Report pushes for light dues and registration for leisure boaters

[Alcyone]

I already have a mum so please stop worrying about the rest of us.

Are you quite new to sailing? It seems usual for people new to sailing to shout loudest for regulation and nanny knows best changes, if you are worried get some training.

Yes I am new to sailing, just three years experience, although I have my day skipper and yachtmaster. I also have 20 years diving experience, diving all over the world and my instructor tickets, thanks.

But I don't really think that is relevant. It is my opinion that there are many people who venture out in boats which are unsafe, and get themselves in trouble because they cannot understand the weather, tides, charts or whatever.

One of my best mates is a lifeboat coxswain, and I've talked to him after he has recovered the bodies of such folk.

So, why not turn your nanny stateism on yourself, and stop telling me what my opinion should be?

Cheers.

 

[fireball]

Yes I am new to sailing, just three years experience, although I have my day skipper and yachtmaster. I also have 20 years diving experience, diving all over the world and my instructor tickets, thanks.

But I don't really think that is relevant. It is my opinion that there are many people who venture out in boats which are unsafe, and get themselves in trouble because they cannot understand the weather, tides, charts or whatever.

One of my best mates is a lifeboat coxswain, and I've talked to him after he has recovered the bodies of such folk.

So, why not turn your nanny stateism on yourself, and stop telling me what my opinion should be?

Cheers.

Going quite a way from contributing to light dues isn't it?
I don't believe I generally use any non-harbour maintained lights/buoys and a few on here state that they never go near one so isn't really fair that they pay ...
I'm not sure of my opinion about the requirement to contribute towards them - it would rather depend on the level of contribution! If £10pa then I'm not worried, if £1000pa then I'm kicking up a huge fuss ... £100pa ? Well - it's a lot.

Any attempt to add in compulsory MOT's for boats and I will be against it. As for the silly idiots that die of their own stupidity, well, sorry, but we all make mistakes and sometimes people will die - it matters not how much the state tries to legislate stupidity, they will not prevent accidents and (ultimately) deaths arising because of it. We already have MOT's, TAX, Insurance and driving tests for cars/bikes ... and it doesn't prevent accidents occurring - so ends up being a job creation scheme and another way of raising tax.

As for your lifeboat coxswain mate - I'm sure he does an excellent job and many are grateful for his skills, but making everyone suffer because of the few is not fair on the majority.

 

[Robin]

Anyone who goes to sea uses lights and buoys laid by Trinity House and/or the Commissioners of irish Lights and/or the Northern Lighthouse Board as the case may be. It seems perfectly reasonable to pay for them.

With respect that is not strictly true. We have sailed 1,500-2,000mls pa for many many years, weekending locally and longer cruises over to northern France ans South Brittany. Locally ALL of the buoys we are interested in are laid by Poole Harbour Commission and we DO pay for those in harbour dues. If we go to the Solent we sail outside of the TH buoys. Once we leave here for France then the buoyage is French supplied not Trinity House. We have no need for the lighthouses locally which are really no more than of minor interest now and the Trinity House laid buoys mark only the deepwater shipping channels not where we mostly go.

Look on the plus side - if we do pay for them we get a say in where they are sited, etc.

In your dreams! They are currently aiming to withdraw lighthouses in favour of 'virtual' ones on AIS, because big ships don't need them any more. If you think TH will lay buoys where WE need them under this scheme then perhaps you believe in fairies also!

 

[Kukri]

I will declare an interest:

I DO use Trinity House navaids, and I DON'T want them taken away. GPS is all very well but a visual reference is a very good thing.

I agree that £100 is a bit stiff but would happily pay the £20 that I used to pay for my VHF station licence. I suspect I would be happy enough with £50.

 

[Fire99]

I agree that £100 is a bit stiff but would happily pay the £20 that I used to pay for my VHF station licence. I suspect I would be happy enough with £50.

How long would it stay at £20 (or £50 for those feeling flush). The government is skint. The country is skint. It's too easy, once implemented to push it up as like car tax. (once Road Fund License).
As with most government schemes, impliment first. Justify second.

 

[mjcp]

But I, like thousands of boaters, do not use 'commercial' lights and marks, so it is NOT 'reasonable'. I have use of the lights and marks in my own area, if I want to use them, and pay over £100 for the privilege. Why am I expected to pay double for something I will never use?

Well, if you happen to come to Windsor one day, don't expect eh police that I pay a special Council tax surcharge for to come and protect you and don't let your car catch on fire on the M4 either (I also pay a Fire and Rescue bit on my LOCAL council tax), after all, you don't pay into my local area and you live in North Wales so unlikely you will ever come down here... apart form the odd time here or there or on the way to the airport etc etc.

And while we're here... Why should I subsidise your assembly and the Scott's parliament, or Scotland as a whole for that matter, I've never been there!

And I haven't been to hospital since 1994, why should I pay for the them either each year (and I'm self employed so I pay my tax AFTER the event, so I KNOW i haven't used it when I pay)?


I'm about as right wing as they get but even I can see the benefit of a few national taxes... you might even find your local area gets some of the national funds and your harbour dues (or the light part of it) goes down!

mjcp

 

[Fire99]

you might even find your local area gets some of the national funds and your harbour dues (or the light part of it) goes down!

You honestly believe that??? Lets look at revenue from speed cameras. Plenty of it but do I see nice smooth roads? Do I heck! They're downright dangerous.
The money is absorbed in enforcement and the rest just absorbed.

Car Tax and Fuel Tax continue to rise with no benefit seen by the motorist.

I firmly believe you're rose tinted specs are fogged over if you believe the average boater will actually see any benefit from this.

 

[tinkicker0]

Here we go.....The tax disc for boats......they've been thinking about how to get at us for ages. Hang on, its only a few weeks since they announced the closure of some lighthouses as they were no longer used due to the advance in modern navigation methods.

So how many leisure boaters go out at night and use these lights? A tiny fraction of those who venture on the water in total, so the majority of leisure boaters will be paying for something they don't use. Apologies to those who regularly night sail, but it must surely be the case.

Its a load of s*ite isn't it.

Tim

But, but I already have 2 tax discs displayed on my boat, port and stbd. It costs me £250 a year for the priveledge.

And I have never seen a lighthouse on the river Ouse.

 

[Major Catastrophe]

Well, if you happen to come to Windsor one day, don't expect eh police that I pay a special Council tax surcharge for to come and protect you and don't let your car catch on fire on the M4 either (I also pay a Fire and Rescue bit on my LOCAL council tax), after all, you don't pay into my local area and you live in North Wales so unlikely you will ever come down here... apart form the odd time here or there or on the way to the airport etc etc.

And while we're here... Why should I subsidise your assembly and the Scott's parliament, or Scotland as a whole for that matter, I've never been there!

And I haven't been to hospital since 1994, why should I pay for the them either each year (and I'm self employed so I pay my tax AFTER the event, so I KNOW i haven't used it when I pay)?


I'm about as right wing as they get but even I can see the benefit of a few national taxes... you might even find your local area gets some of the national funds and your harbour dues (or the light part of it) goes down!

mjcp

What a daft post.

Fire, police, hospitals are used by everyone, lights and marks provided by Trinity House are used by a tiny minority.

As the the Welsh assembly, your right there, a big waste of money and laughed out loud when I read Plaid Cymru's election manifesto that declared they would cancel Trident and bring the Army back for Afghanistan. How are they going to do that after being elected to a toy assembly?

As to our harbour dues being reduced, you are having a laugh, we already have the most expensive leisure harbour dues in the United Kingdom.

 

[CharlesSwallow]

Actually, the number of unlicensed vehicles on our roads is considerably less than 1%.

The DVLA has been using flawed survey methods to inflate the figure for years, but it was not until ANPR cameras became more widespread that the scale of their "error" became known.

Even then, the DVLA was reluctant to revise its figures downwards, and was severely criticised by the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee for being "disingenuous" (i.e. lying) as a result.

Even after the PAC report http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmpubacc/557/557.pdf was published, the DVLA management continued (and continues) to set performance targets for its penalty collectors that are based on its old, inflated figures, and that can only be met by collecting penalties from motorists who have not actually done anything wrong!

I know one of those MPs (Lab.). His nephew's wife works for me. When his mother was admitted to an NHS hospital at the same time as my late father, he ranted and raved until they gave her a private room. That, and many other experiences is why I will NEVER vote for a labour politician in ANY election. At least with a capitalist Conservative, you know what you're getting.

Chas

 

[Alcyone]

Going quite a way from contributing to light dues isn't it?
I don't believe I generally use any non-harbour maintained lights/buoys and a few on here state that they never go near one so isn't really fair that they pay ...
I'm not sure of my opinion about the requirement to contribute towards them - it would rather depend on the level of contribution! If £10pa then I'm not worried, if £1000pa then I'm kicking up a huge fuss ... £100pa ? Well - it's a lot.

Any attempt to add in compulsory MOT's for boats and I will be against it. As for the silly idiots that die of their own stupidity, well, sorry, but we all make mistakes and sometimes people will die - it matters not how much the state tries to legislate stupidity, they will not prevent accidents and (ultimately) deaths arising because of it. We already have MOT's, TAX, Insurance and driving tests for cars/bikes ... and it doesn't prevent accidents occurring - so ends up being a job creation scheme and another way of raising tax.

As for your lifeboat coxswain mate - I'm sure he does an excellent job and many are grateful for his skills, but making everyone suffer because of the few is not fair on the majority.

Are you really suggesting that MOTs, driving tests and other compulsory legislation that has been applied to road vehicles has not prevented deaths? Do you really think that similar schemes for boating would not prevent deaths? Really?

Your first point is correct, it is a different issue from what is being proposed, so I'll best leave that discussion for another time.

 

[Major Catastrophe]

Are you really suggesting that MOTs, driving tests and other compulsory legislation that has been applied to road vehicles has not prevented deaths? Do you really think that similar schemes for boating would not prevent deaths? Really?

Your first point is correct, it is a different issue from what is being proposed, so I'll best leave that discussion for another time.

If you want to see a licence system for leisure boaters, try visiting Australia where an entire bureaucratic machine has taken over, with boat licenses and individual licenses. Although their fees are on the face of it low, there are lots of different ones to pay.

The main thing is that it hasn't stopped the accidents, mainly because the $12 boat safety course is barely adequate and having a registered boat doesn't protect anybody.

When it comes to the MOT type of test you want to apply to boats, just exactly what will be tested? There are no brakes or tyres and no stopping distance.

I suppose you advocate compulsory lifejackets. But you don't need a test or licence to apply that rule.

 

[Alcyone]

If you want to see a licence system for leisure boaters, try visiting Australia where an entire bureaucratic machine has taken over, with boat licenses and individual licenses. Although their fees are on the face of it low, there are lots of different ones to pay.

The main thing is that it hasn't stopped the accidents, mainly because the $12 boat safety course is barely adequate and having a registered boat doesn't protect anybody.

When it comes to the MOT type of test you want to apply to boats, just exactly what will be tested? There are no brakes or tyres and no stopping distance.

I suppose you advocate compulsory lifejackets. But you don't need a test or licence to apply that rule.

When you say it hasn't stopped the accidents, I presume you mean all of them? I would not expect it to.

Or can you provide hard evidence that shows it has had no effect whatsoever on the number or nature of accidents?

What I suggested when I mentioned a boat 'MOT' was a simple checklist, easily identifiable for each boat, and self certifiable - At least that would ensure that beginners are aware of basic safety issues, such as spares, VHF, lifejackets, charts/navigation equipment for their area, Service record for engines, anchors, lines etc. the sort of thing an RNLI seacheck might highlight.

Being self certifiable would open it to abuse, sure, but it would be bound to help, at least some of the folk with no idea whatsoever would think about what they were doing.

If requested, you would have to show that you had completed such a check. First offence warning, second offence, fine.

I would not expect a single person posting on this board to have any great hardship with that.

 

[Major Catastrophe]

I would not expect a single person posting on this board to have any great hardship with that.

Except for me.

I am quite capable of looking after myself and my crew without government interference.

 

[Alcyone]

Except for me.

I am quite capable of looking after myself and my crew without government interference.

I'm sure you can, but I think you've missed the point.

Anyway......

 

[nimbusgb]

I'd actually favour some form of regulation. A very basic universal driving license, paper based, including rudimentary knowledge of charts and weather, safety etc, and even a basic boat MOT, which could be self certified, to say you have anchor, radio, you carry out regular maintenance and checks. I'd welcome these. Occasional spot checks would be fine.

But if we pay more to the upkeep of lights, the shipping companies pay less, so our imports get cheaper, will that happen...........

WHY? All it leads to is extra expense and bureaucracy. It doesn't actually fix ANYTHING.

You'll start with self certification and then Europe will say that's not acceptable, next thing you know there will be yacht MOT centres everywhere and compulsory annual £500 'checks'. It happened in gliding, from about £40 per annum 'paper' costs to several hundred pounds and heaps of pi$$ing about. WITH ZERO CHANGE IN SAFETY.

I take my yacht on a 4 year cruise around the world, when I get back the 'MOT' is 1,2 or more years out of date. No doubt the insurers will love this idea. How do you expect us to get around that one for a start, fly someone out to inspect it in Cape Town?

Motor vehicles are regulated left right and centre, it doesn't stop thousands of people being killed on the roads but it does provide a glorious source of income to the authorities in the form of Speed and parking fines.

GO AWAY!

 

[Deleted member 36384]

Being self certifiable would open it to abuse, sure, but it would be bound to help, at least some of the folk with no idea whatsoever would think about what they were doing.

If requested, you would have to show that you had completed such a check. First offence warning, second offence, fine.

I would not expect a single person posting on this board to have any great hardship with that.

Perosnaly it has nothing to do with the hassle of what you propose, its the fact that it is mandated that I would have an issue with. Most people are responsible enough to become aware of matters that affect their safety, some through the RYA scheme, some through self tuition, some through being taught by friends, for example. In nearly every place that I have been in the UK with boating facilities there is information from agencies (RNLI and MCA) on safety schemes and self checks somewhere in view.

We already have enough information in our faces to alert us to be prudent. I agree that ignorant people can and do go to see but I dont think the numbers justify any mandated safety scheme.

I am sure that there is a correlation between imposed safety schemes and stupid acts because the imposed schemes make the dolts thinks they are safe. Modern HSE safety schemes have moved away from prescription and towards awareness and responsibility of the individual to think about the controls that are required to manage the hazards that he has identified i.e. you dont need a gas detector if you manage the use of your gas safely, where as ticking the gas detector box does nothing for safety.

I would rather see the RNLI / MCA and RYA (and all the other marine agencies that promote safe sailing e.g. ORC) have a much more joined up and visible approach to personal awareness of the risks associated with sailing.

So its not the hardship its the proposal for mandated form ticking that is wrong which only removes responsibility from the individual.

I am against so called light dues. If commercial enterprises want them to aid commerce by sea then they can pay for them.

 

[Alcyone]

WHY? All it leads to is extra expense and bureaucracy. It doesn't actually fix ANYTHING.

You'll start with self certification and then Europe will say that's not acceptable, next thing you know there will be yacht MOT centres everywhere and compulsory annual £500 'checks'. It happened in gliding, from about £40 per annum 'paper' costs to several hundred pounds and heaps of pi$$ing about. WITH ZERO CHANGE IN SAFETY.

I take my yacht on a 4 year cruise around the world, when I get back the 'MOT' is 1,2 or more years out of date. No doubt the insurers will love this idea. How do you expect us to get around that one for a start, fly someone out to inspect it in Cape Town?

GO AWAY!

You go away.

Now, do you want to continue telling each other to go away, or act like an adult in a discussion where you have a differing opinion?

 

[Alcyone]

Perosnaly it has nothing to do with the hassle of what you propose, its the fact that it is mandated that I would have an issue with. Most people are responsible enough to become aware of matters that affect their safety, some through the RYA scheme, some through self tuition, some through being taught by friends, for example. In nearly every place that I have been in the UK with boating facilities there is information from agencies (RNLI and MCA) on safety schemes and self checks somewhere in view.

We already have enough information in our faces to alert us to be prudent. I agree that ignorant people can and do go to see but I dont think the numbers justify any mandated safety scheme.

I am sure that there is a correlation between imposed safety schemes and stupid acts because the imposed schemes make the dolts thinks they are safe. Modern HSE safety schemes have moved away from prescription and towards awareness and responsibility of the individual to think about the controls that are required to manage the hazards that he has identified i.e. you dont need a gas detector if you manage the use of your gas safely, where as ticking the gas detector box does nothing for safety.

I would rather see the RNLI / MCA and RYA (and all the other marine agencies that promote safe sailing e.g. ORC) have a much more joined up and visible approach to personal awareness of the risks associated with sailing.

So its not the hardship its the proposal for mandated form ticking that is wrong which only removes responsibility from the individual.

I am against so called light dues. If commercial enterprises want them to aid commerce by sea then they can pay for them.

Thanks for a reasoned response. I entirely understand where you are coming from, and believe me, nobody hates being told what to do or how they should behave more than me. I also hate politicians and beaurocracy.

The point that I was making though, was that I doubt it would seriously affect any who post here, as I'm guessing most of us have made our mistakes and learned from the experience of making them. Most are very well qualified, and well experienced.

What worries me are the ones I see day in, day out, when I'm on my yacht, or my RIB. We've all seen them, 2 adults and 2 small kids with a fishing rod in an otherwise empty boat with no anchor, let alone any lifejackets or safety equipment.

You can, and I have, in the distant past, buy a boat and go out to sea with no idea. Surely it makes sense to put some safeguards in place to stop that? In the open sea, at least?

I think what worries most is that it would be the thin edge of the wedge. I see that, but I have a feeling something like this is inevitable in the long run. Personally, in it's simplest form, I would not object, and I do think it would save lives, and mmean less work for our RNLI boys.

 

[Tranona]

Thanks for a reasoned response. I entirely understand where you are coming from, and believe me, nobody hates being told what to do or how they should behave more than me. I also hate politicians and beaurocracy.

The point that I was making though, was that I doubt it would seriously affect any who post here, as I'm guessing most of us have made our mistakes and learned from the experience of making them. Most are very well qualified, and well experienced.

What worries me are the ones I see day in, day out, when I'm on my yacht, or my RIB. We've all seen them, 2 adults and 2 small kids with a fishing rod in an otherwise empty boat with no anchor, let alone any lifejackets or safety equipment.

You can, and I have, in the distant past, buy a boat and go out to sea with no idea. Surely it makes sense to put some safeguards in place to stop that? In the open sea, at least?

I think what worries most is that it would be the thin edge of the wedge. I see that, but I have a feeling something like this is inevitable in the long run. Personally, in it's simplest form, I would not object, and I do think it would save lives, and mmean less work for our RNLI boys.

However, you have to look at the evidence. Only rarely in official reports such as the MAIB investigations or the somewhat different reports from the RNLI and MCA is lack of competence or basic boat safety an issue. None of the agencies responsible for safety in our waters - MCA, RNLI or RYA have ever advocated compulsory registration, safety checks or skipper licensing.

This is because there is not a clearly definable problem that would be solved or reduced by such schemes. This does not mean that there are not accidents where these factors may contribute, but you only have to read any of the MAIB reports to discover there are usually multiple factors. The number of accidents is statistically tiny and it is only possible to identify common factors rather than specific causes. You cannot say x accidents were caused by YYY and plot trends because they are by nature random and rare.

This is all very different from roads and vehicles, where there is a vast amount of data both absolute and in relation to the extent of activity. It is therefore much easier to identify causes and the impact of changes. Even then for all sorts of reasons many of the conclusions are questionable - for example the link between speed cameras and the change in accident rates.

So, as much as it is annoying to see people behaving in an unsafe way on the water, the problem is not sufficiently severe to justify any regulatory change.