Consulting? Who should be exempt from booze law?

[ParaHandy]

Re: Pay attention at the back!

hoi ... me and robp wiz orra pointing oot tae youse all, tha cannae trust the bastids an inch and afore youse know it, thon'll be rinning aroond wi thur gadgets and asking youse tae blow intae it whurever ye are ... ah may look twa planks short o' a tree but ahm nay as gleckit as youse may think ....

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[SlowlyButSurely]

Re: It\'s not enforceable

We have one crew member who is consistently sober on our boat; my 11 year old son. He is now the designated Skipper/Navigator/Helmsman. Everyone else is a passenger!



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[dieselhead]

Re: There we are then....

where did you getthe rnli view from?? where did you see it?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Rowana]

Your second sentence hits the nail very squarely on the head - With a 14lb sledgehammer!

Go get you photos taken for your licence before the rush!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[HMCG]

Re: Consulting? Who should be exempt from booze la

Speaking as a person who picks up the pieces of incidents I have a few pointers for you.

The ministers address stated -
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."

This is a quote from the first posting here.

Note that it states - underway.
Also the term navigation relates to the person who is steering the vessel and is therefor in charge of its direction of movement.

I beleive that the RNLI does not think that there is a problem as there are no records of drink drive incidents at sea as no-one has been breathalized. I have personally dealt with a number of incidents where the person "driving" the boat was drunk but as there is no law against it nothing was done about it.

As others have mentioned speed is not always the problem. I have dealt with an incident where a large number of vessels were badly damaged by a skipper who was very drunk and het every vessel he passed on his way out of the marina.....including a police launch. He was charged with criminal damage and nothing else as there was no law. It was not recorded as a drink related incident as there was no method to do so.

The law has been written it is called the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 and it received royal Ascent last year. The law allows for the home office to define the rules which should be applied and they are asking for your input into these laws. There is no intention to start licensing just so that it can be taken off you. The commercial sector will receive a fine of up to £5000 and/or a custodial sentence of up to 2 years. I would expect the same to apply to private individuals. The law will be brought in it is just a matter of how it is applied.

To Rich_F - Go into town on a friday or saturday night and see the number of people who are taken into police custody for being drunk and incapable. The police spend a massive amount of time dealing with these people.

There you go. These are my thoughts which are all based on MCA policy.

I will now put on my bullet proof vest and helmet and hide behind a large wall waiting for your salvos.


<hr width=100% size=1>These are my own thoughts not the MCA's

 

[jimi]

Re: Pay attention at the back!

I've always found the following argument rather compelling:
More sober drivers have accidents than drunk drivers, therfore it is safer to drive drunk ...

Seriously though I've always considered that legislation is a matter of last resort to fix a problem in society .. I find it strange that with endemic drug abuse and decriminalisation of cannabis .. that time and resources are wasted trying to sort a non problem .. they'd be better off trying to further swell the treasury coffers by catching a few speeders .. The phrase "fiddling whilst Rome burns" springs to mind

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

 

[AndrewD]

Re: Consulting? Who should be exempt from booze la

"He was charged with criminal damage and nothing else"

And why is that a problem for you? Surely the entire point of all this is that people may cause damage if they are drunk? If not, what is the point?

For the particular problem of drink, the existing laws are fine.

But of course, this isn't about drink: it's about introducing regulation of yachtsmen, so the more regulations and the more arbitrary they are, the better. Then there will be more infringements, more punishments, and more officials required.

The state is not your friend.


<hr width=100% size=1>No sig is a good sig

 

[boatless]

I can't help feeling that there is a touch of paranoia in this thread. Or is it just me?

It can't be right that there is no law that allows prosecution of a drunk boater who causes damage or injury can it? I've had boats damaged by incompetence and accident, but if my children were hurt by someone 'under the influence' I wouldn't be very happy to hear that there was nothing that could be done about it.

So if it is just the helmsman who is liable to be breathalised as a result of an 'incident' - and if there is no intention to introduce compulsory licensing - I think I'm pro. And yes, I do drink!

<hr width=100% size=1>my opinion is complete rubbish, probably.

 

[HMCG]

Re: Consulting? Who should be exempt from booze la

However if there were drink sailing rules at the time he may have thought twice about it. Remeber he was very lucky not to be facing a manslaughter/murder charge.

<hr width=100% size=1>These are my own thoughts not the MCA's

 

[tome]

Re: Consulting? Who should be exempt from booze la

Given that the introduction of penalties for being drunk in charge seem inevitable, and also having seen a couple of disturbing incidents myself, the following are my thoughts FWIW;

1) 'Navigating' surely applies to any active member of the crew for the purposes of being drunk.

2) 'Underway' applies to vessels at anchor as opposed to moored, where an anchor watch is required and the possibility of needing to move or tend the vessel arises.

3) The limits should not be set as low as for a motor vehicle which requires much faster reactions.

4) The reality is that it can only be enforced in response to incidents, or on the rare occasion where an enforcing authority becomes aware of unusual behaviour which gives them cause to suspect.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[robp]

Re: Pay attention at the back!

"Scuse me sir, you're not going drive that car are you?" "Well I'm in no fit shtate to walk offisher!"

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[snowleopard]

drunk \'in charge\'

the police can arrest you if you are sleeping off a heavy session on the back seat of your car and have been known to do so. if the same rules are applied, they could be hammering on your hatch in the marina at 3am.

ok, most of them wouldn't but if they have the power some are bound to abuse it, especially if they haven't made their quota of fines for the month.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[steve_cronin]

Re: There we are then....

I emailed the Director of Operations a few months ago when the consultative paper was published and my quotation is an extract from his reply.

Steve Cronin



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

 

[PerL]

Re: It\'s not enforceable

From an international perspective, the STCW convention of the IMO ( I believe the UK has ratified this but not sure...) suggests that member states should create national legislation regarding seafarers on "watchkeeping duties". I believe the Swedish law is aimed at any person conveying (tr?) a vessel or performing a task of substantial importance to the security at sea. The Swedish law has been in existance since 1994 (but a similar one existed long before that). I have never heard of any situation where this definition has been questioned.

The situation where you row out to your boat strikes me as somewhat difficult - similarly when your anchor looses its grip after you've had a few drinks - should you not then be allowed to row out to try to reposition your anchor? Likewise, should you not be allowed to row out to rescue someone who´s about to drown? Are you not in fact required to do so if able to?

I have no idea how these situations are solved in Sweden nor how you should solve them, but there clearly should be exeptions to the rule. Some might argue that if you are not allowed to drive from the pub to a mobile home then why should there be an exeption allowing rowing to your boat from the pub. Personally, I see rowing as the mariners way of walking and should therefore not be punishable.

If you have a few sober people on a recreational vessel, then the law doesn't apply in practice because it is impossible to prove. I see nothing wrong in this as I would be happy to sail on open sea with as long as there are enough sober people to handle the boat should it be necessary. If everyone is drunk then the law should apply. (IMHO)



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[steve_cronin]

So you\'re in favour then?

That we all now forget freedom in boat usage and go around as regulated, passage planned, lifejacketed at all times "You know it makes sense" clones.

BTW

How come someone who stays anonymous, uses the pseudonym HMCG which as far as I'm aware stands for "Her Majesty's Coast Guard" AND uses (is it authorised?) the MCA logo, uses a footnote that states "These are my own thoughts not the MCA's"

Which are you? A private poster like the rest of us here or "The voice of Authority"?

Seems from your "The law will be brought in it is just a matter of how it is applied." that the latter stance is favoured by you.

Like power do you? Gives you a buzz?


Finally, nothing you say about a few isolated incidents involving damaged gelcoats alters the fact that this is meddling by politicians and trying to score against what they see as some sort of wealthy elite who retain one of the few freedoms still available to responsible citizens today.

Ok you don't support our resistance to this draconian action. Fine. Stand aside then. There is a majority that does.

Steve Cronin

this is MY real name. Please do me the courtesy of replying with yours.

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

 

[steve_cronin]

Re: Consulting? Who should be exempt from booze la

Who did "HE" kill?

Steve Cronin

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

 

[ParaHandy]

Re: Consulting? Who should be exempt from booze la

"I have dealt with an incident ... " does that mean parliament has enacted legislation on the cognizance and recollection of indivduals such as yourself?

your argument about the RNLI is no more cogent or, for that matter, relevant than your recollections.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[iangrant]

Re: So you\'re in favour then?

Steve,
Well said.
I think that any of us know our limits and wouldn't overdo the booze to the point that we couldn't skipper our vessels.

We can grumble and mumble on this board but we need to do something more positive - maybe HMCG could point us in the right direction.

How many more Police will it need I wonder to enforce this lot - or is it time for traffic wardens on the sea.

Ian

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Neraida]

Re: drunk \'in charge\'

I can just imagine trying to leave Cowes/Yarmouth and not be able to go as the outside rafted boat won't move because he knows his blood alcohol will be over the limit and the area is 'supervised'. I hope this will not happen, the main reason we bought our boat was for the freedom she gives us.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.ybw.com/cgi-bin/forums/postlist.pl?Cat=&Board=wanted>Stuff Wanted </A>

 

[steve_cronin]

In any area where you and your daughter are likely to come to harm (heaven forbid) there are existing regulations to prosecute drunken carelessness.

These proposals will get enforced with enthusiasm by the powers that be just like every other new law does.

Most of the incidents that occur - and I can't personally remember the last one I saw - are as you say caused by incompetence but rarely result in any personal injury of any kind.

Don't believe that compulsory licencing won't follow. There will be some statement like "Following the recent introduction of sail/drinking laws, the government now finds that it needs to broaden it's powers to address the PROBLEM of enforcing penalties on transgressors". That's how they do it. Create a PROBLEM then look clever in solving it. "Yes Minister" isn't all farce!

Steve Cronin

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