Breath tests for boaters

[lyc]

From the RYA website,

Have your say on breath tests for boaters


click here to visit the DfT’s online form and have your say



<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BroadsandEastcoastBoating/>Broads & East Coast Boating</A>

 

[Anonymous]

I'm concerned about the situation where the skipper drinks a fair bit - though not necessarily incapacitated - while at anchor then finds that his anchor is dragging, gets an unexpected weather forecast, or similar, and decides not to move his vessel because he would then be 'under way' and could be prosecuted for drink-sailing. I think that there should be an overriding get-out where the skipper's actions were reasonable to secure the safety of his vessel regardless of his consumption of alcohol.

By the way I write as a teetotaller and don't advocate mixing drinking and operating planes, boats, cars or machinery.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[sailbadthesinner]

see yesterday's times there is a quote from the mca that reads to the non initiated to the effect that every accident at sea involves booze
so that is the mca 'on message' as they say

<hr width=100% size=1>Beer. Source of and answer to all life's problems.

 

[Talbot]

I think the governments position is best explained by their own words:

"The Government believes, however, that <font color=red>despite the lack of hard evidence </font color=red>there are two reasons for taking action.
a. As described in the Tavistock study, many shipping companies have introduced their own alcohol policies, which indicates their belief that action was needed. Legislation would have an effect on those employed by other companies which have not seen fit to take action.
b. The Government believes that it is anomalous that blood alcohol levels are specified for road users and operators and crew of inland and airborne public transport, yet are not for ship masters and crew. <font color=red>There is no intrinsic difference between the transport modes to support this disparity</font color=red>. Impairment through alcohol can lead to accidents at sea in the same way as it can elsewhere."

Yet another example of the control freaks adding costs to an area (leisure boating) that does not really need it. I think most of us would be content that commercial crews should be subject to these sorts of restrictions, and it is my understanding that there are already sufficient laws to control those in leisure boating who overstep the mark anyway.

Watch out for the next step in legislation which will impose an alchohol limit in the home for people looking after children under the age of ten.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Fill]

IMHO raggies and stinkies are in much the same relationship to the big stuff as bicyclists are to juggernauts and cars, and bicyclists -as far as I recall-are not subject to being breathalysed although they can be found to be drunk in charge: it would seem that the rules are therefore a little more open to common sense interpretation.

Perhaps this is the parallel we should draw for the rule bound mob who don't sail anyway and who are only happy when there is a straightforward law.

Same argument could be applied to light dues - cyclists are not liable for road tax - they use roads but cause so little damage etc etc.

<hr width=100% size=1>Fill

 

[freebird1]

I can see both sides of the arguement here. On one hand, yes this is another piece of legislation restricting our activities on the water. On the other, you could still be in just as much trouble if found drunk in charge of your vessel.
At least with this new law, the limits are set and you either pass or fail as opposed to a police officer saying you are drunk on the basis of your behaviour, which could of course differ from one to another.

In any case, how often do you see a police lauch patrolling near you?



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ubuysa]

Read Jeremy Clarkson's column in The Sunday Times (April 18th). Predictably he's not what you could call an enthusiastic "supporter" of the proposal. One typically Clarkson comment reads "Perhaps it <font size=1>[the breath test for boaters proposal]</font size=1> was dreamt up because the infernal health and safety, fresh air, vegetarian Nazis are running out of ways to make our lives miserable on land". And you can't argue with Clarkson. /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

Tony C.

<hr width=100% size=1>There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't.

 

[Talbot]

An unenforceable law, or one that is breeched more than honoured (rather liike the 70mph limit) is a bad law and it is the proliferation of such laws that drives a wedge between the populace and the enforcement agencies. The reaction of 90% of us to the news that a granny has been gatsoed is not that she was going too fast, but that the bl**dy camera has got another one of us.

If the idjits in power dont recognise this then they are doubly responsible for the eventual break down of law and order.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TwoStroke]

Did like his suggestion that rescused sailors who turned out to be drunk should be made to pay for the cost of plucking them to safety. This way the fine would serve a purpose and there'd be no need for pricey police patrols.


Comment: Jeremy Clarkson: Getting totally wrecked at sea isn't a crime

Oh no. The government has begun a four-month consultation period to see if weekend sailors pottering about on the Solent or the Norfolk Broads should be stopped and breathalysed.
Now, I can see that it might be difficult to drive a tank while under the influence of heroin. And I understand that Huw Edwards would find it tricky to read the Autocue if he were off his face on acid. But sailing a boat, on the sea, after a few wines? I’m sorry but that doesn’t sound hard at all.



Sure, there was the case of the drunken Icelandic trawlerman who crashed into a British couple’s yacht causing damage that cost £25,000 to put right. A year later he sailed over to apologise and, having drunk some wine on the voyage, crashed into their boat again.

I think that’s quite funny but of course those of a busybodying disposition won’t. And then they will point to the recent case of a captain who smashed his dredger into the pier at Hythe having downed six pints of lager. The Methodist Mariners will also mention “drunken yobs” on jet skis terrorising swimmers.

All very worthy I’m sure, but unfortunately the consultation paper also implies that ordinary sailors will be entangled in the legislation. And that would be a shame.

Only the other day I went for a small sail. We set off at the obligatory 45 degrees, an angle at which it’s impossible to drink, as your glass keeps falling off the table. And anyway, every time you fancy a swig, the captain decides to “go about” or “gybe” and you have to rush around pulling the wrong rope.

Still, at lunchtime, we parked, broke out the rum punches (it was Barbados) and spent the afternoon getting plastered in the sunshine. Is this not what sailing’s all about?

Certainly, Olivier de Kersauson, the eminent French yachtsman, thinks that’s what the British do. He took me out on his huge trimaran a couple of years ago and explained why all the big races and records are won and broken by French and American people these days.

It’s a far cry from 1759, when our navy pounced on the French fleet as it attempted to break the blockade. In the ensuing battle off Quiberon, Britannia really did rule the waves. But not any more and de Kersauson thinks he knows why.

“These days, you British all sit around in your yacht clubs, in your silly blazers drinking gin and tonics. No one actually goes out there and sails,” he said.

So, new drink-drive limits for sailors may put us back on the map vis-à-vis the Jules Verne Trophy, but there must be more to it than that.

What though? It’s not as if Britain is out of step with the rest of the world. So far, only Finland has placed alcohol restrictions on sailors but no one has been arrested yet because the police can’t think how the law might be enforced.

We’d have a similar problem here. It would, inevitably, be the job of the Hampshire police to cruise around on the Solent, but I feel sure that senior officers could find better things for the force to do than harass Colonel Bufton Tufton for taking a sherry on his Fairline Targa 48.

Furthermore, who would be deemed responsible? Certainly, if I were to be apprehended by the River Filth while weaving out of Cowes harbour, I’d say my completely sober five-year-old daughter was in charge. Then I’d invite them to go away and catch some burglars.

There are a quarter of a million shipwrecks off the coast of Britain and almost all of them were caused by one of four things: incompetence, bad weather, the French, or the Germans. Banning alcohol from the high seas to save lives is therefore pointless.

Perhaps it was dreamt up because the infernal health and safety, fresh air, vegetarian Nazis are running out of ways to make our lives miserable on land. But why is it being seriously considered?

To get an answer, we need to think about the potential punishment. You cannot remove a sailor’s licence if he’s found to be drunk because he doesn’t have one. And you cannot realistically send Bufton Tufton to jail for sailing while under the influence of Harvey’s Bristol Cream.

The only realistic punishment is a fine and there you have the appeal for Tony’s slack-jawed sidekick in No 11. Explain that drinking and sailing must be outlawed “to save children’s lives” and watch the money come rolling in. It’s the speed-camera syndrome. Tell us that speed kills, then “tax” us when we’re caught proving it doesn’t.

That said, I would be enormously peeved if I were the winchman on a rescue helicopter, dangling on a rope in atrocious weather trying to save the skipper of an upturned yacht who kept saying “You’re my best mate” and “I f****** love you”.

There is a way round this one, though. Rescued sailors who turn out to be drunk should be made to pay for the cost of plucking them to safety. This way, the fine would serve a purpose and there’d be no need for pricey police patrols.

What’s more, the freedom of the open seas would still be a blessed relief for those who, like me, increasingly believe we’re no longer living in a free country.




<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[pragmatist]

I'm posting this for pessimist on the grounds that he's lost his buttons ...

"Alcohol is the answer. What was the question ?"

<hr width=100% size=1>a pragmatist is an optimist with a boat in the UK