Threat to sailing on the Thames

[Sturgess]

The Port of London (PLA) website has a notice about their proposed new Byelaws 2011:

“Notice is hereby given that the Port of London Authority intends to apply to the Secretary of State for Transport for confirmation of the Port of London Thames Byelaws made on 14 July 2011.

Any person wishing to make an objection to or representation about the confirmation of the byelaws may write to: Department for Transport, Maritime Commerce and Infrastructure, Zone 2/32, Great Minster House, 76 Marsham Street, London, SW1P 4DR (alternatively by fax on 020 7944 2186 or by e-mail quoting reference PCP 5/1/17 and stating the grounds of objection or representation on or before 2 September 2011. Responses may be shared or made public.”


I believe these new Bylaws, as proposed by the PLA, will stop recreational sailors and Yacht Clubs from racing boats on the lower Thames and make any non-racing sailing on the Thames far more dangerous.

Clause 9 of the proposed Bylaws states that a person must not organise a boat race without the consent of the PLA harbourmaster. Clause 9 states this PLA Harbourmaster demands four weeks notice and receipt of a comprehensive risk assessment report prior to his possible consent.

The effect of the clause 9 as written will be to make weekend racing by recreational sailors and members of the various yacht clubs on the Thames uneconomic as no recreational sailor will be able to meet the expense or comply with the demands of the comprehensive risk assessment report requirement.

Clause 24,(a) states that a vessel must not cross the river “as to obstruct another vessel proceeding along the fairway”. While the PLA may believe all the vessels on the Thames are power driven and moving “along the fairway”, sailing boats using the wind for propulsion and involved in boat racing frequently need to cross the river Thames. Crossing the river using the wind is fundamental to boat racing. The PLA wish to make this activity “an offence”.

Clause 16.3 (d.ii) deals with speed limits on the Thames between Cherry Garden Pier and Margaretness. This clause allows the Harbourmaster to issue “permits” to various chosen vessels authorising them to travel up to “30 knots through, on or over the water”. I believe the chosen vessels will include non-emergency use of the Harbourmaster’s own launches, the Police and of course the large Thames Clipper catamarans. These vessels travelling at 30 knots create dangerous waves and are a safety risk for small sailing boats and their occupants. These vessels navigating at 30 knots around bends and between other vessels on the Thames are a danger to all slow moving wind driven sailing boats.

It would appear to any reasonable person the new bylaws have been written solely to benefit commercial users of large power vessels and the PLA itself. I believe recreational sailors and powerboat users on the lower Thames are to discriminated against or excluded from the river altogether.

As a recreational sailor I have chosen to write to the Secretary of State asking that the PLA bylaws 14 July 2011 be rejected.

Kim Sturgess
This Precious Isle

 

[lenseman]

The Port of London (PLA) website has a notice about their proposed new Byelaws 2011:

“Notice is hereby given that the Port of London Authority intends to apply to the Secretary of State for Transport for confirmation of the Port of London Thames Byelaws made on 14 July 2011.

. . . . . . Clause 9 of the proposed Bylaws states that a person must not organise a boat race without the consent of the PLA harbourmaster. Clause 9 states this PLA Harbourmaster demands four weeks notice and receipt of a comprehensive risk assessment report prior to his possible consent.

The effect of the clause 9 as written will be to make weekend racing by recreational sailors and members of the various yacht clubs on the Thames uneconomic as no recreational sailor will be able to meet the expense or comply with the demands of the comprehensive risk assessment report requirement.

You have mis-read the requirements or have interpreted them to suit what you think they say.

Risk Assessment in this case means "have you looked at all the risks, written them down and provided all possible answers to the risks". In other words, if a yacht capsizes, do you have a safety boat (RIB) on stand-by within the vicinity to effect a rescue? Are all the crews wearing Life-Jackets. Have you let the high-speed motorboats know of the dates, locations and times that you intend to race . . . .etc etc.

This is Risk-Assessment and costs nothing but time. Once the Risk Assessment has been created, it can be used every time you intend to race, yes it might need fine tuning over time, but that is what it is all about.

Clause 24,(a) states that a vessel must not cross the river “as to obstruct another vessel proceeding along the fairway”. While the PLA may believe all the vessels on the Thames are power driven and moving “along the fairway”, sailing boats using the wind for propulsion and involved in boat racing frequently need to cross the river Thames. Crossing the river using the wind is fundamental to boat racing. The PLA wish to make this activity “an offence”.

Is the bold and underlined part of Clause 24,(a) part of the provision or have you added this part? I suspect the latter?

The only word in the above which is important is the word "obstruct". Are you considering obstructing and sailing in front of any fast boat?

Clause 16.3 (d.ii) deals with speed limits on the Thames between Cherry Garden Pier and Margaretness. This clause allows the Harbourmaster to issue “permits” to various chosen vessels authorising them to travel up to “30 knots through, on or over the water”. I believe the chosen vessels will include non-emergency use of the Harbourmaster’s own launches, the Police and of course the large Thames Clipper catamarans. These vessels travelling at 30 knots create dangerous waves and are a safety risk for small sailing boats and their occupants. These vessels navigating at 30 knots around bends and between other vessels on the Thames are a danger to all slow moving wind driven sailing boats.

I think you have over dramatised any perceived problem and added text to the above clause. If you are stupid enough to consider 'yacht racing' within the PLA tidal Thames across or in front of or near any fast motorboat/catamaran/hydrofoil going in excess of 30 MPH then you are more silly than I think you are. It would be similar to trying to cycle across a busy section of the M25 motorway in the rush-hour.

Leave out all the emotions and write a sensible letter to the PLA asking what will be available 'after' the implementation of any new By-Law and you will find a more sympathetic ear with which which you can reason, learn and do business. This will be far better than confrontational letters from the start.

 

[William_H]

Risk assessments etc for racing and sailing

I did a "comprehensive risk assessment" for teaching people to sail on small keel boats.
Risk... Participants getting hit on the head... Risk is minimised by "telling em to keep their heads down
Risk....Participants falling overboard.. Risk is minimised by telling em to hang on and wearing LJ

It often involves writing down the bleeding obvious. On the Swan River clubs have to submit programs and requests for parts of river 12 months in advance and that is to a committee made up of clubs and river management. (Government) This more to minimise conflict of racing as conflict with commercial vessels.

So you may find that the new regs can be worked with, though obviously offensive to sailors. Really only time will tell if the regs really hinder sailing and racing. You might therefor do better to propose compromise or get more involved rather than simply object. The new world involves risk assessments and regulations ultimately you have to work with them. good luck olewill

 

[lenseman]

. . . . . You might therefore do better to propose compromise or get more involved rather than simply object. . . . .

+1

 

[Alfie168]

I did a "comprehensive risk assessment" for teaching people to sail on small keel boats.
Risk... Participants getting hit on the head... Risk is minimised by "telling em to keep their heads down
Risk....Participants falling overboard.. Risk is minimised by telling em to hang on and wearing LJ

Well absolutely, that was fine for us when we learnt, but go to any club training youngsters to sail in the UK and you will find them all in dinky little hard hats protecting them from boom bashes. Its not that any of them would have got hurt by a Topper or vario boom, its the litigation freaks that rule the roost unfortunately and clubs cannot discount them.

Tim

 

[rob2]

On first reading it does sound draconian, but if you change the wording to something more familiar, you get very close to the colregs. The risk assessment really does only need to be done once and if I were invloved with a local club, I would notify intention to race every weekend day and any normal weekday evenings - in bulk! This is only a problem if the PLA intend to charge for applications.

Rob.

 

[William_H]

Well absolutely, that was fine for us when we learnt, but go to any club training youngsters to sail in the UK and you will find them all in dinky little hard hats protecting them from boom bashes. Its not that any of them would have got hurt by a Topper or vario boom, its the litigation freaks that rule the roost unfortunately and clubs cannot discount them.

Tim

Quite so Tim and I would not be against kids or anyone else wearing head protection. This may become the norm in future. What you have got to do to meet Duty of Care requirements is to meet standards of safety etc that equal the norm of the time ie do the same as other clubs/schools.

Anyway for a comprehensive risk assessment regarding shipping in the Thames estuary I imagine the major risk is having a racing boat hit by a commercial vessel. With consequent drowning of occupants.
So the club needs to identify this risk and then say what they are going to do to minimise the risk.
You could require all participants to wear buoyancy vests or lifejackets.
You might prescribe all racing to be done in areas away from commercial shipping lanes
or you might require that all crossing of lanes be done at right angles or at a minimum speed.
You might offer to publish maps and instructions as addendum to notice of race or sailing instructions regarding the shipping lanes and dangers.

The thing is that what you "offer" to do as a club will be binding. So offer to do the minimum or what is easiest most convenient for the club which will be acceptable to the authorities. Just consider if you got a fatality who is going to wear the blame. If the club have stated what they think are reasonable precautions and the authority have accepted the precautions as apparently adequate and the club have taken those precautions then you can't be to blame.
You can't just hide behind the rules regarding prevention of collision at sea. They are not adequate to the situation and the problem needs to be addressed for the sake of everyone.

So in this brave new world of litigation the club may be better off than without any documentation on risk.
And finally the club should be discussing with their insurer as to how all this fits with the liability aspect of the club. olewill

 

[andygc]

Unfortunately, this chap has posted the same whine on more than one forum (see Scuttlebutt). If he could show that there are any significant differences between the current byelaws and the amendments, he might have a point.

He he hasn't got a point.

 

[prv]

Well absolutely, that was fine for us when we learnt, but go to any club training youngsters to sail in the UK and you will find them all in dinky little hard hats protecting them from boom bashes.

Fairly sure the ones I see toddling about under the Itchen Bridge aren't armoured.

There was a short article/editorial in PBO not that long ago from an RYA bigwig saying they didn't believe in mandatory helmets for kids' training, although individual schools and clubs were free to use them if they wanted to.

Pete

 

[Conachair]

Bear in mind that there have been 2 deaths on the river in the past few weeks. The PLA will be no doubt looking into tighting up everywhere, issuing a risk assessment isn't really that big a deal.