Drinking and boating

[jamesjermain]

Re: RYA Press release

[ QUOTE ]
Can you honestly believe that sitting pissed in a cockpit will be excused if you say you had no intention of navigating ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only in so far as the authorities have said in writing (don't ask me for the exact reference) that that is the intention. Although, they would be able to clobber you if, in the middle of the night an onshore gale blew up and you had to move the boat while still over the limit.

At the other end of the scale, they could argue that any alcohol on board would be prima facia evidence of intent to commit a crime.

Personally I believe the law will only be invoked if there is a genuine reason for believing that a person in command of a vessel is a danger to other seafarers through drink or has been involvd in an incident where drink might be a contributory factor.

I really don't see Mr Marine Plod going out to Studland Bay at 2200 in a Force 6 to ask random skippers to blow into a bag.

 

[Robin]

Re: RYA Press release

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I believe the law will only be invoked if there is a genuine reason for believing that a person in command of a vessel is a danger to other seafarers through drink or has been convolved in an incident where drink might be a contributory factor.


[/ QUOTE ]

I might have agreed with that 'commonsense' belief too, except that Poole Council have recently used the Anti-Terror Legislation to spy on locals to catch school catchment area cheats and neighbouring Bournemouth Council used it to spy on rubbish bin offenders. So would they send out the SAS to Studland armed with breathalysers?

We don't need a new law when adequate powers already exist and there is no evidence that they would solve a very very rare problem anyway, even if enforceable which they probably won't be except after an event when it is too late. The law won't stop the idiots, all it will do is annoy the sensible folk yet more, as only nanny knows how.

 

[Refueler]

Re: RYA Press release

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you honestly believe that sitting pissed in a cockpit will be excused if you say you had no intention of navigating ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only in so far as the authorities have said in writing (don't ask me for the exact reference) that that is the intention. Although, they would be able to clobber you if, in the middle of the night an onshore gale blew up and you had to move the boat while still over the limit.

At the other end of the scale, they could argue that any alcohol on board would be prima facia evidence of intent to commit a crime.

Personally I believe the law will only be invoked if there is a genuine reason for believing that a person in command of a vessel is a danger to other seafarers through drink or has been involvd in an incident where drink might be a contributory factor.

I really don't see Mr Marine Plod going out to Studland Bay at 2200 in a Force 6 to ask random skippers to blow into a bag.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think if you were genuinely pished and involved in an incident in a tender or boat under the 7m etc. - you would be prosecuted under the wider drink related laws without need for specific boating ones.
IMHO reading the rubbish drafts - it seems to be targeting not incidents involving or due to drink - but being over the limit in charge of a boat over 7m etc.

I may be wrong - but that's what I see in it.

 

[charliespan]

Re: RYA Press release

The RYA and others seem to have a problem with understanding the implications of this proposed law being largely based on inferences and extrapolation from road accident statistics . We are being "harmonised" with drunk car drivers, so why should we expect to be treated differently?

[ QUOTE ]
At the other end of the scale, they could argue that any alcohol on board would be prima facia evidence of intent to commit a crime.

[/ QUOTE ]


Would a bottle in your car get you nicked ? Probably not if unopened, and I would expect similar treatment on a boat.Would just sitting in your vehicle whilst over the limit lead to your arrest ? Driving-test-success.com gives the following advice:

"Avoid sitting in a vehicle whilst intoxicated even if you have no intention to drive and stay out of the driver’s seat in particular. An officer is well within his or her rights to arrest you for being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle and it will be up to you to prove that you had no intention of driving further This may be difficult and expensive to do".

So why put faith in politician's promises? Just how do you prove you weren't intending to navigate the vessel ?



It won't be in a Force 6 off of Studland that you'll have to prove this but in a marina or anchorage where you are relaxing after a day's sailing. Describe a method by which you can prove that you have no intention of sailing further.

 

[TheBoatman]

Re: RYA Press release

JJ
I would love to believe in your interpretation, but under this current lot, forgive me, but I'm not going (or willing) to hold my breath!

As a professional boatman I'm already bound by various drink - driving laws, which I support, but in the same breath, when I've arrived in some port and tied up safely and I've partaken of the odd libation that has taken me "over the top" of the drink driving laws. BUT if I'm tied up and if Plod wants me to move the boat then I would give them the keys to the boat and ask them to "get on with it"!

Peter.
TheBoatman

 

[timbartlett]

Re: RYA Press release

<u>Not the police</u>
One of the things I find particularly worrying about this law is that the police won't have to go out to Studland Bay, or anywhere else. Any "Marine officer" (including harbour staff) will be able to detain anyone they like for as long as it takes for a police officer to turn up to do the breath test. If every harbour master on the Solent nicks a few people each after Cowes fireworks, that could be a long wait. And that, of course, will be used to excuse why so few of those detained will be proved to be over the limit.
<u>The law, not the promises</u>
Once this is in force, the courts will look at the law, not at the promises that were made by the DfT in order to get it signed off. They won't consider the promises about "no spot checks" etc. that appear in the consultation document or anywhere else. And "your sternlight appeared to be intermittent" will seem to them to be just as reasonable as the glut of non-functioning car brake lights that the Dibbles always seem so keen to investigate around Christmas.
<u>It wasn't me</u>
It's night. You've had a couple of pints of Stella. Your 16 year-old daughter has had nothing stronger than apple juice, so she is driving the boat. It's high water, so she decides (quite reasonably) to cut one of the corners in the buoyed channel. The spotty oik in the harbour launch has been learning all about buoys, so his new-found knowledge and two weeks experience tell him that cutting the corner was reckless. By the time he has figured out how to get his launch alongside you with only minor damage, how can you prove that you had played no part in the navigation of your boat?
£££Kerching £££

 

[MacMan]

So what are you doing about it ?

Here is my consulation response - emailed off today

I dashed it off a bit quick - but rather than picking holes (I am sure there are many) in mine all you need to does is copy the entire email - edit to represent you views and send to
leisuremariners.consultation@dft.gsi.gov.uk

They mention they only had 200 hundred response the last time so in theory it would not take that many of us to make a difference... It's legal and cost nothing.

Maybe, just maybe if enough us respond it *Might* just change things.

(Waits for Naivety-ometer to top out again)

;-)

Why not post your response too. Then others can adapt pieces to suit there views.
____________
General

You appear to be legislating for a problem that does not really exist. Your references to "research" provides no evidence of significant recent numbers of casualties/fatalities which are

1. Directly connected the *leisure* boating industry i.e. the people who are the target of this legislation.
2. In this country
3. Particularly recent - most of your research reference original data at least 10 years old

You research DOES NOT clearly state how many deaths are directly attributable to leisure skippers, significantly affecting by Alcohol in the UK over the past (say) 5 years.

Without this I do not understand why you perceive there to be a significant problem. Certainly there are far more effective measure you could spend tax payer’s money to implement/enforce in modern society.

My anecdotal experience (shocking you quote anecdotal experience in your submission) is that there is no significant problem. I am not sure how you compare my anecdotal evidence compares to "your anecdotal evidence" - the whole concept is so far beyond any science to really justify a discussion.

I also fail to understand many of your official consultees. Does "Roadpeace" have a lot of experience of the maritime leisure environment? Alcohol is banned on the London Underground perhaps you need to consult with them too as they would seem to have a similar level of relevant experience.

Will you provide equal waiting to submissions from “Roadpeace” and the RYA ? The later has an estimated half a million members of leisure sailers? I can’t find accurate figures for the numbers of leisure mariners’ “Roadpeace” claims to represent. Or indeed how the stated objectives of the organisation have any relevance to this consultation.

Lastly existing legislation can and has been used to prosecute operators of private leisure craft - e.g. http://archive.thisishampshire.net/2004/2/6/36262.html in what circumstance would your proposals apply which existing statues does not cover?

To answer your specific consultation questions

Question 1

Do you agree with the parameters of the exception stated in the draft Regulations, ("(a) a length overall less than 7 metres; and (b) a maximum design speed not exceeding 7 knots") and that they will except smaller vessels, including rowing boats, paddle boats and sailing dinghies from the application of alcohol limits and the associated tests? Yes/No

NO

I see no science behind the distinction. At a cursory inspection I would suspect that kinetic energy would be a significant factor in the actual ability to cause harm. I suggest therefore mass of the craft would be a sensible primary indicator - I would rather be hit by an 8 meter rib doing 7 knots than a than an 8 meter traditional long keel yacht of displacement of 4 tonnes doing 7 knots. You proposal seems not to make any account of this fact.

Question 2

Do you agree that the combination of parameters for the exception will ensure that most of those vessels which pose a high risk in the water are subject to the application of alcohol limits? Yes/No

YES

By use of the word "most" in your question you affectively limit yourself to 51% of the "population" under consideration. I would agree you are likely to capture 51% of the vessels most likely to cause harm

Question 3

Do you agree that the proposed exception is clear and understandable to most non-professional mariners, the Police and other enforcement agencies? Yes/No

NO

Your proposals seem to have taken no account of the fundamental differences between many private leisure vessels and cars on which your proposals seem to be based. For example

1. A car has one clear operator - a yacht can have multiple crew whose active participation (or not) at different times in the safe operation of the vessel.
2. Many yachts are "houses" as well as "cars" - when the vessel is at anchor they are a house but due to external influences (wind strength and a lee shore) they may instantly be transferred back to "cars"
3. There are cases of car drivers being arrested for sleeping in the driving seat (whilst over the influence) who would the scenario be dealt with

I believe there are many more ambiguous examples as you have fundamentally failed to understand the characteristics of the target for this legislation.

Question 4

Do you agree that the combination of parameters for the exception are sufficient to minimise any health and safety risks linked specifically to alcohol consumption in this environment? Yes/No

YES

The question is redundant - if you look at the evidence the actual risk is already minimised. There is no massive flood of incidents - if you ignore unscientific anecdotal "evidence"

Question 5

If you answered no to questions 1, 2, 3 or 4, please explain why here.


I have summarised my views under each appropriate question