another newly purchased boat ill equiped rescued - Page 2

chewy · 21 December 2009, 10:04

If you have an accident in a car and your not insured you lose your car.
Most people who value their boat have insurance therefore for the majority of us this wouldn't be a problem, the minority that don't have insurance run the risk of losing their boat.
If insurance companies then had a minimum standard of training before they would cover you it would go a long way to prevent things like this.

Craft below a certain size and power could be exempt.

Poly · 21 December 2009, 10:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malthouse

Definitely agree, but I still feel that historically it is the marine insurance industry that has been "encouraged" to promote safe practices and that this is the way to go.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chewy

Craft below a certain size and power could be exempt.

So it will be OK to take out a small boat or an uninsured boat and run into trouble through lack of experience etc.

Presumably the insurance industry don't percieve a problem as my premiums aren't that high.

Channel Ribs · 21 December 2009, 10:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polwart

Presumably the insurance industry don't percieve a problem as my premiums aren't that high.

In my experience they do not see a meaningful correlation between training and sea safety, nor do they acknowledge that theft could be better prevented. The status quo, I presume, suits them nicely.

Insurers are posh bookies, and bookies do not gamble. Unless they can be sure that a discount of 20 quid on your policy is going to make them better off they will probably carry on.

I am surprised they have not cottoned onto the idea that claimants need to send a copy of an in date SRC in with a claim, that would save them a few squids.

chewy · 21 December 2009, 11:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polwart

So it will be OK to take out a small boat or an uninsured boat and run into trouble through lack of experience etc.

Presumably the insurance industry don't percieve a problem as my premiums aren't that high.

I was thinking less than 3m and 15hp, what size were you thinking?

My premiums aren'y that high although my insurance company reckons my SR4 was more at risk from sinking than my 16ft GRP fishing boat with no built in buoyancy. The reason been it was smaller and had a larger engine.

Ian M · 21 December 2009, 12:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erin

Sadly legislation is spoiling life and freedom for more of us than it protects. Look at car insurance - illegal to drive without it, but look how many people that do! I really can't see how more marine legislation is going to make a difference. There will always be ignorant and foolhardy people out there, and why should I be penalised for their stupidity or arrogance.

Cookee · 21 December 2009, 14:02

You can't fix stupid ..................

kelson · 21 December 2009, 16:00

Training and equipment do not mean that one will not lose sight of the overall picture. Last night on San Diego Bay, during the Parade of Lights with lots of small boats anchored in the bay, a Coast Guard vessel ran into a smaller vessel and there was a fatality. The Coast Guard boat was speeding in the dark toward downtown and then reversed direction and hit the anchored craft. While they were responding to a call, it was for a vessel aground in the bay. Not a life threatening emergency that would justify running "code" through congested waters in the dark. So sad and so unnecessary. Training alone does not make up for a lack of common sense.

Poly · 21 December 2009, 17:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by chewy

I was thinking less than 3m and 15hp, what size were you thinking?

I have no idea - but people get in trouble with that size too - all creating arbitrary limits does is encourage people to buy just under them - which is safer 4 (or even 6) adults on a 4m SR / humber etc with say a 40 HP engine or the same on a 2.7m inflatable with a 15 HP engine that just scrapes under your hypothetical cut off.

Quote:

Insurers are posh bookies, and bookies do not gamble. Unless they can be sure that a discount of 20 quid on your policy is going to make them better off they will probably carry on.

Makes sense - so why would an insurer offer a £20 discount? (a) because his risk (averaged across all users in the same 'category' as you) is actually reduced by more than £20 so he makes more profit; (b) because the market/competition forces him to. The market can only do that is someone is prepared to make less money or believes that (a) applies. I'm suggesting (a) does not apply.

My insurer knows my qualifications and experience (they specifically asked) but I doubt it made any difference to my premium. But they must know the statistics for how many of their claims come from which groups. I suspect that as it is relatively easy to gain a PB2/ICC (which is presumably the sort of standard that would be expected) that it actually makes you no (or not significantly) less likely to have a claim. How much of your total policy cost is attributed to the 'avoidable user error' risk? I'd hazard a guess that total loss when not in use (i.e. sinking/breaking free on a mooring or theft on a trailer) is much more of the risk.

PeterM · 21 December 2009, 18:02

OK here goes ............

I am not an Insurer , but it my line of work ....

Most of your policy is made up of the risk of you injuring someone , or damaging something else , a big chunk is then your kit being stolen , and a little bit in case you sink !

If you die mid chanel your insurers will have to pay for the cost of your boat - overall not much. If you cut up Bill Gates with your prop they will have to pay up to ( depending on your policy) 3 or 5 million .

You can buy forms of rescue insurance - but its very expensive. Imagine the cost of just running the 'local' SAR chopper for an hour or so - its thousands ! Add in a few police , etc and you will soon reach tens of thousands.

In its simplest from around here its Sea Start.

I cant agree more that people act recklessly and endanger themselves & other all the time - but I cant seeits down to insurers to stop them .

Just the way of the world - look at flying - hugely regulated & yet someone like Colin Mcrae - still flew with no valid licence - hence insurance and killed people doing it - and he was not short of the money to pay for right licence etc .

Human nature.............?

Erin · 21 December 2009, 20:29

I think we're all coming to more or less the same conclusion. Regulation will never stop all of the accidents. We've all taken a chance at some point and done something we shouldn't have, whether it be driving home from the pub after a couple of jars, or pulling up on a double yellow - clearly one being far more risky and dangerous than the other. There is no simple solution. However, I do believe making training and experience more accessible will help. There are too many people that treat boats like cars, they don't maintain them or care for them until they break down, and always assume there'll be someone out there to save them when in trouble. Marina berths and turn key packages make it just a little bit too easy to go out into the open sea. More publicity of the incidents and an incentive to learn and train will help, but is not the panacea.

JABS · 21 December 2009, 21:36

I think there is a wider issue here.

The boat was not capable of the planned journey.

The boat was not equipped for the journey.

The journey appears to have been undertaken by a crew who had no understanding of the magnitude of the task ahead.

The boat was, to them, unproven.

They did not have sufficient crew to organise watches.

The boat, almost certainly didn't have the required range.

There is no way that leislation could prevent this level of ignorance.

Off you go!

Channel Ribs · 21 December 2009, 21:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erin

More publicity of the incidents and an incentive to learn and train will help, but is not the panacea.

Wise words.

*nods*

willk · 21 December 2009, 23:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erin

but is not the panacea.

That's one of them squigley french breads, innit?

SPR · 22 December 2009, 00:07

As it stands the CG I believe could prosecute under SOLAS V.

Since SOLAS V covers leisure boaters.

Educate not Legislated.....

S.

Poly · 22 December 2009, 00:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by SPR

As it stands the CG I believe could prosecute under SOLAS V.

Since SOLAS V covers leisure boaters.

Educate not Legislated.....

S.

No need the RIBnet Court has already found them guilty. Subject to appeal they will be executed at 12 noon tomorrow.

Avocet · 22 December 2009, 10:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erin

but is not the panacea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willk

That's one of them squigley french breads, innit?

Nah: it's a cured Italian bacon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polwart

They will be executed at 12 noon tomorrow.

..... and another endorsement for Charles Darwin

willk · 22 December 2009, 10:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avocet

Nah: it's a cured Italian bacon

Cured of what? We use only the healthy pigs for rashers.

JABS · 22 December 2009, 11:11

Could we nominate them for a Darwin award?

Or is it always awarded posthumously?

Avocet · 22 December 2009, 11:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by willk

Cured of what? We use only the healthy pigs for rashers.

They're hardly healthy if they've got rashes.....

Poly · 22 December 2009, 12:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by JABS

Could we nominate them for a Darwin award?

Or is it always awarded posthumously?

No you need to remove yourself from the gene pool (die or prevent reproduction). http://www.darwinawards.com/rules/

I actually think we're being a bit unfair to the couple involved. MCGA press releases always have an angle - they are never simple factual accounts of the rescue. So couple buy boat, couple begin to take boat home, couple get into difficulties, couple deploy anchor, couple call for help. The negatives are: (1) they broke down - but only after several hours of motoring so, without knowing the details its difficult to point the finger at them (2) they didn't use proper VHF procedure -- ok but that hardly makes them unique. perhaps 'she' was dealing with the CG whilst 'he' (who may be more experienced with the radio) was trying to fix the engine). (3) so they didn't have any flares on boat - for all we know they were supposed to be in the inventory when bought or a bag of stuff accidentally got left in the car at the start of the journey. (4) so the compass wasn't working? did they reasonably expect that the ships compass was true and then discover it wasn't? perhaps the VHF or a mobile phone speaker magnet was causing the problem - the middle of a distress call is probably not the best time to be establishing this - but at least they obviously had enough 'nous' to realise it was wrong. Perhaps their hand bearing compass was in the bag in the car with the flares etc...

I'm sure there are people on here who have at some point made errors of judgement or ploughed on when the wiser man would have returned to home, or forgotten some kit and gone out anyway.

Interestingly when 'one of our own' makes a f**k up we seem to say 'oh well everyones ok, its a great learning experience etc' but when someone else does it 'they are a complete idiot, and people like that should be banned from the water'.