Drink Legislation - a survey

[Guest]

I have a personal interest.

Very early on, my boat was hit by a huge motor boat that was using my transom to slow his progress as he was not able to climb up to the engine controls due to his alcohol levels.

Not long afterwards I was at anchor and a yacht smashed into my bows as the skipper lost control. He slurred some response back to my yells. He then turned his boat and attempted to do it again. I think he thought he was apologising.

I have also been witness to 2 incidents that unforeseen circumstances have required drunk yachties to go out to sea with catastrophic effects.

 

[duncan]

you have my sympathy however existing legislation clearly covers both these incidents. these are not people with 100mg/100ml in their blood stream! equally no one was injured or died.
pretty much every week for the next 3 months someone will probably die in the UK as a direct result of not having even the most basic safety equipement on board - tradgically a father and son in dingy last weekend I believe.

 

[Major Catastrophe]

I think part of the objection to this legislation is that they are applying road drink driving rules to boats and I am of the opinion - and it is only an opinion - that 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath (or 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood) is not relevent to to leisure boating.

I am not sure about you, but when driving my boat, I often take my eyes off the 'road' for minutes at a time, which I don't do in my car. I don't 'drink' and drive - well certainly never more than one pint.

I don't habitually drive my boat with alcholol in my blood, but have on three occassions in three years, enjoyed a convivial BBQ anchored in a quiet bay where I have drunk over the drink driving limit. We are talking about three pints here, but with three pints over a long period, I am more than capable of safely navigating my boat, but not my car.

So, my solution is that if the authorities have no stomach to use the existing laws and want to introduce a new level of 'police' to catch and prosecute fairly innocent boaters who are not driving cars through a busy high street, then the breath alcohol level for boaters should be higher.

Littlejohn in the Daily Mail today has an insighful piece.

<span style="color:blue">"EXCUSE ME, ALBERT, CAN YOU BLOW INTO THIS?

It was only a matter of time. The Government is bringing in the breathalyser for boaters. Anyone found over the limit could face a fine of £2,000 and two years in prison.

But riders of jet skis, just about the worst menace on the water since Del Boy's Uncle Albert, will be exempt because they're not classed as ships.

Just wait until the Mad Mullah hears about the new rules. There'll be speed cameras at the side of every waterway in North Wales and flotillas of river police conducting random breath tests.

No doubt some loony council is already working on a way to put humps in boating lakes. " </span>

Needless to say, my boat is berthed within the 'Mad Mullahs' jurisdiction and I suppose he just needs more excuses to have his black shirted, combat booted plods harrassing reasonably innocent people.

Again, this is why I am leaving this country ......soon.

 

[duncan]

thanks for the response awol - I realised it wasn't intended, and I agree with you views as far as the principle that excess alchol and boating don't mix. In fact I would go a whole lot further than boating on the principle front. But the real facts are that the real risks to safety are clearly evidenced by statistics and continue to be ignored. Equally existing legislation covers this particular risk. What is lacking is the will and committment to actually tackle 'dangerous' behaviour even where it clearly contravenes local byelaws.

As to the results - I am afraid I am arrogant enough to believe I could predict them from a combination of forum behaviour and personal experience (in bars) with a few hundred on here!

My one personal experience where alchol was an issue in an incident was where I felt unsafe to handle an anchoring issue created by a third party in Newtown creek one eveneing having enjoyed a glass of wine to many with an evening BBQ in the company of some here. Such issues may be alchol related, as outlandish behaviour in marinas and rafted in port, but the proposed regulations are not aimed at these and will do nothing to change them - in fact like restricted opening hours we may actually see a whole host of 'new' risks associated with people deciding to stay somewhere in marginal conditions 'in case' and or 'right the anchors down/we're tied up party on!'

I respect your views, and I think I actually agree the issues you are trying to 'prove' or illustrate. Possibly where we disagree is in their relevance (as produced by responses to the poll) and this proposed legislation as any solution.

 

[Guest]

Are you saying that the solution to not condoning navigating while diminished ability is for all the innocent parties to have more safety equipment?

However if you are just comparing numbers to show it is a trivial problem then to some of us it is not. In the first incident a lady just missed being beheaded by a davit. In the final one it involved a rescue and a sinking boat. The insurance companies also have an interest in this change of law. After meeting with their representative that came to visit the damaged boats they might be behind it.

But using emotive uninvestigated recent occurrences as a argument tool is also questionable.

However, support for boat police and inspections on docks as boats moor up would certainly put the cat amongst the pigeons. But would it just be a financial exercise targeting the popular places. Probably.

If it was done solely for our safety, maybe.

 

[EdWingfield]

It may be closer to the fascist state than you already fear Capt Catastrophe. I was speaking to a skipper of one of those huge car carriers yesterday - he told me he is randomly tested for alcohol and narcotics twice per year! If he fails the test he loses his job.

Where do you intend emigrating to?

 

[Major Catastrophe]

[ QUOTE ]
he told me he is randomly tested for alcohol and narcotics twice per year! If he fails the test he loses his job.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is nothing wrong with that. He is a professional. Like train drivers, pilots et al, they should have zero alcohol in their systems.

I am going to a place outside the EU and UK.

 

[Guest]

Duncan;
[ QUOTE ]
we may actually see a whole host of 'new' risks associated with people deciding to stay somewhere in marginal conditions 'in case' and or 'right the anchors down/we're tied up party on!'


[/ QUOTE ]

You are very close to the truth. The USCG has been doing this for years: There are many other countries making judgements FOR their people.

[ QUOTE ]
The policy change followed a challenge by Steve Turner--a 52-year-old deaf boater from San Diego, CA--as to whether the agency was correct in terminating his Sept. 9, 2003 voyage solely because he is deaf.
..

When the boarding officer realized Turner was deaf, he declared the voyage inherently hazardous--"manifestly unsafe" in Coast Guard parlance--and ordered him to shore under escort. At the launch ramp, the officer issued Turner a citation for inability to follow navigation rules and instructed him not to attempt another voyage without a hearing individual aboard.


[/ QUOTE ]

Then, of course, there was the whole NZ escapade when they insisted that US boats conform to their safety standards. They nearly killed that guy that could not get clearance so sailed straight back to the UK.

We already have the marine bill on the powers of the new marine police. This is only an extension. The problem is that the registration for voting in the "offshore" constituency is very hard at present. I wonder if we will get a Water MP.

 

[DogsBody]

[ QUOTE ]
Amazing! 1 in 5 report they know of an incident where alcohol was a factor and fully a third of the respondents indicated they've commanded a vessel while legally drunk, yet the vast majority (82% when I counted) don't think there's a problem with boats and alcohol.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm one of the 1 in 5 to vote they had seen an incident where alcohol was a factor, however I do not believe it was the main factor in the incident I'm thinking of. Badly worded question I think.

As for legally drunk, completely different set of circumstances apply to helming a boat frrom driving a car. Where I boat, there is a 4 knot speed limit - walking pace - I'm absolutely certain that it is possible to travel safely at a walking speed while legally unfit to drive a car.

This entire legislation is pointless as far as I'm concerned.

Darren.

 

[oceanfroggie]

It's very simple.<ul type="square">
[*]We are not allowed to drink and drive a road vehicle
[*]Nor are we allowed to drink and take the controls of an aircraft
[*]Nor drive a train
[*]Nor a ship[/list]
So why the hell should leisure skippers be allowed to drink and helm? There is no logic to the RYAs position, it's just that leisure boaters have become used to enjoying booze on boats. IMHO, skippers should not be allowed to exceed road limits. It's illogical

 

[duncan]

Neil

I think I am confusing my own arguments by being selective - sorry.

I am trying to put things in perspective - but would highlight that I have no real issue with a zero tollerance environment recognising the underlying dangers of boating. Such an environment should however be balanced and as such the first, and only step supported by published statistics, is safety equipement. I would put training and competence hand in hand with many other aspects - including drinking ANY alchol or any permenant disability (inc eyesight) that might/would impair capability. These are clearly cumulative in terms of risk ie a nearly blind individual, heavily intoxicated and heading of at high speed with no training in his first speedboat.........well which issue represents the biggest risk?

Working back from this we get a general benchmark for normal conditions consistent with individual freedoms and the rights of third parties thus arriving at 'incapable' above that bench mark and 'capable' below it. Here I think we absolutely agree - incapable by personal choice should have the book thrown at them.

If this legislation comes in and is used judicially by all parties then I for one will celebrate (cola). Vested interests will make this impossible in modern society and I predict the following -

1. a wave of slightly over the limit procecutions to produce the missing statistical support for this legislation - nothing to do with behaviour or incidents
2. at least one high profile incident in which an insurance company declines to hold their insured party covered - such party having no significant assets the damage he has caused now falls to the other party who, if not insured himself (or only TP) now faces financial loss.
3. at least one case of loss of life as a result of reticence to either call for assistance OR respond to a call for assistance.

On the other hand we could just have a significantly increased Marine Police presence in major boating areas and a lot of books thrown (at the individuals outlined in your initial post) which would send the right messages to the leisure fraternety - OK enjoy yourselves but do not go too far or you will be clobered. I understand massacio's comment on another thread which is that this legislation is intended to give the parties that need it the power they need for appropriate succesfull procecutions, and I think you are saying similar, however without a huge change in infastructure and responsibilities it cannot actually achieve that.

 

[Brierley]

"Have you commanded a vessel underway whilst over the drink-drive limit?" (sorry if slightly mis-quoted, I can't see the original as I type this).

I can see immediate problems with this if the boat is not single-handed and more than one person on board is capable of 'commanding' the vessel.

Who is the skipper of the vessel? Is it always, by definition, the person at the helm?

I rarely drink and am perfectly capable of helming our boat, though I usually choose to let hubby do it as he has had more practice at handling the boat and I am more practised with dealing with the anchor and sails.

So if we stop for the night at anchor in Newtown Creek on a sunny summer's evening and H imbibes a few beers (enough to take him over the drink-drive limit for a couple of hours), then some plonker parks his boat on top of us and we decide to move to avoid a collision later (a not unusual occurrence in Newtown Creek unfortunately), who is in command?

Is it H who is likely to be at the helm while I haul up the anchor? Is it me as I issue directions and commands? Would we be better off under the new legislation with a less experienced person at the helm (ie me) and H dealing with the anchor?

Or perhaps the legislation should be amended such that we can detach the anchor of the aforementioned plonker from his vessel so he drifts away on the tide, thus negating the necessity for us to act illegally by moving our vessel to safety.... /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[DJE]

Sorry I thought this was a free country. The principle you seem to be missing is that the individual should be free to do as he pleases but responsible for the consequences of his actions. This freedom is removed in the circumstances you list because of the great risk of harm to others. The risk of harm from leisure mariners is tiny and doesn't warrant the restriction on our freedom.

 

[oceanfroggie]

Yes I get your general drift, and I'm somewhat sympathetic to the RYAs views, but I am just pointing that out we are NOT free as you say when it comes to Cars, Trains, Planes and Ships!

We're not free to drink drive

 

[Brierley]

[ QUOTE ]
It's very simple.<ul type="square">
[*]We are not allowed to drink and drive a road vehicle
[*]Nor are we allowed to drink and take the controls of an aircraft
[*]Nor drive a train
[*]Nor a ship[/list]
So why the hell should leisure skippers be allowed to drink and helm? There is no logic to the RYAs position, it's just that leisure boaters have become used to enjoying booze on boats. IMHO, skippers should not be allowed to exceed road limits. It's illogical

[/ QUOTE ]

Froggie

It's not that simple. When was the last time you had to move your car after you had parked it at the place where you intended to stay for the night, in order to avoid an accident? You would hope the driving licence counts for something to attest to the basic skill level of other drivers, plus most people drive their cars several times a week so get some practice. Also, unless you are in an earthquake zone, the road is unlikely to move up and down during the night and catch inexperienced car drivers unawares! And if you have drunk too much to drive and an urgent incident occurs that requires you to be elsewhere, you may well have alternative means of getting there (taxi, bus, train, neighbour driving you etc).

If you are moored or anchored in a yacht, the circumstances are entirely different. You have no control over who else comes into the area and what their level of ability or experience is. You may well have secured your boat in a safe position but there's no guarantee that it will remain safe if another boat anchors nearby. If a crew member falls overboard, are you seriously suggesting that the skipper should not be permitted to take the dinghy and outboard to pick them up if the skipper had consumed more than a couple of units of alcohol?

Whilst I definitely think there should be more stringent application of current laws for dealing with those who cause boating-related accidents whilst under the influence of alcohol, I think the current drink-drive limits are too low to be sensibly applied to leisure boating. It should be about levels of risk and genuine statistics, not about knee-jerk legislation.

 

[Major Catastrophe]

A very good post. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

And it the poses the scenario that if drink driving and drink boating is to carry the same blood alcohol level and other criteria then the driver of the car needs to be identified as the 'Person in command.' In most cases, most men will nominate their mother in law to take the breath test!

I don't think that Ladyman realises that you can swap drivers in a boat very easily and with flybridge cruisers almost have two. Not only that but the helmsman and the skipper can be two different people.

I just cannot see how this is going to be applied and it is a bag of worms.

Just thought, my sub 7 meter boat has two engines. Can I use the auxillary engine when I am blind drunk as it only goes 4.4 knots?

 

[beancounter]

OF,

no-one is advocating sailing whilst Brahms & Liszt. The point is more that there is already legislation in place which allows the prosecution of drunken boaters; therefore this law looks likely to lead to taxpayers money being diverted to fund the policing of the scheme. All this when there does not statistically appear to be a pressing need to tackle the issue.

Shortfalls in funding could then be made up by a tax on boaters (i.e. licence).

I'm not as paranoid/anti-government as some on here who are frothing at the mouth, but it is a disturbing move.

 

[Rustyknight]

You make a very good case for not drinking at all whilst on a boat......... with so many things likely to go wrong, shouldn't the prudent skipper abstain altogether?

 

[flaming]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's very simple.<ul type="square">
[*]We are not allowed to drink and drive a road vehicle
[*]Nor are we allowed to drink and take the controls of an aircraft
[*]Nor drive a train
[*]Nor a ship[/list]
So why the hell should leisure skippers be allowed to drink and helm? There is no logic to the RYAs position, it's just that leisure boaters have become used to enjoying booze on boats. IMHO, skippers should not be allowed to exceed road limits. It's illogical

[/ QUOTE ]

Froggie

It's not that simple. When was the last time you had to move your car after you had parked it at the place where you intended to stay for the night, in order to avoid an accident? You would hope the driving licence counts for something to attest to the basic skill level of other drivers, plus most people drive their cars several times a week so get some practice. Also, unless you are in an earthquake zone, the road is unlikely to move up and down during the night and catch inexperienced car drivers unawares! And if you have drunk too much to drive and an urgent incident occurs that requires you to be elsewhere, you may well have alternative means of getting there (taxi, bus, train, neighbour driving you etc).

If you are moored or anchored in a yacht, the circumstances are entirely different. You have no control over who else comes into the area and what their level of ability or experience is. You may well have secured your boat in a safe position but there's no guarantee that it will remain safe if another boat anchors nearby. If a crew member falls overboard, are you seriously suggesting that the skipper should not be permitted to take the dinghy and outboard to pick them up if the skipper had consumed more than a couple of units of alcohol?

Whilst I definitely think there should be more stringent application of current laws for dealing with those who cause boating-related accidents whilst under the influence of alcohol, I think the current drink-drive limits are too low to be sensibly applied to leisure boating. It should be about levels of risk and genuine statistics, not about knee-jerk legislation.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's my understanding that dingys would be exempt as they're under 7m and under 7kts, so your skipper would be able to fetch you in a tender if you fell over the side.

I am against this legislation as I see no need for it. Prosecutions are being sucessfully made under the existing legislation for people who cause accidents under the influence.
However I don't think that arguing the right to be drunk at anchor is going to win over many people.

The key argument is that it is unenforceable without massive spending on marine police, and then is close to unenforceable due to the lack of a lisence to take away. And we really don't want to be giving this bunch of legeslation happy idiots any ideas!

 

[Major Catastrophe]

[ QUOTE ]

It's my understanding that dingys would be exempt as they're under 7m and under 7kts, so your skipper would be able to fetch you in a tender if you fell over the side.

[/ QUOTE ]

Will they have to make it compulsory to carry a tender now? What if you don't have a tender, it isn't blown up or it has an engine capable of moving it at more than 7 knots?

I am only playing devil's advocate, trying to point out the millions of problems this law will cause.