drink boating

[Tranona]

Not sure the law is designed to reduce accidents of the type you describe. The main cause of the slow introduction is because there are so few where there have been deaths or injuries and drink was deemed a contributory factor - never mind the cause! - and no clear pattern.

The decision is political and in my view as watered down as possible!

One of the reasons why there is so little restriction on boating in general is because there is so little evidence that it is "dangerous". This particular legislation crept in on the back of a much bigger bill and it is difficult to argue against it in principle.

 

[longjohnsilver]

Well nothing much will change. And how will it be policed? About the same as it is now. What Tim Bartlett says seems about right. Here on YBW.

 

[Frontier]

I agree,

if there is a need for this to come in then it should mainly be to address the accidents that have happened, just like the one you explained.

In any case boats are nothing like cars, there is plenty of thinking and stopping time.

What if your boat cant go faster than 7kts is it exempt or does it have to be small as well?

Cheers

D

 

[poltergeist]

[ QUOTE ]
Well at least we will be still able to get back from the pub, in the dinghy.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as you don't paddle it at over 7 knts!! /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[Searush]

[ QUOTE ]
Well at least we will be still able to get back from the pub, in the dinghy.

[/ QUOTE ]

/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif But don't get back on board MF until you sober up or you will still be done.

IMHO, the whole idea stinks. So many boaters enjoy a Sundowner or two at anchor or in the marina. They will be liable to be done.

The key point is to stop the drunks in powerful boats blasting thro' busy waters, it isn't a common problem, but is persistent at certain times/ locations isn't it? The actual number of recent fatalities is tiny. And Gjm's comment about running down kids off the beach in a tender is pure emotive fantasy - or can he actually cite the cases where this has happened?

The reason for exempting small slow boats is that the potential for fatal damage is MUCH lower than for larger high-powered craft as the kinetic energy & momentum is many many times lower in little boats. I could ram anything in my 2hp inflatable at full speed & simply bounce off without a mark on anything, including me.

 

[hlb]

Ah but it's ok, cos Kwackers is our adopted navigator, or he adopted us, not sure. But anyway we left him rolling around in the gutter and he's in charge. So not guilty yer honour. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[Tranona]

Don't think it will have any effect on your sundowner. It is clear the only things that change is the defined limit and the right for the police to brethalyze if they or the authorities such as the harbourmaster suspect an offence. One of the weaknesses of the current "unfit" law and bye laws is the difficulty of enforcement.

So, on balance, I think I have come to the view that it is a "good thing" as the impact on the majority will be negligible and will allow the authorities to deal better with the tiny minority. Whether it will act as a deterrent to the tiny minority is another matter. Everyday I go on a stretch of road built for a 70 limit but restricted to 50. One of the events that justified the restriction was a rare accident, but given the car left the road at an estimated 110 mph I would suggest that a 50 rather than 70 limit would have had no deterrent effect!

 

[mikeotteau]

This is just Gnu Labour wanting to have a pop at the Have-Yachts.

All about envy of anyone who owns a boat and nothing to do with marine safety.

The 7m size limit is just so as no Labour voting fishermen are caught in the drink/sailing net.

 

[jfm]

Well it's all a bit of a fix I reckon. The 7m limit conveniently ensures that the private yachts of our leaders are exempt from the rules

 

[timbartlett]

Before anyone jumps down my throat...
I'm no more in favour of dangerous driving than anyone else, whether it is under sail or power, and whether it is due to drink, drugs, senility, inexperience, or plain incompetence.
But this has nothing to do with safety.
(a) the number of incidents caused by excess alcohol is miniscule (less than two fatalities per year, even if you believe the official figures)
(b) those who are daft enough to endanger themselves and others are hardly likely to be deterred by a piece of legislation that they probably won't even be aware of
(c) those who ignore the existing legislation will probably be equally inclined to ignore the new legislation.
So it's unnecessary and it won't work.
But what it will do is give some civil servant in the Department "for" Transport a useful (to him) step up the career ladder, towards a bigger salary and a bigger pension (paid for by us, of course)
And it will give the kind of officious little flat hats who fit blue flashing lights to their "harbour patrol" boats the opportunity to pretend that they are guardians of law and order (rather than waterborne traffic wardens) by giving them the power to stop people on sus and detain them for as long as it takes until a proper plod can be found to carry out a breath test.
It's just another pointless piece of legislation that will achieve nothing except the further erosion of our personal freedoms.

 

[gjgm]

I m not a massive advocate of this, but I dont think one should consider its validity simply on the number of deaths. That seems a bit extreme to me.
My original question related to the size and power of the vessel, and I wondered why some should be exempt.
Still, I m puzzled by some of reasoning put forward on the replies on the topic of drink boating.
We dont need a law because very few people are being killed (injured,whatever). Does that line of thought not lead to the conclusion that is OK to drive a boat around while drunk, as long as you dont cause an actual accident? Because if you disgree with the conclusion, then the first argument doesnt stand up.
Presumably such a law will only be of inconvenience to those who are drunk and boating. If you are sober and so in control of your vessel, I m not sure what the beef is- its not going to affect you.
I really dont see marinas and harbours full of highly equiped patrol vessels in fast ribs making stop breath tests. Bit too much Little Britain in some lines of thought,IMHO.

 

[Refueler]

As far as I'm concerned there should be no exceptions because of size, speed or type of craft. They can all lead to deaths by stupidity, drunkeness etc.

As to effect on general boating ? As I posted in another thread on this subject - the number of authorities in UK and many countries to boaters is few. So instances of actually being tested will be few. It really comes down to IMHO - you act like a drunken pr*t on the water and plod / (authorised)HM will come out and test you. And I'd be first to offer to helm him out there to you. Act sensibly - give no reason for them to zero in on you and what's the problem ?

Some may think my comments above strange considering that I have a Drink - Boating case ongoing at this time. But I wasn't actually driver of the boat - a fact that Plod out here is ignoring.

I don't understand how anyone can try and excuse any craft from this ... for me I reckon most dangerous time is in a dinghy pottering out to the anchored / moored boat ... few inches freeboard, drunk and be a bit lively in the dinghy - Whoops in yer go !

Raggie / Mobo ? They can both maim, kill, damage ....

 

[timbartlett]

We don't need a law because the number of incidents is tiny. There are more important things that our government should be getting on with. Civil servants who waste their time on this one should (IMHO) be sacked, and their salaries spent on more hospital cleaners -- who would save far more lives!

We don't need a law because there already is one, not to mention lots of bye-laws. The DfT proposal referrs to two particular incidents as "justification" for the new regs: the Marchioness/Bowbelle and Carrie Kate/Ketts.

The Marchioness/Bowbelle was between two commercial vessels, so it doesn't really pertain to recreational craft. And the surviving helmsman of the CarrieKate/Ketts incident was eventually prosecuted under the existing legislation. Given that he was prepared to break the existing law, and the existing well-publicised bye-laws in his local harbour (and the colregs), why would he be likely to take any notice of yet another law?

And we don't need a law because (whatever the theory) the simple fact is that it is almost certain to lead to innocent people being wrongly imprisoned (i.e. held against their will) by stroppy flat-hats, whose argument will be along the lines of "I had reason to believe that he had been drinking because he was on his way back from the Cowes Week Fireworks. Everyone knows that everyone who goes to the fireworks drinks heavily, so he must have been drinking. Unfortunately the police had a heavy workload that night, owing to the fact that every other harbourmaster on the Solent had been calling them in to do breathalysers, so by the time an officer arrived the following afternoon, my suspect had had time to sober up, and there was nothing to disprove his story that he had drunk nothing stronger than apple juice all evening"

And finally... we don't need a new law because there was no need for a law in 2003: that's why this Section of the Railway and Transport Safety Act wasn't brought into force at the time. The 2004 consultation showed that we didn't need a new law, that's why it wasn't brought into force at the time. The 2007 consultation showed that we didn't need a new law. And the DfT is so desperate to get the results it wants from the 2009 consultation that it has sent the consultation out to people pressure groups such as RoadSense -- whose views are entirely predictable, but have nothing to do with boats.

 

[rallyveteran]

I quite agree, Tim, but find it depressing that some contributors to this Forum have been taken in by some clever civil servant's attempt at distraction by arguing about which vessels should be exempt rather than whether we need a new law at all.

I'm very worried that this will lead to more bureaucracy in the form of boat and skipper licensing and attendant cost. Once we have licensing some sort of wealth tax on boats would be easy for a cash-strapped government to levy - and I don't imagine we'll get much public support if we try to stop it!

 

[Tranona]

While I agree with you in principle that there is no need for the law, the time for that argument is past. The law is on the books already. Because the incidence of drunk boating is so low (if we believe our own rhetoric), provided there is no random testing then it is unlikely to make any difference.

As we know the "unfit" offence is already there but difficult to enforce or bring prosecutions. The new regulations would make it easier to deal with the offenders.

I agree that there is a possibility of over reaction in enforcement, but given the stretched resources of the police in particular, not sure they are going to be looking for new "work".

Politically the argument is lost, and the exemptions, despite the illogicality of some of the arguments remove a significant amount of boating activity from the legislation. Better to accept this watered down version and let it wither on the vine. In some ways this legislation is like hunting - not needed and unworkable, and the impact on most boaters insignificant.

 

[gjgm]

oh for gawds sake..
if this was directed at me, I asked was what the reason for the 7m trigger?The suggestion that this is blinding me, by some back door diversion , to miss the real point is ridiculous.
Personally , I find the line of resistance based on all this conspiracy theory and unsupported trail of consequence absolutely staggering.
But, hey-ho, you are equally entitled to your views.

 

[TonyJones]

[ QUOTE ]

I think a drink boat limit is a good idea (the implementation suggests it would apply to those in charge of navigation).

[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO it is difficult to see how the owner of the vessel could NOT be regarded as involved in the navigation as he has the ultimate say on where the skipper takes the boat.

This legislation is quite different to that applying to road vehicles where it applies only to the person behind the wheel.

Best wishes
TJ

 

[jfm]

That's just pants logic Tony. The owner might have the power to dismiss the skipper or helmsman, but until he exercises that power the skipper/helm can be navigating the boat and the owner isn't -by virtue of his mere ownership- necessarily involved in the navigation.

That applies to any boat. In bigger boats with professional captains the owner is likely even more removed from being skipper. He frequently wont have the licences to be skipper.

 

[Chris_d]

"taken in by clever civil servents" /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif who are they then?

 

[timbartlett]

It's not Tony's logic that is pants, it's the DfT's. The Consultation document (www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/exceptionfromalcohol/) makes it crystal clear that the DfT intends to go after anyone "exercising a function" even if they are not in direct control at the time. It doesn't matter whether you call yourself the owner, skipper, helmsman, throttleman, or navigator -- if you've done anything more technical than pulling the anchor up, you're in the frame.

And the stated logic for the 7m/7kt limit is that "it coincides with the lighting regulations" in the colregs. It's almost as logical, I suppose, as adopting the 80mg per 100ml limit because it's the one that applies to road vehicles!

The idea that the innocent have nothing to fear from the law sounds plausible, but it simply isn't borne out by the facts of life in 21st century Britain.