holly1
Well-Known Member
Did i hear it correctly, breatherlizer tests but only if your boat is over twenty three feet.
Drinking and boating
- Thread starter holly1
- Start date
EBoat126
Well-Known Member
Anyone want to buy an E Boat?....22ft LOA
Racecruiser
Well-Known Member
Above or below 23ft I would hate the fun police to arrest Samantha the fabulous ........ swigging the champagne is towards the end of this lot!
http://www.vendeeglobe.org/en/media/diaporamas/185/
http://www.vendeeglobe.org/en/media/diaporamas/185/
Searush
Well-Known Member
Loadsa recent threads on this from the mildly dispeptic to the slightly dipsomanic and the completely dyslexic.
The theory is that it won't affect our sundowners at anchor. But you used to be able to sleep off a skinful in the car at one time (despite being theoretically in charge) yet that is a common conviction these days.
Bless the Plod, I'm sure they mean well - err, well, actually, on second thoughts, no, I'm not sure of that at all any more.
The theory is that it won't affect our sundowners at anchor. But you used to be able to sleep off a skinful in the car at one time (despite being theoretically in charge) yet that is a common conviction these days.
Bless the Plod, I'm sure they mean well - err, well, actually, on second thoughts, no, I'm not sure of that at all any more.
T
timbartlett
Guest
It's not a done deal yet.
The basic rules are already on the statute book (in Section 80 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003) but they have never yet been brought into force, because several consultations have shown them to be unnecessary, unwanted, and unworkable.
The latest consultation document has just been published on http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/exceptionfromalcohol/ . It suggests that vessels under 7m and 7knots might be exempted, which implies that the regulations will be brought into force for those that don't qualify for exemption.
In what looks like an increasingly desperate effort to get the results it wants, the DfT is now consulting such centres of maritime expertise as RoadPeace, and has referred to a report that it claims contains the results of "“Recent research” that “provides further evidence of the risks of going on the water when having consumed alcohol.” What the report actually says, though, is that no recent studies have been carried out into the effects of alcohol on boating accidents, so it has estimated figures based on research carried out for completely different purposes in Canada and Australia in 1995 and 1996.
If there were a strong case for such a law, one wonders why the DfT feel it necessary to lie about the evidence available.
And if there were any logic to it, one wonders why the exemption limit is based on the lighting regs in the colregs and the alcohol limit on the limit set for UK roads! On that basis, why not set harbour speed limits at 26 knots to match the speed limit in built-up areas?
PS anyone can respond to the consultation document: you don't have to be a member of Roadpeace!
PPS I am not in favour of incompetence, whether it is caused by drink, drugs, or plain stupidity. But I am equally not in favour of the relentless erosion of our freedoms, and the government's increasing tendency to treat everyone as a criminal unless they can prove themselves innocent.
The basic rules are already on the statute book (in Section 80 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003) but they have never yet been brought into force, because several consultations have shown them to be unnecessary, unwanted, and unworkable.
The latest consultation document has just been published on http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/exceptionfromalcohol/ . It suggests that vessels under 7m and 7knots might be exempted, which implies that the regulations will be brought into force for those that don't qualify for exemption.
In what looks like an increasingly desperate effort to get the results it wants, the DfT is now consulting such centres of maritime expertise as RoadPeace, and has referred to a report that it claims contains the results of "“Recent research” that “provides further evidence of the risks of going on the water when having consumed alcohol.” What the report actually says, though, is that no recent studies have been carried out into the effects of alcohol on boating accidents, so it has estimated figures based on research carried out for completely different purposes in Canada and Australia in 1995 and 1996.
If there were a strong case for such a law, one wonders why the DfT feel it necessary to lie about the evidence available.
And if there were any logic to it, one wonders why the exemption limit is based on the lighting regs in the colregs and the alcohol limit on the limit set for UK roads! On that basis, why not set harbour speed limits at 26 knots to match the speed limit in built-up areas?
PS anyone can respond to the consultation document: you don't have to be a member of Roadpeace!
PPS I am not in favour of incompetence, whether it is caused by drink, drugs, or plain stupidity. But I am equally not in favour of the relentless erosion of our freedoms, and the government's increasing tendency to treat everyone as a criminal unless they can prove themselves innocent.
sailbadthesinner
Well-Known Member
walnut
jackhammer
wait till theystart taxing sail area
jackhammer
wait till theystart taxing sail area
ytd
Well-Known Member
we have had skippers being breathalized here for years. I've never been tested and I don't know anyone who has but you often see reports in the press. The 'maritime' here don't tend to seal off an anchorage and test everyone. They pick their targets based on the speed, noise and empty bottles flying from suspect boats. All the same, whenever I see one of their boats appear and we have been drinking, I quickly nominate one of the non-drinkers on board as the skipper - in case we receive a visit.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Tim
Is the new "evidence" the report referred to in the introduction published by Northwest Public Health Authority - I can't find that. Do you have references? as I would like to have a look
Thanks
Is the new "evidence" the report referred to in the introduction published by Northwest Public Health Authority - I can't find that. Do you have references? as I would like to have a look
Thanks
charliespan
Well-Known Member
This "consultation" is based on a selective interpretation of the MAIB reports chosen - CARRIE KATE /KETS (St Mawes), SEA SNAKE (Loch Fyne) and the MARCHIONESS/BOWBELLE. They can only cite three incidents since 1989 !In the first two, poor seamanship, poor maintenance, poor lookout and poorly functioning nav lights were contributing factors as well as alcohol.
In the case of the Marchioness, the MAIB report says the skipper was fatigued by an earlier disco, but I can't find a mention of alcohol.Again , poor lookout and comms, partly due to design were the major factors. These were also Professional mariners, and not the non-professionals this Act is supposed to address, so why is it cited as a reason?
The list of consulted parties is plod-heavy, and also contains axe-grinding groups such as the Marchioness Action Group, Roadpeace and Alcohol Concern.
Palliative assurances are given that the new law wouldn't apply to moored or anchored boats.I bet they said that originally about parked cars!
This is a solution in search of a problem , with a warm comfy glow for some groups and a nice revenue stream/ crime target figures for others.The criteria chosen 7m/7 knts is apparently based on nothing but navigation light criteria in ColRegs " so it will be easy for them to remember"- bugger all to do with safety then.
I suggest you add your own input by completing the consultation form
here
"Papers, Citizen , and blow into this"
In the case of the Marchioness, the MAIB report says the skipper was fatigued by an earlier disco, but I can't find a mention of alcohol.Again , poor lookout and comms, partly due to design were the major factors. These were also Professional mariners, and not the non-professionals this Act is supposed to address, so why is it cited as a reason?
The list of consulted parties is plod-heavy, and also contains axe-grinding groups such as the Marchioness Action Group, Roadpeace and Alcohol Concern.
Palliative assurances are given that the new law wouldn't apply to moored or anchored boats.I bet they said that originally about parked cars!
This is a solution in search of a problem , with a warm comfy glow for some groups and a nice revenue stream/ crime target figures for others.The criteria chosen 7m/7 knts is apparently based on nothing but navigation light criteria in ColRegs " so it will be easy for them to remember"- bugger all to do with safety then.
I suggest you add your own input by completing the consultation form
here
"Papers, Citizen , and blow into this"
Danny Jo
Well-Known Member
Akshually, I fink that anyfing that, hic, discolourages me from carrying drink on my boat has got to be good for me. Hey, Martha! Thish bottlesempty. Fessh me anover.
T
timbartlett
Guest
The "new evidence" is available on http://www.cph.org.uk/showPublication.aspx?pubid=403 and the relevant bit is para 3.3.3. on page 22.
There's also a mention in Appendix 2 on page 41 and 43.
All the best
There's also a mention in Appendix 2 on page 41 and 43.
All the best
charliespan
Well-Known Member
Carry on then old chap. You'd probably be too pissed to even know you'd been arrested. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
cliffordpope
Well-Known Member
So it seems I'll be allowed to drink as long as I furl the bowsprit. A bit like splicing the mainbrace.
charliespan
Well-Known Member
The report seems to concern the long-term effects of alcohol.
It does no research on marine based accidents, only to refer
briefly and extrapolate two much older foreign studies:
3.3.3 Other external causes of morbidity and mortality
No recent studies had examined the association between alcohol consumption and the
following external causes of morbidity and mortality, and therefore estimates of the AAF were extracted directly from the work of Single et al. (1996) and English et al. (1995):
• Water transport accidents
The Eric Single mentioned (Eric Single, PhD Senior Associate Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and Professor of Public Health Sciences) works in Canada.
English et al. (1995) estimated that 34 per cent of all motor vehicle crash deaths, drownings and falls, 47 per cent of homicides,41 per cent of suicides, and 44 per cent of burns are attributable to alcohol use. (English DR et al. The quantification of drug caused morbidity and mortality in Australia, 1995 edition. Canberra, Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health, 1995)
So here we have it. A proposed new law based on old accidents and old medical reports from Canada and Australia. If the case was so good , why refer to such obscure and limited references ?
It does no research on marine based accidents, only to refer
briefly and extrapolate two much older foreign studies:
3.3.3 Other external causes of morbidity and mortality
No recent studies had examined the association between alcohol consumption and the
following external causes of morbidity and mortality, and therefore estimates of the AAF were extracted directly from the work of Single et al. (1996) and English et al. (1995):
• Water transport accidents
The Eric Single mentioned (Eric Single, PhD Senior Associate Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse and Professor of Public Health Sciences) works in Canada.
English et al. (1995) estimated that 34 per cent of all motor vehicle crash deaths, drownings and falls, 47 per cent of homicides,41 per cent of suicides, and 44 per cent of burns are attributable to alcohol use. (English DR et al. The quantification of drug caused morbidity and mortality in Australia, 1995 edition. Canberra, Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health, 1995)
So here we have it. A proposed new law based on old accidents and old medical reports from Canada and Australia. If the case was so good , why refer to such obscure and limited references ?
Mariner69
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
English et al. (1995) estimated that 34 per cent of all motor vehicle crash deaths, drownings and falls, 47 per cent of homicides,41 per cent of suicides, and 44 per cent of burns are attributable to alcohol use.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which by my reckoning means that more accidents and deaths occur where no alcohol has been involved /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
English et al. (1995) estimated that 34 per cent of all motor vehicle crash deaths, drownings and falls, 47 per cent of homicides,41 per cent of suicides, and 44 per cent of burns are attributable to alcohol use.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which by my reckoning means that more accidents and deaths occur where no alcohol has been involved /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
BlueSkyNick
Well-Known Member
RYA Press release
RYA PRESS RELEASE
13 February 2009
DFT CONSULTATION PAPER MISGUIDED SAY RYA
The RYA (Royal Yachting Association) has today expressed its disappointment at the DfT’s (Department for Transport) consultation paper regarding draft regulations for alcohol limits for non-professional mariners and inland boaters, which the RYA describes as being misguided.
The DfT consultation document proposes that alcohol limits should not apply to vessels with an overall length of less than 7 metres and a “maximum design speed” not exceeding 7 knots.
Gus Lewis, Government and Legal Affairs manager for the RYA commented: “First and foremost, the RYA does not condone being drunk whilst in charge of a boat. The RYA also supports the DfT’s proposals to exempt certain craft from the application of the legislation. However, the RYA believes that the DfT’s proposals are badly drafted in that few, if any, boaters are likely to be aware of the theoretical “maximum design speed” of their craft. We want to make sure that any new rules are clear, sensible and readily understandable..
“Given the uncertainty as to who on board a vessel is likely to be subject to the prescribed alcohol limits, in our view it is all the more important that the exemption is clearly defined. “
The DfT has also cited in support of the introduction of alcohol limits a report that suggests that a significant proportion of drowning cases and hospital admissions relating to water related transport are alcohol-related.
However, closer examination by the RYA of the report referred to by the DfT reveals that the report itself states that “no recent studies had examined the association between alcohol consumption and … water transport accidents … [or] drowning” and the authors of the report therefore simply estimate statistics based on research conducted over 12 years ago in Australia and Canada. There is no recent UK based research regarding alcohol related deaths at sea or on inland waters, in fact the UK has a strong track record in boating safety.
The RYA therefore maintains the view it took in 2004 that alcohol limits for recreational boaters are unnecessary because there is still no evidence of the existence of an extensive problem relating to alcohol and boating..
The RYA also has concerns regarding how these regulations will be enforced and by whom, although the DfT has indicated that these issues will be addressed in a separate consultation.
The RYA has now until the start of May to review and respond on the consultation document to the DfT.
“We acknowledge that Parliament has determined that recreational boaters should be subject to alcohol limits but we want to make sure that the proposed exemption, which we support in principle, is clear and unambiguous and gives recreational boaters a reasonable chance of being able to comply with it”, concluded Gus.
To view the consultation paper visit: http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/exceptionfromalcohol/ .
For more background on this issue go to: http://www.rya.org.uk/AboutRYA/lobbyact/Pages/alcohollimits.aspx
RYA PRESS RELEASE
13 February 2009
DFT CONSULTATION PAPER MISGUIDED SAY RYA
The RYA (Royal Yachting Association) has today expressed its disappointment at the DfT’s (Department for Transport) consultation paper regarding draft regulations for alcohol limits for non-professional mariners and inland boaters, which the RYA describes as being misguided.
The DfT consultation document proposes that alcohol limits should not apply to vessels with an overall length of less than 7 metres and a “maximum design speed” not exceeding 7 knots.
Gus Lewis, Government and Legal Affairs manager for the RYA commented: “First and foremost, the RYA does not condone being drunk whilst in charge of a boat. The RYA also supports the DfT’s proposals to exempt certain craft from the application of the legislation. However, the RYA believes that the DfT’s proposals are badly drafted in that few, if any, boaters are likely to be aware of the theoretical “maximum design speed” of their craft. We want to make sure that any new rules are clear, sensible and readily understandable..
“Given the uncertainty as to who on board a vessel is likely to be subject to the prescribed alcohol limits, in our view it is all the more important that the exemption is clearly defined. “
The DfT has also cited in support of the introduction of alcohol limits a report that suggests that a significant proportion of drowning cases and hospital admissions relating to water related transport are alcohol-related.
However, closer examination by the RYA of the report referred to by the DfT reveals that the report itself states that “no recent studies had examined the association between alcohol consumption and … water transport accidents … [or] drowning” and the authors of the report therefore simply estimate statistics based on research conducted over 12 years ago in Australia and Canada. There is no recent UK based research regarding alcohol related deaths at sea or on inland waters, in fact the UK has a strong track record in boating safety.
The RYA therefore maintains the view it took in 2004 that alcohol limits for recreational boaters are unnecessary because there is still no evidence of the existence of an extensive problem relating to alcohol and boating..
The RYA also has concerns regarding how these regulations will be enforced and by whom, although the DfT has indicated that these issues will be addressed in a separate consultation.
The RYA has now until the start of May to review and respond on the consultation document to the DfT.
“We acknowledge that Parliament has determined that recreational boaters should be subject to alcohol limits but we want to make sure that the proposed exemption, which we support in principle, is clear and unambiguous and gives recreational boaters a reasonable chance of being able to comply with it”, concluded Gus.
To view the consultation paper visit: http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/exceptionfromalcohol/ .
For more background on this issue go to: http://www.rya.org.uk/AboutRYA/lobbyact/Pages/alcohollimits.aspx
BlueSkyNick
Well-Known Member
Re: RYA Press release
I am totally opposed to any of these measures, and annoyed that the RYA "support them in principle". Not because I want to go sailing 'pished' but because I don't want anybody telling me how to behave on my boat, COLREGS excepted of course. One of the main joys of sailing is being able to "get away from it all" and long may it be that way.
If there has to be a compromise, leaving out vessels under 7m is ridiculous - many accidents happen in smaller boats in confined spaces after the pubs have shut - or maybe that's supposed to be the 'sop' so we don't stop paying taxes in bars.
It's all bollox, I say ! /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
I am totally opposed to any of these measures, and annoyed that the RYA "support them in principle". Not because I want to go sailing 'pished' but because I don't want anybody telling me how to behave on my boat, COLREGS excepted of course. One of the main joys of sailing is being able to "get away from it all" and long may it be that way.
If there has to be a compromise, leaving out vessels under 7m is ridiculous - many accidents happen in smaller boats in confined spaces after the pubs have shut - or maybe that's supposed to be the 'sop' so we don't stop paying taxes in bars.
It's all bollox, I say ! /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
jamesjermain
Well-Known Member
Re: RYA Press release
[ QUOTE ]
the RYA "support them in principle".
[/ QUOTE ]
What the RYA support's in principle is the excemption. The RYA has said, and continues to say, that there is no evidence for the need for any legislation, which it has opposed from the outset.
However, the government has already passed legislation which allows for the imposition of drink-sailing limits, so the current discussion is simply about the exceptions.
It seems to me that the exemptions specifically exclude from the rules the people and boats most likely to be involved in drink-boating accidents - ie tenders on the way back from the pub. I suspect it to be the case that the most common cause of death among yachtsmen is falling into the water while transfering from dinghy to yacht after closing time. But, of course, there are no facts of figures to support or deny this.
What is a fact is that Britain has one of, if not the best, safety records for boating in all forms.
As so often, when dealing with things it doesn't understand, the Government's thinking on this subkect is completely muddled and knee-jerk lead.
[ QUOTE ]
the RYA "support them in principle".
[/ QUOTE ]
What the RYA support's in principle is the excemption. The RYA has said, and continues to say, that there is no evidence for the need for any legislation, which it has opposed from the outset.
However, the government has already passed legislation which allows for the imposition of drink-sailing limits, so the current discussion is simply about the exceptions.
It seems to me that the exemptions specifically exclude from the rules the people and boats most likely to be involved in drink-boating accidents - ie tenders on the way back from the pub. I suspect it to be the case that the most common cause of death among yachtsmen is falling into the water while transfering from dinghy to yacht after closing time. But, of course, there are no facts of figures to support or deny this.
What is a fact is that Britain has one of, if not the best, safety records for boating in all forms.
As so often, when dealing with things it doesn't understand, the Government's thinking on this subkect is completely muddled and knee-jerk lead.
BlueSkyNick
Well-Known Member
Re: RYA Press release
Sorry, I wasn't clear - I realised they supported the exemptions in principle, but that implies that they support the regulations in the first place.
Totally agree with your other comments, which is another reason for making sure we all "have our say".
Sorry, I wasn't clear - I realised they supported the exemptions in principle, but that implies that they support the regulations in the first place.
Totally agree with your other comments, which is another reason for making sure we all "have our say".
charliespan
Well-Known Member
Re: RYA Press release
So you can be pissed and legal in a tender going back to your boat but as soon as you stick a foot onboard you commit an offence if your boat is over 22ft ? Can you honestly believe that sitting pissed in a cockpit will be excused if you say you had no intention of navigating ?
So you can be pissed and legal in a tender going back to your boat but as soon as you stick a foot onboard you commit an offence if your boat is over 22ft ? Can you honestly believe that sitting pissed in a cockpit will be excused if you say you had no intention of navigating ?
