flaming
Well-Known Member
I was only being pedantic with the previous poster!
And yes, stupid unecessary law.
And yes, stupid unecessary law.
Drink Legislation - a survey
- Thread starter awol
- Start date
HoratioHB
Well-Known Member
Heard all these arguments and totally agree with most sentiments - you should not be incapacitaed (oops meant incapacitated - must be all that plonk) by alcohol and skipper a boat.
BUT these proposals don't address this. They only target certain watercraft ie size and speed - what on earth does this have to do with anything? Why is having an accident at 6 knots any different to 8??????
It is largely unenforceable anyway and existing laws are quite sufficient.
So the question is why raise the subject and all I can think of is that either the Politicians are having a slow news day or they really see this as yet another way of rasing revenue from us 'rich' boaties.
So my anwer is simple - bo**ocks to the lot of them I'm off this year to an area where there are lots of little 'countries' in the sunshine all with little laws which are mainly ignored and I'll just take my chances.
BUT these proposals don't address this. They only target certain watercraft ie size and speed - what on earth does this have to do with anything? Why is having an accident at 6 knots any different to 8??????
It is largely unenforceable anyway and existing laws are quite sufficient.
So the question is why raise the subject and all I can think of is that either the Politicians are having a slow news day or they really see this as yet another way of rasing revenue from us 'rich' boaties.
So my anwer is simple - bo**ocks to the lot of them I'm off this year to an area where there are lots of little 'countries' in the sunshine all with little laws which are mainly ignored and I'll just take my chances.
oceanfroggie
Well-Known Member
It does require a sensible balancing act. In one sense, Boating has been wonderfully unregulated and free from burocracy, and that's what we're all used to. To go on a tangent for a mo - There is no statutory license or competancy certification for leisure boaters (ie RYA is just an association representing a hobby on a non-statutory basis, so their certs while of great value and benefit are worthless from a statutory point of view). There is statutory licensing for Cars, Planes, and Ships, and existing legislation in relation to alcohol. It may be better to have a level playing field in relation to alcohol on leisure craft also. If folk don't get 'langered' while in command, what's all the fuss about. I don't think this law is designed to stop folk having a few glasses of wine or beers of an evening once safely moored for the night.
flaming
Well-Known Member
Are you suggesting compulsory liscencing?
G
Guest
Guest
"and existing laws are quite sufficient"
Are they? In my case the owner driver actually instructed his insurance not to pay. Which is quite OK. We were then faced with the prospect of suing him directly. Someone then gave away who he used to be insured with, and that company helped me track down his real insurance. After fully explaining the situation to them they paid up anyway as they did not want their name blackened by the incident.
The Police would do nothing!
So the guy got away with it scot free.
As for being on an anchorage without anyone capable of controlling the boat I would class that as the same as unmanned. If you then move it, would be just like that policeman recently that could not get a taxi home and drove instead. In most places in the UK there is help at hand but you have to pay.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/6733969.stm
Not very sensible. He was only twice the limit you are complaining about and could not even park properly.
The key is not how YOU cope with alcohol it is how the majority cope. The problem is we are free to be unqualified in charge of say a 22knot 5 tonne vessel but so that means the limit has to account for the full spread of abilities.
Also any other limit would cost money for different breathalysers. it is a money making event!
I take Duncans point that it might stop people calling for help and therefore endangering the other guests on board plus other boats. I would suggest the RNLI makes a statement about only contacting the police if damage or injury has occurred and that they would expect a reasonable contribution to that night running costs. Then everyone would gain from a yachty that was caught out by circumstances but still had the good judgement to know the limits.
Are they? In my case the owner driver actually instructed his insurance not to pay. Which is quite OK. We were then faced with the prospect of suing him directly. Someone then gave away who he used to be insured with, and that company helped me track down his real insurance. After fully explaining the situation to them they paid up anyway as they did not want their name blackened by the incident.
The Police would do nothing!
So the guy got away with it scot free.
As for being on an anchorage without anyone capable of controlling the boat I would class that as the same as unmanned. If you then move it, would be just like that policeman recently that could not get a taxi home and drove instead. In most places in the UK there is help at hand but you have to pay.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/6733969.stm
Not very sensible. He was only twice the limit you are complaining about and could not even park properly.
The key is not how YOU cope with alcohol it is how the majority cope. The problem is we are free to be unqualified in charge of say a 22knot 5 tonne vessel but so that means the limit has to account for the full spread of abilities.
Also any other limit would cost money for different breathalysers. it is a money making event!
I take Duncans point that it might stop people calling for help and therefore endangering the other guests on board plus other boats. I would suggest the RNLI makes a statement about only contacting the police if damage or injury has occurred and that they would expect a reasonable contribution to that night running costs. Then everyone would gain from a yachty that was caught out by circumstances but still had the good judgement to know the limits.
Kantara
Well-Known Member
[ 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 ]
All the cases where I have seen drunken behaviour have been in tenders returning from the pub - why has the decision been made to exempt them? Is it because they tend to be inflatables and will therefore bounce off whatever they hit?
I agree with most of the other contributors in that there is already sufficient regulation to allow prosecution of drunks.
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 ]
All the cases where I have seen drunken behaviour have been in tenders returning from the pub - why has the decision been made to exempt them? Is it because they tend to be inflatables and will therefore bounce off whatever they hit?
I agree with most of the other contributors in that there is already sufficient regulation to allow prosecution of drunks.
Major Catastrophe
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I was only being pedantic with the previous poster!
And yes, stupid unecessary law.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think we are all becoming pedants trying to show this for the smoke and mirrors it is. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
I was only being pedantic with the previous poster!
And yes, stupid unecessary law.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think we are all becoming pedants trying to show this for the smoke and mirrors it is. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Major Catastrophe
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is we are free to be unqualified in charge of say a 22knot 5 tonne vessel but so that means the limit has to account for the full spread of abilities.
[/ QUOTE ]
Don't forget that this 'new' law will apply to those hoodlum narrowboaters engaged in ditch crawling at numpty miles an hour.
The problem is we are free to be unqualified in charge of say a 22knot 5 tonne vessel but so that means the limit has to account for the full spread of abilities.
[/ QUOTE ]
Don't forget that this 'new' law will apply to those hoodlum narrowboaters engaged in ditch crawling at numpty miles an hour.
mel80
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Why is having an accident at 6 knots any different to 8?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because Ek=1/2mv^2!
The law isn't there to protect you from yourself, it's there to protect others from you.
Why is having an accident at 6 knots any different to 8?
[/ QUOTE ]
Because Ek=1/2mv^2!
The law isn't there to protect you from yourself, it's there to protect others from you.
Sans Bateau
Well-Known Member
Now that the issue is on the government radar, its only a mater of time before licencing, legislation, probably even further taxation (to fund the monitoring) comes along. Just as soon as some government official sees an opportunity to keep a dept of mandarins busy.
G
Guest
Guest
Don' joke, I visited the Leeds Liverpool canal recently and talked with the lock keeper. The way he was going on I think it will be him that gets the highest payback.
Something to do with drunk idiots ramming his gates.
Something to do with drunk idiots ramming his gates.
duncan
Well-Known Member
are you saying that you called the marine police to the first incident they refused to get involved?
re your last point the RNLI are going to be in a very very difficult position on this - I certainly can't see them ever suggesting anyone should contribute as it is one of their more fundamental aspects. on the other hand it is difficult for them not to be judgemental in individual cases as highlighted on some Seaside Rescue programes. There stance on alchol is quite clear - and with that one I think we all agree - it is as, keep getting highlighted, the practicalities.
re your last point the RNLI are going to be in a very very difficult position on this - I certainly can't see them ever suggesting anyone should contribute as it is one of their more fundamental aspects. on the other hand it is difficult for them not to be judgemental in individual cases as highlighted on some Seaside Rescue programes. There stance on alchol is quite clear - and with that one I think we all agree - it is as, keep getting highlighted, the practicalities.
rickp
Well-Known Member
A prop on a 15hp outboard will damage a swimmer as much as one on a 2hp - so I reckon the law should apply to all craft whatever the size. Come to think about it, I dont fancy being thwacked around the head by an oar from a rower who isn't looking where he's going either.
Rick
Rick
Whitelighter
Well-Known Member
Good word - 'Thwacked'
Painfully onomatapiac
Painfully onomatapiac
T_C
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Also any other limit would cost money for different breathalysers. it is a money making event!
[/ QUOTE ]
So if Ladyman gets his way and the drive limit comes down to 50mg per 100ml then that's the limit to be applied to sailors?
Also any other limit would cost money for different breathalysers. it is a money making event!
[/ QUOTE ]
So if Ladyman gets his way and the drive limit comes down to 50mg per 100ml then that's the limit to be applied to sailors?
mel80
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
A prop on a 15hp outboard will damage a swimmer as much as one on a 2hp -
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe, but the stem of a large rib hitting a swimmer at speed will likely as not kill him, a tender probably wouldn't and the effect on other vessels are more clearly related to speed and size. As you point out, there is still a risk from any size of boat at almost any speed, but (if you want legislation like this) is makes sense to draw a line somewhere to reflect the potential for serious injury. 7kn and 7m seems as good a cutoff as any.
A prop on a 15hp outboard will damage a swimmer as much as one on a 2hp -
[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe, but the stem of a large rib hitting a swimmer at speed will likely as not kill him, a tender probably wouldn't and the effect on other vessels are more clearly related to speed and size. As you point out, there is still a risk from any size of boat at almost any speed, but (if you want legislation like this) is makes sense to draw a line somewhere to reflect the potential for serious injury. 7kn and 7m seems as good a cutoff as any.
jimi
Well-Known Member
At the risk of sounding a crabbit old git. Freedom has its price and that price is responsibility because the converse of your freedom the right of others not to be adversely affected by your choice of action. In the case of driving the cost of drunk driving is peoples lives and it is only proper that that right is enshrined in law because of the irresponsible actions of members of society. With boating I can't quite see the need for the legislation, although in principle I have no objection to it, simply because there seems to be very few adverse consequences of the nautical pissdom of the leisure boater. However I stand to be corrected cos I ain't got any stats on boating accidents caused by drink. ... and anyway existing legislation seems quite adequate
rickp
Well-Known Member
Oh, well, thats okay then - if they won't hurt me much, lets allow them to go around pissed.
I don't agree that "you need to draw a line somewhere" - it should apply to all watercraft, just like the drink-driving laws apply to all vehicles, including bicycles.
Rick
I don't agree that "you need to draw a line somewhere" - it should apply to all watercraft, just like the drink-driving laws apply to all vehicles, including bicycles.
Rick
EdWingfield
Well-Known Member
When I had access to Brit Waterways and Broads Authority accident reports I cannot remember reading of one fatality due to alcohol, despite the obvious booze consumption. Of course every waterside pub has a handy pontoon to welcome boaters. And the single sex crews are drinking from morn til night.
There was the occasional drowning, but what surprised me most were the fatalities associated with bridges and tunnels! All due to a failure to keep crew below when negotiating these things! /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
There was the occasional drowning, but what surprised me most were the fatalities associated with bridges and tunnels! All due to a failure to keep crew below when negotiating these things! /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
kieron51
New Member
I've read all the previous, and think that all that will happen is that this will cost us all more money somehow, but won't realy make any difference, I personally think that the biggest probs are with the likes of jet ski's which would not be covered. I also don't like the survey so have not done it.
I also believe there is a big difference between having a drink and being pissed. But I can't see how they can sensible police it /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
I also believe there is a big difference between having a drink and being pissed. But I can't see how they can sensible police it /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif