Drink boating laws one step closer ..

[ QUOTE ]
...what local bylaw in Cowes did he break...

[/ QUOTE ]
http://www.cowes.co.uk/d/Harbour%20Byelaws.pdf

This one:

NAVIGATION WHILST UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRINK OR
DRUGS
12. (a) No persons shall navigate or attempt to navigate a vessel when unfit by reason of
drink or drugs so to do.
(b) No Master or owner of a vessel shall knowingly cause or permit any person to
navigate or attempt to navigate that vessel in contravention of this Byelaw.

and this is what the penalty can be:

PENALTIES
6. i. Any person who contravenes or otherwise fails to comply with any of these
Byelaws shall be guilty of an offence and be liable on summary conviction to a
fine not exceeding £400.

They probably weren't able to prove he was unfit just on the basis of a breathalyser. I would think it is one that could only be bought into play following an accident or other incident.
 
No different from the pre breathalyzer laws. IIRC walking along a line on the police station floor was one of the tests. Note, the offence is being unfit, not having an alchohol level in the blood higher han a specific figure. So the onus on the harbour authorities is to demonstrate you were unfit. Being over the driving limit would be one piece of evidence, but a court would probably need more. As noted on another thread Harbour Authorities are reluctant to go to court because they are not geared up for the process and would rather discharge their duties in other ways.
 
[ QUOTE ]
As for exempting small slow moving boats that's just a joke because a pissed up yotty is just as capable of causing an accident as a pissed up mobo driver

[/ QUOTE ]

Arguably yotty's are even more likely to cause an accident when under sail than a mobo being driven slow.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Arguably yotty's are even more likely to cause an accident when under sail than a mobo being driven slow.

[/ QUOTE ]
Where do you get that idea from - I've seen more slow moving boats under power collide with things than boats under sail. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
"Driving at speed and in poor visibility endangers life. A power boat can be lethal weapon. The by-laws applicable to Falmouth harbour do not prescribe a limit for the consumption of alcohol for those in control of a power boat. They do state a person should not have drunk so much as to be unable to control his vessel.

"The public should appreciate the exhortation Do not drink and drive' applies as much to power boats as to motor vehicles."

During a seven-day trial Colver, who now lives in Lower Strand, Hughtown, St Mary's, Isles of Scilly, admitted that he had made mistakes in that he had driven the 21ft 5ins powerboat Carrie Kate, which had a 220hp engine, too fast, that he should have been displaying igation lights and that he should not have drunk so much alcohol."
Inquest findings after the second death, in as many years, on the Fal, June 07.
 
A good example of poor legislation.

If they don't define the scale of the influence, it is meaningless.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since when, did an arbitary level of 'x'mg of blood alcohol accurately determine if you are 'under the influence'?

It's a well known fact, that some ethnic groups tolerate alcohol differently to others. Individuals have similar variations of intolerance.

Surely the deciding factor is already correctly specified in the by-laws "No persons shall navigate or attempt to navigate a vessel when unfit by reason of drink or drugs so to do."

Their reasoning revolves around "when unfit", which probably is a better assessment of someones capability, particularly when a problem has arisen or the person in charge has behaved like a prat!

Because I hold a commercial licence, I will not accept any alcohol until the vessel is safely tied up. On many vessels, alcohol is completely banned, tied up/off duty or not! The RN allows alcohol - several cans of beer/day - but many in a responsible position where they may be called from off watch to do some task, refrain.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Because it is all down to who is in 'command' of the vessel. The owner may be pissed, but that doesn't mean his stone cold sober 16 year-old-son son or daughter can't be in command. [ QUOTE ]


IMHO it's difficult to see how the owner could NOT be in ultimate command of his own vessel. His ownership gives him the right to relieve anyone else onboard of temporary 'command' or even to take the wheel.

It's not like the sober 'designated driver' in a car who is definitely 'in command' so long as she/he is sitting behind the wheel even if the car's owner is in the passenger seat totally ratted.

If this legislation goes through, anyone over the limit while onboard their own boat - even when moored up - COULD be subject to prosecution.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Arguably yotty's are even more likely to cause an accident when under sail than a mobo being driven slow.


[/ QUOTE ]

Not arguably, it's a fact. More yotties get killed thru falling overboard or getting hit by their boom than motor boaters carreering around drunk. Thats what makes these proposed regulations a nonsense. Sail boats may be exempted because of their speed but a pissed up yotty is even more likely to fall overboard or get smacked by his boom than a sober one
It's just part of this obsession that busybody politicos have with speed. Speed kills. QED
 
[ QUOTE ]
...Not arguably, it's a fact. More yotties get killed thru falling overboard or getting hit by their boom than motor boaters carreering around drunk...

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd be interested in where you get your facts from to support that idea. I hear more reports around the Solent every year of Ribs and speedboats being driven into things at speed with drunken people on board than I do of yachtie deaths caused by being hit by the boom.
 
Where does it state that the proposals refer to the person in command? AFAIK the issue is completely up for discussion and I'm sure the RYA/BMIF will try to narrow down the definition of who is covered by these regulations and who isn't and, in the end, the only sensible definition is that the person in command is the person helming the boat. Even if they don't succeed, it's going to be impossible to identify the person who is in command anyway. Say I go boating with my wife. Who's in command? She or me and if it's me, why?
 
How did I know somebody would question that statement /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif When this issue was first raised in 2007, I think, there was an excellent disection of the MCA's own accident statistics (that were being used by the MCA to justify these proposals) by Tim Bartlett in his MBY column. I did post on this forum about this subject but thanks to the weediness of the forum's search facility, the post has gone. I will look out the article tonight and post the details
 
You are right about the incidence of accidents on sailboats involving either falling or being knocked overboard, usually by the boom. Also injuries caused by bits of rigging gear thrashing around. However, I do not recall in the many MAIB reports I have read that drunkenness was a contributory factor.

Also agree that drink is not an issue - just a myth like leisure boats sink and liferafts are needed and speed kills (but crap driving does not) and speed cameras save lives. The latter two survive because "they collect and produce the "evidence". Fortunately the MAIB reorts are in the public domain so they can't be massaged for political ends.

Await your next post with interest
 
I was referring to incidents involving falling overboard or injuries caused by wayward gear - although did not make that clear. There was of course the "friend of Chris Evans" who fell overboard where drink was involved.

Unfortunately because I am in China at the moment I don't have my files to hand, nor can I access the MAIB site so can't comment on the two references.

I think, though my basic proposition that drink is not a (big) issue is supported by the evidence - the number of incidents is so small that no general pattern emerges. I suspect, however if one analysed the deaths fom falling in the water off a pontoon or out of a tender - both more common than loss of life through foundering at sea for example, one might find more evidence of the effects of drink.
 
[ QUOTE ]
...There was of course the "friend of Chris Evans" who fell overboard where drink was involved...

[/ QUOTE ]
Which was several years ago and I can only recall one maybe two similar incidents since then - probably averaging less than one a year. And I don't believe any of the victims were suffering from the effects of drink.

I can recall two incidents with power boats last year alone which resulted in 10 or so people in the water and at least half the adults had been drinking - one actually at the helm when he hit the Cowes breakwater. The speed ban after Cowes week firworks was also introduced after a number of high speed accidents which also involved drink on at least some occasions.
 
There was of course the "friend of Chris Evans" who fell overboard where drink was involved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have evidence of him being drunk?

I thought the problem was that the 'crew', who had no experience on boats, didn't know what to do to save him!

When I give my safety brief to a similar crew, I emphasis that in the unlikely event that I fall overboard (being IMPO the most important person aboard /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif), they broadcast a Mayday (& show them how to do so).

In the case of Chris E etc, sadly they didn't know how to do anything, even how to switch lights on.

Not sure drink was a factor.
 
I don't think there was any evidence that he was drunk, though the crew may have been. He was the landlord of Evans' local and had agreed to take him and some mates out for an evening sail. Iirc, he was knocked over the side by the boom and then - as you say - no-one knew what to do.

He might have survived, had they been able to do a m.o.b., but I also seem to recall that he received a serious head injury, either from the boom or as he went over.

Either way, I don't recall drink being mentioned at the time.
 
Sorry about the delay in supplying the evidence. I'm still searching for another Tim Bartlett article but this info comes from his Waypoints article in the Oct 2006 issue of MBY

This is data which was supplied by Stephen Ladyman in a Commons answer in 2006

All Accidents Involving Recreational Craft (source MAIB)
(Alcohol a contributory factor)

Deaths Injuries

2001 3(2) 2(2)
2002 8(0) 4(0)
2003 12(1) 10(0)
2004 3(0) 25(3)
2005 24(5) 35(3)

As Bartlett points out the no of deaths due to accidents 'where alcohol was positively identified as being contributory factor' (figures in brackets above) averages about 1.5 deaths per year which out of 4 million people who go boating in the UK, hardly constitutes a problem and certainly doesn't present a case for legislation.

Bartlett also intimates that the MAIB have been massaging accident statistics upwards in recent years to present a case that there is a growing problem with boating accidents generally. There is another article which I'm still trying to find in which he further analyses these figures and blows a hole in the MAIB statistics
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

zoidberg
'This month's hot boating topic....'
2 3
Replies
42
Views
1K
tjbrace
tjbrace
T
Notices to Mariners - Week 49
Replies
0
Views
826
tillergirl
T

Share this page

Top