Bring PWC within the law

[Tomahawk]

As we know much has been made about the way PWC seem to evade prosecution because for some odd reason, they fall outside legislation.. Prosecution resting on definitions like a ship being something used for navigation whilst a PWC is just use for fun... (leaving aside questions about the need to navigate back to the place you launched your PWC)... have left PWC able to cause a lot of nuisance without fear of being held to account.

The DFT has come up with a new wheeze that uses one set of legislation to bring PWC to heel under another. Here is a link to the consultation
https://assets.publishing.service.g...e-of-recreational-and-personal-watercraft.pdf

However and it is a big however what is being proposed would bring all sailing dinghies, motor boats and yachts within the Harbours and Merchant Shipping Acts.

"capture all relevant PWCs, recreational and other watercraft such as speedboats as well as larger unpowered craft and bring them within scope of the MSA 1995 and Harbours Act 1964".

What I am trying to understand is what those two bits of legislation require and how could they impact on cruising sailers and motor boat owners? We all know that if a regulator is given an inch they take a mile. Is this a thin end of a nasty wedge to force compulsory licensing, registration, inspection etc. I am sure we have some maritime legal bods in teh Parish who are familiar with those Acts and could advise.

 

[awol]

Looks like it could apply to Priti Patel's Border Force PWC flotilla and outlaw their intended behaviour.

 

[Giblets]

As with all non-commercial marine legislation one has to ask "Who is going to police it?"

 

[LadyInBed]

PWC's and Escooters have similarities, the first under regulated, the second over regulated.
The bottom line is that it's down to the drivers level of consideration for others.

 

[Scotsailor]

There have been plenty of prosecutions of jet skiers. Sometimes with eye watering fines. So I am not convinced that additional regulation is required. I believe what is required is training.

 

[Stemar]

While it seems a bit over the top to bring all recreational watercraft into the legislation - kid in an inflatable canoe, for example, I wouldn't have any problem with including dinghies. A moth or similar going flat out could do a lot of damage to a swimmer.

As for registration, there's no requirement for it for small yachts unless you want to go abroad, so I don't see too much of an issue.

Please note that the legal powers available to the Department to deliver new legislation in this area are limited to the application of provisions already made in relation to ships to watercraft

and

Registration in the UK Ship Registry is a voluntary process and a fee is payable. It is not the intention of these proposals that there should be any change to the current approach.

No change in registration, then, apart from the option to permit - not compel - registration of watercraft.

Sounds to me like a good idea.

I believe what is required is training.

Training is already available. The responsible majority get it and use the knowledge gained to be safe. The irresponsible ones won't use that knowledge even if they are trained - just look at idiot bikers and car drivers

 

[Scotsailor]

I had a very quick look through the 72 pages … be careful what you wish for!

 

[Tomahawk]

I had a very quick look through the 72 pages … be careful what you wish for!

I am not wishing for anything..
In fact the oposite.. I am wondering if this will become an excuse or mechanism to heap a while load of regulation on boat owners by the back door. The way the Gov is proposing to extend the provisions of the Railways and Transport Safety Act, rather than bring in new primary legislation allows the actual implementation to be buried under another set of legislation. We have to navigate smoke and mirrors to understand what that legislation (The Merchand Shipping Acts and Harbours Acts) actually say. Do they allow a harbour to introduce a by-law demanding registration of any craft using the harbour? What if that extends to a competency test?

 

[RobbieW]

Do they allow a harbour to introduce a by-law demanding registration of any craft using the harbour

My understanding is that existing laws enable harbour authorities to create rules and it is under those that existing PWC fines have been made. The problem seems to be in waters not covered by a harbour authority, western Solent for example.

 

[LittleSister]

As we know much has been made about the way PWC seem to evade prosecution because for some odd reason, they fall outside legislation.. . . .

However and it is a big however what is being proposed would bring all sailing dinghies, motor boats and yachts within the Harbours and Merchant Shipping Acts.

"capture all relevant PWCs, recreational and other watercraft such as speedboats as well as larger unpowered craft and bring them within scope of the MSA 1995 and Harbours Act 1964".

What I am trying to understand is what those two bits of legislation require and how could they impact on cruising sailers and motor boat owners?

Don't panic!

Cruising yachts and motor boats are already within the scope of those two acts, as far as I am aware, so that would make no difference to us.

The issue with PWC is that a court decision a few years back interpreted the particular word 'navigate' in the Merchant Shipping Act in its definition of vessels covered, to mean a deliberate intention to go somewhere in particular, and held that the messing about without a particular destination, as typically done by PWC, was not therefore covered by the Act.

This was a change from the previous general understanding that they were included, and also called into question what other crafts' usual activities were also not covered.

Quite why the government have previously been so reluctant to legislate to simply amend the relevant few words in the MSA, or what has now spurred them into slightly different action, is not clear to me.

 

[Biggles Wader]

As soon as you introduce more regulation,eg for PWCs, it will require registration and enforcement which will cost money. The relevant organisations and departments will need to spread their revenue raising efforts ever wider as their missions creep and we will all suffer from it. As said above, be careful what you wish for as you might just get it in spades.

 

[Frogmogman]

I thought from the thread title that this was going to be something controversial about PriceWaterhouse Coopers…..

 

[[32511]]

I thought from the thread title that this was going to be something controversial about PriceWaterhouse Coopers…..

or PreWarCar...

 

[Scotsailor]

Everyone interested in leisure boating should look at these proposals. Not just restricted to personal water craft. And quite far reaching.

 

[Tomahawk]

Doh....

I think that is what I am trying to say.... We need people who are familiar with the Harbours Acts and Merchant Shipping Acts to comment..
I would also suggest we need the RYA to look in great detail... I suspect I have more chance of a snog with the pope.

 

[Stemar]

Everyone interested in leisure boating should look at these proposals. Not just restricted to personal water craft. And quite far reaching.

As I understand it, it all applies to cruising boats, power and sail, already, which is going to be pretty much all of us. All the proposal does is extend existing legislation to PWCs and other "vessels" over 2.5m. Have I got that wrong?

If not, while it would include little Jonny or Jenny in their inflatable canoe, which doesn't make a lot of sense, I'm all for it. As for the canoeist, it'd be hard to write legislation to exclude them without excluding small RIBS, and I'm struggling to think of a way they could fall foul of the law.

 

[Tomahawk]

As I understand it, it all applies to cruising boats, power and sail, already, which is going to be pretty much all of us. All the proposal does is extend existing legislation to PWCs and other "vessels" over 2.5m. Have I got that wrong?

If not, while it would include little Jonny or Jenny in their inflatable canoe, which doesn't make a lot of sense, I'm all for it. As for the canoeist, it'd be hard to write legislation to exclude them without excluding small RIBS, and I'm struggling to think of a way they could fall foul of the law.

That's my reading as well.. so dinghies from high speed Moths to GP14's can fall within the reach of this proposal.
Se we need to understand what the Merchant Shipping Act and Harbours Act say and what they can be used to do?

 

[awol]

I read them as the marine equivalent of the "being far too clever by half" version of Breach of the Peace used by Strathclyde's finest which in egregious cases may have led to "falling down the cell stairs" (even in single storey police stations!). Otherwise catch-all.

 

[Scotsailor]

Section 5.34 in the document is suggesting further legislation for alcohol and drug users … now I’m sure nobody would advocate drinking and operating marine craft. However we probably wouldn’t want to find that the extra glass of wine while at anchor in a quiet mooring is now illegal.

 

[Keith 66]

PWC's and Escooters have similarities, the first under regulated, the second over regulated.
The bottom line is that it's down to the drivers level of consideration for others.

There have been plenty of prosecutions of jet skiers. Sometimes with eye watering fines. So I am not convinced that additional regulation is required. I believe what is required is training.

Escooters do not have hundreds of horsepower on tap. Some Pwc's have up to 300hp, that is a lot in anyones book.

As for training, The very nature of the things & the type of people that buy them means very few bother with training.
The ones that cause the trouble are young meat heads often fueled to the eyeballs on booze & charlie.
How do you propose to train them?