Red Boards

[Mark26]

I’m interested in what people think, about wether they are insured when the river is on red boards.

I often hear people say they are not, I’ve read my insurance policy and nowhere does it state I’m not covered if the river is on red boards. Not that I’d be likely to out if it were, I’m just curious if this is a myth.

 

[Chris_d]

Not sure there is a definitive answer to this, I have always interpreted it you are insured but in the event of a claim in which you could be proven to be navigating recklessly and against the advice of the navigation authority your claim maybe refused. It would depend on what sort of accident you have and the circumstances.

 

[harvey38]

I think I depends on what the nature of the claim is/was.

If the boat was moored and an issue occurred that led to a claim, not an issue but if you were underway, unless for emergency repairs, I think they would use red boards to minimise any payout. Best call your broker to clarify if you are unsure.

 

[Outinthedinghy]

There are clauses mentioning "reckless conduct" in boat insurance. While this is generally thought of as related to alcohol or drug use it is not limited to those.

Perhaps navigating when it is clear that it is not safe (from signage at locks and also from the actual River conditions) would be viewed as reckless conduct.

Having said that different people have different ideas of what is and isn't safe. Its common to have a few knots of tidal flow on tidal waterways but then they don't tend to have the rather hungry weirs we have on the River.

 

[oldgit]

Having said that different people have different ideas of what is and isn't safe. Its common to have a few knots of tidal flow on tidal waterways but then they don't tend to have the rather hungry weirs we have on the River.

The river was on Red Boards but virtually no flow in the shelter of the lock cut moorings.
The only boat that also came through, then proceeded up river was a rather venerable "Pedro" his mooring was a little further up just round the corner at Allington Castle.

 

[Mark26]

None of the above answers my question ?

Which was, “so many people claim not to be insured if the river is on red boards. I have never seen such a clause in any of my marine policies, and I wonder if those claiming not to be insured have bothered to read their policy?”

Maybe it is written into inland waterways policies - I’m thinking narrowboats with predominantly canal cover. I’ve never owned a narrow boat so wouldn’t know.

One could argue that the tideway on spring tides is as much of a hazard as red boards on the non tidal river, and I’ve never seen a policy which bans using the tideway, although I did once have a policy which only covered me downstream as far as the Thames Barrier.

 

[Chris_d]

None of the above answers my question ?

Which was, “so many people claim not to be insured if the river is on red boards. I have never seen such a clause in any of my marine policies, and I wonder if those claiming not to be insured have bothered to read their policy?”

Maybe it is written into inland waterways policies - I’m thinking narrowboats with predominantly canal cover. I’ve never owned a narrow boat so wouldn’t know.

One could argue that the tideway on spring tides is as much of a hazard as red boards on the non tidal river, and I’ve never seen a policy which bans using the tideway, although I did once have a policy which only covered me downstream as far as the Thames Barrier.

I think you have answered you own question if your policy doesn't specifically mention it your covered.
As above posts have said though if your reckless your insurance company may not payout, so if you decided to go for trip down to Henley and through the bridge during high river levels and fast flow, hit the bridge taking your flybridge off and smashing masonry off the bridge your insurance company might say they are not paying because you were a p**t

 

[Outinthedinghy]

Is that tidal on both sides?


In my experience one is more likely to be bitten by a weir from above than below although obviously the effects below are not all that pleasant when a river is in flood it is improbable (not impossible as I nearly found out on the Kennet in Reading one time) that you will end up pinned to it.

 

[Parabordi]

Is that tidal on both sides?


In my experience one is more likely to be bitten by a weir from above than below although obviously the effects below are not all that pleasant when a river is in flood it is improbable (not impossible as I nearly found out on the Kennet in Reading one time) that you will end up pinned to it.

no below is tidal ie to the left, to the right is upper medway

 

[Mark26]

I think you have answered you own question if your policy doesn't specifically mention it your covered.
As above posts have said though if your reckless your insurance company may not payout, so if you decided to go for trip down to Henley and through the bridge during high river levels and fast flow, hit the bridge taking your flybridge off and smashing masonry off the bridge your insurance company might say they are not paying because you were a p**t

I wasn’t referring to my policy, or intending to go out in such conditions.
I was curious if such exclusions do exist.

So many people think they do, I’ve never seen one. As per my original post, I wonder if “not being insured on red boards” is a thing, or a myth?

Getting no closer to an answer ?

 

[Northern Star]

Call your insurance company and ask them?

I would also think if you are out on red boards and you damage any lock or weir infrastructure that the EA would be quite in their rights to sue you for damages or even prosecute you?

 

[Mark26]

Call your insurance company and ask them?

I would also think if you are out on red boards and you damage any lock or weir infrastructure that the EA would be quite in their rights to sue you for damages or even prosecute you?

Hello Gary, nice to hear from you.
Like others before you, you haven’t read the question.

 

[Chris_d]

In my opinion its a myth but with caveats, the nearest my Haven Knox Johnson policy has is this statement:


The EA advises :


So you assuming you are complying with all statutory local regulations and licensing conditions, in a legal sense it doesn't say local advice, so you have to do your own risk assessment. In the event of an accident the insurance company may disagree but they don't stop you navigating under reds as navigating under reds is not breaking any local regulation or licensing conditions.

 

[Mark26]

Thanks ?
In my opinion it’s a myth as well, but I wasn’t sure, hence trying to find out.

We know red boards are advisory, and the effect they have on a craft will be very different to, say a narrow boat, or a cruiser with twin 300hp engines. Dangerous conditions for the former is a walk in the park for the other.

Transposing the whole thing to the roads, if it’s broadcast on news programs and from the Met Office that driving conditions are very dangerous, and unsafe, and one should stay at home. I don’t think any of us would think that our car insurance will be invalid if we went out.
?

 

[Northern Star]

Well if you want an answer to the question of what I think.

NO I don't go out on Red boards! If it is myth or not is up to your own opinion and is answered by my first response and I just would not risk anything for the sake of a trip out on a jolly.

I thought the fundemental principle of boating is that the person in charge of the boat is responsible for it and anyone else that is on board or could be harmed by his or her actions. Insurance is what it is and there to offer monetary compensation not cover the loss of life etc.

I worked on a lot of News over the years and remember the Marchioness disaster all too well. I haven't been around as much Mark as I now work in Manchester so don't get down to the boat as much and will probably sell her next year.

 

[Chris_d]

The question was if you are not insured if you go out on red boards not if you should go out on red boards.
I think everybody agrees if you do go out on reds you must have a good reason and a boat and skipper capable of handling the conditions.

 

[Mark26]

If it is myth or not is up to your own opinion

Absolutely not. One doesn’t have an opinion as to wether something is a myth.

It is either fact, in this case written into the policy. Or it isn’t written in, then it becomes an untrue statement passed from person to person, believed to be true by repeated telling, and no checking.

 

[Outinthedinghy]

I still think the reckless clauses would cover it.

I've done a fair bit of boating on the River in red boards conditions and engine power doesn't make all that much difference.

You could have 600hp in a boat but it still won't go sideways against a current pulling you onto a weir. That is impossible unless you are very quick to turn the boat into the flow or you have very large bow and stern thrusters.

Quite often during red boards the weather will be generally unpleasant. Things like wind and rain so a reduced visiblity and, when slowing down for locks (which you have no choice about doing) a negative impact on the handling of the craft. This depends on locks but I do have quite a good memory of approaching Penton Hook lock from above in red boards and despite wanting to go on the left hand layby the River had other ideas and I ended up on the right hand layby which is very short and too close to the lock for comfort in flood conditions. There is a lot of pull. Marsh is another one which does this. Marlow has a better designed layby and a lot of locks have decent cuts so not so bad. Some are really nasty though. Chertsey won't be a lot of fun.

You can't just race up to the lock and go straight in if nobody has opened the gates.

Bridges and islands are also pretty hazardous. The disturbance to the water lasts for a long time downstream and it can be awkward to get the boat going in the right direction.

I'd say that if you needed to make a claim after navigating during red boards or "SSA" conditions then you would probably have trouble with the unsurance company.

The very fact you are thinking about whether you would be 'uninsured' makes me wonder what kind of event you were thinking might happen.


What do envisage happening which could lead to a claim?

 

[Northern Star]

I really don't see the point of contributing anymore and if I was to want to go out on Red Boards I would check up with my insurance company first and not just ask people their opinion or if it was mythology or not.

 

[Parabordi]

I really don't see the point of contributing anymore and if I was to want to go out on Red Boards I would check up with my insurance company first and not just ask people their opinion or if it was mythology or not.

I agree, spot on!