Legislation change

[rik_elliott]

Hi
Not sure if any of you saw this today https://www.gov.uk/government/news/r...rgFe2-dUvhSads

I wonder how this has been codified - are jet skis a new class in legislation or can we expect the rules to impact small boats too? I'd have thought seriously dangerous or negligent behaviour on the water in any sort of vessel should be treated much the same. I thought it was interesting that it implies jet skis are only now covered by col regs. When I did my RYA PWC colregs were absolutely a part of the curriculum.

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by rik_elliott

Hi
Not sure if any of you saw this today https://www.gov.uk/government/news/r...rgFe2-dUvhSads

I wonder how this has been codified - are jet skis a new class in legislation or can we expect the rules to impact small boats too? I'd have thought seriously dangerous or negligent behaviour on the water in any sort of vessel should be treated much the same. I thought it was interesting that it implies jet skis are only now covered by col regs. When I did my RYA PWC colregs were absolutely a part of the curriculum.

Maybe all the tin pot welsh local councils who have introduced local permits under the guise of controlling jet skis, might reconsider now that they are covered by “proper” legislation…but I won’t hold my breath.

[paintman]

I think this is 'The Merchant Shipping (Watercraft) Order 2023'
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...roduction/made

It says in 'Interpretation':
Meaning of “watercraft”
3.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), “watercraft” means any type of craft which—

(a)is capable of moving under its own mechanical power,
(b)is used, navigated or situated wholly or partly in or on water, and
(c)is capable of being used to carry one or more persons.
(2) “Watercraft” does not include a ship or fishing vessel within the meanings given in section 313(1) of the 1995 Act.

So not just jet skis.

Your article speaks of 'watercraft, such as jet skis' and appears to have been introduced to cover a loophole in current legislation "Watercraft are not currently covered by wider maritime safety legislation". Quite what fell outside that - apart from jet skis - I don't know but I expect there will be definitions in earlier legislation that covered what was available at the time but has been found not to cover subsequent inventions.

ETA. This suggests that that was the case when a matter was heard by the Court of Appeal:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...andum/contents

[rik_elliott]

Interesting. So looks like it will impact many ribbers too, though I hope that most on here would be insured and have the training to know to keep a watch and obey colregs. I wonder if we will all eventually need to register our boats on the SSR

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by rik_elliott

Interesting. So looks like it will impact many ribbers too, though I hope that most on here would be insured and have the training to know to keep a watch and obey colregs. I wonder if we will all eventually need to register our boats on the SSR

TBH I’ve no problem with boats being on the SSR. It’s around £25 for 5 years & is universally recognised. I’d rather that than the aforementioned ad-hoc registrations being brought in by local councils. Both my boats are on the register & it’s no problem.

[ShinyShoe]

My understanding was some crafty (pun intended) defence lawyer argued that the shipping regulations don't apply to a jet ski as a jet ski isn't a ship

I'm 99.9% sure most RIB owners considered the shipping regs applied to them. So if you are in the 0.1% this affects you. If not, nothing changes. There is no requirement to register a yacht that stays in UK waters or have qualifications

[Poly]

ShinyShoe is correct - this is a response to a court case the crown lost on appeal several years ago which said that technically PWCs (Jetskis) being driven round in circles were not ships because the definition of a ship was "every description of vessel used in navigation not propelled by oars" and blasting around the local bay in circles was not navigation.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk...fings/sn00268/

I think you could have argued that anything used as a toy for batting about rather than going from one place to another was not a ship and so technically outside the rules. I guess that includes these powered foiling surf boards, small sib/ribs towing toys, etc. Here was the court of appeal's words:

The words ‘used in navigation’ exclude from the definition of ‘ship
or vessel’ craft that are simply used for having fun on water without
the object of going anywhere, into which jet-skis plainly fall.

As well as technically providing a loophole for people being stupid and risking others it also meant that technically is PWC (or other "toys") weren't a ship unless you were actually using it from going from A-B and so the ship registry weren't sure if they should accept them.

Interestingly (to me at least!) the term mechanical propulsion was used which I think probably includes oars (there is a mechanical/lever advantage) but perhaps not paddles? if they meant motorised they would have said that. So if I am right, rowing boats are in, canoes and kayaks are out, and tiny sailing dinghies being used for mucking about are out - but perhaps racing round a course is navigation? So that clears it all up then. You can see why its taken them 17 years to fix it!

[Matt]

Can’t see any issue with this rule, looks good.

[Jon Tallis]

Agree......sounds entirely reasonable to be bound by ColRegs etc, which I'm sure most users on here do anyway.
With luck might bring a few example prosecutions of the minority of irresponsible users that tarnish the image of the rest of the boating (and PWC) world.

[Matt]

Not specifically related to this rule, but as a general view of rules, I wish we'd write our rules in a more US way. In the UK, it always feels like we write rules that lead by saying what you're not allowed to do something and this is the penalty.

In the US I always feel like they say, this is how you are allowed to do something and if you don't do it that way, this is the penalty.

It's subtle, but I always felt it garners a different mindset to how our respective nations approach doing things. Perhaps the mindset came first and therefore this is the natural way rules get written, I don't know.

[paintman]

Originally Posted by Poly

Interestingly (to me at least!) the term mechanical propulsion was used which I think probably includes oars (there is a mechanical/lever advantage) but perhaps not paddles? if they meant motorised they would have said that. So if I am right, rowing boats are in, canoes and kayaks are out, and tiny sailing dinghies being used for mucking about are out - but perhaps racing round a course is navigation? So that clears it all up then. You can see why its taken them 17 years to fix it!

In the absence of anything in the legislation (unless I've missed it!) I'm inclined to think it will be similar to 'mechanically propelled' in road traffic law which is a motor of some description - steam, petrol, oil or electric.
The courts usually deciding whether the latest invention falls into that category.

[lakelandterrier]

Originally Posted by Poly

The words ‘used in navigation’ exclude from the definition of ‘ship
or vessel’ craft that are simply used for having fun on water without
the object of going anywhere, into which jet-skis plainly fall.
!

What baloney from the Court of Appeal - jetskis very often go somewhere - I very often see them heading out from Torquay / Brixham going somewhere! I wish those in power had some knowledge on what they are judging. If yuo set out from somewhere and land somewhere (even the same place) you will have been somewhere!

A jetski is a craft, powered, on the water, as is a sailing dinghy (wind), rowing boat (oars) rib / supertanker (engine) etc. and should be subject to the same rules on safety, navigation, collision etc as any other powered craft - I do not see how they are classed as a separate category

[fastasfox]

Like any policy change it is only as good as the enforcement. And for those that do respect the water then it won't effect you.

[HDAV]

Originally Posted by lakelandterrier

What baloney from the Court of Appeal - jetskis very often go somewhere - I very often see them heading out from Torquay / Brixham going somewhere! I wish those in power had some knowledge on what they are judging. If yuo set out from somewhere and land somewhere (even the same place) you will have been somewhere!

A jetski is a craft, powered, on the water, as is a sailing dinghy (wind), rowing boat (oars) rib / supertanker (engine) etc. and should be subject to the same rules on safety, navigation, collision etc as any other powered craft - I do not see how they are classed as a separate category

The assumption was they were covered by shipping regs until some knob acting like a knob got caught and decided not to pay his fine and went to court and the judge being muppet accepted the argument and was upheld by the court of appeal again muppetry.

There was a dft consultation and everything over 2.5m was in scope of the consultation (that would include paddle boards)

I wish I meant equal rights to lunching, launch fees and access to water

I doubt it will but I am certainly considering using the new regs to challenge several local prohibitions and if that means taking the council to court why not …… how a boat with an engine is different to a watercraft I have no idea ? How do they define a fishing boat? Plenty of people fish from PWCs if having a rod on reel on board makes it a fishing boat then guess what I’m going fishing

It’s bad legislation and won’t solve the total lack of enforcement around the coast of the U.K.

PWCs go further than many boats, more often day trips of 70-100+ miles are common. Round it Isle of Wight, Anglesey, across the Bristol Channel, out to Isle of Man etc

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-eur...n-55310647.amp

[citygent111]

When we re-registered our boat with Anglesey council warden on Rhosneigr beach last week, this was the first thing they mentioned to us. The new regs cover powered craft - not an issue as it's insured, PB2 qualified etc.

We took it out the day after at Treath Bychan - jetski knobs screwing it out of the bay about 20m from shore. Some things won't change.... :-(

[HDAV]

What makes you think they were any less qualified or not insured? And it’s perfectly safe to have fun 20m from the beach in the right circumstances…… nothing wrong with it at all…. If it was dangerous why didn’t you report it to the police?

Regularly see knobs in ribs

[citygent111]

Originally Posted by HDAV

What makes you think they were any less qualified or not insured? And it’s perfectly safe to have fun 20m from the beach in the right circumstances…… nothing wrong with it at all…. If it was dangerous why didn’t you report it to the police?

Regularly see knobs in ribs

Not sure I said anywhere that they weren't insured or qualified?

It may be safe "in the right circumstances", but the law says 8mph for a reason. And "report it to the police"? You are having a laugh there aren't you? They care more about hurt feelings these days!!

All I'm saying is there was not much consideration for other people, but if you're ok with that then that's fine - let's hope it's not your children that get hit by someone "having fun".