Thames Byelaws - have your say

[John Kennett]

I've had an email from the PLA today saying that the feedback has now been "reviewed" and their findings will be circulated in the next day or so . . .

John

[C2 RIBS]

John I have had 2 documents from PLA setting out response but cannot attach for others to read- have you received these docs?

[codprawn]

I have had 2 pdfs from them - will read them properly later but looks like the usual sort of hogwash we can expect from government type bodies - "we have noted your points but we will bugger things up anyway"!!!

I am also about to point out to them their mistakes regarding data protection. The email I received had everyone elses address visable - I noticed quite a few ribnet member on there!!!

[John Kennett]

For anyone who's interested you can download the response here. It's an 8meg pdf by the way.

John

[John Kennett]

Originally Posted by codprawn

I have had 2 pdfs from them - will read them properly later but looks like the usual sort of hogwash we can expect from government type bodies - "we have noted your points but we will bugger things up anyway"!!!

If you took the trouble to read it first before making your judgement you'd see that they have conceded on just about everything apart from the speed limit. Looks like they're digging their heels in on that one, which is unfortunate.

I am also about to point out to them their mistakes regarding data protection. The email I received had everyone elses address visable - I noticed quite a few ribnet member on there!!!

Cue 50ish people getting a series of emails saying "Are you Codprawn?"!

John

[CJL]

It makes interesting reading and they still have a few major holes in their proposed legislation.

"You should wear a kill cord" ......... but you don't have to!!

Really badly written!

Plus I spent a fair amount of time asking them to justify why additional legislation imposing a speed limit was the first response to the address the navigational risks. They've ignored this point totally.

They could have tried education, training, advice, signs, anything before charging down the new legislation option.

C

[codprawn]

Originally Posted by John Kennett

If you took the trouble to read it first before making your judgement you'd see that they have conceded on just about everything apart from the speed limit. Looks like they're digging their heels in on that one, which is unfortunate.
Cue 50ish people getting a series of emails saying "Are you Codprawn?"!

John

It was ONLY the speed limit that really mattered!!!

Why can't these meddlesome gits just leave things alone? if it ain't broke don't fix it!!!

[John Kennett]

Originally Posted by CJL

Plus I spent a fair amount of time asking them to justify why additional legislation imposing a speed limit was the first response to the address the navigational risks. They've ignored this point totally.

They could have tried education, training, advice, signs, anything before charging down the new legislation option.

It looks like there may still be room for negotiation on the speed limit.

Given the pitifully low numbers of people bothering to object I'm not sure how much hope there is, but some more carefully worded and rational letters certainly wouldn't do any harm.

It seems very unlikely that simply opposing a speed limit will get us anywhere, so we need an alternative proposal.

I can't see any justification for keeping small powerboats off the plane between Lambeth and Wandsworth, especially when the river is all but deserted. Have a look at aerial photos of the River on Google maps or similar, and you'll see how much traffic there isn't!

Even through the bridges I would be much more comfortable doing, say, 20 knots which is slow enough to give plenty of time to react but gives the flexibility to get out of the way quickly.

Having said that, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a Nelson doing 20 knots (have you ever seen the PLA following the boat race in their launches?), so maybe it should be an exemption for small boats?

What would be a reasonable exemption to aim for? Maybe 25 knots for planing craft under 10 metres LOA? 20 knots? 7 metres?

None of us want to see a speed limit, but if we can find a compromise that still allows us to make reasonable progress on the plane then at least it would stop London becoming a complete write off.

Thoughts?

John

[codprawn]

John the reason there was such a pathetic response could be that no matter what people do the authorities just don't care. Look at Lake Windemere as an example. There was a huge outcry over the speed limit with all the local business people getting involved etc. All the concerns were fully justified and even the lake authorities have lost loads of money but they will NEVER admit to being wrong.

Then there was the petition about id cards - over 1 MILLION people signed the petition but the government are still hell bent on trying to introduce it.

Is it any wonder people have become slightly apathetic?

[John Kennett]

Whatever. I'm not suggesting it's easy, but if people don't even bother to respond to consultation then they waive their rights to moan about it afterwards.

So do we:
1 - roll over?
2 - fight for no speed limit at all?
3 - try to find a compromise?

Oh and petitions never carried much clout, and with the advent of brainless, no effort internet petitions they are worth as much as the paper they're not printed on.

John

[Bern Hanreck]

Almost invariably when I'm on the Thames , I'm there for sight-seeing purposes anyway , so 20 / 25 Knots would suit me . However as in this recent thread...

http://www.rib.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27481

I can't help wondering if the " authorities " are extremely nervous of any fast vessels , so close to major government / establishment targets ? I really suspect that they would like all vessels at displacement speed until they are downstream of the " Dome " . I'm all for a compromise , but I think minds are already made up on this !

[Poly]

Originally Posted by John Kennett

Given the pitifully low numbers of people bothering to object I'm not sure how much hope there is, but some more carefully worded and rational letters certainly wouldn't do any harm.

John, I note that I did not get sent the reply you got and also didn't get mentioned in the "matrix" - so perhaps there are others who didn't get listened to... ...strongly worded letter being crafted just now.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by codprawn

It was ONLY the speed limit that really mattered!!!

Why can't these meddlesome gits just leave things alone? if it ain't broke don't fix it!!!

not sure i agree with that. things like needing a proper seat, and some of the lifejacket wording etc was concerning and showed a lack of understanding/foresight.

[CJL]

Originally Posted by John Kennett

It looks like there may still be room for negotiation on the speed limit.

Hopefully there still is some room to negotiate. I saw your comments about them compromising on so many other items but the cynic in me see this as way of being seen as extra reasonable but not capitulating on their one key issue putting lots of silly and frivalous points which they ARE happy to loose.

Originally Posted by John Kennett

Given the pitifully low numbers of people bothering to object I'm not sure how much hope there is, but some more carefully worded and rational letters certainly wouldn't do any harm.

Well so far they have only carried out an INFORMAL consultation so there still is opportunity to bring up the key speed limit issue during the full forml issue. At this point I would suggest the RYA needs to get seriously in on the action.

Originally Posted by John Kennett

It seems very unlikely that simply opposing a speed limit will get us anywhere, so we need an alternative proposal.

I can't see any justification for keeping small powerboats off the plane between Lambeth and Wandsworth, especially when the river is all but deserted. Have a look at aerial photos of the River on Google maps or similar, and you'll see how much traffic there isn't!

Even through the bridges I would be much more comfortable doing, say, 20 knots which is slow enough to give plenty of time to react but gives the flexibility to get out of the way quickly.

Having said that, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a Nelson doing 20 knots (have you ever seen the PLA following the boat race in their launches?), so maybe it should be an exemption for small boats?

What would be a reasonable exemption to aim for? Maybe 25 knots for planing craft under 10 metres LOA? 20 knots? 7 metres?

None of us want to see a speed limit, but if we can find a compromise that still allows us to make reasonable progress on the plane then at least it would stop London becoming a complete write off.

Thoughts?

John

I really struggle to see how they can justify allowing dispensations for larger commercial boats in this area and this possibly might be a way to influence some change. Plus bearing in mind their proposals will totally scupper several commercial and charitable RYA training centres then perhaps a small boat dispensation is the way to go as you have suggested??

Chris

[CJL]

Originally Posted by codprawn

It was ONLY the speed limit that really mattered!!!

Why can't these meddlesome gits just leave things alone? if it ain't broke don't fix it!!!

They are only doing their jobs to try and and make the river safer so slagging them off like your doing is only underminning this website and the views others.

They know about the site and the whole thread so please use it constructively.

Chris

[stevelondon79]

I'm surprised there isn't a more formal limit to be honest - most other ports and rivers do in such busy and confined places from what i've seen. I'm more than happy without the limit mind seeing as i have fun driving at speed through london - trouble is there's so many users with conflicting interests. However - it doesn't seem to be being implemented as response to particular incident although i could be wrong.
Interesting they've split it into cherry gardens and above/below - any guesses as to why? a limit above this would be more tolerable than the whole london stretch all the way to margaretness, which would stifle commuting on the clippers and the rib tourist boats. it's a confusing document as exemptions are hinted at, eg for commercial ops, which could be based upon trianing/local knowledge requirements/passage plans but the training centres seem to have had a blanket 'no' to the high speed stuff which does seem unfair and potentially business critical regards PB level 2 needs.
as to what to do, i have a sneaking feeling that consultation will only delay the inevitable and the 12kt safety brigade will triumph.

[CJL]

The PLA have published a public consultation on "General Directions for 2009. You can download a copy here http://www.pla.co.uk/pc/index.cfm/fl...ite/navigation

What alarms me is General Direction # 34. It could be imposition of the speed limits by the back door.

However there may be a legal difference between a speed restriction and a speed limit. If that is the case we may be OK and its not a back door job.

I will ask again what is happening and post an update.

Chris

[biffer]

it ocurred to me that if i was going with the tide in the thames that i couldn't go as slow as 8knts. does that mean i would be breaking the law or if i knocked it out of gear and drifted to do 8knts would i be breaking the law by being out of control, who thinks this crap up

[CJL]

Originally Posted by CJL

I will ask again what is happening and post an update.

Chris

All I've got back is "The Byelaw will shortly be forwarded to the Department for Transport."

[Tideway]

Got an email update to the NOM's today that stated that there is now a 12knots interim speed limit on the Thames upstream of Cherry Gardens Pier. I assume this is the start of the permanent limit and a precursor to the final byelaws.

This is between the bridges, so is the area of most concern to the PLA.

Here is hoping that they do not go the whole hogg and impose a limit from Margretness, as I do not see the justification for that...

End of an era, I enjoyed zipping through central London.

t