Drinking Ban.....'they' are warming up......

Re: Drinking Ban.....\'they\' are warming up......

[ QUOTE ]
Maximum length is a lot easier to define.

[/ QUOTE ]

AAArghhh! No! That's the clasic "easy policing" argument, and see where it's got us on the roads. The only things given any attention are those that can easily be measured and given a number: speed, alcohol level, tread depth. Meanwhile other forms of bad driving: poor lane discipline, failure to "give way", aggressive and bullying behaviour - indeed general selfishness and a lack of consideration for others - seems to steadily increase with little apparent police attention. Of course assessment of such behaviour does require the exercise of judgement, which is more difficult, and does allow more scope for smart lawyers to subsequently argue the toss, so it's obvious why the police go for the "easy hits" to maximise their conviction rates.

But I don't think it's necessarily the best way to make the roads safer, which IMHO should be the real objective.

Sorry for Fred Drift, but I do think it's a legitimate analogy.
 
Re: Drinking Ban.....\'they\' are warming up......

[ QUOTE ]
if you don't want to drink why object to this law

[/ QUOTE ]

because it is unenforceable without <ul type="square"> [*]boat registration - so that it is clear whether the length exceeds 7 metres and the maximum speed exceeds 7 knots [*]mariner registration - because without a points system and the possiblity of a ban wealthier boaters are going to ignore it [*]and probably competence testing to avoid 'substitution' of incompetent drivers [/list]

You may want all these things, but I think you will agree they have nothing to do with drinking and their introduction would completely change the natures of our hobby. They would also cost a fortune.
 
Re: Drinking Ban.....\'they\' are warming up......

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you are tied up in a marina, on a mooring, or at anchor the vessel is not being navigated and you would, therefore, be exempt.


[/ QUOTE ]

But if at anchor, what happens in the middle of the night, when you drag and have to motor round and reset the anchor?

Please - no lectures on anchor types !!!

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah the sign of a good skipper, anchor and weather makes the crew nervous so an anchor watch will be required, what do you do to counter this nervousness, get pished.

Nice one..
 
Re: Drinking Ban.....\'they\' are warming up......

Nobody has said that they want to get pissed and go boating ... very few ppl do actually drink and sail, there are always exceptions/morons though ... but would they take any notice of the law anyway... whether that is drink limits, compulsory licensing / insurance etc etc.

If you argue that it is dangerous to drink and sail therefore there is no counter argument against the law then I say this:
It is far more dangerous to touch a 240v live wire in your house (perfectly possible through standard light bulb fittings) yet there is no law that says you are not allowed to... why? Because it is impractical to enforce and because it is common sense. If we continue to allow the government to legislate for Common Sense we will end up without any freedoms of choice.

So - my argument against this proposed law is that I (and many others) do believe it necessary to legislate for Common Sense.
 
Re: Drinking Ban.....\'they\' are warming up......

[ QUOTE ]
akshurley - the 'person in charge' is legally responsible for the others on board, so whether at anchor, on a mooring or on a pontoon makes no difference.

the skipper is always responsible whatever, so he could be done whether moored or not /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

No the law is quite explicit that it applies to any person " exercising, or purporting or attempting to exercise, a function in connection with the navigation of the ship"; it makes no mention of "person in charge", and it removes the possibility of prosecuting someone on a mooring/ marina berth.

Incidently this much is already law. What is being discussed is who should be allowed an exemption. No matter what is decided, it cannot affect the wording of the existing legislation.
 
Re: Drinking Ban.....\'they\' are warming up......

are you referring to marine law ?

when I did it many years ago (30+) there were no 'qualifying' clauses regards navigation, there are (were) clauses regards responsibilities of the master (read - skipper)

please tell me more, are you suggesting the skipper is not responsible for the welfare of the crew/passengers /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
Re: Drinking Ban.....\'they\' are warming up......

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody has said that they want to get pissed and go boating ... very few ppl do actually drink and sail, there are always exceptions/morons though ... but would they take any notice of the law anyway... whether that is drink limits, compulsory licensing / insurance etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with these "debates" is that some people are unable to come to terms with the fact that you can object to a law because you disagree with it and not because it would affect you personally. So the same people that imply you'd blast around in your boat drunk are the same ones that think you blast around over the speed limit because you object to speed cameras....

Rick
 
Re: Drinking Ban.....\'they\' are warming up......

..... and they're probably the same ones that drive at 40mph everywhere ....

It's before I can remember - but the seatbelt law was brought in because there were loads of accidents with many serious injuries/fatalities ... and despite the availability of seatbelts many refused to use them (and still do)
I've no idea when the drink/drive law came in ...
Can someone provide the statistics for drink related boating accidents?
 
Re: Drinking Ban.....\'they\' are warming up......

[ QUOTE ]
are you referring to marine law ?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm referring to the law which we are discussing at the moment!
i.e. the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 Part 4. In particular section 80 which is the bit that sets alcohol limits for non professionals.
 
Re: Drinking Ban.....\'they\' are warming up......

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with these "debates" is that some people are unable to come to terms with the fact that you can object to a law because you disagree with it and not because it would affect you personally.

[/ QUOTE ]
Very true. I don't drink and our boat is dry but I don't support drink-sailing legislation because:-

a) It will unreasonably restrict the freedom of people to use alcohol appropriately when sailing in their free time.
b) Laws should only be passed when the are absolutely necessary - it has not been shown that such a law is either necessary or could be effective if passed
c) The accident rate for yachting is astonishingly low given the inherent risks which proves that there is no need for government interference
d) It is likely to result in some kind of permit so that it can be rescinded in the case of bad behaviour such as (but presumably not restricted to) drink.
e) If, following the reasoning in d) above, there is to be a permit, there will be some kind of test and there will be insufficient time or resources to ensure that appropriate tests are introduced without restricting the freedom of existing boaters.
f) Last but not least, the overwhelming majority of ordinary people here expressing an opinion don't want legislation.
 
Re: Drinking Ban.....\'they\' are warming up......

[ QUOTE ]

That is true, but in a marina you should be pretty safe.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you are not. Boats come adrift in marinas.

[ QUOTE ]

Again, the law makes no distinction between crew and skipper. If you're involved in navigation, then you're subject to the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

The new legislation as described by "Dr" Ladyman on Radio 4 and in various newspaper articles, emphasised that the law would target the person actually driving the vessel - nothing was said about the 'master', which most people seem to think will always be the husband/breadwinner etc. Why can't my seventeen year old niece be the 'master' as she can handle a boat better than I can and she doesn't drink.

Please don't suggest that I am capable of perjury, I was referring to other people who could claim they were not in command and basically it is unprovable. But if, in the unlikelihood I was drunk, then I would simply hand over the boat to any number of family and friends, including teenagers, who are all capable of handling it.

No, my objection, is that like much of the present government's legislation, it will be full of holes and eventually unenforceable.

As to log entries, I am sorry, but a jolly down the Menai Straits for a picnic hardly requires a log entry.

As one marina manager said to me, if they think I am going to shop one of my own customers for having a drink when no one has been even injured from this marina, they have another think coming.

So, herald the formation of the marine police, along with registration and licensing to deal with a problem that hardly exists. As was reported on here a few weeks ago, more people die in baths every month than on boats during a whole year, so let's license them dangerous baths.

This is the future
 
Re: Drinking Ban.....\'they\' are warming up......

[ QUOTE ]
No the law is quite explicit that it applies to any person " exercising, or purporting or attempting to exercise, a function in connection with the navigation of the ship"; it makes no mention of "person in charge", and it removes the possibility of prosecuting someone on a mooring/ marina berth.

[/ QUOTE ] Bloody hell! That'll put an end to my late night passage planning, then.
 
Re: Drinking Ban.....\'they\' are warming up......

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
are you referring to marine law ?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm referring to the law which we are discussing at the moment!
i.e. the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 Part 4. In particular section 80 which is the bit that sets alcohol limits for non professionals.

[/ QUOTE ]

for those who dont have the reference to hand - and note it covers professionals (section 78 and 79) as well as non-professionals

[ QUOTE ]
80 Non-professionals

(1) This section applies to a person who-

(a) is on board a ship which is under way,
(b) is exercising, or purporting or attempting to exercise, a function in connection with the navigation of the ship, and
(c) is not a person to whom section 78 or 79 applies.
(2) A person to whom this section applies commits an offence if his ability to exercise the function mentioned in subsection (1)(b) is impaired because of drink or drugs.

(3) A person to whom this section applies commits an offence if the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit.

(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for subsection (3) not to apply in specified circumstances.

(5) Regulations under subsection (4) may make provision by reference, in particular-

(a) to the power of a motor;
(b) to the size of a ship;
(c) to location.
81 Prescribed limit

(1) The prescribed limit of alcohol for the purposes of this Part is-

(a) in the case of breath, 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres,
(b) in the case of blood, 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres, and
(c) in the case of urine, 107 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres.
(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations amending subsection (1).



[/ QUOTE ]

AFAIK the skipper of a vessel (substitute yacht as necessary) is responsible for the well being of those on his vessel at all times - though intriguingly I note this act only specifically mentions the skipper (Master) is only responsible for the passengers

[ QUOTE ]
(b) in the event of an emergency he would or might be required by the nature or terms of his engagement or employment to take action to protect the safety of passengers.

[/ QUOTE ]

However I find it difficult to imagine this 2003 legislation will overide the basic tenet the skipper is responsible for all those 'in his care', not just passengers .......... but it does specify the alcohol limits imposed.

put it this way, if I survived an incident whilst you were in command of a yacht (or whatever), and you were proven to be over the limit at that time, e.g. 0300 after a night on the piss, you would be found in default of undertaking your responsibilities as skipper and I would feel confident there would be legal recourse available to me ......
 
Re: Drinking Ban.....\'they\' are warming up......

As others have already said, you are talking about precious performance boats and people don't mess about with them. The guy who is likely to sail it when impaired isn't likely to get the opportunity.

I was going to suggest that you shouldn't go for length, you should go for kinetic energy = 1/2 MV2 but that is drawing me into discussing 'how we do it' when I don't think that it should be done at all!

Private yachts not under charter or otherwise on a revenue earning passage should be exempt from specified levels of alcohol.

I am perfectly happy for cases to be brought against people who go out obviously drunk, just as happens to pedestrians, but I am not happy about laying down a level because to do so invites officials to test people and that is not what leisure yachting should be about.
 
Re: Drinking Ban.....\'they\' are warming up......

You know that DD in cars is not an absolute ofence. There can be a defence of extenuating circumstances, but it is rerely accepted. If these laws are drafetd in a similar vein then maybe an anchor dragging is a life or death matter and no prosecution would be sucessful.
 
Re: Drinking Ban.....\'they\' are warming up......

in that instance wouldnt you be reacting to a reasonably foreseeable event
 
Re: Drinking Ban.....\'they\' are warming up......

[ QUOTE ]

...the law would target the person actually driving the vessel - nothing was said about the 'master', which most people seem to think will always be the husband/breadwinner etc. Why can't my seventeen year old niece be the 'master' as she can handle a boat better than I can and she doesn't drink.

[/ QUOTE ]
She can, but as you say, under the definitions of the law, you must have nothing to do with the running of the boat.

[ QUOTE ]
Please don't suggest that I am capable of perjury, I was referring to other people who could claim they were not in command and basically it is unprovable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean to suggest anything of the sort, and I sincerely apologise if I gave that impression. I was using the word "you" in much the same sense as you were.

I certainly don't think that it's unprovable. In many cases it would be very difficult, in other cases (inexperienced crew, short handed, or in busy areas) it would be very easy indeed, certainly easy enough that people would think twice about lying about it. After an accident, it would generally be easier still.

[ QUOTE ]

As was reported on here a few weeks ago, more people die in baths every month than on boats during a whole year, so let's license them dangerous baths.

[/ QUOTE ]

Though the relevant statistic would really be the proportion of fatal baths relative to the proportion of fatal boat trips (after all, there are a lot more baths taken each year than boat trips). Statistics on 3rd party injuries for each activity might also be revealing.

Besides, I'm not arguing that the law is neccessary, I'm not convinced either way. However, I don't see that the law can do any harm; I certainly don't buy the "next step licencing and regulation" theory. You don't need to have a licence taken away to be punished; the maximum penalty under the law is 2 years. That certainly wouldn't just be shrugged off by the wealthy. Even if all the new law does is make it easier to give heavier sentances to those who kill or injure others through boating under the influence, then it would be worth it in my opinion.
 
Re: Drinking Ban.....\'they\' are warming up......

Check out this reported rib crash . What would have happened if police had been able to breathalyse someone. My immediate thought was that an accident would have been prevented but which of the five would they have chosen and could they have been breathalysed prior to starting their short voyage?
 
Re: Drinking Ban.....\'they\' are warming up......

the police were able to breathalise, detain and arrest - they chose not to or more likely were ordered not to

as i have suggested before
 
Re: Drinking Ban.....\'they\' are warming up......

>>>
(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for subsection (3) not to apply in specified circumstances.
>>>
But will, as someone will find out, not do so in any manner relating to good seamanship or reacting prudently to unforseen circumstance. I put my £1 down now...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top