Regulation of UK Leisure Boating - a good idea?

[MattD]

Originally Posted by tonto

Because IMO has already spent oodles of money on making the specs, as laid down in the colregs, Annex II if i am correct, plus a whole bunch of other technical comitees. The specs are there, just comply with them, not make a whole set of new paperwork to comply with (and push the price up)

If RYA want to promote safety, then push for all vessel operators to have certificates of competency, and make it mandatory for ALL craft to carry safety equipment, and obey the alcohol limits.

There are many posts on here where people have been killed/seriously injured/having to be rescued and not wearing lifejackets, or having basic safety equipment, or have inadequate training, but I have not seen a single post (open to be corrected) where an accident is a result of having the wrong shade of green in the sidelights (if carried even)

IMHO tackle the biggest subjects 1st, then spend money on the piddly little stuff afterwards.

The trouble is there are enough regulations to comply with in this country as it is. Boating is one of the last bastions of freedom we have. I don't care how much the RYA spends on LED nav light standardisation or if it adds a few quid to the cost of them.

I would care a lot if they started pushing for certificates of competency that they are the body for and made it mandatory for safety equipment to be carried that would then imply some sort of BSS test as is required on most inland water ways. That will cost people a heck of a lot more and possibly push the expense of owning a boat too high for some people. Then there is the cost of policing it

[tonto]

Originally Posted by MattD

I would care a lot if they started pushing for certificates of competency that they are the body for and made it mandatory for safety equipment to be carried that would then imply some sort of BSS test as is required on most inland water ways. That will cost people a heck of a lot more and possibly push the expense of owning a boat too high for some people. Then there is the cost of policing it

Hmmmmm cant agree i am afraid.

We have car driving licences, and MOT's and breathalysers for a reason. They save lives. If it means some people cannot afford a car, well I am sorry about that, but that is the way things are.

Most people who use small craft do so for pleasure, they dont need it for travelling to work etc etc, so if it becomes too expensive to be safe and to help others to be safe, then they should not use the craft.

It is not just the vessel operator who is at risk by not having any training, or safety equipment, their passengers and other craft are put into danger, plus all the other people who have to come out to rescue them when they screw up.

The RYA oppose any for of alcohol limits for private craft operators, but operating a RIB which is capable of speeds in excess of 40Knots whilst under the influence is just plain crazy, so why oppose the proposed regulations? why not require a PB level1? or a minimum VHF, lifejacket and flares?
The RYA is not doing so because they are not concerned with real unpopular safety decisions, just money making and keeping their members happy, and thus ensuring their contributions.

Now I will climb off my soapbox!

[Erin]

A reckless car driver kills himself and innocent other road users. A reckless boat owner primarily only risks his own life. If the seas were as busy as the roads, I would think differently.

[willk]

Originally Posted by Erin

A reckless boat owner primarily only risks his own life. If the seas were as busy as the roads, I would think differently.

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.

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by tonto

Hmmmmm cant agree i am afraid.

We have car driving licences, and MOT's and breathalysers for a reason. They save lives. If it means some people cannot afford a car, well I am sorry about that, but that is the way things are.

Most people who use small craft do so for pleasure, they dont need it for travelling to work etc etc, so if it becomes too expensive to be safe and to help others to be safe, then they should not use the craft.

It is not just the vessel operator who is at risk by not having any training, or safety equipment, their passengers and other craft are put into danger, plus all the other people who have to come out to rescue them when they screw up.

The RYA oppose any for of alcohol limits for private craft operators, but operating a RIB which is capable of speeds in excess of 40Knots whilst under the influence is just plain crazy, so why oppose the proposed regulations? why not require a PB level1? or a minimum VHF, lifejacket and flares?
The RYA is not doing so because they are not concerned with real unpopular safety decisions, just money making and keeping their members happy, and thus ensuring their contributions.

Now I will climb off my soapbox!

And I'll get on it

Then you end up with a system similar to France, where you are regulated & controlled to hell. All boats have to be registered & taxed, you have to attend "bateau ecole" i.e. boat school & pass a test & be "Leesonced". You are restricted as to how far you can go in certain types of boat. Most of us on here would be restricted to 5 miles off shore. There would be a whole new branch of police set up to control it all:- "Gendarme Maritime" I could go on. After all that, they are the biggest set of Muppets afloat Feck me, if you think testing a few lights is expensive.... brace yourself.
The RYA has resisted compulsory testing & regulation of boaters for years, promoting "Education not regulation" I for one, educated myself in the ways of the sea by doing my Coastal Skipper, I wanted to do it for my own sake & for that reason I enjoyed it & took it in. Had I been forced to do a bullshit, dumbed down, idiot, failproof course (anybody that has attended a modern training course will know what I mean) I would have sat there, dis-interested, bored, in one ear, out the other & then gone out on my Jetski.
Standardising & testing products adds pennies to the overall cost. Standards are all we have to ensure some degree of security in getting what we are paying for. Never heard of British Standard, Kitemark, DIN, ISO. Just about everything we use has to conform to some standard, be it drinking water to mobile phones. There are reports that some of the early LED nav lights were difficult to see from certain angles, especially if the boat was rolling. Also they were too bright which washed out the colours making it difficult to differentiate between green & white. LEDs are completely different technology to filament, just as filament were different to oil lamps, so the standards need updating. Do you think that todays cars would be allowed on the road if they only complied to standards from the 1960s?

[tonto]

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.

+1

Sort out the big issues, and safety aspects 1st. I see the majority of ribnetters are actively encouraging the use of lifejackets, and safe ribbing already, there should be nothing to fear from a legal requirement to have safety equipment and training. (and no alcohol whilst conning).

I have only been here a few months, but have read postings about a number of accidents, some relating to alcohol, others lack of training or safety equipment. All of which tie up the emergency services for hours, which puts them at risk, and also takes resources away from other incidents.

Being safe AND having fun is what it is all about surely?

[kerny]

Originally Posted by Pikey Dave

And I'll get on it

Then you end up with a system similar to France, where you are regulated & controlled to hell. All boats have to be registered & taxed, you have to attend "bateau ecole" i.e. boat school & pass a test & be "Leesonced". You are restricted as to how far you can go in certain types of boat. Most of us on here would be restricted to 5 miles off shore. There would be a whole new branch of police set up to control it all:- "Gendarme Maritime" I could go on. After all that, they are the biggest set of Muppets afloat Feck me, if you think testing a few lights is expensive.... brace yourself.
The RYA has resisted compulsory testing & regulation of boaters for years, promoting "Education not regulation" I for one, educated myself in the ways of the sea by doing my Coastal Skipper, I wanted to do it for my own sake & for that reason I enjoyed it & took it in. Had I been forced to do a bullshit, dumbed down, idiot, failproof course (anybody that has attended a modern training course will know what I mean) I would have sat there, dis-interested, bored, in one ear, out the other & then gone out on my Jetski.
Standardising & testing products adds pennies to the overall cost. Standards are all we have to ensure some degree of security in getting what we are paying for. Never heard of British Standard, Kitemark, DIN, ISO. Just about everything we use has to conform to some standard, be it drinking water to mobile phones. There are reports that some of the early LED nav lights were difficult to see from certain angles, especially if the boat was rolling. Also they were too bright which washed out the colours making it difficult to differentiate between green & white. LEDs are completely different technology to filament, just as filament were different to oil lamps, so the standards need updating. Do you think that todays cars would be allowed on the road if they only complied to standards from the 1960s?

You should be a politician PD BUT I AGREE

[Hehey]

So sub standard LED lighting will screw up the on board electronics.

How many kids have been on Fleabay or visited Halfrauds to purchase every colour of "playtime running lights" for their Corsas?

All of them must therefore be facing the imminent danger of an exploding Kenwood bass box which is taking up 90% of boot space once the "cool blues" are turned on.

Loads of dodgy lighting comes out of China and gets around every regulation known to man by clearly stating that its for decorative and show purposes only.

Regulating the boat lighting business will acheive absolutely nothing in terms of improved safety. As good as the intentions may be, and to a point I agree with the reasoning, sub standard lighting will still be readily available and will continue to be installed as there is no practical way of policing it.

Leisure boaters are to a degree a law unto themselves, as already stated anyone can buy and launch with no training whatsoever. I've lost count of the number of children (and adults) I've seen without buoyancy aids, driving their Fletcher hard boats at stupid speeds with the bow pointing skyward after they bought it the week before for 500 quid on ebay.
If the point of the RYA discussion is safety, they really ought to be thinking again and spending money on informing the boating public with regard to education & training before deciding if the nav lights are green or red enough. How many "ebay boaters" would even have a clue which light went where anyway ?

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by kerny

You should be a politician PD BUT I AGREE

I can't beleeeve that people are arguing against rules that are there to protect us, the punters, from unscrupulous manufacturers. Whilst at the same time advocating more testing, taxing & bureaucracy for ourselves. They must either work for Lamp manufacturers or training agencies.
Want more rules? here ya go I'll give it a couple of years before the French have to carry these on boats as well.

[willk]

It's very Chicken & Egg P-D, the French had some of the most p1ssed up drivers in (Western) Europe so this was, I feel, the inevitable result.

So if I understand my argument correctly, what I'm saying (in so far as I'm saying anything) is that:

No Enforcement leads to problems that lead to Enforcement.

No regulation leads to problems that lead to Enforcement.

Voluntary training/regulation leads to problems that lead to Enforcement.

So far as I can tell, all roads lead to Enforcement

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by willk

It's very Chicken & Egg P-D, the French had some of the most p1ssed up drivers in (Western) Europe so this was, I feel, the inevitable result.

So if I understand my argument correctly, what I'm saying (in so far as I'm saying anything) is that:

No Enforcement leads to problems that lead to Enforcement.

No regulation leads to problems that lead to Enforcement.

Voluntary training/regulation leads to problems that lead to Enforcement.

So far as I can tell, all roads lead to Enforcement

Agreed, but all the testing, regulation, policing in the world hasn't stopped the carnage on the roads. People still drink & drive, speed etc. Only law abiding people obey the law. Boating by comparison is a tiny area re-death & destruction. The cost & effort involved in saving the odd life at sea by introducing individual controls is pointless, let Darwin sort out the chaff.

[Nos4r2]

I think it's more to do with staving off enforcement as long as possible.

Last time I was on the road and met an enforcement official with a clue was a very long time ago. I'd hate to see that on the water.

[willk]

Originally Posted by Pikey Dave

Agreed, but all the testing, regulation, policing in the world hasn't stopped the carnage on the roads. People still drink & drive, speed etc. Only law abiding people obey the law.

Actually, that's not entirely correct. We have had a drinking/speeding campaign here over the past few years that has reduced our roads deaths by almost 40%, this despite there being more cars on the roads. This was done through a combination of Education (advertising), enforcement and new penalties. It is now socially unacceptable to drink and drive, speeding is regarded as the act of a hooligan. This was not the case ten years ago.

This is cool: Linky

[kerny]

willk, do you still ignore red traffic lights in Ireland, I know for sure that it is, or was, socially acceptable to ignore a red light if the person thought that nothing was coming the other way.

[willk]

Geordie is in Dublin on Business and takes a Taxi from the Airport to his Hotel in the City Centre.
As they come out of the Airport, the Taxi driver shoots through a red light. "Driver, you could have killed us, you jumped that red light!" shouts Geordie.
"Ah, my brother and me, we do that all the time" says the cabbie.
A mile down the road and the Taxi driver shoots over another red light.
"Driver, that was another red light!" Screams Geordie.
"Ah its nothing at all my brother and me, we do it all the time."
They get to the next traffic light. Its green, the Taxi driver stops !
" Driver, its a green light ! Why the hell have you stopped ?" says Geordie.
"Ah yeah, " Says the Taxi Driver, " my Brother, he might be coming the other way ........"

[kerny]

The old ones are the best

[tonto]

Originally Posted by Pikey Dave

I can't beleeeve that people are arguing against rules that are there to protect us, the punters, from unscrupulous manufacturers. Whilst at the same time advocating more testing, taxing & bureaucracy for ourselves. They must either work for Lamp manufacturers or training agencies..

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.

[Pikey Dave]

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 agree to a certain extent, but my point is that only law abiding people abide by the law. You can have as many rules as you like, but that pissed up idiot will still get behind the wheel, whether it's illegal or not. The cost of policing it will fall on the rest of us who don't drink & boat, & it's a slippery slope. In the big scheme of things, how many people actually die each year as a result of poor boatmanship that would have been prevented by rules? I'm guessing bugger all. But what you would have is a mushrooming industry based around 'elf n safety that would self perpetuate. When they've introduced compulsory testing, they would have to find something else to feed off.
People are difficult & expensive to police, products aren't. It's no good having a tested, trained, licensed, sober skipper, who's driving a deathtrap because we allowed manufacturers to unload any old rubbish onto the market.

[Anchorhandler]

Perhaps i'm the only one noticing the hypocrisy here....
How can some of you critisise the idea of mandatory boating qualifications then, in the same breath promote the importance of standardisations?

Mandatory qualification is simply a form of standardisation FFS. Only difference is that it is standarsisation of people and not objects or quality levels! This IMHO is long overdue.

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..... Fantastic, you voluntarily decided to better yourselves which is ver much commendable but its a sad fact that a good proportion of other people out on the water would desperately benefit from some sort of education....to bring them up to a minimum set STANDARD.

The idea that people would switch off and not really pay attention if they were forced to undertake some form of required training is utter pish....I could imagine that being the case if they were forced to buy a boat and go out and spend time on the water but come on, lets face it, the reward for such a small sacrifice is surely motivation enough for people to want to do it in the first place.

I wonder how many people begrudge the required training and exams before they sit their PPL? Not many i susspect.

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.

Would a mandatory certificate avoid this?...not totally but a little bit of knowledge goes a long way. If you can express the dangers of this to people at an early stage then maybe they would have more of a reflex to flick that switch before they head out at night.

As for the French system....what is wrong with a minimum level of equipment which must be kept on board? What is wrong with the authorities fining people if their lifejackets are out of servicing date or no fire extinguisher is found on board? 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 afeild, do the extra exams and get the right boat, its simple.

Simon

[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