Regulation of UK Leisure Boating - a good idea?

[tonto]

Originally Posted by Doug Stormforce

Simon, nice of you to volunteer the RNLI to carry out your idea, have you asked them if they want to deliver a mandatory inspection program on behalf of the government.

Do you think that a harbour master has the skills time and training to do the job of the police force? Would you also propose that car park attendants were asked to stop and carry out spot checks to motorists and issue faxed penalty fines to motorists?

At present the Comercial drinking limits are self enforced and police enforced. Do you think there are police boats chasing commercial ships up and down the channel? If that was so they could do the lesiure boats at the same time, But as you say that doesnt happen. So how does the enforcement happen on commercial ships then?
Many times it is after an incident has happened, and the person is then tested, however it is also through pilots, and harbour masters as well (the very people you say dont have the training!) If a pilot joins a commercial vessel and has concerns about the skipper, he will radio/phone ahead and report the matter, and the authorities are waiting to test said person. This does NOT result in everyone paying higher taxes, so the spectre of everyone paying lots of taxes is just an excuse.

Many places are covered by TV camera's (as described on other posts) and many launch sites require a check on insurance, or the payment of a fee. If the person in charge "appears" to be drunk when launching/recovering, then surely the requirement to call plod does not take extensive training does it? the evidence would normally be on CCTV, backed up by a posotive test.

Right now i do the random tests on board (when told by my company to do so) and the training to allow me to this test, 1 Hour, was all it took me, so i dont really see how this will be such a nightmare and bankrupt the country as suggested.

Besides which the harbourmasters in this country do have a fair number of powers as laid down in law, so if they dont want to excercise them, then they aint doing thier job that we all pay them for!

However there are obviously a number of people who will never be convinced.

Most of the arguments seem to be because I am having fun and doing this for lesiure I dont need to follow any rules.

Then fine, as I already stated, I do not drive a car for work, it is only ever for lesiure. If I were to be drunk behind the wheel of a car without a licence, or training that is obviously acceptable to all the people who are against regulation/training. (Not that I would!)

[MattD]

Originally Posted by tonto

The MAIB, would beg to differ about fatal accidents involving drinking, and one such statistic was 45 in 6 years, and that is just fatalities. They should know as they investigate them all. The other incidents that do not involve loss of life or serious injury may well not be reported (again as suggested by the MAIB)

The silly argument put forward by the RYA is just that silly. If people live on their boats, and they are safely moored, then there is no issue, so the point is moot. It is an excuse to allow some people to decide that they want to be able to take the conn even if knowing they are under the influence. A similarity would be for Mobile home owners. Are they breathalysed while parked up for the night enjoying a glass of wine? of course not, and any sensible person would not argue for it to be so. The offense should be to be operating a vessel whilst under the influence.

You are correct, it is a skippers fundamental decision to go to sea, and i wonder how that decision is reached? He cannot make a proper decision if he is drunk, and apart from that, a lot of it is experience, and training. How else is a new owner of a vessel going to be able to decide what is safe or not, (at least until they have the experience to judge for themselves) As you rightly point out, there are very few laybys to pull into and park up, so the result is that the emergency services get called out in atrocious weather, putting their own lives at risk, because some numpty didnt know what they were doing, or ran out of fuel.

Basic training should be manatory, and I do mean basic, I am not suggesting an ocean going skippers course here, but a PB 1, or 2 would not be such an imposition on people.

Of course if it was manditory then it might well be taken out of the RYA's hands to administrate and run, thus depriving them of their lucrative business opportunities.

45 fatal accidents in 6 years: UK population around 60,000,000:

So 7.5 people a year die out of around 60 million people in the UK because they had a drink while boating? I'm not advocating it but that is an outstandingly low figure. >0.000001% of the population.

[MattD]

in other words your chances of winning the national lottery are far higher than being killed due to a p*ssed up boater. Do those odds really justify new regulation?

[tonto]

Originally Posted by MattD

45 fatal accidents in 6 years: UK population around 60,000,000:

So 7.5 people a year die out of around 60 million people in the UK because they had a drink while boating? I'm not advocating it but that is an outstandingly low figure. >0.000001% of the population.

Then lets look at the road statistics from the Department for transport and tthe RAC.

In 2010 there were 250 people were killed on the roads as a result of drink driving. DTP figures.

46 people in 6 years for boating is 7.5 people per year.

In 2012 the RAC reports that there were 35 million cars on the road, and on average they made the following journeys; 7370miles for petrol, and 11540 miles per year for diesel, so average of 9455 miles per car The population over 17 who have a licence is 75%.

So there were 33 times more deaths on the roads due to drinking than boating, however i am finding it difficult to find out how many lesiure boats there are and the journeys made in a year, within the UK, but would suspect that it is an awful lot less per capita, per mile than the roads.

To be just on a par with the road deaths it would need 1 million boats doing an average of 9,455 miles per year, which i suspect is way more than what actually takes place. Take into account that most people do not use thier boats in winter, and I just dont see those figures.

Commercial journeys I cannot see any deaths reported at sea for those due to alcohol.

So what that shows is;
1) You are much more likely per mile travelled in a lesiure boat to be killed than on the road, as borne out by the official statistics.
2) There is a need for regulation for lesiure boating.
3) That commercial shipping shopuld be exempt from alcohol regulations.


Statistically speaking of course.

[Doug Stormforce]

Tonto

While i can find the 46 people in 6 yrs quote in the yachting media I can not find 46 fatalities involving leisure boats and alcohol in the MAIB reports. Could you point me toward the official statistic and where it is quantified (i.e. does this include boats on moorings? does it include anglers in small dinghies inland? has there been one or 2 incidents that involve multiple victims, what was the time period quoted? etc etc)

Thanks

[tonto]

Originally Posted by Doug Stormforce

Tonto

While i can find the 46 people in 6 yrs quote in the yachting media I can not find 46 fatalities involving leisure boats and alcohol in the MAIB reports. Could you point me toward the official statistic and where it is quantified (i.e. does this include boats on moorings? does it include anglers in small dinghies inland? has there been one or 2 incidents that involve multiple victims, what was the time period quoted? etc etc)

Thanks

i think the breakdown you ask for is going to be very difficult to get in the same way as the traffic deaths reported are just figures, and do not go into if the person crossing the road was hit and killed by a drunk person or was standing at a bus stop, however there are a couple of links below;

This is relatively easy to search for the info, go to DFT website (department for transport) and put in a search criteria.

This 1st link from the MCA says that over 100 people a year are killed at sea in incidents, and 4000 are injured 60% of which are in the lesiure sector, therefore account for the majority. That figure alone should make people think there is a need for greater training and alcohol rules, not argue against it. Although not specific I would imagine the largest amount of deaths and injuries in the commercial sector are down to fishing , as this is widely recognised as the most hazardous job in the uk. The link also lists the 245 people who got into trouble through inexperience and the 29 people who died as a result of not wearing a lifejacket. As the report is entitled safety at the coast, it would suggest that none of these figures are inland.

MCA - Recreational Safety Strategy

On another study on the MCa website it goes into great detail about accidents and causes of deaths in the british merchant shipping industry, and that total from 1996 to 2005 was a total of 32 people. of those i could find only 3 which were attributed to alcohol. It is a long study, and lots of figures, but it does show the commercial sector are not all pissheads anyway!

http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/rp_578_fin...evsion_2-2.pdf

the below is a report into the sun clipper and a rib on the Thames. Page 19 onwards deals with Alcohol related things, including how RYA opposes any introduction of alohol limits (still baffles me!) and does quote statistics which indicate that there are approx 1/2 million boat owners in the UK.

And finally the report into the collision between to pleasure boats which quotes the figures. the report was from 2006, but they are the latest i could find.

Marine Accidents Investigation: Download PDF document

Maybe you could ask for a freedom of information request for more.

Given all this I still dont see how it is defensible to argue against training and regulations, and paticularly for a safety training establishment!!

[EnglishLes]

Trying to use the number of deaths to justify more regulation/control is very difficult where officialdom is concerned.

Near where I live there are two roads one a dual carriageway (limit 70MPH with NO central barrier) leading to an M3 junction and the other a twisty, hilly country road (limit 60MPH) with several turnings off of it. In the 26 years I have lived here both roads have had several deaths on a "regular" basis , the dual carriageway normally caused by cars crossing from one side to the other and hitting head on and the country road by cars leaving the road and hitting trees.

The DOE have said that the number of injuries/deaths does NOT warrant the cost of making improvements to either road.

The local authority tried to get a 40 MPH limit on the country road but the county council said it did not fit in with their local plan and the police said there is nowhere safe to set up a speed check.

[BruceB]

Originally Posted by tonto

Given all this I still dont see how it is defensible to argue against training and regulations, and paticularly for a safety training establishment!!

Because the RYA knows that stringent regultion will have several effects.
It will heavily reduce the numbers of people taking up boating and will strangle the very reason a lot of folk use boats in the first place.
Regulation is not the answer as rules never get lighter or stay static. They always get tighter and tighter until you simply cannot do anything at all.

[alystra]

Originally Posted by BruceB

Because the RYA knows that stringent regultion will have several effects.
It will heavily reduce the numbers of people taking up boating and will strangle the very reason a lot of folk use boats in the first place.
Regulation is not the answer as rules never get lighter or stay static. They always get tighter and tighter until you simply cannot do anything at all.

Ah! A voice of reason at last.

People who get plastered and then drive high speed craft will continue to do so whatever regulations are in force. There is plenty of existing legislation that can ( and is) be brought against them should they be involved in an accident.

[tonto]

Originally Posted by BruceB

Because the RYA knows that stringent regultion will have several effects.
It will heavily reduce the numbers of people taking up boating and will strangle the very reason a lot of folk use boats in the first place.
Regulation is not the answer as rules never get lighter or stay static. They always get tighter and tighter until you simply cannot do anything at all.

It has not stopped people driving cars has it? People have to take a test, and have insurance, and are not supposed to drive drunk. RAC figures show 75% of the poulation manage to put up with the "stringent" regulations there.

It has however reduced the death rates in cars. It does stop some people driving drunk, and has had a great effect making it an antisocial thing to do. It should be the same with boating.

And as 30% of all car journeys are for lesiure (accordiong to the RAC) lets let those people not take a driving test, or have MOT's, or insurance, or obey the drink driving laws, but enforce it on all the other road users. That makes sense!

I have not heard any of the anti regulation members here once complain about the drink driving laws????

Plus it is not a stringent regulation, same as UK drink driving, I think that is reasonable.

It will only affect those who are being irresponsible and dangerous to others.

As for "strangling the very reason many people take up boating in the first place" does that mean that many people take up boating to get drunk and drive a boat then? Certainly not why I did.

I think the spectre of plod chasing innocent boaters around is a little far fetched, and it is very easily enforcable, without huge rescources thrown at it.

It will be only a matter of time, so everyone will just have to get used to it anyway. I just find it amazing that an organization which purports to be about safety, and represents only 20% of boaters can object so strongly to this.

You may have gathered that i will NOT be joining the RYA

[tonto]

Originally Posted by alystra

Ah! A voice of reason at last.

There is plenty of existing legislation that can ( and is) be brought against them should they be involved in an accident.

OK then. Name them laws?

[Anchorhandler]

Originally Posted by BruceB

Because the RYA knows that stringent regultion will have several effects.
It will heavily reduce the numbers of people taking up boating and will strangle the very reason a lot of folk use boats in the first place.

Stringent??...who said ANYTHING about the wanted regulations being stingent?

Anyway. i would have thought it pretty obvious why the RYA would be concerned if fewer people take up boating.....

Approximately 50% of their income comes from subscriptions and sales of RYA goods.

They are a commercial company and therefore like any other commercial operation have to look after their own interests. If you read the annual report you will see that, in their own words, the biggest risk to the RYA in the near future is a drop in member subscriptions and therefore revenue.

This percieved threat actually ranks higher than the risk of damage to their reputation through any isolated incident or event.

So yeah, of course they will resist any regulation that potentially causes a drop to the number of people taking up boating.

And you may have thought that it was because they "cared" about our favorite passtime?

I believe that if there was a drop in the number of people taking to the water then it would only filter out the people who weren't serious about it anyway. At least the newcomers that did go through somekind of minimum education would at least take the activity seriously.


Simon

[BruceB]

Some folk keep banging on about how car use has got this and that and therefore it should easily apply to boats.
These laws only apply to vehicles on the public highway, take the vehicle a few yards to the side off road and nothing applies, not even needing a licence.

The sea is more in line with the land off road which is by far more of the land area than public roads.
If you want to use land use as an example then the only parts you may be able to make an argument over regulation are harbour areas controlled as such, these are a very tiny part of the water and in most cases are not even acessed to get to the water.
The rest of the water is equivalent to off road land.

And no, I am not a member of the RYA either!

[Anchorhandler]

Anyway, why are we all banging on about regulations, drink boating laws the RYA etc.......Womens tennis final is on!!

I love women's tennis...... such a precise and involving game...

Simon

[Rogue Wave]

yes it's a good crack

[Anchorhandler]

Originally Posted by Rogue Wave

yes it's a good crack

I love women's tennis even more when it starts to rain...

Simon

[Rogue Wave]

I'm quite ashamed that the last post was my only contribution to the debate but you and Tonto been doing a good job so far and I fully support your views

[Anchorhandler]

Originally Posted by Rogue Wave

I'm quite ashamed that the last post was my only contribution to the debate but you and Tonto been doing a good job so far and I fully support your views

Hey Rogue Wave

So When you going to pop down and see us anyway..... Pm me if you fancy it.

Simon

[EnglishLes]

[QUOTE=tonto;473784]It has not stopped people driving cars has it? People have to take a test, and have insurance, and are not supposed to drive drunk. RAC figures show 75% of the poulation manage to put up with the "stringent" regulations there.

It has however reduced the death rates in cars. It does stop some people driving drunk, and has had a great effect making it an antisocial thing to do. It should be the same with boating.]

I'm not sure that all (or even any) of the reduction in death rate can be attributed to the drink drive laws.

Improvements in car design and safety features (air bags, big bars under the rear and sides of lorries), improved medical care changes in road design, better crash barriers are some of the things I believe have massively reduced the number of fatalities.

[PeterM]

My 2p worth ...

All the regulation in the world is pointless unless it can be enforced, which will always be where it falls over in the real world.

My local example - Poole harbour is a fairly well 'policed' ( not so much by the police but the harbour authority etc ) but the chances of someone being spoken to for being smashed on booze or having no insurance or qualifications is bugger all.

I imagine much the same for most similar/ popular places? It is for most harbours I go in and out of in a boat.

The analagy to cars is I feel mostly flawed. We dont have (usually) numbers on boats that can be read by cameras or tax discs or straight roads to set cameras up on .

I weave the boat sometime to have fun - doesn't mean I am drunk . A car weaves and instantly its out of the ordinary. If I go fast or slow in the boat is up to me,if I do 14mph or 140mph on the motorway -something is wrong so I get stopped..

I really dont think much change is needed or warranted. If anything it will only become more expensive for permits etc that dont serve a genuine purpose and cant realistically be checked.