Consulting? Who should be exempt from booze law?

[sailorman]

Re: So you\'re in favour then?

"wound-up"
not me matey, but atleast u can see my bio. NOT HIS I`M AFRAID !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Jools_of_Top_Cat]

The RNLI

The lads who are paged at 2300 on Friday night to a shout, all leave the bar and run down to the boathouse, but oh, sorry can't launch, quiick scout around, has anyone got a self breath test kit.

It happens, in fact more regularly than one might think, time to get scared in your broken down vessel is prolly just before midnight. You then realise it isn't start at all, time to call help rather than spend the night out here.

Unless of course lifeboat crews are now going to have to remain sober 24hrs a day.

<hr width=100% size=1>J

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk>

</A>

 

[HMCG]

Re: So you\'re in favour then?

Steve,

Is it any wonder that I would like to remain nameless given the responses here. All I am trying to do is give a balanced argument. You will notice that I have removed all mention of the MCA from my Bio and the logo has gone. I will keep the username HMCG because at the end of the day that is what I do.

I would love to know what power you think I have. I may wear a uniform but that does not mean that I have any "power". My main role in life is to save lives. I train and manage Volunteer Coastguards in cliff rescue, beach search techniques and first aid. I also practice these arts myself. In the last 13 months I have been in the unfortunate position to have seen over 20 dead bodies (I will state that the bulk of those were from cliff incidents). The only role where I could be percieved to have any power is in the inspection of commercial fishing vessels less than 15M where I go to ensure that they have basic safety equipment. I do not have any powers to arrest or detain vessels or to even prevent them from sailing.

I do not do this job for any feeling of power but for the fact that I want to serve the public and save lives. Where a life cannot be saved I hope to reduce the effect it has on the families of those who have died by ensuring that at the end of the day they can have a body to bury and to grieve for.

I don't feel that I should need to accept the type of abuse that is thrown in my general direction. I normally do not take personally the attacks I see on the MCA and Coastguard but your post is a personal attack. I would like to think that I have provided valuable information for some of those on the forum. It is interesting to note that I receive a large number of private messages from forum members asking for advice...is this because they don't want to be seen to be talking to the enemy?

I bid you a good evening.





<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[webcraft]

Re: Laws

. . . are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.

I believe that only fools will be caught by any new law . . . and as I do not suffer them gladly this can only be a good thing.

I believe that sailing and drinking are harmonious pastimes when done in the correct sequence, and do not expect to be changing my behaviour in any significant way.

- Nick

<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.bluemoment.com>http://www.bluemoment.com</A></font size=1>

 

[TheBoatman]

Re: So you\'re in favour then?

Well said Ross!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TheBoatman]

Steve
As I have posted here before, you will know that I hate all politicians with a passion and I hate to see us taxed and regulated out of existence but on this one we ain’t gonna win. As a society we can’t have drink laws for vehicles and in the work place and not whilst in charge of x number of tons of boat/PWC/Tender etc.

If we go back to the original post it asked us for our input as to the scope of the regs to be introduced.
1. Underway, I take to mean a vessel either making way or capable of making way and not fixed by any lines either to an anchor or fixed jetty or pontoon.
2. Navigating, This is where the politicians didn’t understand the terminology and has been cause for much debate in this post. I would accept it as meaning the person steering the vessel.
3. Vessel, I would accept the description of a vessel as being any craft capable of making way under its own power whether by wind or machinery or any other means.

Now we come to the “exceptions”
1. A skipper/owner shall not be held responsible/liable if anchored or tied up and could “reasonably expect” that he would not have to move the vessel.
2. Should it be deemed necessary that he be instructed to move the vessel, then this may only be done under the direction of xyz and would incur no penalty.
3. The skipper/owner can move the vessel if he “perceives “ that an emergency as arisen and his assistance is required to assist in a loss of life/limb or vessel situation but if requested to do so, will make known to the local authority that he has been drinking.
4. That the same criteria be accepted i.e. if you are at home and somewhat the worse for drink and you have your car keys in the house and the car on the drive you are not liable. It should be accepted that whilst on your boat it is in fact your home, all be it temporary and the same rules would apply.

However, should you be involved in an incident then the relevant drink laws would apply?

Peter.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[steve_l]

Re: Consulting? Who should be exempt from booze la

I think you should consider the current UK motoring laws and how they are interperted and enforced nowadays, then apply that same philosophy to the potential enforcement of this proposed legislation. Not a pretty picture.

The UK government (any of them, although this one seems worse than previous ones IMHO) always sees legislation and subsequent enforcement as the solution to all problems, real or imaginary.

As another post has already stated, if a "problem" is created, some brownie points can be earned by "solving" it... )

And don't forget, the local enforcement agency will need some powerfull new toys to chase and apprehend suspects. More expence for the tax-payer. Or do those come from the fines levied...?

I'm so happy that I'm not resident in the UK anymore and only visit for work and recreation (=sailing). The UK seems to be run by a bunch of control freaks who seem to jump from one knee-jerk legislation to the next.... IMHO )
-steve-

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[whisper]

Re: So you\'re in favour then?

Keep up the good work. Yes, you have had some personal abuse on this thread which the vast majority of people here will regret. Well done for not sinking to such levels in your replies.
Use whatever logo you want if you are entitled to.
Cheers,
John.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[halcyon]

Re: Consulting? Who should be exempt from booze la

We already have the new toy in Flamouth, big, blue and yellow, and looks very fast, with a MCA flag painted on the side.

Appeared when the passage planning was announced, local media stated that it would be doing ramdom checks of boats leaving port. At this time we were being assured it was only after an incident, which one is true time will tell. Are they going to resist the temptation to play police cars ?.

One problem we or they have is that HMGC everyone is happy with, they respect them, and support them and there work. But the MCA appears as someone/groups ego trip, backed by a marketing firm, and trying to see how large can we make it.
Pro-active is ok, but are we going to cover all swimmers, fishermen who fish of rockes, rock climber, people walking on marinas pontoons, quays, clife tops, should anyone driving a car by the water's edge be required to wear a life jacket?.

Once you cover one base, you meet another, what justifies the one justifies the next, so you just keep rolling along.

Brian

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Peppermint]

Re: I\'m affraid it\'s easy to enforce.

The people who draft the law will cover most of the obvious stuff. There will be redrafting in the light of experience. They can make it work.

Anyway who's going to get a lawyer involved. Not many boaties qualify for legal aid. Going to court is a lottery. The fines will be pitched to ensure it's not worth fighting.

Very soon most offences in this country will be fixed penalty. Cut's out the judicial process.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[scorpion331]

Re: There we are then....

Couldn't have put it better myself!

<hr width=100% size=1>Yorkshire Viking

 

[steve_cronin]

THE DANGER OF THIS FORUM..

... is that all we may do is take the opportunity to sound off, feel good for so doing and do nothing else about it.

We ALL need to make our views known to our own individual MPs as well as to this current shipping minister (pity it wasn't his predecessor. His nephew's wife works for me)

IMO we are being asked about exemptions and to me, someone like Nigel Charlesworth (sorry Nige!) gently sailing up a quiet creek at 2.5knots in his Contessa 26 is hardly in the same game let alone the same league as some aggressive secondhand car dealer (no offence to shcds meant, just painting a picture) charging around amongst the swimmers in Studland Bay with 2x 300hp under him. That is the only way to defeat these power freaks, paint a picture in their minds that makes them see the folly of their ways but also allows them a way out. For example, in france you don't need a licence for <10hp

My personal interest is on hold as the Greek authorities are famous for their "loose" interpretation of regulations but I MAY come back to sailing in the UK and like everyone else I don't want to get pulled over for examination of my logbook or the testing of my blood alcohol level. I am penning my letters now.

This does need addressing urgently and it needs doing so by large numbers of us.

Steve Cronin



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

 

[sailbadthesinner]

Re: THE DANGER OF THIS government..

i have so far stayed out of this
reasons being numerous but
i have been pissed on boats. now this was tied up, but say wind gets up and i have to adjust lines or anchor drags
i have also been less than sober on a boat underway tho not in control or command. but i was one of the crew i suppose

am i deemed incompetent for having to deal with unforecast unforeseen circumstances wiht more than say the driving level in me?
the answer i donot know
but what i do know is how are we to defend this (if it is indeed defensible)

all it takes is for the public to see footage of one guy pissed driving a boat or even setting off to drive a boat ( whatever the type i draw no distinctions here)
and they will broadly support any legislation that is seen to try and limit this ( however the legislation is subsequently enforced)

the clever thing is the government knows we cannot protest against this law. thy wmerely ask the gambit should you drive pissed.
we cannot defend that so have to engage in what levels.
hence the debate about the should is completely by passed to directly to a how
again riocky ground
if a boat can be proved to be seen as serious a business as driving a car then it seems 'reasonable' to enforce same limits
i think we can only insist that if the same levels are reasonable then enforcement should nbe by the police only and not by badged civillians.
that is my best solution.






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

 

[webcraft]

Re: THE DANGER OF THIS government..

You are spot on here, Sailbad.

Trying to persuade the authorities or - particularly - the public that we should be allowed to sail around pissed (which is how it will be seen no matter how it is put) is a definite loser.

If the nutters proposing this unnecessary extension of legislation percive it as a vote winner [do you want to stop rich boat owners killing your children? Press the red button NOW!] then it WILL happen.

The police will have better things to do and won't be interested, while harbour authorities and marina staff know the score and will almost certainly ignore anything that is not a genuine hazard.

As I said before, only the deserving will get caught . . . although then of course the media will use these cases to whip up a feeding frenzy and demand harsher penalties, more watercops etc . . .

So we're all doooooomed

Luckily remote W. coast anchorages and Hebridean island pub forays are unlikely to be affected. ! (Although the guy who has opened the pub on Sanda had better not upset anyone).

- Nick

<hr width=100% size=1><font size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.bluemoment.com>http://www.bluemoment.com</A></font size=1>

 

[Peppermint]

Re: A couple of points

While I don't really care about this legislation in principle. When I skipper a boat the only time I drink enough to excite the plods would be in a marina and I don't mind forgoing that if I have to.

While I am getting a little sick and tired of the powers that be, with much PR fanfare, solving problems that don't really exist. I also get puzzled by the instant savaging these proposals have received here on SB.

The professional mariners have had to swallow this type of thing and they've accepted the changes without to much bad grace.

I think thats the problem. Change. We'd all like to have the world like it used to be wouldn't we? Yachting is a perceived freedom. We don't want outsiders interfering.
Well thats natural enough but I think we're going to have to swallow this and then, like most things we get het up over, it'll be hardly noticeable.

I doubt if it'll save any lives though.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TwoStroke]

Re: THE DANGER OF THIS FORUM..

For what its worth, I'm surprised that so many of you are getting hot under the collar. If you are in charge or crewing a boat, wind or engine assisted - which in itself can be dangerous, then having alcohol in your system seems bloody daft to me.

However, if you are berthed or at anchor and not going anywhere - don't see a problem. Or are you lot from the old school of being able to drink and drive?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[halcyon]

Re: THE DANGER OF THIS FORUM..

Are we going the wrong way round, on this issue. Instaed of trying to say we should be excluded, we should be saying what else should be included, this then lowers the danger level from boating.
For example as has been said, swimming, fishing of the rocks, rock climbimg, coastal footpaths, diving, walking on marina pontoons, all have higher injury rates.
Then how can you do injury to anyone in a rubber duck? what we need to do is itentify the high danger areas, and the non or virtually nil area's, you then have a basis to work from.

Brian


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[steve_cronin]

You reckon?

<<Luckily remote W. coast anchorages and Hebridean island pub forays are unlikely to be affected. ! (Although the guy who has opened the pub on Sanda had better not upset anyone).
>>

The constituency of Shipping Minister David Jamieson is Plymouth Devonport and he's known to avoid anything where he might be asked to step into a boat.

Steve Cronin



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

 

[roger]

Couple of points

In some circumstances almost any craft, navigating erratically, can cause a nasty accident by some chain of circumstances. It may be the correct thing to do to run the offender down but you cannot depend on someone doing that. Their rather rapid unexpected action could have unpleasant circumstances. This line of thought leads to the view that the law should apply to everyone navigating - whatever the boat.
We may not have aproblem here but there certainly are problems elsewhere - and the same sort of conduct could well happen here with the same sort of idiots.
Example :- reported in the Swedish Cruising Club magazine
Guys travel out from Stockholm via Baggenstacket (narrow shallow twisty canal with 8 kt. speed limit ) to a restaurant some distance away on Wednesday evenings because of a disco. After midnight same guys travel back through Baggenstacket at 30+ kts. A collision has killed at least one person. Please don't tell me this couldn't happen here say Folly to the Master Builer or vice versa.

<hr width=100% size=1>Roger

 

[duncan]

Re: THE DANGER OF THIS government..

I too have been watching the direction....and agree with sailbad and many others.

Couple of points -
(1) decision making is as critical to safety at sea as reaction times. In general even at 20knots a largish powered craft act closer to a car at 20mph than one at 70 - at traveling at that speed it is unlikely under current legislation to be within the waters covered by this new legislation. The solent being as usual a different issue! So few such craft hit things at speed that they are well publiscised when they do - Hurst bank and Portland spring readily to mind.
(2) in confined waters, and where craft are in close proximity, such as is proposed the actions of all water users are equally important. One inebrieated dingy on port (no pun intended) heading through a fleet of OODs on starboard may well emerge unscathed but have created a life threatening situation amongst the other craft. It follows that it is not the nature of the craft but the status of the decision making body on it that counts. This demands no exceptions where power, including wind, of any sort is being utilised. Rules already exist for those in charge of pedal cycles on the road so why exclude rowers?

From a personal perspective I whole heartedly support the principle of the regulations being proposed and would only be concerned if there were exceptions such as these.
However, I would also propose we adopt the blanket French and Spanish regulations regarding speed within 250mtr of any shore or coastline. This clearly endangers life and should carry a mandatory sentence significantly above someone consuming one for the road (?). The onus should be on local authorities to exempt waters rather than impose their own limits. Anyone speeding under the influence will then be really clobered (and rightly so) as indicated by many posters above.

In summary the capability, size or configuration of the craft should not be a factor; the status of the skipper/navigator and their actions should.

<hr width=100% size=1>