Topic: | Re:Re:Rower fatalities | |
Posted by: | Nigel Moore | |
Date/Time: | 15/03/10 13:11:00 |
Agreed, swamping is possibly the greatest risk faced by rowers on the Thames, whether due to other boats or weather. Freight operators do not contribute much if any of that particular danger owing to the generally slower speeds at which they operate – I think particularly of the rubbish barge trains responsible for much of the tonnage moved in London. The greatest wash problem has always come from the river buses and trip boats when moving at speed; other than that there are the occasional errant pleasure boaters and, of course, the weather. Houseboat residents on the Thames are indeed sensitive to the wash problem from large fast vessels [though rarely from the weather] and their constant complaints were responsible for much of the difficulty faced by the river bus services. The problems are addressable by better boat design and a little more consideration, however the conditions are a part of living on an active river and efforts need to be made by both sides to accommodate each other. Without suggesting an exact analogy, the same argument gets put forward on the canals, where virtually no-one ever thinks to moor up properly, whether on a permanent berth or as an overnighter. As a result it used to be impossible to proceed even below the normal speed limit of 4 mph without having red-faced boaters shouting abuse at you as you passed. Such cases were down to ignorance and laziness on the part of the moorers, though such behaviour seems to have almost disappeared the last time I went cruising. The point is that if such people were to be heeded, there would be no recreational traffic whatsoever of any sort at any time – and the moorers simply needed to [literally] learn the ropes. Ignorance and carelessness, whether of houseboaters, rowers or any other class of river and canal user ought never to be the factor dictating which other users should be permitted to co-exist. As a point of accuracy regarding the comment “The main objections were all from houseboat owners” - I don’t know of a single houseboat owner who objected to the moorings application other than in discussion outside of the formal proceedings. Those on true houseboats in the sense that they do not move, will never have any reason to object anyway, because they will not be subjected to the increased navigational difficulty. Very few in fact ever move even if capable of doing so. Indeed, many would welcome the prospect of more houseboat sites opening up, although this proposal will only be offering such berths on a de-facto basis, same as with the Island moorers. Those who do travel are concerned, but none that I know of will ever voice those views publicly for obvious reasons. Some of the same rationale accounts for the freight operators, who discussed the matter with various parties involved in the objections but did not wish to be named parties. One in particular, however, was unconcerned in so far as any damage was unlikely to be significant on his side, and he felt that if events proved alarming for the moorers then the berths would be vacated soon enough; the developer would be held liable for any consequent damages and would, moreover, be subject to an action for nuisance. Of course, the developer’s liability would probably disappear altogether if the works were properly authorised, but they have stated their intention not to go that route. There may be those who would like to turn the clock back a century or so; I wouldn’t count myself among them – the congestion problems on the river in particular were worse then than our motorways today. The way forward is to embrace the extent to which the waterways CAN contribute towards easing the road traffic burden, and as noted previously, the Grand Union Canal to where it meets the Thames both east and west of London has been identified as one of the key waterways suitable for that. Policies supporting that objective are seeking to push the clock forward, to meet modern exigencies in more than purely immediate financial concerns. |