Regulation of UK Leisure Boating - a good idea?

[willk]

Originally Posted by Anchorhandler

Many boat users who have voluntarily taken upon themselves to achieve some sort of higher qualification seem to feel it necessary to refute the idea of mandatory quals.....

ow ells wood wee fyel soupearier too de ovver nobburs?

[Josh_P]

Originally Posted by tonto

I am not arguing against safety rules, I am arguing that there should be some!
Presently there is nothing to stop a P***ed up idiot getting behind the wheel of a boat, with no training/insurance/safety equipment and doing himself and others real harm, and TBH I think there should be some rule against it.

I can not for the life of me understand why there should be any objection to having such a rule? and if i had to choose between having a law (standards/rule, call it whatever) about the colour of a sidelight, and one to make it an offence to drink and conn boat, I would definately choose the latter.

I'm pretty sure if you are pissed behind the wheel it is still illegal as skipper, just as it is to be pissed as skipper at anchor on a yacht...

Not enforced but still law...

[Josh_P]

Originally Posted by Anchorhandler

I find it ironic that this thread started off by debating the need for LED nav light standardisation when, if you spent as much time as me out on the water , you would soon conclude that the importance of debating the details of color, interference, reliability etc.. falls far behind the actual importance of having the f**king things actually switched on in the first place.

I still see on a regular basis people sailing/motoring at night with NO nav/running lights showing.

Simon

So so true especially little fishing boats out by the needle around sunset, they have nav lights on when moving but turn them off when fishing, i've nearly clove a few of them in two...

Has anyone seen the little (commercial) fishing dory that nets on theeastern side of Southampton Water at night with orange flashing construction lights all over it (most likely liberated from the sides of skips)... Beware though if you see one of those lights in the water at night don't investigate they're the markers for his nets...

[BruceB]

I get enough b**shit at work complying with the law and regulation, screw having to do all that out on the water as well.
If someone does something particularly stupid then reckless endangerment is a good catch all.
How would you enforce drink regs against someone sitting on a yacht, anchored, sipping a few glasses of wine or something similiar where the qualified skipper was elsewhere, tied to a mooring or at a dock?
How would you police this anyway?

[Anchorhandler]

Originally Posted by Pikey Dave

You're missing the point. Don't confuse standardisation of product with training people how to use it. Standards (as has already been said umpteen times) are there to ensure that manufacturers produce products that are fit to use. If you then place those products in the hands of a numpty, that's a different argument. When you put your dinner in the microwave, you don't have to attend a training course & pass an exam to do so. BUT, the manufacturer has to produce a machine that won't fry your head. He even has to take into account the infinite stupidity of the human race, by putting a warning in the instructions that the microwave isn't to be used for drying your pet chuhoohoo. Similarly, when did you last attend a telly watching course? No? But you know that you can sit infront of the telly, safe in the knowledge that it won't make your eyes bleed & turn you deaf... why is that....Standards dear boy, standards

"Standards (as has already been said umpteen times) are there to ensure that manufacturers produce products that are fit to use."

What does STCW stand for?...in particular the"S"???

The point 'that i am surely missing' is that for accountability (and insurance purposes) not only items have to comply with set standards. If you were able to take control of the said microwave or TV and operate it in a way that could cause harm to others then you can sure as hell bet that you would have to be trained and certified to operate it. Why?, because at some point someone will claim they "did'nt know" or were not trained properly and end up hurting an innocent by-stander.
What other vehicles/equipment can a person operate in public without having some form of certification?...certainly not many. Like the microwave manufacturer that has to prove that his equipment will not cause injury, we as vehicle/equipment operators also have to prove that we will also not cause harm. It reminds of the favorite American expression (which i fully agree with) "guns don't kill people, people kill people"....

The "S" in STCW means that a person achieving a certificate that meets STCW requirments has reached a minimum standard of training. This in turn means that he is deemed a lower risk to operate or help operate a type of vessel and therfore makes himself and the vessel more "insurable".

I fully appreciate your frustrations though, but sadly its the way things are going. In my line of work i have seen first hand how an increase in training and certification has made the industry a safer place....FACT.

There will always be that one idiot though who, no matter how much training and certification, will always manage to hurt himself or somone else.
I often wonder what Darwin would think if he could see society as it is now...What ever happened to "survival of the fittest" I'm sure he would see the HSE as being counter evolutionary for sure as i admit they seem to help the idiots in this world carry on breeding. If someone wants to remove the guard of a 9" angle grinder to bolt on a 12" circular saw wood blade then let them go ahead...but sadly when he injures himself its society that has to foot the financial bill for his stupidiness.

The point i was trying to make is that standards are there for a reason be it LED lighting or standards for training they all help to contribute to a safer society. In my case i am Pro mandatory certification for boat users.

Simon

[Anchorhandler]

Originally Posted by willk

ow ells wood wee fyel soupearier too de ovver nobburs?

Oh dear, Is it time for me to hit the "smilley face hiding uder the chair" button again?

Simon

[kerny]

Originally Posted by Anchorhandler

"Standards (as has already been said umpteen times) are there to ensure that manufacturers produce products that are fit to use."

What does STCW stand for?...in particular the"S"???

The point 'that i am surely missing' is that for accountability (and insurance purposes) not only items have to comply with set standards. If you were able to take control of the said microwave or TV and operate it in a way that could cause harm to others then you can sure as hell bet that you would have to be trained and certified to operate it. Why?, because at some point someone will claim they "did'nt know" or were not trained properly and end up hurting an innocent by-stander.
What other vehicles/equipment can a person operate in public without having some form of certification?...certainly not many. Like the microwave manufacturer that has to prove that his equipment will not cause injury, we as vehicle/equipment operators also have to prove that we will also not cause harm. It reminds of the favorite American expression (which i fully agree with) "guns don't kill people, people kill people"....

The "S" in STCW means that a person achieving a certificate that meets STCW requirments has reached a minimum standard of training. This in turn means that he is deemed a lower risk to operate or help operate a type of vessel and therfore makes himself and the vessel more "insurable".

I fully appreciate your frustrations though, but sadly its the way things are going. In my line of work i have seen first hand how an increase in training and certification has made the industry a safer place....FACT.

There will always be that one idiot though who, no matter how much training and certification, will always manage to hurt himself or somone else.
I often wonder what Darwin would think if he could see society as it is now...What ever happened to "survival of the fittest" I'm sure he would see the HSE as being counter evolutionary for sure as i admit they seem to help the idiots in this world carry on breeding. If someone wants to remove the guard of a 9" angle grinder to bolt on a 12" circular saw wood blade then let them go ahead...but sadly when he injures himself its society that has to foot the financial bill for his stupidiness.

The point i was trying to make is that standards are there for a reason be it LED lighting or standards for training they all help to contribute to a safer society. In my case i am Pro mandatory certification for boat users.

Simon

....Pikey

[tonto]

Originally Posted by Anchorhandler

"
The point i was trying to make is that standards are there for a reason be it LED lighting or standards for training they all help to contribute to a safer society. In my case i am Pro mandatory certification for boat users.

Simon

+1

In almost no other area are you allowed to use or operate machinery that is capable of killing you and others without some form of licensing and training (and thereby regulation)

Shall we abandon the MOT, driving test and all the other rules regarding driving, as they obviously interfere with the ability of people to drive what they want when they want?
How about aircraft? get rid of all the rules and regs about those as well as long as they are not comercial.
How about firearms control, great! get rid of that lot for sure!

At present there is still no law regarding drinking and boating, only local bylaws, not a national regulation, and my original point was why would the RYA oppose the intoduction of such a law if it were so concerned with safety?
Reckless endagerment is a US law, and not a UK offense, AFAIK (I will propbably be corrected!) and although there might be a similar offense in English law, it would require a person to endanger, or act in a manner that is wrong. The offense should be to be p***sed up whilst behind the wheel Full stop.

Yes it will lead to more enforcement, but if people are trained and have the correct equipment what is to fear? only those who would be doing something dodgy, or have unsafe craft/ no training or P***ed.

[m chappelow]

As a matter of intrest With regards to France in 6 months time All cars will have to have 1 electronic . Kit or 2 chemical type Breathalizer kits in the glove box . Law starts this week but has been given a 6 months grace owing to shortages .and supply .

Looking at some of the statistics with the yachting and sailing brigade it looks to me like an awfull lot of accidents on board sailing boats are down to crew members getting a clonk on the head with mast booms ,
why doesent the RYA make it mandatory to ban them or make it compulsory to wear a crash helmet whilst under sail

All this rules and regulations and training comes down to the same old story some where down the line it becomes a product to sell and make money .

[Erin]

Originally Posted by willk

Surely that depends on if they have passengers? Or if another vessel is involved? Over the past few years I have read about far too many alcohol related leisure boating deaths/accidents. There's really no excuse for it.

I was maybe being a little bit flippant, but I stand by my assertion that nearly everyone drives or is within striking distance of a car every day of their life whereas those near a boat are significantly less. A matter of priorities for our Governments to decide.

What effect would this 'new' drink boating regulation have on your little jaunts to Islay or Jura I wonder?

[willk]

Originally Posted by Erin

What effect would this 'new' drink boating regulation have on your little jaunts to Islay or Jura I wonder?

Absolutely none. I'm always "road legal" when I'm on the helm.

[kerny]

Originally Posted by Erin

What effect would this 'new' drink boating regulation have on your little jaunts to Islay or Jura I wonder?

[tonto]

Originally Posted by BruceB

How would you enforce drink regs against someone sitting on a yacht, anchored, sipping a few glasses of wine or something similiar where the qualified skipper was elsewhere, tied to a mooring or at a dock?
How would you police this anyway?

Simple, the same way Police enforce the drink driving regs to passengers of cars! ie it doesnt apply!

Right now the law is I can drive around in any size vessel i want,(as long as it is private, and i do not take money for passengers) at almost any speed i want, pi**ed as a fart, and unless I cause damage or hurt anyone I am not causing offence.
I can then moor (if I am able) and as soon as I go to open the drivers door of a car I am guilty of a serious offence (or even ride a bycicle,) for which I can be jailed.
This surely cannot be right???

I just fail to see why any normal person would argue against a regulation of this sort.

And BTW I really do enjoy a pint, am not in any way teetotal. I just dont do boats and booze together!

[tonto]

Originally Posted by Erin

A matter of priorities for our Governments to decide.

What effect would this 'new' drink boating regulation have on your little jaunts to Islay or Jura I wonder?

Not a new regulation at all.

After the Marchioness disaster, The one on the Thames,(in which alcohol was a factor) the government proposed regulations to make it an offense for anyone to be in control of a vessel who was drunk.
Enter RYA, bitterly complained, and campained, resulting in a law being enacted to affect any one in charge of any commercial vessel (almost), and at present the government is still trying to enact it for all vessels, and the RYA is still opposing it.

So it would be newly enacted, but has been knocking around for years.

There are probably about half a dozen cases per year of comercial captains being sent down, or heavily fined for being drunk, and rightly so.

[vjmehra]

On the Thames at least it is now illegal to be in control of a vessel when over the alcohol limit, unfortunately it is now also no longer possible to go over 12 knots if one of you doesn't have Advanced Powerboat and the other Powerboat Level 2 (which is required to ensure they are competant at keeping lookout apparently).

Therefore, some regulation is good, some is just plain stupid.

[GJ0KYZ]

Originally Posted by Anchorhandler

Is there really a problem limiting leisure boaters to a set distance from the coast? (as a percentage, how many ribnetters genuinly go beyond 5 miles of the coast anyway?)

If you want to go further afield, do the extra exams and get the right boat, its simple.

Simon

Everyone who ribs in the Channel Islands regularly goes more than five miles offshore. French ribbers have limitations and this is reflected in their two-tier club memberships; something we all find a little strange. I would give up boating if I was limited to where I could go. Actually, I think I'd just ignore the restrictions and go anyway.

[HUMBER P4VWL]

Agree with the Darwin principle for most open waters. If I want a few cans on the boat over a couple of hours while fishing, I see no harm. I'll make my own judgement as to how much i drink, im an adult, theres no one around normally so leave me be.

The rules as I understand are if I'm a danger to shipping/others or unable to make headway I can be stopped by an official and held until the police come. (can't remember where I heard that, but makes sense)

However in busy areas I see no harm in local speed limits and buoyed areas being enforced.

This seems to be the case already IMHO.

Personally I object to children being able to drive boats alone over a set size or hp.

This would be a very simple one to enforce.

My tuppenth worth

[Anchorhandler]

Originally Posted by GJ0KYZ

Everyone who ribs in the Channel Islands regularly goes more than five miles offshore. French ribbers have limitations and this is reflected in their two-tier club memberships; something we all find a little strange. I would give up boating if I was limited to where I could go. Actually, I think I'd just ignore the restrictions and go anyway.

Amazing....
The french system actually limits you to 6 miles off the coast... This certificate is achieved after quite an easy three day course in which the syllabus is made up roughly half/half theory/practical.... It covers all the basic safety issues and gives the user a good knowledge base before they set off.
Most people are happy with this but for those that wish to go further the can opt for the 'extension' to their 'permis cotier' and do 'l'extension haute mer'. This is very similar to ourPB2 ticket. With perhaps a bit more chart work involved.
I personally think this is a good idea.

Fantastic to hear that, had a system like this been implemented in the CI's, you would have taken the very responsible attitude of completely ignoring it... Well done

Simon

[MattD]

Originally Posted by tonto

Not a new regulation at all.

After the Marchioness disaster, The one on the Thames,(in which alcohol was a factor) the government proposed regulations to make it an offense for anyone to be in control of a vessel who was drunk.
Enter RYA, bitterly complained, and campained, resulting in a law being enacted to affect any one in charge of any commercial vessel (almost), and at present the government is still trying to enact it for all vessels, and the RYA is still opposing it.

So it would be newly enacted, but has been knocking around for years.

There are probably about half a dozen cases per year of comercial captains being sent down, or heavily fined for being drunk, and rightly so.

Apparently lesure boaters can still be prosecuted for being drunk the same as for driving with the same limits but with a concession for boats under 23 feet traveling less than 7 knots. You can still be had doing that if you pose a danger.

That seems sensable to me.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ive-rules.html

My main issue with mandatory safety equipment is the on going cost of the inevitable boat MOT (i'm not arguing that it's not important to carry it). I deliberately bought a boat that was exempt from the BSS to avoid the cost of the test because I mostly use my boat inland but I still purchased all the recommend safety equipment.

Overall I suppose I'm sick of being nannied by the state. But also it seems to me a lot of casual boaters who have a small SIB or RIB they use a few times a year would end up being excluded if they had to jump expensive regulatory hoops before they can get started.

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by Anchorhandler

Amazing....
The french system actually limits you to 6 miles off the coast... This certificate is achieved after quite an easy three day course in which the syllabus is made up roughly half/half theory/practical.... It covers all the basic safety issues and gives the user a good knowledge base before they set off.
Most people are happy with this but for those that wish to go further the can opt for the 'extension' to their 'permis cotier' and do 'l'extension haute mer'. This is very similar to ourPB2 ticket. With perhaps a bit more chart work involved.
I personally think this is a good idea.

Fantastic to hear that, had a system like this been implemented in the CI's, you would have taken the very responsible attitude of completely ignoring it... Well done

Simon

But it isn't just the person, it's the boat The boats that I & others are hoping to cross the Irish sea in next weekend, would be subject to the 6 mile "Abris" rule. Yet a "merry fisher" with a conservatory as an excuse for a cabin would be allowed