Boating + drinking = are on the agenda again 8 this time RYA are not against it

C

Capt Popeye

Well-Known Member
Joined
30 Sep 2011
Messages
18,850
Location
Dawlish South Devon
Visit site
Well our local South Devon news this evening are highlighting the fact that some are asking for restrictions on amount drunk by peoples in charge of boats to apply to Pleasure and Commercial skippers maybe crew

Our local Harbour Master was interviewed and spoke of unnecessary troubles and accident or incidents when skippers have had too much alcohol

So as the RYA spokesperson stated that given convincing information to support some form of Pleasure Drinking restrictions applying to those on boats, they might not oppose it

So is our future a Dry one, thats one only (pints)
 
Thank the skipper of the Bow Belle & 2 Jags Prescott, for this very old news enshrined into Law, some years ago
 
Oh please no, we really don’t need legislation rearing it’s ugly head.
For this to be enforceable it would mean all owners/skippers of pleasure boats would need to be licensed and all boats compulsorily registered, a total nightmare.
 
this has been prompted by the recent John Shepard case - well discussed here.

The key statement is from the MAIBA (reported in PBO) that there have been 45 deaths in boating accidents in the last 10 years where alcohol was a factor. They made the same claim 10 years ago at the last attempt to impose regulations and it was untrue. They were never able to provide any evidence of these deaths, and in fact since then there have been no deaths in any of their reports where alcohol was a factor. The last one was in 2009.
 
Praxinoscope said:
Oh please no, we really don’t need legislation rearing it’s ugly head.
For this to be enforceable it would mean all owners/skippers of pleasure boats would need to be licensed and all boats compulsorily registered, a total nightmare.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. The punishment isn't loss of a licence therefore no need to be licensed.
To prove you were incharge etc you'll need to be on the boat - so probably no need to have a registration plate.

Old Harry said:
Thank the skipper of the Bow Belle & 2 Jags Prescott, for this very old news enshrined into Law, some years ago
Click to expand...
Capt Popeye said:
Evidently not for Pleasure boating Skippers
Click to expand...
The Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 - covers non-professionals. As with most law - its a mess to read, but the SoS has invoked a subsection that allows there not to be a prescribed limit for non-professionals. It remains illegal if if their "ability to exercise the function mentioned in subsection (1)(b) is impaired because of drink or drugs." (1(b): is exercising, or purporting or attempting to exercise, a function in connection with the navigation of the ship, )

Vessel has to be underway.

Tranona said:
this has been prompted by the recent John Shepard case - well discussed here.

The key statement is from the MAIBA (reported in PBO) that there have been 45 deaths in boating accidents in the last 10 years where alcohol was a factor. They made the same claim 10 years ago at the last attempt to impose regulations and it was untrue. They were never able to provide any evidence of these deaths, and in fact since then there have been no deaths in any of their reports where alcohol was a factor. The last one was in 2009.
Click to expand...
What counts as a boating accident:

https://www.gov.uk/maib-reports/man-overboard-from-stern-trawler-illustris-with-loss-of-1-life

(Alongside)

But this one definitely wasn't

https://www.gov.uk/maib-reports/acc...ot-transfer-vessel-patrol-with-loss-of-1-life
 
ShinyShoe said:
The Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 - covers non-professionals. As with most law - its a mess to read, but the SoS has invoked a subsection that allows there not to be a prescribed limit for non-professionals. It remains illegal if if their "ability to exercise the function mentioned in subsection (1)(b) is impaired because of drink or drugs." (1(b): is exercising, or purporting or attempting to exercise, a function in connection with the navigation of the ship, )

Vessel has to be underway.


What counts as a boating accident:

https://www.gov.uk/maib-reports/man-overboard-from-stern-trawler-illustris-with-loss-of-1-life

(Alongside)

But this one definitely wasn't

https://www.gov.uk/maib-reports/acc...ot-transfer-vessel-patrol-with-loss-of-1-life
Click to expand...

The law (and Harbour bye laws) is more than adequate to prosecute if a drunken person is involved in an accident. What is missing is a definition of who it actually applies to (type of boat, location of operation etc) a prescribed limit and crucially powers to test on suspicion as used on the roads. The difficulty in bringing cases to court is determining if alcohol is a direct cause and collecting the evidence. The shepard case highlights this as there was not conclusive evidence who was driving, nor whether drink was a major cause as there was a range of factors that as a whole were sufficient to bring a more serious charge of manslaughter.

I have just gone through the list of MAIB reports on pleasure craft incidents over the last 15 years or so where there has been a full report and there are only 5 where there were deaths and or alcohol involved. All involved small high speed boats (not yachts or big MOBOs) and 6 people dead, 3 in one incident and the last was in 2009. This is a far cry from the 45 deaths in the last 10 years claim from the MAIB.

To put this in perspective on the roads there have been roughly 8000 accidents resulting in injury a year from drink driving and 200 deaths - and it has started to rise again, having been reduced by approx 50% since the law came in 40 years ago.

As the RYA says it is looking for real evidence that there is a problem - and it does not come from the MAIB. personally I think it is just not there. such accidents hit the general news headlines and will result in an inquest. I keep a close eye on this - as do the news editors of the yachting mags - and they are just not showing in reports.
 
The police / authorities don’t give a damn about recreational drugs, so a bunch of middle class soaks in yachts will be invisible.
 
We have and always had a no alcohol policy until the boat is anchored .
And most responsible skipper I know have the same policy .
But where I take issue with a law regarding people in charge of a boat and alcohol is , while you're on that boats you in charge which mean even while anchored or in a marina having a drink foul the law and lets face it other them a few like myself ,there not any who don't like a good drink after a day sailing
Just this year alone there probably been 10 times that for some reason I had to move the boat late at night , people anchoring too close , change of wind direction,dragging boats getting too close to us and the only time we used a quay this year , we move to a better space to let a much large motor boat use ours . In all these cases I had a drink or two .

I all for drink and drive laws and people should lose there license for good is caught but a law not to have a reasonable drink is while on board is ridiculous and enforceable .
And this is from someone who drinks very little .
 
Tranona said:
The law (and Harbour bye laws) is more than adequate to prosecute if a drunken person is involved in an accident. What is missing is a definition of who it actually applies to (type of boat, location of operation etc) a prescribed limit and crucially powers to test on suspicion as used on the roads.
Click to expand...
Section 89(1) I think is explicitly clear - it applied to any vessel that navigates. So a beach lilo - probably not. A yacht - yes.
Location: Section 91 covers it. UK waters. and UK vessels overseas. What isn't clear?
Prescribed limit: yes it doesn't apply because the SoS chose not to apply it to non-professional persons.
Section 86 allows the police to board if they have a reasonable suspicion.

No actual need to test a level, although as I read the law - there may be no prescribed limit but the law still allows non-professionals to be breathalysed. What is missing is a sanction for refusal. But the legal case is to demonstrate that it it affected ability to navigate (which in the law is basically steer).

If you end up in court, breathalysed, and are over the drink drive limit on the road and the police a showing pictures of you weaving all over the place - what Jury wouldn't convict you?

The difficulty in bringing cases to court is determining if alcohol is a direct cause and collecting the evidence. The shepard case highlights this as there was not conclusive evidence who was driving, nor whether drink was a major cause as there was a range of factors that as a whole were sufficient to bring a more serious charge of manslaughter.
Click to expand...
So if the girl hadn't died - there couldn't have been a manslaughter case.
That would have left the question of who was 'driving' to the court. But the law doesn't say who was driving. The law says "is exercising, or purporting or attempting to exercise, a function in connection with the navigation of the ship" - navigation is defined as "a reference to the control or direction, or participation in the control or direction, of the course of a vessel." It would be up to the court to decide if both Shephard and Brown were navigating, and if both were impaired in their ability to navigate because of it. In the manslaughter case, they concluded Shephard had a duty of care to Brown. In my opinion there is no doubt that even if he wasn't steering at the time of the accident, he was still assisting Brown at the time (or should have been) because this was the first time she had driven a boat. But even if his defence somehow convinced the Jury that he wasn't "driving" so wasn't responsible, he had already driven. So the only question would be was his ability impaired then? If I was a jury in road traffic case and the driver and passenger had consumed 2 bottles of wine but for some reason there was no breathalyser data - I can still convict and almost certainly would be. In this case he was speeding... ...was that because he is an idiot or because of the alcohol (or both). Convince me a court wouldn't think - if you aren't allowed to drive a car that drunk why are you allowed to drive a boat? They may consider that differently for a Yacht at open sea... but this was effectively like driving a car without your lights on at double the speed limit through town...

I have just gone through the list of MAIB reports on pleasure craft incidents over the last 15 years or so where there has been a full report and there are only 5 where there were deaths and or alcohol involved. All involved small high speed boats (not yachts or big MOBOs) and 6 people dead, 3 in one incident and the last was in 2009. This is a far cry from the 45 deaths in the last 10 years claim from the MAIB.
Click to expand...
Does MAIB say pleasure vessels?

To put this in perspective on the roads there have been roughly 8000 accidents resulting in injury a year from drink driving and 200 deaths
Click to expand...
The 8000 accidents is an unhelpful comparator. No-one has provided data for marine accidents not resulting in deaths.
So we are comparing the 200 to 4.5... (And the 200 will include commercial journeys)
But is the comparison fair without taking into account the number of journeys / miles covered or some other denominator.

I drive 50 miles a day, 5 days a week, 2 journeys per day. - lets call that 260 days when I drive. And lets assume that is "average" for a driver... (coz I have nothing else to work from)
I do boating activities (which involve more driving to get there) - probably 40 days of the year. But only 8% of the population take part in watersports. So the average person in the UK takes part on watersports 3.2days /year

200 vehicle deaths / 260 days = 0.76 deaths per day driven
4.5 boating deaths / 3.2 days = 1.4deaths per day water sport

I realise I may be manipulating the statistic. What is probably more relevant would be to quote relative risks. So risk of a car accident sober, vs risk of a accident 'drunk', and the same for on a boat.

As the RYA says it is looking for real evidence that there is a problem - and it does not come from the MAIB. personally I think it is just not there. such accidents hit the general news headlines and will result in an inquest. I keep a close eye on this - as do the news editors of the yachting mags - and they are just not showing in reports.
Click to expand...
Only if it results in a death. Guy gets drunk, falls in water, gets rescued - doesn't make it to an inquest.
Does every tender accident make it to MAIB investigation?
Is there a reason to classify pleasure boats differently from commercial boats? Either in terms of liklihood of having an accident if drunk? Or the punishment? We don't treat a truck driver differently to a car driver in terms of the threshold for drunk. The punishment may be stronger but that may reflect the risk. Drunk in charge of a RIB through a swimming area vs drunk in a yacht away from other people* - should result in punishment appropriate to the risks.

*why would anyone know

I have no idea if there is a problem. I accept that a yacht away from most hazards the risks will be less. I certainly wouldn't want to get on the WightLink thinking the captain had just had 5 pints. Nor would I want to try and row out to a mooring after 5 pints**! But I suspect being on a high speed small craft after 5 pints would actually be the thing most likely to put me in danger...

...I wouldn't get on a plane knowing the pilot had drunk 5 pints. But do any of us think a non-commercial pilot should be allowed to be drunk? Does it matter if that is a glider (akin to a sailing boat) or a vintage jet fighter?

Perhaps it is because I don't see the need for everyone to drink so much that I take my view point..?!

I do think common sense would prevail. BUT it doesn't always. However, I doubt it would make much difference in some of the cases... it might have in the Milly RIB case, but I strongly suspect not in the Thames case.

**to be fair I possibly couldn't stand after 5 pints!
 
The problem lies in amounts consumed and circumstances of an accident. Whilst I don't like to get drunk, living on board much of the year I often consume far more when friends are on board at anchor than if I were driving a car. Safe to do on anchor or berthed yes but, what happens if say the anchor drags and I have to handle the boat? An OK situation could then become a crime, even if no accident.

OTOH, I agree that anyone so drunk as to be very impaired and intentionally in charge of any vessel underway AND creating a danger to others, should be prosecuted.

In reality, we are more at risk to ourselves in the tender returning to the boat late at night and, under the original proposals, such low powered boats would be outside the rules.
 
ShinyShoe

Don't have time to reply to all your post, but just to clarify some points.

While the law on drinking and boating applies to all boats and boaters, the regulations that were proposed (which would have brought in prescribed limits and breathalysing) did not. For example would they exclude boats below a certain size or of particular type.

I have just checked the MAIB statement to quote

"...between 2006-2012 there have been 45 fatalities in accidents involving recreational craft in the UK where alcohol was a factor"

This claim was made in 2012 and was shown to be untrue then - remember the minister squirming as he admitted he did not have any evidence to support this. since then there have been no MAIB reports of this kind. This does not mean there have not been fatalities (although I believe the number is tiny) but none have resulted in a reported investigation.

As to comparison with road figures. The point is that despite the law having been in place for 40 years and generally good enforcement there are still 8000 people causing accidents because of drink (and a much larger number caught drinking and driving) so it is clearly not working effectively as a deterrent.

Suggest you look at the figures from Australia and the uS where reporting is compulsory. Then you will see where drink and boating is a problem, and crucially will see that it is largely confined to a sub set of boaters very similar to those involved in cases in the UK.
 
Tranona said:
45 fatalities in accidents involving recreational craft in the UK where alcohol was a factor"
Click to expand...

If "involving" recreational craft includes dinghy trips and swimming off the boat accidents and it's UK registered boats wherever based, then the figure could be reasonably accurate. As you say, just recreational boats actually in the UK seems way over the top.
 
To my mind the current situation functions well enough. If alcohol is a factor in an accident or death, then this will be taken into account by the courts or insurance companies in deciding liability. As said, most problems come from irresponsible people in smaller craft, where policing can be nearly impossible, so leaving it to the common law seems to be the only practical solution.
 
Capt Popeye said:
Well our local South Devon news this evening are highlighting the fact that some are asking for restrictions on amount drunk by peoples in charge of boats to apply to Pleasure and Commercial skippers maybe crew

Our local Harbour Master was interviewed and spoke of unnecessary troubles and accident or incidents when skippers have had too much alcohol

So as the RYA spokesperson stated that given convincing information to support some form of Pleasure Drinking restrictions applying to those on boats, they might not oppose it
Click to expand...
It was the same all over the South West.

I thought the fact that the Teignmouth Harbour Master was rather ironic as there is a now a floating "bar" on the river.

Fatbeard said:
You are joking, right?!
Click to expand...
No he was not.

I don't see what all the fuss is, the numbers of drink related deaths extremely low over the last ten years nobody has the resources to breathalyse boaters. If there is a fatality the toxicology report will include the alcohol content in the body.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top