Consulting? Who should be exempt from booze law?

[Peppermint]

We're being consulted on the drink sail regulations.

Can you think of a catagory to exempt? Apart from us, you understand.


"Shipping Minister David Jamieson has launched a consultation seeking views on the introduction of an alcohol limit for recreational mariners.

The limit of 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood will be set at the same level as those introduced today for professional mariners, and which already exist on the roads, and the testing regime will be the same.

However, over the next four months leisure mariners are being given the opportunity to comment on who they think should be subject to these alcohol limits within the leisure boating industry.
David Jamieson said:

"It's important that we focus on safety and I urge everyone who has an opinion to participate in the consultation. It's your chance to have your say and make your voice heard.

"It is important that we strike the right balance between the impact of the alcohol limit on those in charge of rowing boats, paddle boats and sailing dinghies as well as those in charge of very large recreational vessels, high powered motorboats and personal watercraft, or jet-skis too. The challenge is to make any exceptions easily understood by those who will be subject to the limits, as well as by those who enforce them.

"We promised to consult before taking these decisions and until this has been done the new limits will only apply to professional mariners. We aim to have the necessary regulations in place for leisure mariners by the 2005 boating season."

When introduced, the limits will only apply to recreational mariners when their vessel is underway and then only to those who are navigating the vessel. The limits will not apply to passengers."


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Evadne]

Re: Consulting? Who should be exempt from booze la

It's not the principle I object to, there are, after all, some people who shouldn't be allowed in charge of a vessel when sober, let alone after six pints of Hobgoblin. Ignoring the obvious like boats tied up to a mooring:

1) The level of 80mg/100ml in car drivers is set because (I presume) it is above that level that your reactions at 30mph and faster are too slow for safety. Breathylisation should therefore exclude skippers of all vessels that cannot travel at a speed of, let's be generous and say 20 knots. Big MoBos could fit a speed regulator to get around it, and if it had the effect of slowing down freighters and ferries, that would be a bigger improvement to safety than the legislators could ever have hoped for.

2) As with cars, this would not preclude prosecuting people who became incapable and caused damage in a slower boat, I suspect that some form of legislation for this exists at the moment but it doesn't get enforced because it isn't a problem. The skipper of the dredger who put a hole in Hythe pier before christmas got sent down, I don't know what the precise charge was but it is the end effect that matters.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[steve_l]

Hmmm, there's the rub...
"will only apply to...... those who are navigating the vessel"

How is "navigating" defined? Is it the skipper in charge of the vessel, or the person plotting the course, or the person with their hand on the tiller/wheel?
What about the guys/gals on the sheets? They are also involved in deciding the direction taken by the boat...

Will the local constabulary be out if force to catch those persistent offenders rowing their tenders back to the boat after a beer or two ashore in the evening...?

And of course, there will be "no random testing" unless there is sufficient cause for suspicion...

skipper: why did you stop me, officer?
PC: I believe you may be navigating under the influence of alcohol, sir.
skipper: and why is that, officer?
PC: you were weaving erratically, sir.
skipper: I believe that's called "tacking", officer...

-steve-

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Wiggo]

Re: Consulting? Who should be exempt from booze la

Not sure the speed thing has much to do with it, does it? Some plonker in a MoBo at 30 knots charging through a crowded area is just as dangerous sober as drunk, whereas out at sea, it probably matters not a lot. A 10 ton yacht at 3 knots in a crowded marina with a drunk skipper is just as dangerous as a MoBo at the same speed, maybe more so, as it could (and I stress 'could', cos if you get the use of power wrong on a MoBo, that's just as bad) be harder to stop in a rush.

<hr width=100% size=1><-- insert witty sig file here -->

Buy my boat? Too late!

 

[flaming]

How does over x feet LOA or capable of over x knots grab you? Just need to find the appropriate values for x!
I would suggest that there are some harbours that by the amount of traffic and the way in which large comercial vessels such as ferries mix with small recreational boats could be justified to be zero tollerance. I'm thinking of places like Cowes and Poole.
Also the law does need to recognise that moored or anchored boats should be exempt.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[robp]

Re: Consulting? Who should be exempt from booze la

I don't agree with that. Correct me if I'm wrong but the main causes for concern so far, have been craft operated at speed close to shore. In general, larger craft capable of going offshore are driven/sailed by people who already understand the dangers. Given that reactions and reflexes are what the road drink drive laws were about, I believe that speed is the criteria. There might be danger from a drunk "pilot" in a marina going at 3 knots but it's not normally life or limb threatening.
My main concern is, what happens when something happens that means moving a vessel after a bottle of wine with dinner? It's all very well saying, "That's not what we will be pursuing", but we all know about points scoring when it's possible.

<hr width=100% size=1><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by robp on 31/03/2004 10:59 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[Rich_F]

There's a good argument (for supporters of the nanny state) that "those persistent offenders rowing their tenders back to the boat after a beer or two ashore in the evening" are exactly the people that should be targetted by this sort of legislation, because they are quite likely to fall in and do themselves harm. Of course, taking this to its logical conclusion, we could also say that anybody drunk near dangerous machinery (ie, a road) should also be banged up for irresponsible behaviour.

However, my view is that that anybody who recklessly endangers other people's lives or property should be stopped, drunk or otherwise. I think that being drunk in "control" of a vessel is an indicator of such recklessness, but would hate to see the breathalysing of water users unless they have been observed behaving dangerously.


Rich

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[steve_cronin]

There we are then....

It's coming.

Consultation will mean what it has always meant, giving lip service to sensible discussion and an open mind.

You have one more season of unregulated sailing my friends because if there is to be some sort of sanction for those not passing the breath test (and what an absurdly high level for private weekenders who've acres of space around them most of the time) then there will also need to be licences to be taken away.

The Can's If's and Maybe's mentioned by others here are excuses for anyone with a "regulate every aspect of life" philosophy to introduce un necessary controls everywhere.

I will repeat the OFFICIAL RNLI view on this

"We do not see a problem that requires a solution"

This is just another example of the Labour Party seeking to have a go at "Toffs in Boats" and/or to appear to be responsible legislators when in reality they (& probably every other political party for that matter?) are nothing more than control freaks.

If this goes ahead, you won't be able to have that scotch or five when safely tied up in your berth ( every Englishman's right IMO) "just in case you need to move the boat in case of emergency" and Police forces will revel in enforcing it.

Show me evidence that there is a problem with drink/sailing causing harm and I'll support restrictions. As things are there IS no such evidence. In fact the evidence is somewhat the other way.

I repeat yet again the OFFICIAL RNLI view on this

"We do not see a problem that requires a solution"

"We do not see a problem that requires a solution"

"We do not see a problem that requires a solution"

"We do not see a problem that requires a solution"

Does anyone want to tell the RNLI that they are wrong?

Steve Cronin

<hr width=100% size=1>The above is, like any other post here, only a personal opinion

 

[robp]

<<unless they have been observed behaving dangerously.>>

But what are the criteria for that? Crash jibe or dragged anchor and panic to get off the rocks? It will wind up being misused.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Wiggo]

Re: Consulting? Who should be exempt from booze la

I quite agree with you about where the real issues lie with speed - jetskis and small powerboats, close in shore; and with booze - bureaucrats hounding crews breaking up a raft after dinner to let someone out etc.

I just think that the two need to be kept separate. The small speedboats and jetskis are, I suspect, rarely driven by anyone under the influence, as pretty much by definition, they will all be towed away at the end of the day. And the large offshore cruisers (power and sail) are almost invariably skippeerd by responsible people.

The reality is that no-one is going to attempt to stop a leisure boat 5 miles out and breathalyse the skipper, but there is the spectre of the jobsworth on the pontoon waiting for the after dinner maneouvring, and that is what we need to be wary of, IMHO.

<hr width=100% size=1><-- insert witty sig file here -->

Buy my boat? Too late!

 

[robp]

Re: Consulting? Who should be exempt from booze la

But Graham, I thought that the Jet Skis and Ski Boats driven by non boaty people were the main cause for concern? Hot summers afternoon on the beach and taking it in turns. It only needs one driver to take it home on the road.
I suspect though, that we share the same sentiment re boating people.

<hr width=100% size=1><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by robp on 31/03/2004 11:27 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[Wiggo]

Re: Consulting? Who should be exempt from booze la

Having started out in a 12'7" speedboat, I've never seen anyone drive a boat that size after drinking. But I've seen plenty driven too fast, too close inshore.

I've only ever seen one person take a boat out while clearly trashed, and that was a guy on a largish RIB in Yarmouth. But he got out of the harbour OK...

<hr width=100% size=1><-- insert witty sig file here -->

Buy my boat? Too late!

 

[Sybarite]

<< We aim to have the necessary regulations in place for leisure mariners by the 2005 boating season.>"

I think this is the operative statement that needs to be tackled. It seems that the intention is already there to legislate and it is only the detail which needs to be tidied.

I believe that we as yachtspeople need to both individually and collectively take action now to change this basic thinking otherwise legislation will be passed by default. Anybody care to draft a model letter to MP's and to the Minister?

I also understand that most accidents occur in the home? Are we going to expect alcotests now in our living rooms? Will we need a license and have to undergo tests to prove our suitability as homeowners?

John.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[cameronke]

Re: Consulting? Who should be exempt from booze la

>And the large offshore cruisers (power and sail) are almost invariably skippeerd by responsible people<

Cant agree with you there Wiggo, "gin palaces" was an expression that was coined for a reason. Also clearly remember a big power cruiser that left Rothesay about three years ago. The father and son were absolutely pickeled, they claim that they set their GPS/Autohelm for Rhu but unfortunately ommitted to put in any waypoints. Their boat tried to get over the Cowal Peninsula and ran up the beach at Toward Sailing Club

Regards
Cameron

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[steve_cronin]

Homeowner licencing...

.. wel it IS being suggested for parenting so in the current culture, why not?

Steve Cronin

<hr width=100% size=1>The above is, like any other post here, only a personal opinion

 

[ubuysa]

Re: It\'s not enforceable

<font size=1>When introduced, the limits will only apply to recreational mariners when their vessel is underway and then only to those who are navigating the vessel. The limits will not apply to passengers."</font size=1>

1. They need to define "navigating" for the purposes of recreational vessels, but lets assume they mean skippering.

2. No qualifications or experience is needed to skipper a recreational vessel (in the UK).

3. The skipper does not have to helm.

4. The skipper does not have to navigate (plot the course).

5. Thus anyone on the vessel can be the skipper and everyone can be a passenger.

So who are they going to arrest and charge? In a car it's blindingly obvious who is in control, on a recreational vessel it's not. So the proposals are quite simply not enforceable.

Just my opinion.....Tony C.



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

 

[ParaHandy]

Swimming whilst incapable ...

the edinburgh polis did a bloke drunk at the wheel of a stationary car and with the keys in the ignition. i think the argument went that the drunk (he wiz paralytic, ken) was "in control". so, watch out all those boozing whilst tied/moored up with the keys in .... wait a mo, keys in where? and at what point would you be 'in control' of a yacht tied up? ...

if moored on a swinging mooring would the presumption be that you are or will be in control as require some water born conveyance to get home ... unless good swimmer, of course ... done that before

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jimi]

Pay attention at the back!

See you ya eejit.. did ye know read the question ..


When introduced, the limits will only apply to recreational mariners when their vessel is <font color=red>underway</font color=red> and then only to those who are navigating the vessel.

<hr width=100% size=1>I Have The Body Of A God... Buddha

 

[steve_cronin]

What is needed....

...is to get a government representative on TV head to head and to get him/her to actually tell us that this legislation is being proposed to remedy an unacceptable danger which currently exists.

I know- wishful thinking. Snowball in hell etc.

However, I thnk that lobbying one's own MP with one's own INDIVIDUAL arguements against is the way to go. Model letters are easily detected.

If each of us isn't prepared to do this then we've already given in and the regulators have won.

Steve Cronin



<hr width=100% size=1>The above is, like any other post here, only a personal opinion

 

[nct1]

As a matter of interest, what is the proposed punishment ?

As we do not have a license, will it just be a fine, or will this be that start of licensing ?



<hr width=100% size=1>