Drink boating to be made illegal

but the wording is an exception and then an excetion to an exception!

So under 7m is excepted (over isn't - full stop) but if your under 7m boat is capable of over 7 knots you are excepted from exception.

the effect of this is that over 7m and/or capable of over 7knots are covered.

don't understand the confusion? /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
 
According to the Transport minister it is just a coincidence that this has come out the day after the court case (powerboat collided with dory after dark both helmsmen had been drinking one killed) ended in Truro where the defendent was found not guilty of manslaughter.

Coincidence my transom, they were waiting to see the outcome of it.
 
Anything is capable of 7 knots in the tidal gates up here on the West Coast of Scotland therefore they can claim nothing is exempt.
 
Will we get points or is it just another tax raising exercise. The way I see it, if you are involved in an accident, they will now throw the book at you, but other than that it is probably just a matter of putting up withthe odd fine.

Madness.
 
As long as the law, when it enters the Statute stuff, includes the word navigate, it will only apply when under way.

And maybe, only when the autopilot is off.
 
Re: Drink boating to be made illegal re tommyrot

Does this mean the end of drink on corporate charter days? I am hiring Drum for a day, drinks included. Presumably, if I have a drink I can't take the helm then? Even though the crew may be stone cold sober, the guests will need to remain so too if they want a shot at the wheel?
 
I seem to remember that in the court case in which PWCs were said to not be ships, part of the reasoning was that navigation was the act of going from A to B, and PWCs didn't do that. So if I'm going nowhere in particular, I'm not navigating?
 
It might make some kind of sense if the rule was designed along the lines of the kinetic energy that the boat could develop: the old school physics "1/2 mass times velocity squared".
That at least gives one a measure of how much damage could be done by a boat when skippered by someone under the affluence of incahol.
 
Unfortunately, I think that a court might say that to get from A to A takes some navigating. Any fule doth no how to get from A to B. It's the B to A that a bit more tricky.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, I think that a court might say that to get from A to A takes some navigating. Any fule doth no how to get from A to B. It's the B to A that a bit more tricky.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you think if you took the jury to point B, got them drunk, then told them to find their way back to A, you might be able to prove superior competence (assuming you managed it while balancing your gin on the tiller?)....
 
I can predict there are going to be several trips where SWMBO takes the helm on the return leg, which introduces an entirely different set of issues (ahh bless: this is the lady that "stood on" to another mobo, despite that course almost resulting in gouging a new channel across Ryde Sands with four propellors)...

"Be Afraid, Very Afraid.
In the Solent, nobody can hear you scream"

dv.
 
[ QUOTE ]
It might make some kind of sense if the rule was designed along the lines of the kinetic energy that the boat could develop: the old school physics "1/2 mass times velocity squared".
That at least gives one a measure of how much damage could be done by a boat when skippered by someone under the affluence of incahol.

[/ QUOTE ]

on that basis you should only take into account the actual speed a boat is doing - ie differeent speeds have different limits permitted. personally I think this is actually really really sensible for a whole lot of reasons.

i believe that there are places in the world where different rules apply to boats being driven 'on the plane'. A very low (4 knot?) blanket exemption would also cover off all the resetting anchors etc minefields.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It might make some kind of sense if the rule was designed along the lines of the kinetic energy that the boat could develop: the old school physics "1/2 mass times velocity squared".
That at least gives one a measure of how much damage could be done by a boat when skippered by someone under the affluence of incahol.

[/ QUOTE ]

on that basis you should only take into account the actual speed a boat is doing - ie differeent speeds have different limits permitted. personally I think this is actually really really sensible for a whole lot of reasons.

i believe that there are places in the world where different rules apply to boats being driven 'on the plane'. A very low (4 knot?) blanket exemption would also cover off all the resetting anchors etc minefields.

[/ QUOTE ]

Duncan, the problem is that they propose to include any boat capable of 7 knots. That word is open to so many interpretations that it will take a law lord to make a judgement on.
 
I've just been doing some fag-packet calcs (sad git!).
1/2 mv^2 for a 2 Tonne boat at 6 knots (3 m/s) 9000 kJ
Make that a benchmark/threshhold (works for me!)
for 200 kg (estimate?) of jetski and rider at 40 knots (20.6 m/s) = 42436 kJ.

I like it more and more.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top