are the tideway "safety rules" actually safe ?
gledders
marshalling and umpiring was first class, both helpfull & professional.
The race organisers had, I believe, spotters on the Bridges at the
extremes of the race course to warn the race staff about pleasure craft
coming up / down the course. This also seemed to work well.
So far so good. Unfortunately, new for 2006, all races were told to
race down the starboard side of the river (on an outgoing stream), ie
well over towards the Surrey Bank - at the same time, all rowing boats
coming up stream on the Mortlake stretch where the race is run, are
also on the Surrey Bank. So, all rowing boats are potentially in a
rather small part of the river. The width of this "lane" obviously gets
smaller as the tide falls, therefore reducing the gap between racing
boats going one way, and marshalling boats going up to the start the
other way.
In one race, I was on the Surrey station and was pushed way over by the
other crew on the Middlesex station. The Umpire obviously told the
other boat to steer to port, but in the heat of a race, this does not
always get an immediate response. My eyes were glued to the boats
coming upstram towards me, waiting for one to miss a stroke, or
overtake another boat, or to get too close to a shoal and steer out too
far etc etc.
I would welcome comments / discussion on this matter.
My own view ? - the slavish application (by the so called safety
police) of the so called Col Regs is putting a lot of us in danger, and
it is no good "being in the right place" when the bow person gets a bow
ball in the back, and you look over at all that open river to your left
being completely unused.
Up the sides, down the middle - seems sensible to me ? Lets face it,
you are more likely to hit another rowing boat where everyone is going
backwards in a forced narrowish channel than hitting a large, very
visible pleasure cruiser with an engine, a person steering facing the
right way, and a loud horn to warn you its there. And, there are not
many of them either !!
mpruscoe
> My own view ? - the slavish application (by the so called safety
> police) of the so called Col Regs is putting a lot of us in danger, and
> it is no good "being in the right place" when the bow person gets a bow
> ball in the back, and you look over at all that open river to your left
> being completely unused.
>
> Up the sides, down the middle - seems sensible to me ? Lets face it,
> you are more likely to hit another rowing boat where everyone is going
> backwards in a forced narrowish channel than hitting a large, very
> visible pleasure cruiser with an engine, a person steering facing the
> right way, and a loud horn to warn you its there. And, there are not
> many of them either !!
>
Unfortunately we have brought the stricter enforcement by the PLA on
ourselves with poor lookout keeping and abusive behaviour to other river
users.
I see in Notice to Mariners U7 that there is a temporary move of the
Syon crossing point down to Brentford Lock during the Hospital Bumps in
couple of weeks. Would a better solution for regattas at Chiswick be to
have a temporary move of the Chiswick Crossing up to UL?
A Marshall
One of the "ten commandments" for umpiring is that races are supposed
to be safe and fair. Both crews must have an equal chance of winning.
If the current regulations are enforced, no regatta or race on the
tideway can be fair. Unless the two crews ( thats the limit) can race
on either side of the centre of the stream, one of them will have an
undue advantage over the other.
If you want fair racing, do not race on the tideway without there being
a full suspension of the navigation regulations.
Sarah
mpruscoe wrote:
> Would a better solution for regattas at Chiswick be to
> have a temporary move of the Chiswick Crossing up to UL?
certainly worth thinking about - I'll talk to my committee at Washup
and then feed back to other committees and raise with Regional WSA -
perhaps in time for the final open regatta on the chiswick reach -
Barnes and Mortlake on the 10th June
problems I can see at the moment
1) where exactly would the crossing be - there are the petrol pumps and
posts as obstacles, might need a marshall to supervise
2) where do we marshall crews ?
at the moment they're on the Surrey bank opposite UL - we've been
advised not to have them between the Kew Bridges (as in previous
years). on the Middlesex bank in front of UL?
3) If have marshalling on Surrey (where they were for Chiswick / Borne
this year ) then how do crews safely cross the river to get into
position?
4) congestion in front of the beach at MAA with crews returning,
leaving, rowing past (not insurmountable)
5) shallows on the middlesex bank are more unfamiliar to crews going
upstream
Sarah Gardiner
Water Safety Advisor, Borne and Barnes & Mortlake Regattas.
mart...@carr12331.freeserve.co.uk
>
> I see in Notice to Mariners U7 that there is a temporary move of the
> Syon crossing point down to Brentford Lock during the Hospital Bumps in
> couple of weeks. Would a better solution for regattas at Chiswick be to
> have a temporary move of the Chiswick Crossing up to UL?
Why ?
the current chiswick crossing point is below the course as it stands on
both the ebb and the flood. Surely thats got to be safer than crews
crossing the area where the racing is taking place at UL?
At chiswick we had a start marshal on the bank just above the petrol
pumps and a launch based marshal more or less opposite/below UL chasing
crews up and also acting as safety ensuring crews coming upstream didnt
wander into the course of any races
Besides, paddling up the Middx bank beyond MAABC is likely to lead to
some scratched hulls anytime outside a couple of hours either side of
high tide
As for the Hospital Bumps, if that race goes ahead with its usual low
levels of competance from both crews and organisers it may put back a
lot of hard work by reps of TRRC who have worked very hard with the PLA
over the last year
mart...@carr12331.freeserve.co.uk
A Marshall wrote:
>
I can think of numerous non-tideway river regattas in the South East UK
and beyond which by their nature at unfair to one station
demesto...@yahoo.co.uk
gledders wrote:
> So far so good. Unfortunately, new for 2006, all races were told to
> race down the starboard side of the river (on an outgoing stream), ie
> well over towards the Surrey Bank - at the same time, all rowing boats
> coming up stream on the Mortlake stretch where the race is run, are
> also on the Surrey Bank. So, all rowing boats are potentially in a
> rather small part of the river. The width of this "lane" obviously gets
> smaller as the tide falls, therefore reducing the gap between racing
> boats going one way, and marshalling boats going up to the start the
> other way.
Is it any narrower than, say, St Neots (where two crews race around
buoyed lanes through a 100 degree bend, while other crews come up a
very (?too) narrow navigation lane on the outside of the bend?
Or some of the races on the Cam where there are either narrow
navigation lanes (Autumn Regatta, unless this has changed) or crews
pulled in on the bank during races, or just narrow racing lanes (Sprint
regatta last weekend)?
> In one race, I was on the Surrey station and was pushed way over by the
> other crew on the Middlesex station. The Umpire obviously told the
> other boat to steer to port, but in the heat of a race, this does not
> always get an immediate response. My eyes were glued to the boats
> coming upstram towards me, waiting for one to miss a stroke, or
> overtake another boat, or to get too close to a shoal and steer out too
> far etc etc.
I assume you held your station though as continued interference with
your course by the other crew would have resulted in their
disqualification? I also assume that your umpire was also aware of the
boats in the navigation lane and would have stopped the race and
ordered a re-row should one of the boats in the lane entered the racing
course. I have seen the latter happen at St Neots.
Any crew overtaking in the inshore zone should only be doing so when
the main fairway is clear - I agree that just knowing this fact doesn't
help you when you do get a bowball in the back though.
> My own view ? - the slavish application (by the so called safety
> police) of the so called Col Regs is putting a lot of us in danger, and
> it is no good "being in the right place" when the bow person gets a bow
> ball in the back, and you look over at all that open river to your left
> being completely unused.
I love it when people use the words "so called". Seriously, when has
Chris George (who for those not from the area is the Regional Water
Safety Advisor) ever called himself the Safety Police? And the Col Regs
are the Col Regs (short for "Convention on the International
Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972" which is a
mouthfull).
But anyway. Obviously the other extreme is to go to an "open waters"
policy where anyone can go wherever they want, taking the shortest and
quickest course to where they want to be. But assuming we don't want
some sort of anarchy, we need a simple set of rules. But then we need
to agree those rules with the people who look after the fixtures and
fittings of the river, and the people who make money out of using it
(like the pleasure boats) and the people who pay to use it (like
commercial shipping) as I think they have more rights than people who
use it for free and don't contribute to its upkeep. So unfortunately as
rowers don't pay to be there, I think it's fair to do what the Harbour
Masters ask us to do.
> Up the sides, down the middle - seems sensible to me ? Lets face it,
> you are more likely to hit another rowing boat where everyone is going
> backwards in a forced narrowish channel than hitting a large, very
> visible pleasure cruiser with an engine, a person steering facing the
> right way, and a loud horn to warn you its there. And, there are not
> many of them either !!
Somehow they manage to cope with a "forced narrowish channel" on the
Cam, Isis, Ouse, Lea, etc... Seriously: once they get the buoy placings
right, the amount of water -at low tide - in the inshore zone and on
the right side of the Fairway will probably be as wide as these rivers.
Plus those in the Fairway have the luxury option of nipping over to the
left of the Fairway when they want to overtake a slower crew. The
amount of rowing traffic is probably similar to peak flows on those
other rivers, so congestion is not an extra issue here. So why can't
the Tideway users cope with the a low tide?
DB
gledders
St Neots that I have attend many times, always without incident,
although on occasions, much shouting is required to avert disasaster
!!).
So called, sorry that is my sloppy use of the term, it was meant to
signify an abbreviation of that very long title, a bit like "so called"
Poll Tax, even though it is council tax....
We seem to lose sight of the simple things about being safe by getting
all bogged down in complicated terminology and making it all sound very
very difficult. If for instance, a good non tideway cox came along and
said, can you explain the local navigation rules to me for the tideway,
some people would hand him a 5 page booklet and book him on a one day
seminar. Others, like myself, would point to our huge map on the wall
and say, these are the crossing points, go against the stream in the
side of the river, and then when you come back with the stream, keep
slightly to the right of centre. For this, I would be told by many
people I am completely wrong, going against all the Col Regs and that I
am a danger to myself and anyone I brief.
But, I suspect the person I brief, will be "safer" on the water than
the person overloaded with complicated rules about lanes, positioning
in lanes bla bla bla. Overload = confusion = non complience, especially
in a stressfull situation.
The basic concept of avoiding crashes is about separation. The TRRC
interpretation of the Col Regs, is in my humble opinion, incorrect, as
it reduces separation in the majority of situations, ie, rowing traffic
meeting other rowing traffic. As David Biddulph writes, the wording of
the Col Regs does allow for another interpretation of the regs to allow
us to be "in" the channel, not to one side of it.
Bottom line, free your mind of where we are now, what would you all say
is the safest way for the river traffic to move about on our bit of the
river ? - I bet it is not the way that the TRRC are trying to enforce.
So, maybe they are wrong ?? - just a suggestion.
mpruscoe
> The basic concept of avoiding crashes is about separation. The TRRC
> interpretation of the Col Regs, is in my humble opinion, incorrect, as
> it reduces separation in the majority of situations, ie, rowing traffic
> meeting other rowing traffic. As David Biddulph writes, the wording of
> the Col Regs does allow for another interpretation of the regs to allow
> us to be "in" the channel, not to one side of it.
>
> Bottom line, free your mind of where we are now, what would you all say
> is the safest way for the river traffic to move about on our bit of the
> river ? - I bet it is not the way that the TRRC are trying to enforce.
> So, maybe they are wrong ?? - just a suggestion.
The TRRC are enforcing what they have agreed with the PLA, they are not
just making it up for themselves.
Notice to Mariners P5 (Conduct of Navigation in the River Thames) is
quite clear about positioning on the river: "Rule 9 of the Colregs
requires vessels to keep as near to the outer limit of the channel lying
on their starboard side as is practicable. The regulations are part of
the River Byelaws, whilst PLA General Directions makes clear that Rule 9
applies to all vessels navigating in the Thames."
gledders
St Neots that I have attend many times, always without incident,
although on occasions, much shouting is required to avert disasaster
!!).
So called, sorry that is my sloppy use of the term, it was meant to
signify an abbreviation of that very long title, a bit like "so called"
Poll Tax, even though it is council tax....
We seem to lose sight of the simple things about being safe by getting
all bogged down in complicated terminology and making it all sound very
very difficult. If for instance, a good non tideway cox came along and
said, can you explain the local navigation rules to me for the tideway,
some people would hand him a 5 page booklet and book him on a one day
seminar. Others, like myself, would point to our huge map on the wall
and say, these are the crossing points, go against the stream in the
side of the river, and then when you come back with the stream, keep
slightly to the right of centre. For this, I would be told by many
people I am completely wrong, going against all the Col Regs and that I
am a danger to myself and anyone I brief.
But, I suspect the person I brief, will be "safer" on the water than
the person overloaded with complicated rules about lanes, positioning
in lanes bla bla bla. Overload = confusion = non complience, especially
in a stressfull situation.
The basic concept of avoiding crashes is about separation. The TRRC
interpretation of the Col Regs, is in my humble opinion, incorrect, as
it reduces separation in the majority of situations, ie, rowing traffic
meeting other rowing traffic. As David Biddulph writes, the wording of
the Col Regs does allow for another interpretation of the regs to allow
us to be "in" the channel, not to one side of it.
Bottom line, free your mind of where we are now, what would you all say
is the safest way for the river traffic to move about on our bit of the
river ? - I bet it is not the way that the TRRC are trying to enforce.
So, maybe they are wrong ?? - just a suggestion.
gledders
in most written rules / documents, there is often (always ?) an element
of interpretation.
"As NTM U6 of 2002 says, 'a rowing boat proceeding along the course
of the main channel or fairway shall also comply with Rule 9(a) of the
International Regulations and "keep as near to the outer limit of the
channel or fairway which lies on her starboard side as is safe and
practicable".'
Now, the words "safe" and "practicable" allow for a degree of
discretion I believe. So, if I am racing flat out in an 8, with the
outgoing stream, on the Mortlake stretch of the Thames, and there are
lots of coxless boats coming upstream, is it "safe" for me to keep as
far to the outer limit of the channel ? If I hit one / one hit me, I
can just see the lawyer asking me - so Mr Cox, why did you not steer to
port when there was an obvious danger presented to you.
Its pointless just quoting rules and painting the PLA as the bad guys.
They are not. Every dealing I have had with them has led me to believe
they are a professional and sensible bunch who have our safety as one
of their main concerns.Do they know that lots of grass roots rowers are
very concerned about their own safety as a result of the "enforcement"
of the rules designed to actually keep us safe ?
I feel a letter coming on.
demesto...@yahoo.co.uk
gledders wrote:
> Bottom line, free your mind of where we are now, what would you all say
> is the safest way for the river traffic to move about on our bit of the
> river ? - I bet it is not the way that the TRRC are trying to enforce.
> So, maybe they are wrong ?? - just a suggestion.
If you want to keep things simple (and I agree that simple is usally
best), then how about everyone just keeps to the right hand side of the
middle, as far out of the middle as possible. Sort of like the roads,
but on the rght rather than the left because that's the international
convention. And nothing changes with the tides - just be on the right
hand side of the middle. Maximum separation which as you say should
maximise avoidance of crashes.
Then in regattas you'd have marshalling and return lanes on the right
hand side of the middle - so outside UL boathouse in the case of the
Chiswick reach. Racing would be as per where it was on Saturday, but
with the return lane now as far away from racing crews as possible.
Not quite sure how you would get afloat bows-upstream from a boathouse
on the Surrey shore when the tide was running out (or from Middlesex on
a rising tide), but am sure someone can fix this.
I'd like to emphasise that I don't think this is the answer as your
average womens' beginner 8+ from your average low perfromance club
would never make it back down around the corner from Chiswick Bridge to
Barnes Bridge against an incoming Spring tide, or from Harrod's to the
Dove when you have loads of landwater coming down in a wet year. And
then there's the Fulham Flats... But hey, it's simple and it maximises
separation - so it meets your criteria...
Although, once you get above Brentford there are less (?no) beginners
and only competent scullers, so a switch to the right hand rule further
downstream than at present (somewhere near Kew Palace?) would make
sense. Although actually maybe in a very wet winter that wouldn't work
for small boats going against the tide.
But I'm sure if you suggest the above to the PLA in your letter they'll
bite your hand off because it'll maximise separation for all craft and
be simple for them.
Please copy this group in on your letter and the reply from the PLA.
Alan Sherman
>
>
>Is it any narrower than, say, St Neots (where two crews race around
>buoyed lanes through a 100 degree bend, while other crews come up a
>very (?too) narrow navigation lane on the outside of the bend?
>
>Or some of the races on the Cam where there are either narrow
>navigation lanes (Autumn Regatta, unless this has changed) or crews
>pulled in on the bank during races, or just narrow racing lanes (Sprint
>regatta last weekend)?
>
>
I think mentioning other regattas is a bit of a red herring.
1) As I recall St Neots (haven't been for ages) there was no rowing
traffic not related to the regatta i.e. no crews were just on a
training outing.
2) There were considerably less coxless boats in the St Neots stretch.
Even the regatta only used to offer coxless in the higher categories.
Both the above have a bearing on the 'keep to the right' in the bit
where rowers are allowed to go upstream on the left.
At St Neots every rowing crew, visitors included, will have been made
aware of the traffic regulations on the day. On the tideway if you are
not a slug reader, RSRer, etc. you may not be aware that crews (2
abreast) are being ordered to stick to the buoys on that particular
Saturday.
The other point is that on the tideway any status rower may well be
out for a paddle from top end crews from large clubs right down to
social rowers in quads and even coxed boats with trainee coxswains.
Alan Sherman
mpruscoe
> The TRRC are enforcing, I suspect, what they interpret as the rules. As
> in most written rules / documents, there is often (always ?) an element
> of interpretation.
>
>
> Its pointless just quoting rules and painting the PLA as the bad guys.
> They are not. Every dealing I have had with them has led me to believe
> they are a professional and sensible bunch who have our safety as one
> of their main concerns.Do they know that lots of grass roots rowers are
> very concerned about their own safety as a result of the "enforcement"
> of the rules designed to actually keep us safe ?
I wasn't painting the PLA as bad guys - they have to fit the rowing
activities safely within their regulatory framework because they can no
longer turn a blind eye to us and let us row and run regattas and head
races in ways that break their rules. "Safe and practicable" gives us
the leeway to have sufficient separation where up- and down-stream
traffic are on the same side of the river, but it will still mean that
we are normally on the starboard side of the fairway, other than briefly
at pinch points or while overtaking. Unfortunately, regattas don't fit
into that framework of rules very easily.
Carl Douglas
You make some excellent points which do need an airing, while MPR has
underlined why Tideway rowing is in this apparent fix. Although this
discussion must bore the pants off non-UK RSR readers, it may also be a
useful forewarning for some.
Rules have been applied in this detailed manner because too many rowers
were treating the Tideway, its neighbours, each other & other users as
if this were the Wild West, & because the sport's NGB (the ARA), despite
seeing this all going on outside their windows, chose to ignore the
polite entreaties of the Port of London Authority (despite existing
agreements/undertakings).
We have no right to use the water however we wish, but the PLA has the
power to severely curtail our activities &, maybe, to impose mounting
charges. If we now accept & apply the new rules with a good grace, &
rein in our more wayward brethren - as Chris George has been working
diligently to achieve - we may regain a degree of trust with the PLA.
The PLA are very reasonable and well-intentioned people, as you say, &
that kind of response will encourage them to consider reasoned arguments
for rule modification or reinterpretation. If, however, rowers start
writing incautiously or self-righteously to the PLA (I am _not_
suggesting anyone would do that, but we know they might), that could
prove counter-productive.
I should imagine Chris will be paying close attention to issues arising
from the application of the new regulations. I suppose he will hope, in
due course, to discuss these matters with the appropriate authorities.
So I very much hope everyone with thoughts on how things are going under
the new regimen will pass them, in a civil & concise form of course,
directly to Chris, while bearing in mind that he also has a day job.
None of which means they should not be discussed here on RSR
Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1784-456344 Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
demesto...@yahoo.co.uk
Alan Sherman wrote:
> I think mentioning other regattas is a bit of a red herring.
> 1) As I recall St Neots (haven't been for ages) there was no rowing
> traffic not related to the regatta i.e. no crews were just on a
> training outing.
> 2) There were considerably less coxless boats in the St Neots stretch.
> Even the regatta only used to offer coxless in the higher categories.
Leaving aside the massive entry in NV 1x at St Neots (and I wish I
could), my point was to demonstrate that there are places in the UK
where races run safely with no seperation between normal navigation and
a racing lane. Kingston might have been a better example, where the
racing lane in the middle of the river is only a buoy's width away from
the main river traffic. You might consider a gin palace at Kingston to
be less likely to stray into the racing lane than a S3 2- at Chiswick,
but I should imagine that the master of an S3 2- is as likely to lose
control of his or her steering as a slightly sozzelled member of the
Tupperware Navy.
> At St Neots every rowing crew, visitors included, will have been made
> aware of the traffic regulations on the day. On the tideway if you are
> not a slug reader, RSRer, etc. you may not be aware that crews (2
> abreast) are being ordered to stick to the buoys on that particular
> Saturday.
I'm sorry but I disagree. First, the Surrey crew in races on that
stretch would have been where a crew proceeding with the stream should
normally be. So as you proceeded up the inshore zone, you would have
seen a crew coming towards you in the normal place, which happened to
have another crew next to it further to the middle of the river, and a
launch behind it.
Second, you would have just rowed under a banner on the bridge warning
you about the race (I think - I saw this at Chiswick).
Third, there may well have been a Notice to Mariners which will have
been promimently displayed at your Boathouse if you're boating from a
halfway decent club.
> The other point is that on the tideway any status rower may well be
> out for a paddle from top end crews from large clubs right down to
> social rowers in quads and even coxed boats with trainee coxswains.
Yes. And?
The top end crews might have to cope with a bit of extra congestion
which will delay their outing slightly. Boo hoo - they should try being
in Cambridge at 7:50am on the last morning in November. I'm sure their
top end cox/steerer will cope and will be able to keep the crew focused
during the delay.
The social rowers will, I'm sure, be happy to to take extra care before
heading on to the wide open spaces of Brentford and Isleworth. They
would have seen the sign on the bridge and perhaps asked one of the
marshals at the end of the course what was going on.
The trainee coxswain's trainer will no doubt be giving loads of extra
advice and this crew is probably the safest of the lot because everyone
in the boat will be acting as eyes and ears and helping out the new
coxswain. And the coxswain gets to see what a regatta looks like -
valuable experience.
I commend MPR's post - regattas don't work perfectly within the normal
navigation set up. Perhaps these regattas should be applying for NTMs
and permission to be in the middle of the river when no craft are
attempting to navigate in the fairway against the direction of racing.
I think this would be the most elegant solution and as NTMs are issued
for the UK races and Twickenham and Richmond Regattas it is surely not
inconceivable & I hope the regattas and Dr George might consider
applying for this. (On which point, does anyone know how the reach on
which those two regattas run came to be called "Horse Reach"?)
Carl sums it up perfectly in almost as many words as I would use: "If
we now accept & apply the new rules with a good grace, &
rein in our more wayward brethren - as Chris George has been working
diligently to achieve - we may regain a degree of trust with the PLA.
The PLA are very reasonable and well-intentioned people, as you say, &
that kind of response will encourage them to consider reasoned
arguments
for rule modification or reinterpretation."
As I said before: Low tide inshore zone + right hand side of the
Fairway = as much water as busier rivers where people just get on with
it, don't complain (or channel their energy into trying to get more
water (e.g. Bedford, Cambridge)), and mostly manage not to plough into
each other. What's stopping this from happening on the Tideway?
demesto...@yahoo.co.uk
> We seem to lose sight of the simple things about being safe by getting
> all bogged down in complicated terminology and making it all sound very
> very difficult. If for instance, a good non tideway cox came along and
> said, can you explain the local navigation rules to me for the tideway,
> some people would hand him a 5 page booklet and book him on a one day
> seminar. Others, like myself, would point to our huge map on the wall
> and say, these are the crossing points, go against the stream in the
> side of the river, and then when you come back with the stream, keep
> slightly to the right of centre. For this, I would be told by many
> people I am completely wrong, going against all the Col Regs and that I
> am a danger to myself and anyone I brief.
In terms of navigation rules, that's a nice simple summary. But what
about:
- the good non-Tideway cox not knowing which way to boat (bows
upstream) as they're used to a lake (as per several crews at the
Tideway heads each year)?
- the good non-Tideway cox not realising that if they let their bows
point out from the bank when proceeding against the stream then they're
liable to be turned around (or at least will need more rudder to
correct it than they're used to and will end up out of position)
- the good non-Tideway cox not knowing that the water is filthy and
that if any is accidently ingested then it's probably best to wash it
down with some Coke?
- the good non-Tideway cox not knowing the landmarks and getting "lost"
(obviously not lost lost ("Excuse me, which river is this?") but not
knowing how where they are related to that map they saw an hour ago)?
- the good non-Tideway cox not appreciating the impact of stream and
turning (or just stopping for a drink) upstream of a butress
- the good non-Tideway cox not appreciating the fact that the tide has
turned (let's face it, often good Tideway coxes can make this error) or
the fact that it may have turned at Putney but not at Kew
I'm sure a good Tideway cox, which I am not, but which you suggest you
are, could think of more things that they bear in mind during outings.
demesto...@yahoo.co.uk
demesto...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> I think this would be the most elegant solution and as NTMs are issued
> for the UK races and Twickenham and Richmond Regattas it is surely not
Correction. Meant UH (United Hospitals) races. Apologies
mpruscoe
> (On which point, does anyone know how the reach on
> which those two regattas run came to be called "Horse Reach"?)
I would have asked the same question about Corney Reach, but a scan of
www.old-maps.co.uk shows that in 1874 there used to be a Corney Lodge
behind where the Chiswick Pier Development is now. No clues about Horse
Reach.
c.a...@blueyonder.co.uk
demesto...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> In terms of navigation rules, that's a nice simple summary. But what
> about:
> - the good non-Tideway cox not realising that if they let their bows
> point out from the bank when proceeding against the stream then they're
> liable to be turned around
> - the good non-Tideway cox not knowing the landmarks and getting "lost"
> - the good non-Tideway cox not appreciating the impact of stream and
> turning (or just stopping for a drink) upstream of a butress
> - the good non-Tideway cox not appreciating the fact that the tide has
> turned (let's face it, often good Tideway coxes can make this error) or
> the fact that it may have turned at Putney but not at Kew
I'm sorry but you're really maligning us here. In no sense of the word
could any cox displaying any of the above be considered "good" just
plain incompetent and dangerous.
Would you get in a minibus (on the way to a regatta perhaps) driven by
someone who
a) doesn't know the way?
b) doesn't know what side of the road to drive on?
c) thinks it sensible to do 3 point turns near bends or t-junctions, or
stop on roundabouts?
d) know what the speed limits are (analagous to knowing what the tide's
doing at least that only turns four times a day)?
I thought not.
I've probably only ever coxed on the Tideway about 20-30 times in my
life but I know enough not to be stupid enough to do any of the above,
some of which also apply to travelling against the stream on a
non-tidal rviver.
James Elder
mpruscoe wrote:
> I would have asked the same question about Corney Reach, but a scan of
> www.old-maps.co.uk shows that in 1874 there used to be a Corney Lodge
> behind where the Chiswick Pier Development is now. No clues about Horse
> Reach.
ISTR reading somewhere that 'Corney' means (possibly in anglo-saxon?)
'an island inhabited by herons'. So presumably Corney reach originally
took its name from Chiswick Eyot.
demesto...@yahoo.co.uk
> > - the good non-Tideway cox not realising that if they let their bows
> > point out from the bank when proceeding against the stream then they're
> > liable to be turned around
> > - the good non-Tideway cox not knowing the landmarks and getting "lost"
> > - the good non-Tideway cox not appreciating the impact of stream and
> > turning (or just stopping for a drink) upstream of a butress
> > - the good non-Tideway cox not appreciating the fact that the tide has
> > turned (let's face it, often good Tideway coxes can make this error) or
> > the fact that it may have turned at Putney but not at Kew
>
> I'm sorry but you're really maligning us here. In no sense of the word
> could any cox displaying any of the above be considered "good" just
> plain incompetent and dangerous.
They would be incompetent and dangerous on the Tideway yes, but my
point was a response to the original post which was pretty much that
it's OK to "show them the map, tell them which side to drive on and
away you go". I know coxes who are pretty near the top of the College
pecking order in Cambridge - this doesn't make them good coxes, but it
does mean that when they arrive at a Tideway club in the summer while
they're doing an internship in the City then they'll be abel to say
"well I've been coxing for 2 years, I've done my College 1st boat, I've
got the kit and I've got the chat, I know how to coach a crew from the
coxes seat and push them in a race and make the difference between a
crew being average and being great and I plan to trial for CUBC next
year and you know what we won blades last month so I think I'm the
bees' knees and I'd like to cox your S2 8+ for the summer" and yes,
they would be a "good" cox - but the Cam is a ditch with no stream(*),
so they won't know where the Syon Crossing is based on being shown it
on a map, won't realise how much flow there can be and how quickly you
can start drifting backwards, might not appreciate the way the tide
turns.
I'll give you that they'll know how water pushing against the bows can
turn them, and I'll certainly give you that they'll learn the rest of
my points on their first outing (probably with some help from an
experienced person in the crew), but I won't give the original poster
their claim that the new cox would be safe without a bit more of a
briefing than they was proposing.
Sorry for arguing - I do take your point and I was probably exagerating
for effect. But hopefully I've shown that you can give the impression
of being "good" and "incompetent and dangerous" at the same time. One
of the things that makes a cox truly good is that they will be fast
learners willing to listen to advice and act on it, so they probably
will ask questions about the turn of the tide and the effects of stream
before they first go on an unfamiliar river. But I worry about a club
which is desperate for coxes (i.e. most clubs) who use Mr Cocky from
the example above without giving them the full rundown. For a couple of
weeks, until he's had a few near misses and learnt a few more things,
he will be incompetent and dangerous, but he'll be on a river near me,
and that scares me & annoys the PLA.
In summary: I do agree with the original poster that a one-day seminar
on "This is the Tideway" would be too much for a "good" cox from
elsewhere, but also think it needs more than "here's a map on the wall,
cross here here and here, hug the bank against the stream and keep to
the right on the way back"
(*) - and on days when it isn't, rowing's often banned
And as Carl said, apologies for everyone who has never or will never
row on the Tideway.
Tomash
mart...@carr12331.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
Sadly, the one thing that I am certain about after Bourne is that there
isn't much point entering tideway regattas while they are run on this
year's course. My crews lost on Surrey and won on Middlesex and this
pattern seemed anecdotally to follow in most other races.
In particular I think that Surrey crews suffered at the mid-point of
the race where the river starts to bend left towards mddx. The mddx
crews at this point merrily veered off with the bend ending up right in
the middle of the river and following the shorter line, whilst the
Surrey crew had the follow the long path to the left of the umpire
around the outside of the bend.
This is not to criticise the effort and commitment of the organisers
which I am sure was first class. However, this problem makes the
regatta spectacularly bad value for money - the losing crew feels
robbed and the winning crew loses satisfaction from the victory.
Regrettably we wont be supporting this local regatta next year.
As an aside, please leave off criticising the UH bumps. Given that the
complexity of organising a bumping race with 2 x 26 boat divisions is
well recognised, the bumps has probably had a closer relationship for
longer with the PLA than most tideway regattas.
It is run on the least crowded bit of the tideway on weeknights, is
well notified and only requires crews travelling upstream to cross a
little bit earlier than usual. The planning beforehand is extensive, it
has more marshalls than most events and the PLA are always in
attendence.
The standard of rowing at the top end is often high given that the top
crews only come together for the race and include blades from more
elite clubs and ex junior internationals. It also one of the few
opportunities for people who didn't go to Oxbridge to experience bumps
racing - and anyone who has tried it will know that there are few more
exciting ways to race.
COI: I organised the bumps in 2000, possibly the most stressful thing
I've ever done!
demesto...@yahoo.co.uk
> Sadly, the one thing that I am certain about after Bourne is that there
> isn't much point entering tideway regattas while they are run on this
> year's course. My crews lost on Surrey and won on Middlesex and this
> pattern seemed anecdotally to follow in most other races.
For information (and this is based on published draws and results, so
does mean I don't have full information for the heats' results):
Chiswick regatta (on the same course) - 17 finals were won on Surrey
and 16 on Middlesex. However 17 heats were won on Surrey and 24 on
Middlesex.
Borne regatta - 10 finals were won on each station. However 8 heats
were won on Surrey and 16 on Middlesex.
So across the two regattas in finals thats 51% going to Surrey, in
heats its just shy of 44% going to Surrey and overall its 44% going to
Surrey.
> Regrettably we wont be supporting this local regatta next year.
Yes, HRR is so much more fair! ;-)
Seriously though, as has been alluded to elsewhere on this thread, some
regattas do have a reputation for unfair courses, and these reputations
are not always deserved. I encourage everyone going to a regatta this
summer which they consider to be unfair (and we all know of at least
one about which we have our doubts!) to report back statistics to the
group so that discussions can be based on fact and not rumour or years
of doubt. I'd also be interested to know whether regatta organisers in
the UK who stagger their starts to account for stream are planning on
changing this in this very dry summer.
> As an aside, please leave off criticising the UH bumps. [snip] ... and anyone who has > tried it will know that there are few more exciting ways to race.
I agree with you totally, and wish everyone the best of luck. Of
course, it's not fair racing though... better stick to Borne!
mpruscoe
> Tomash wrote:
>> Sadly, the one thing that I am certain about after Bourne is that there
>> isn't much point entering tideway regattas while they are run on this
>> year's course. My crews lost on Surrey and won on Middlesex and this
>> pattern seemed anecdotally to follow in most other races.
>
> For information (and this is based on published draws and results, so
> does mean I don't have full information for the heats' results):
>
> Chiswick regatta (on the same course) - 17 finals were won on Surrey
> and 16 on Middlesex. However 17 heats were won on Surrey and 24 on
> Middlesex.
>
> Borne regatta - 10 finals were won on each station. However 8 heats
> were won on Surrey and 16 on Middlesex.
>
> So across the two regattas in finals thats 51% going to Surrey, in
> heats its just shy of 44% going to Surrey and overall its 44% going to
> Surrey.
I'm no expert on statistics, but I think there is a big problem with
using race statistics to show the fairness or unfairness of a course.
If you had a fair 2 lane course and had a random draw, you might expect
after a day of racing on that course that proportion of winners for each
lane would come out roughly 50:50. In fact, with your random draw, it
would be possible that all the races to be won from one station - it's
an unlikely occurrence, but it would leave you with a strong suspicion
that the course was very unfair even though it wasn't. In my limited
understanding, the number of races that you have got results for can
give you a degree of confidence as to whether your results are biased or
just a result of chance, but can't actually tell you directly whether it
is fair or not.
If there's somebody with more understanding of this, please correct me
if I'm wrong.
Other information related to this:
"Chance can lead to some strange outcomes"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1767283,00.html
Random Walk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk
Checking if a coin is fair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checking_if_a_coin_is_fair
demesto...@yahoo.co.uk
mpruscoe wrote:
> I'm no expert on statistics, but I think there is a big problem with
> using race statistics to show the fairness or unfairness of a course.
Yes, you're absolutely right (good links as well by the way) and I
should have worked out what the margin of error/level of confidence is
for the 118 "toin cosses" that have occurred this summer on the
Chiswick reach course. Once upon a time (A level maths) I could have
done this, but I can not any more.
> that the course was very unfair even though it wasn't. In my limited
> understanding, the number of races that you have got results for can
> give you a degree of confidence as to whether your results are biased or
> just a result of chance, but can't actually tell you directly whether it
> is fair or not.
In my equally limited understanding, I thought that if the % winning on
a station fell within the range of %s allowed under the degree of
confidence you have chosen, then the results are "equal" - and I would
personally extrapolate that "equal" results equal a "fair" course. So I
should go away and work out what the 95% confidence range is for 118
races is, but I don't know how without some heavy duty studying, and as
EastEnders is starting I'll leave it for tonight...
David Biddulph
news:1147719798.8...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
With that sample size, I think you've probably got to get a result of about
65% on one station to achieve 95% confidence that the course is biased, but
my arithmetic may be wrong.
--
David Biddulph
Rowing web pages at
http://www.biddulph.org.uk/
Christopher Anton
weekend - Shrewsbury has a staggered start and finish. I haven't yet
collated the figures but the situation seemed to improve in the afternoon -
not sure what changes if any were made to the start after my first visit
there. All regattas have a chairman of the race committee and visiting RUC
inspector and if you have any concerns about fairness raise it with either
of them on the day.
<demesto...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1147714104....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
david.h...@aea.be
chance of winning, regardless of the conditions? Only races which
might have gone either way are statistically significant?
Edd
But the side of the stronger crew is random each time
(btw, quoting context would have been helpful)
--
Edd
Edd
I make it 58%, but ditto.
--
Edd
Tomash
Ho Hum,
I've just gone straight from an exam containing far too much stats to a
night shift so I'll leave the complicated maths to you.
If I had to come up with a theory as to why lots of heats were won on
Middlesex, but the finals were evenly split, I would say that the
finals were at low tide when Chas was far less willing to drive his
pretty launches on the bank!
demesto...@yahoo.co.uk
> If I had to come up with a theory as to why lots of heats were won on
> Middlesex, but the finals were evenly split, I would say that the
> finals were at low tide when Chas was far less willing to drive his
> pretty launches on the bank!
Fair point for Borne, although a lot of the finals were held earlier in
the day. Will be interesting to see what happens at Barnes and
Mortlake.
Anyway - the original point of this conversation was whether the rules,
for racing and general navigation, are safe. It looks like we're going
to have a chance to hear more about them on the 31st May - according to
http://www.twrc.rowing.org.uk/slug/lower.htm
Will be interesting.
Andrew
> weekend - Shrewsbury has a staggered start and finish. I haven't yet
> collated the figures but the situation seemed to improve in the afternoon -
> not sure what changes if any were made to the start after my first visit
> there. All regattas have a chairman of the race committee and visiting RUC
> inspector and if you have any concerns about fairness raise it with either
> of them on the day.
Cannot say I noticed the stations to be particularly unfair. Seem like
a straight forward enough job to win on both sides. Or that any changes
were made during the two days.
On the other hand the umpiring was definetly unfair. We (the Lea) did
not get an offical warning for anything. This just can not be right!
Are West Midlands umpires not told that the Lea gets a warning for
arriving at the start?
Andrew
david.h...@aea.be
Andrew wrote:
>
>
> On the other hand the umpiring was definetly unfair. We (the Lea) did
> not get an offical warning for anything. This just can not be right!
> Are West Midlands umpires not told that the Lea gets a warning for
> arriving at the start?
>
> Andrew
Things have moved on. Nowadays it's
'You're a lightweight ... you're disqualified'
c.a...@blueyonder.co.uk
Andrew wrote:
>
> Cannot say I noticed the stations to be particularly unfair. Seem like
> a straight forward enough job to win on both sides. Or that any changes
> were made during the two days.
>
The figures were something like
races up to 12noon boathouse side 22, quarry side 68
races 12noon to 3pm boathouse side 40, quarry side 51
The morning results are statistically very unlikely given a 50% chance
of winning on either side, the afternoon results are possibly OK.
Sunday will have been an entirely different start line, and the course
is straighter as well.
I'll correct these tonight if I've remember them wrongly.
Peter Ford
c.a...@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
>
> >
> > Cannot say I noticed the stations to be particularly unfair. Seem like
> > a straight forward enough job to win on both sides. Or that any changes
> > were made during the two days.
> >
>
> The figures were something like
>
> races up to 12noon boathouse side 22, quarry side 68
> races 12noon to 3pm boathouse side 40, quarry side 51
>
> The morning results are statistically very unlikely given a 50% chance
> of winning on either side, the afternoon results are possibly OK.
How are the start posts set up there? Is the stream taken into account?
It did seem possible that the (larger than sometimes?) stream would hit
a boathouse side crew harder, particularly than a well-tucked in quarry
side crew.
The finish line did seem better positioned this year, but retained the
angle which makes it feel staggered from the water; from the bank I
admit it looks not staggered, but compared to the banks and the
buoyline in the last few hundred metres, which is probably what crews
judge their parallel and perpendicular lines from, it still felt quite
staggered, which makes juding your boats position near the finish
confusing.
But in the case of races which are going to be won by a substantial
distance, any unfairness of the lanes is not going to affect them, so
for useful data it would seem best to collate results of all races that
were won by less than, say, 2 lengths.
eg, in the rather extreme case where in every race one crew is capable
of rowing the course, on fair water, 10s quicker than the other, a 5s
advantage to one lane will have no effect on the results, so any
imbalance in the results to one station can only be down to random
chance in picking of stations.
Admittedly, most regattas are not quite this far removed from real
racing, but the proportion of races at Shrewsbury that approach this
has always seemed significant enough that working out if one lane gives
an advantage can only be done on a rather small sample of races which
are close.
Peter Ford
Andrew
But I am a lightweight.
Andrew
c.a...@blueyonder.co.uk
Peter Ford wrote:
>
> The finish line did seem better positioned this year, but retained the
> angle which makes it feel staggered from the water; from the bank I
> admit it looks not staggered, but compared to the banks and the
> buoyline in the last few hundred metres, which is probably what crews
> judge their parallel and perpendicular lines from, it still felt quite
> staggered, which makes juding your boats position near the finish
> confusing.
>
Shrewsbury do make quite elaborate preparations in setting up their
course and they do make allowance for the fact that the crew on the
boathouse side has to row against the stream and on the outside of the
bend. That's why both the start and the finish are staggered.
Yes the finish position was hugely better this year.
di@rocktheboat
races 12noon to 3pm boathouse side 40, quarry side 51
The morning results are statistically very unlikely given a 50% chance
of winning on either side, the afternoon results are possibly OK.
IIRC all the "incidents" were on the quarry side (grass cutting, bird
watching, hedge trimming - whatever the excuse) which made a pleasant
change from the previous years of "Hold it hard" clashes on the
boathouse side
Edd
> Andrew wrote:
> >
> > Cannot say I noticed the stations to be particularly unfair. Seem like
> > a straight forward enough job to win on both sides. Or that any changes
> > were made during the two days.
> >
> The figures were something like
> races up to 12noon boathouse side 22, quarry side 68
> races 12noon to 3pm boathouse side 40, quarry side 51
> The morning results are statistically very unlikely given a 50% chance
> of winning on either side, the afternoon results are possibly OK.
I'd be wary of inferring anything from splitting the data like that,
unless you've some prior motivation for thinking that something
changed about the course at 12 noon. When you start doing things like
that it begins to become less clear what is significant and what
isn't.
The fact that the overall results are strikingly unlikely is about all
you should talk about unless someone did change things at about 12pm
or if the conditions were different in some other way.
--
Edd
Edd
[I wrote]
> >
> >But the side of the stronger crew is random each time
> >(btw, quoting context would have been helpful)
> >--
> >Edd
> But in the case of races which are going to be won by a substantial
> distance, any unfairness of the lanes is not going to affect them, so
> for useful data it would seem best to collate results of all races that
> were won by less than, say, 2 lengths.
> eg, in the rather extreme case where in every race one crew is capable
> of rowing the course, on fair water, 10s quicker than the other, a 5s
> advantage to one lane will have no effect on the results, so any
> imbalance in the results to one station can only be down to random
> chance in picking of stations.
I don't believe this matters when hypothesis testing like some of us
are. You're only testing the hypothesis that the course is fair. *How*
it is unfair isn't something that is being tested.
If someone says there's a 95% confidence that the course is unfair
they're saying there's a 1 in 20 chance that a fair course could
produce that result. It doesn't matter what the actual unfairness of
the course is - you can rule out that it was fair with that degree of
confidence. If you want to determine how unfair a course is you're
going into much trickier bits of statistics.
It becomes totally irrelevant how much of a margin a crew wins by as
any individual station should have a 50% chance of victory on
average.
--
Edd
Carl Douglas
By adjusting start & finish alignments you can correct for stream, but
only for one speed of boat.
Say it's a 1.5k course, that the best 8s do 5.8m/sec & the head stream
flows at 0.2m/sec in lane 1, but 0.3m/sec in lane2. Crew 1 achieves
5.6m/sec over ground & crew 2 only 5.5m/sec. Then, for fairness, crew 2
needs its course shortened by 26.8m, or almost 2 eights' lengths
Now what about the scullers?
Assume low-status scullers doing around 4m/sec. Sculler 1 achieves
3.8m/sec over the ground, but sculler 2 only 3.7m/sec. For fairness,
sculler 2 needs his course reduced by 39.5m, or almost 50% more than
required for fairness between fast eights. Even quick scullers will
need around 35% more stagger than fast eights.
So, while staggered start/finish lines may reduce unfairness due to
stream, they can't possibly eliminate it from a regatta. And quite
small stream differences make really big changes to lane advantage.
The only thing which levels results out across a regatta is that the
fastest crews are usually a lot faster than the next fastest, whereas
there will be much smaller disparities in boat speed in the middle of
the pack. So that fastest crews still have some hope of beating an
unfavourable lane and making the regatta stagger appear to be fair.
Thus far we've discussed 2-lane racing. Multilane courses often suffer
marked lane-specific wind-shadow effects (changing both head- or
tail-wind & wave height from lane to lane). Head-wind in particular can
sharply reduce boat speed. Not only that, but wind blowing diagonally
over a lake can also generate water circulation in a way which further
disadvantages the most exposed lanes. And these problems are actually
exacerbated by courses even wider than the 6-lanes minimum when
organisers move racing into the less wind-affected lanes to permit
racing to take place at all
In short, while we give a deal of superficial thought to making
competition "fair", including 0.01-sec timing & photofinishes, we give
none to whether fairness is ever achievable, or whether what we do to
make things more fair does actually make any sense.
Cheers -
Carl
--
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JY, UK
Email: ca...@carldouglas.co.uk Tel: +44(0)1784-456344 Fax: -466550
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)
Jeremy Fagan
the finish upstream of the boathouse so that it's visible from the
balcony - meaning that it's on a bend. Any half decent risk assessment
would move the finish 50m downstream, off the bend. Shrewsbury's a great
regatta, but any close racing is largely spoilt by the finish position.
Jeremy
Andrew
> the finish upstream of the boathouse so that it's visible from the
> balcony - meaning that it's on a bend. Any half decent risk assessment
> would move the finish 50m downstream, off the bend. Shrewsbury's a great
> regatta, but any close racing is largely spoilt by the finish position.
Unless I am really confused, the finish was just downstream of the
boathouse this year?
I own I was that sure where the finish was, given I gave up trying in
most of my races before half way, but one or two I raced to the line.
Andrew
Andrew
> the finish upstream of the boathouse so that it's visible from the
> balcony - meaning that it's on a bend. Any half decent risk assessment
> would move the finish 50m downstream, off the bend. Shrewsbury's a great
> regatta, but any close racing is largely spoilt by the finish position.
Unless I am really confused, the finish was just downstream of the
boathouse this year?
I own I was not that sure where the finish was, given I gave up trying
Christopher Anton
"Andrew" <ajwe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148571865.2...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> But still suffering from Shrewsbury's irritating insistence of having
>> the finish upstream of the boathouse so that it's visible from the
>> balcony - meaning that it's on a bend. Any half decent risk assessment
>> would move the finish 50m downstream, off the bend. Shrewsbury's a great
>> regatta, but any close racing is largely spoilt by the finish position.
>
> Unless I am really confused, the finish was just downstream of the
> boathouse this year
The finish was moved about 40m downstream this year. No doubt the RUC will
take a view on whether it was successful or not. As I said personally I
think it was much better and avoided any near misses on the bend with
returning crews.
Peter Ford
It didn't avoid all the near misses, but they were helped by the fact
the crews trying to go straight on had at least finished racing by the
time they tried to row over the top of the marshalling.
But yes, a good regatta in spite of the unfriendly weather.
Peter Ford
Jeremy Fagan
Jeremy
demesto...@yahoo.co.uk
> Up the sides, down the middle - seems sensible to me ? Lets face it,
> you are more likely to hit another rowing boat where everyone is going
> backwards in a forced narrowish channel than hitting a large, very
> visible pleasure cruiser with an engine, a person steering facing the
> right way, and a loud horn to warn you its there. And, there are not
> many of them either !!
Well, the new code of conduct has been published, at
http://www.thames-rrc.org/ and it strikes me that there's not much new
there other than the "no waiting" zones around bridges (which imho make
sense and are similar to rules in Oxford and Cambridge about "no
spinning" zones) and the formalisation of lots of existing
things-which-should-be-done-anyway like proper navigational lights on
launches at night. And some signs showing where the crossing points
are, rather than people randomly choosing a point 500m either side of
it.
Seems to be mostly good, although I worry that it won't produce a
step-change in attitudes and while there will probably be a short-term
improvement, standards will slip again and in about 10 or 20 years
we'll go through this again. Or am I just pessamistic?
And regattas will need to be looked at if they prove to be unfair - is
the RSR jury still out on that one?
Gledders I assume you raised your point above about prefering up the
sides and down the middle and had it turned down?
Great typo on the picture of the coaching launch - suggesting that the
light should be 300m instead of 300mm above the launch driver.
simonk
<demesto...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1149240597.2...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> gledders wrote:
>> Up the sides, down the middle - seems sensible to me ? Lets face it,
>> you are more likely to hit another rowing boat where everyone is going
>> backwards in a forced narrowish channel than hitting a large, very
>> visible pleasure cruiser with an engine, a person steering facing the
>> right way, and a loud horn to warn you its there. And, there are not
>> many of them either !!
>
> Well, the new code of conduct has been published, at
> http://www.thames-rrc.org/ and it strikes me that there's not much new
> there other than the "no waiting" zones around bridges (which imho make
> sense and are similar to rules in Oxford and Cambridge about "no
> spinning" zones) and the formalisation of lots of existing
> things-which-should-be-done-anyway like proper navigational lights on
> launches at night. And some signs showing where the crossing points
> are, rather than people randomly choosing a point 500m either side of
> it.
>
> Seems to be mostly good, although I worry that it won't produce a
> step-change in attitudes and while there will probably be a short-term
> improvement, standards will slip again and in about 10 or 20 years
> we'll go through this again. Or am I just pessamistic?
There is a lot of good stuff in there, and formalising and marking some of
the navigational landmarks has got to be a good thing - the old rules used
to talk in terms of Lot's Ait and Isleworth Ferry Gate, when most rowers
speak in terms of "The Barges" and "The Pink House"
However, I fully expect that the rule to stick to the right-hand-side of the
navigation channel when proceeding with the tide will be the first to slip -
if only because for the prevailing conditions on the Tideway, it puts rowing
craft at far greater risk of collision with each other. You need only look
at the second diagram on page 5, and again on page 9, to see this in black
and white (or rather, red and green).
The second diagram on page 9 is disturbingly similar to a diagram I had to
draw for an accident report last summer, when my 4- (a red arrow, if you
like) hospitalised the bowman of a double scull coming down-stream (a green
arrow), too close to Surrey. I don't plan to see that much blood in an
outing again.
--
simonk