action and excessive wash.” The greatest confusion in those circumstances arose by reason of special Rowers Rules additionally to standard COLREGS, with most pleasure boat users familiar only with the standard ‘Rules of the Road’ and too many rowers familiar with neither. The resulting new codes and buoyed reaches are not “further restrictions” on rowers but a welcome simplification of rules and provision of safer marked “lanes” for them. I’ve never heard cyclists whinge about analogous dedicated cycle lanes as being restrictive. Increased use of the “fairway” by commercial craft will make no difference whatsoever to those rowers who abide by the rules. I believe that all users of the river and those who simply spectate by its banks relish the activity that rowers lend to the scene; hopefully that won’t be spoiled by a resurgence of the old arrogance and selfishness of those who believe that they have the right to dictate who else may or may not share the river with them. |