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

Seven Spades said:
Ok who is the skipper? If I am drunk it is my sober wife. That's clear but it is ok for my 13 year old son to be the designated skipper? What about 4 lads chartering three are on board and drunk and the sober one has gone ashore to get a takeaway? It is quite legal to leave a boat un-attended so can I leave three drunks on board and go and get some food?

The problem with this issue is there are only two ways it can work.

1. No one is allowed to be intoxicated on board.

or

2. You cannot he intoxicated and helming.

Option 2 seems logical and the drink drive limit might be a reasonable limit for a rib capable of 30+ knots but is unreasonable for an Anderson 22. In the case of slow moving yachts a more leant test of capability should really be applied.
Click to expand...

Don’t let ‘SeaJet’ See you suggest that the Anderson 22 might be slow.
 
pmagowan said:
Look, to legislate for something I.e restrict people’s freedom, you need to first identify a significant problem. You then need to have a sufficient solution that is enforceable. And lastly you need to ensure that your solution is not a bigger problem than your problem. In this case there isn’t a problem, there isn’t an enforceable solution and any solution will create a greater problem than it solves.

THe default position is that people should be free to go about their business without undue hindrance.
Click to expand...

+1 the last thing we need is a whole load of legislation to surround us.
 
Seven Spades said:
..... It is quite legal to leave a boat un-attended so can I leave three drunks on board and go and get some food? ...... The problem with this issue is there are only two ways it can work. ....
Click to expand...

The boat must have someone on board that is sober and in charge when along side. I think I read this in the Railways Act or something or another.
 
ShinyShoe said:
If we assume licences applied - then perhaps he'd learn to drive a boat better. BUT perhaps not.
Click to expand...

Certainly here in Portugal, there's no evidence that qualifications lead to better skill. They drive high powered small boats and jet skis like lunatics, using the moorings where we are as a slalom course. No consideration for tenders or canoes, never look back to see what effect their wake has. Plenty of police stops but to check paperwork, fishing licenses and safety equipment. Never heard of anyone being fined for bad driving and a couple of months ago, the police ran over an innocent boat during a night chase without lights and one occupant died.
 
I knew there was a reason I always fancied a boat with a wheel, it has a convenient place to keep the bottle. Just have to continue to save up my pennies to get one.
 
Tranona said:
What is your evidence to support this?
Click to expand...

They seem to be sitting on the fence over this one instead of demanding those who are promoting this latest attack on freedom come up with data to support the idea. One fatality, however tragic, in many decades is not evidence of a problem.

Then they appear to have done nothing about Studland Bay and are leaving all the slog to Old Harry and friends.
They have not stood up against the other bug huggers who have succeeded in designating every mile of coast as a special protection area thereby killing off any chance of new boating facilities despite the significant need for more provision.
 
Tomahawk said:
They seem to be sitting on the fence over this one instead of demanding those who are promoting this latest attack on freedom come up with data to support the idea. One fatality, however tragic, in many decades is not evidence of a problem.

Then they appear to have done nothing about Studland Bay and are leaving all the slog to Old Harry and friends.
They have not stood up against the other bug huggers who have succeeded in designating every mile of coast as a special protection area thereby killing off any chance of new boating facilities despite the significant need for more provision.
Click to expand...

You clearly don't keep up with what they do. Are you a member? Do you read the magazine?

Think Old Harry will tell you a very different story about their involvement with the MCZ consultations.

The reality is that lobby groups rarely "win" when government policy is already decided on a different direction. All they can do is state their case and try to minimise the impact on the group they are representing. This is the approach that the RYA (and BORG) are taking.

I agree with you about this latest attempt to introduce new regulations (the law is already there) but don't believe that any evidence will be forthcoming and it will fizzle out just as the last attempt did and for the same reasons.
 
Not opposing and supporting are distinctly different options.
The RYA as a responsible national body or representative organisation can sit firmly on the fence and not oppose restrictions on the consumption of alcohol on boats.
Or the RYA could propose some reasonable restrictions on the consumption of alcohol on pleasure boats which would allow reasonable people to responsibly enjoy their pastime and a pleasant drink.

I see several comments about enforcement or the lack of enforcement. I also suspect the current law forbids impaired operation of a boat anyway. Yet it may not be well known.
The vast majority of people are law abiding, Laws of this type are about changing peoples concept of what is acceptable. Drink driving was always illegal. Yet when I was young it was quite common and accepted. Today its not so easily accepted and some people still do.
Will changing the law change peoples habits? It will change the majorities. It will not change everyone's.

I think the question which should be asked. Is what is a reasonable level of restriction on the consumption of alcohol and operation of a pleasure boat?

I think the people represented by the RYA would be better served by a reasonable proposal from the RYA than waiting for an unreasonable proposal prompted by a knee jerk reaction to a highly publicised tragedy.
 
Tomahawk said:
I am not convinced the RYA continues to support boating and boat owners as it's primary objective. It appears to have become an empire building exercise for middle level jobsworths.
Click to expand...

The RYA has to tread very carefully on subjects like this - it would be very bad public relations to be seen to be effectively arguing that we should all be free to sink a skinful, then jump into a high powered speed boat and shoot off through crowds of bathers and other boat users. We are a minority in the country and all too easily portrayed as a privileged few lounging around on our million pound gin palaces. The non-boating majority in the country have come round to supporting strict controls on drinking and driving - if the RYA or any other group claiming to represent leisure boaters is too vociferous about rejecting any controls on boating and alcohol consumption and some national news paper notices, then we could find ourselves in a position that is difficult to defend.
 
Minority?
I recall the RYA claiming that boating is one of the biggest participatory activities in the UK. Across the spectrum
it includes canal boats, and.... jetskis!
 
The late great Adlard Coles wrote in 1926 ('Close Hauled about sailing Arthur Ransome's boat from Riga to the UK) "It was most necessary to have some spirits on board, as teetotalisim, when cruising under cold, wet and difficult conditions, is simply an invitation to pneumonia".
 
Tomahawk said:
Minority?
I recall the RYA claiming that boating is one of the biggest participatory activities in the UK. Across the spectrum
it includes canal boats, and.... jetskis!
Click to expand...

It is worth re-reading the RYA position on this subject and you will see that is is much the same as it always has been except that it

"would not object to legislation based on compelling evidence, provided that it was clear, understandable and enforceable"

Given that no proposals so far have met those criteria nor likely to in the future based on what we have seen so far it seems fair to say they will not be supporting legislation of the sort proposed by the petition.
 
Tomahawk said:
I would support a positive statement.

We object to ambigious and unenforceable legislation that is not based on compelling evidence.
Click to expand...

Problem is our individual viewpoint changes depending on circumstances. Most of us don't want a situation where plod could roam anchorages requiring people to blow into the machine but, OTOH, if some drunken idiot drives over our tender injuring occupants, then we would want him nailed. It would be very difficult to word a law which left the majority alone but penalised those who are actually creating a problem by reckless driving under the influence.
 
Tomahawk said:
I would support a positive statement.

We object to ambigious and unenforceable legislation that is not based on compelling evidence.
Click to expand...

Confrontational language is not usually effective when you are trying to persuade people so tends not to be used in the lobbying environment!

Better to say you would consider - and then make the conditions difficult or impossible to meet, which is what they have done.

Does not necessarily mean it will prevent government from implementing laws you don't support if there is the political will.
 
Talking to a fruend who was on a local Harbour Board, he says the harbour master has authority to board and even impound a vessel that is being navigated unsafely. Under that provision, a blow in the bag balloon is merely an extra bit of evidence to demonstrate unsafe navigation.
 
Tomahawk said:
Talking to a fruend who was on a local Harbour Board, he says the harbour master has authority to board and even impound a vessel that is being navigated unsafely. Under that provision, a blow in the bag balloon is merely an extra bit of evidence to demonstrate unsafe navigation.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure this is the case in all harbours, we now have the lunatic situation where our harbourmaster (who is employed by the local council) has been given a written warning for rowing out into the harbour in his dinghy, and is no longer allowed to go on to the water in his dinghy, so what his powers would be as far as a vessel demonstrating unsafe navigation would be GOK.
 
Praxinoscope said:
I’m not sure this is the case in all harbours, we now have the lunatic situation where our harbourmaster (who is employed by the local council) has been given a written warning for rowing out into the harbour in his dinghy, and is no longer allowed to go on to the water in his dinghy, so what his powers would be as far as a vessel demonstrating unsafe navigation would be GOK.
Click to expand...

Almost certainly the Bye Laws for the harbour will give him the powers as described by Tomahawk. Think what you are describing is a potential failure of the authority to use those powers.

In the last round port authorities resisted implementation because they do not have the resources and this will be an issue in any further attempt at implementation - probably the main issue. Back to the

"understandable and enforceable" stance of the RYA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top