Tranona
Well-Known Member
No, not specifically that the skipper was drunk. I am speaking from memory. One would have to look at the inquest or the MAIB report for the facts.
Drink boating laws one step closer ..
- Thread starter Nick_H
- Start date
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Thanks for putting these figures up. They do, indeed show that the "problem" is minimal, but perhaps getting worse. Not sure about MAIB massaging statistics. I have read all of their reports and I think that they are generally factual and independent. I do, however think they sometimes have a tendency to express opinion rather too strongly such as in the comments on liferafts in the OUZO report - although I think overall the report is sound and a pity the courts were not prepared to accept as sufficient evidence.
It is rather dangerous to talk about averages as given the figures against the population they are statistically insignificant. Each incident has its own specific characteristics and although there may be patterns there is more to be learned by looking at them as individual incidents. One would not expect a politician to do this as it destroys their already weak argument, but we should.
What I do find interesting is that we like to use the evidence that you have presented as supporting the view that legislation is not needed, and yet people (in general) do not seem to accept similar sparse evidence on the need for and effectivenes of, liferafts as a reason for not buying one! See the data in my post on the other thread, drawn from the same source.
It is rather dangerous to talk about averages as given the figures against the population they are statistically insignificant. Each incident has its own specific characteristics and although there may be patterns there is more to be learned by looking at them as individual incidents. One would not expect a politician to do this as it destroys their already weak argument, but we should.
What I do find interesting is that we like to use the evidence that you have presented as supporting the view that legislation is not needed, and yet people (in general) do not seem to accept similar sparse evidence on the need for and effectivenes of, liferafts as a reason for not buying one! See the data in my post on the other thread, drawn from the same source.
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
I'm not sure that the problem is getting worse. What I think is happening is that the MAIB have been changing the way that the statistics have been compiled by including other water related accidents which have no relevance to boating. For example, I believe that accidents involving people falling from cliffs are now included in general stats because they require an emergency response from the Coastguard and RNLI
Tranona
Well-Known Member
In that case it is not the MAIB. Its remit only covers incidents at sea in UK territorial waters or incidents involving British registered ships any where. So the recent rescue near Majorca will only get an MAIB investigation if the boat was British registered. It will probably be based on the Spanish investigation as they did the rescue, with MAIB watching to see that their standards are met. This tight remit and independence is why I hold them in high regard.
As to the drink stats just reflecting that there are more in 2005 than other years, but of course 2006 could have zero. This is because the incidents are random both in time and I think space (by which I mean location). You cannot identify any time based trend which is why an average a year is pointless. One of the uses of statistics is in prediction. If an event happened in the past, do we have enough evidence to predict what will happen in the future. And the answer to this is definitely no. They follow a true random walk in that the probability of an event happening next year is completely independent of what happened this year or last.
It is very different if there is a large number of events that occur continuously over time as you can establish a statistical pattern and make estimations of why might happen in the next time period including a measure of your confidence in the prediction.
These incidents which are very similar to the liferaft type incidents in that they are random over time can only be analysed through a different approach. This is to deconstruct them to find patterns in the causes, which is what I have done with the reports on yachts foundering and liferafts being needed or used.
When I get back from China, and if I get bored over Christmas, I will do the same analysis of the accident statistics that Ladywotsits used. I expect what I will find is a couple of dominant features, which I think might be that the accidents involve small high powered craft such as RIBS and occur in sheltered waters such as harbours. Being a good scientist I won't be looking for that particularly but will let the facts speak for themselves. However, if I am right in my guess, there will be no need for a new law because as we have seen harbour bye laws already prohibit using a vessel while unfit through drink! And I might also want to recommend castration or some similar light punishment for the types of people that break those laws - but guess I won't get much buy in to that one!
As to the drink stats just reflecting that there are more in 2005 than other years, but of course 2006 could have zero. This is because the incidents are random both in time and I think space (by which I mean location). You cannot identify any time based trend which is why an average a year is pointless. One of the uses of statistics is in prediction. If an event happened in the past, do we have enough evidence to predict what will happen in the future. And the answer to this is definitely no. They follow a true random walk in that the probability of an event happening next year is completely independent of what happened this year or last.
It is very different if there is a large number of events that occur continuously over time as you can establish a statistical pattern and make estimations of why might happen in the next time period including a measure of your confidence in the prediction.
These incidents which are very similar to the liferaft type incidents in that they are random over time can only be analysed through a different approach. This is to deconstruct them to find patterns in the causes, which is what I have done with the reports on yachts foundering and liferafts being needed or used.
When I get back from China, and if I get bored over Christmas, I will do the same analysis of the accident statistics that Ladywotsits used. I expect what I will find is a couple of dominant features, which I think might be that the accidents involve small high powered craft such as RIBS and occur in sheltered waters such as harbours. Being a good scientist I won't be looking for that particularly but will let the facts speak for themselves. However, if I am right in my guess, there will be no need for a new law because as we have seen harbour bye laws already prohibit using a vessel while unfit through drink! And I might also want to recommend castration or some similar light punishment for the types of people that break those laws - but guess I won't get much buy in to that one!
Shorn100
Well-Known Member
Forgetting deaths and injuries - perhaps the real question is...
Is it acceptable to be piloting/in charge of a boat when drunk.
So far it seems to me on this thread that the majority feel that it IS acceptable. Which surprises me.
Can anybody explain why that's the general feeling? Or have I misintepreted the thread?
Shorn
Is it acceptable to be piloting/in charge of a boat when drunk.
So far it seems to me on this thread that the majority feel that it IS acceptable. Which surprises me.
Can anybody explain why that's the general feeling? Or have I misintepreted the thread?
Shorn
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
Hang on, there's a big difference between piloting a boat when drunk and piloting a boat after a couple of drinks. In any case, if there were a big problem with drunks having accidents in boats, it would show up in the accident stats which it patently doesn't.
I have a problem with this issue on 2 counts. Firstly, it will require loads of well paid public woodentops with breath testers to police a problem that doesn't exist so it's a complete waste of public money and, secondly, slow boats are exempted which seems a complete nonsense to me
I have a problem with this issue on 2 counts. Firstly, it will require loads of well paid public woodentops with breath testers to police a problem that doesn't exist so it's a complete waste of public money and, secondly, slow boats are exempted which seems a complete nonsense to me
l'escargot
Well-Known Member
But nothing in those figures supports the view "More yotties get killed thru falling overboard or getting hit by their boom than motor boaters carreering around drunk" ?
alant
Well-Known Member
Is it acceptable to be piloting/in charge of a boat when drunk.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only on your own, in the middle of the Atlantic perhaps.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only on your own, in the middle of the Atlantic perhaps.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Not the issue. You cannot draw any conclusions from these statistics other than there have been accidents involving boats where people have been killed, and in a small number of these drink has been a contributory factor. Your question and any others about what actually happened in the accidents and who was involved can only be answered by analysing each incident as I suggested above..
l'escargot
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Not the issue...
[/ QUOTE ]
It is the issue which I was discussing. If you look back through the posts, that is the statement that was made which I questioned. There has been no evidence provided to support the statement which I believe is factually incorrect.
Not the issue...
[/ QUOTE ]
It is the issue which I was discussing. If you look back through the posts, that is the statement that was made which I questioned. There has been no evidence provided to support the statement which I believe is factually incorrect.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Do not know how you come to that conclusion. The issue is about whether the proposed law will achieve a reduction in the incidence of drunk piloting and therefore accidents and deaths.
The main response here is that the problem is overstated from the accident perspective as the bald statistics show and that there are doubts that a new law would change that. We do not know how many people use a boat when unfit and it would be impossible to find out, so you can only look at the consequences.
There are already laws such as harbour by laws that can be used and a new law on the scale proposed is both unecessary and unworkable.
This view should not be taken as condoning using a boat while unfit.
The main response here is that the problem is overstated from the accident perspective as the bald statistics show and that there are doubts that a new law would change that. We do not know how many people use a boat when unfit and it would be impossible to find out, so you can only look at the consequences.
There are already laws such as harbour by laws that can be used and a new law on the scale proposed is both unecessary and unworkable.
This view should not be taken as condoning using a boat while unfit.
rallyveteran
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
The issue is about whether the proposed law will achieve a reduction in the incidence of drunk piloting and therefore accidents and deaths.
[/ QUOTE ]
That is part, but not all of the issue.
I could pass a law that would significantly reduce deaths from leisure boating. I could ban leisure boating, or introduce a licence that was hard to obtain. That would reduce (or eliminate) deaths but only at the cost of the loss of a huge amount of enjoyment.
I would suggest the issue is whether a change in the law would reduce accidents and deaths without a disproportionate loss of enjoyment of leisure boating.
And no, I do not support those who pilot leisure vessels while drunk.
The issue is about whether the proposed law will achieve a reduction in the incidence of drunk piloting and therefore accidents and deaths.
[/ QUOTE ]
That is part, but not all of the issue.
I could pass a law that would significantly reduce deaths from leisure boating. I could ban leisure boating, or introduce a licence that was hard to obtain. That would reduce (or eliminate) deaths but only at the cost of the loss of a huge amount of enjoyment.
I would suggest the issue is whether a change in the law would reduce accidents and deaths without a disproportionate loss of enjoyment of leisure boating.
And no, I do not support those who pilot leisure vessels while drunk.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Not quite sure what you are saying here. The proponents of the law base their arguments on the somewhat superficial analysis of statistics of accidents and deaths where drink is a contributory factor. However as you see from the statistics quoted by the minister in Deleted User's post above, not only are the absolute numbers small, but they are tiny in relation to the level of boating activity.
As to licencing, whenever this comes up the RYA produces its comparative statistics which show that UK has a lower accident rate than other countries where licences are compulsory. This, it is claimed is the result of the policy of education and promotion of safe practices, such as guidance on safety equipment from the RNLI. And their recommendations are based on evidence, not driven by external regulation.
As to licencing, whenever this comes up the RYA produces its comparative statistics which show that UK has a lower accident rate than other countries where licences are compulsory. This, it is claimed is the result of the policy of education and promotion of safe practices, such as guidance on safety equipment from the RNLI. And their recommendations are based on evidence, not driven by external regulation.
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
lescargot, I did say that I was still searching for another Bartlett article. Given that Ladyman's data shows an average of 1.5 alcohol related deaths per year over the period and we don't know what proportion of that 1.5 deaths are related to yacht or mobo accidents, then it would be very hard to imagine that alcohol related mobo deaths exceed the number of deaths resulting from peeps falling overboard from yachts or being struck by their boom which would have to be less than 1.5 per year on average.
And just to reinforce that point, I have found the other Bartlett article which was published in MBY in May 2007 which analyses the MCA 2006 figures for total deaths dealt with by the Coastguard (371 in total). After stripping out accidents due to suicides (105 in just one year!!), murders, land based accidents, fishing, swimming and non boating 'misadventures', that leaves a total of 21 deaths attributable to recreational boating. Of those 21 deaths, 10 deaths were attributable to sailing activities and just 2 deaths were attributable to motorboating activities so, for 2006 at least, you can definitely say that deaths caused by drunken motorboaters were considerably less that deaths from sailing activities. In fact, you could say that 10 deaths from sailing is unacceptably high and something should be done about it (how about banning sailing or compulsory licensing for sailors?)
So, just to sum up, total alcohol related boating deaths for 2001-2005 averaged about 1.5 per year and we don't know the split between sailing and moboing for that figure and for 2006, sailing deaths far exceeded mobo deaths by 10 to 2. The inevitable conclusion is that deaths due to drunk motorboaters is not a problem that requires legislation and in all probability, is far lower than sailing related deaths. Sometimes prejudices are not backed up by facts
And just to reinforce that point, I have found the other Bartlett article which was published in MBY in May 2007 which analyses the MCA 2006 figures for total deaths dealt with by the Coastguard (371 in total). After stripping out accidents due to suicides (105 in just one year!!), murders, land based accidents, fishing, swimming and non boating 'misadventures', that leaves a total of 21 deaths attributable to recreational boating. Of those 21 deaths, 10 deaths were attributable to sailing activities and just 2 deaths were attributable to motorboating activities so, for 2006 at least, you can definitely say that deaths caused by drunken motorboaters were considerably less that deaths from sailing activities. In fact, you could say that 10 deaths from sailing is unacceptably high and something should be done about it (how about banning sailing or compulsory licensing for sailors?)
So, just to sum up, total alcohol related boating deaths for 2001-2005 averaged about 1.5 per year and we don't know the split between sailing and moboing for that figure and for 2006, sailing deaths far exceeded mobo deaths by 10 to 2. The inevitable conclusion is that deaths due to drunk motorboaters is not a problem that requires legislation and in all probability, is far lower than sailing related deaths. Sometimes prejudices are not backed up by facts
l'escargot
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
..Sometimes prejudices are not backed up by facts
[/ QUOTE ]
... and I think that the bottom line is that drink isn't a real factor in boating accidents and doesn't need to be legislated for.
But I don't agree in your interpretation that sailing is more likely to cause death than motorboating - you would need to break the figures down even more to support that view. For instance how many of those sailing boats were actually motoring when the accident happened or was sailing as opposed to just being on a boat a contributary factory?
I think what is indisputable is that any vehicle is harder to control at higher speeds when under the influence of alcohol - certainly the consequences are likely to be more significant.
..Sometimes prejudices are not backed up by facts
[/ QUOTE ]
... and I think that the bottom line is that drink isn't a real factor in boating accidents and doesn't need to be legislated for.
But I don't agree in your interpretation that sailing is more likely to cause death than motorboating - you would need to break the figures down even more to support that view. For instance how many of those sailing boats were actually motoring when the accident happened or was sailing as opposed to just being on a boat a contributary factory?
I think what is indisputable is that any vehicle is harder to control at higher speeds when under the influence of alcohol - certainly the consequences are likely to be more significant.
T
timbartlett
Guest
The legislation has been on the statute books for over five years. I can't remember the name of the legislation offhand, but it's something like the "Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003". IIRC, the relevant bit is Section 80.
It was never properly debated by our so-called democratic process because there was no reason for any MPs with an interest in yotting to turn up to discuss a law that was ostensibly about railways. But having successfully smuggled it onto the statute books, the civil servants who had devised it realised that it was a pretty stupid law that couldn't be enforced, so they never bothered leaning on their tame minister to get it signed off and brought it into force.
Unfortunately, civil servants get promoted every few years (or retire to collect the salaries that we provide for them) and a new lot move in to take over. And they realise that there is a law on the books that is not making as much profit as they think it should be, so they look into it and find that it has never been brought into force. So they announce that they are going to bring it in... and the whole sorry saga starts all over again.
It was never properly debated by our so-called democratic process because there was no reason for any MPs with an interest in yotting to turn up to discuss a law that was ostensibly about railways. But having successfully smuggled it onto the statute books, the civil servants who had devised it realised that it was a pretty stupid law that couldn't be enforced, so they never bothered leaning on their tame minister to get it signed off and brought it into force.
Unfortunately, civil servants get promoted every few years (or retire to collect the salaries that we provide for them) and a new lot move in to take over. And they realise that there is a law on the books that is not making as much profit as they think it should be, so they look into it and find that it has never been brought into force. So they announce that they are going to bring it in... and the whole sorry saga starts all over again.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
I have read all the MAIB reports and the basic proposition is correct. The number of cases involving cruising MOBOs is tiny (cant remember exactly how few). Non sailing boat incidents usually involve RIBs or speedboats. For example none of the collision or foundering incidents involve MOBOs (see my summary on the the (now dead (?) liferafts thread).
Serious incidents are invidual random events with their own specific characteristics. They do not follow any pattern over time. For example in the foundering category there were some years when there were no incidents. On the other hand the RNLI and Coastguard statistics do give useful information. The former covers callouts and there are large numbers. They report the number every year using consistent categories so one can make comparisons over time. They consistently show more callouts for sailboats than MOBOs. However this is far too crude to suggest that one form of boating is "safer" than another. Almost every year the two biggest reasons for callouts are mechanical failure and fouled propellers which affect both. Overall they do show trends over time, which is useful background.
If I get time when I get back home I will carry out an analysis of all the MAIB reports using the same methodology as I did for the foundering/liferaft reports. I will post the results here.
Serious incidents are invidual random events with their own specific characteristics. They do not follow any pattern over time. For example in the foundering category there were some years when there were no incidents. On the other hand the RNLI and Coastguard statistics do give useful information. The former covers callouts and there are large numbers. They report the number every year using consistent categories so one can make comparisons over time. They consistently show more callouts for sailboats than MOBOs. However this is far too crude to suggest that one form of boating is "safer" than another. Almost every year the two biggest reasons for callouts are mechanical failure and fouled propellers which affect both. Overall they do show trends over time, which is useful background.
If I get time when I get back home I will carry out an analysis of all the MAIB reports using the same methodology as I did for the foundering/liferaft reports. I will post the results here.
l'escargot
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
...If I get time when I get back home I will carry out an analysis of all the MAIB reports using the same methodology as I did for the foundering/liferaft reports. I will post the results here.
[/ QUOTE ]
And if you are breaking down the categories of motorboat into smaller groups such as Ribs, speedboats and cruising motorboats, it would be reasonable to do the same and break down sailing boats into say dinghies, dayboats and cruising yachts.
...If I get time when I get back home I will carry out an analysis of all the MAIB reports using the same methodology as I did for the foundering/liferaft reports. I will post the results here.
[/ QUOTE ]
And if you are breaking down the categories of motorboat into smaller groups such as Ribs, speedboats and cruising motorboats, it would be reasonable to do the same and break down sailing boats into say dinghies, dayboats and cruising yachts.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Yes, of course because boat category is an important variable. What you find, however is that the numbers in each category become so small because the overall number of incidents is already small and the number of potential categories large that there is little pattern to be found. Therefore the methodology I use is based on inductive methodology to find themes from the data. I don't start with any pre-conceived hypothesis, but just look at the data.
In the liferaft research there are only 15 incidents in almost as many years and the only common themes are those I summarised in the liferaft thread. And one of the themes you could add is that in that period not one leisure MOBO has been involved in an incident that did or might have required a liferaft! Safe Boating - do it in a MOBO.
In the liferaft research there are only 15 incidents in almost as many years and the only common themes are those I summarised in the liferaft thread. And one of the themes you could add is that in that period not one leisure MOBO has been involved in an incident that did or might have required a liferaft! Safe Boating - do it in a MOBO.
l'escargot
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
...Safe Boating - do it in a MOBO.
[/ QUOTE ]
But then to get a real picture you have to start factoring in such matters as length of voyage (in time - sail boats are slower), type of voyage (is a sailing boat more likely to make passage out of sight of land and therefore further from rescue?) and the likelihood of being out in adverse conditions (sailbaoats are more likely because they are more suited or more likely to be further from land when adverse conations hit?).
I think it realy gets back to insignificant numbers of incidents to make any direct comparison between different types of boats - just that boating in general is a particularly safe past time.
...Safe Boating - do it in a MOBO.
[/ QUOTE ]
But then to get a real picture you have to start factoring in such matters as length of voyage (in time - sail boats are slower), type of voyage (is a sailing boat more likely to make passage out of sight of land and therefore further from rescue?) and the likelihood of being out in adverse conditions (sailbaoats are more likely because they are more suited or more likely to be further from land when adverse conations hit?).
I think it realy gets back to insignificant numbers of incidents to make any direct comparison between different types of boats - just that boating in general is a particularly safe past time.
