Driving Licence for a boat - What's wrong with that ?

[Elessar]

Your comment.

Well that was unnecessarily rude don't you think?

But my point was serious even if put light-heartedly - it is ridiculous to assume that your chosen method of propulsion makes you a better seafarer and legislation making that assumption is equally ridiculous.

At least we seem to agree that a licence is a bad idea. The only view for it that I sympathise with is Flaming's, but I think that overestimates any difference anything we might say would make anyway.

 

[Tranona]

Wouldn't work. For a start, I'll comfortably predict that the overwhelming majority of boats in the UK aren't insured, and wouldn't be insured unless you made in compulsory, in which case you have precisely the same regulation problem again. Remember that even with legal compulsion and swingeing penalties, at least 10% of cars on the road aren't insured.


Above all ... why don't insurance companies insist on it now?

On what basis do you make that statement? I would say exactly the opposite. Boat insurance is cheap considering the value of boats and the potential damage - because the risk is low!

Just about every formal berthing provider or club insists on at least third party insurance as a condition of using their facilities. There is no equivalent in marine insurance to the scheme for compensating people who are harmed by non-insured drivers which suggests there is not an issue of widespread uninsured damage.

The answer to your last question is because they don't think there is any evidence that compulsory licencing (or even possession of an RYA certificate) significantly reduces risk!. Premiums are at the level they are because of the consequences of damage covered by comprehensive insurance and often unconnected with operating the boat. My only two claims were storm damage and theft - nothing to do with my ability as a sailor. I would speculate that if you asked insurers they would cite these two plus mechanical failures as the three biggest causes of claims. Look at the difference between third party only rates and comprehensive rates which shows that the risk and therefore cost is related to damage to the asset. Comprehensive rates are largely determined by the value of the boat.

If the damage caused by this incompetent group of boat owners that some would have us believe exist is significant, then third party rates would shoot up - but they don't!

 

[flaming]

The only view for it that I sympathise with is Flaming's, but I think that overestimates any difference anything we might say would make anyway.

Hold up! Don't lump me as "for" a liscence. I'm not.

But the head in the sands mentality is, in my opinion, unrealistic. At some point some numpty with a brand new boat and no training is going to cause an accident that will capture media attention, then the witch hunt will start.

I'm not proposing introducing a liscence, but it wouldn't hurt to see if we could make something work for the benefit of "us" and then lock it away until such time as it is necessary to deflect a meddling MP or two.

 

[scottie]

example of paper knowledge ?

what would a licence add to my post re motoring cones

 

[Observer]

I'm not proposing introducing a liscence, but it wouldn't hurt to see if we could make something work for the benefit of "us" and then lock it away until such time as it is necessary to deflect a meddling MP or two.

That's an interesting idea. But where would we start?

Let's see...

How many 'boats' (needs definition) are there in the UK? Oh dear - nobody knows.

Well then, how many 'boat drivers/helmsmen(women) (also needs definition)? Again, nobody knows.

Errr so let's devise a scheme for an unknown number of persons to command an unknown number of vessels. Hmmm - this is tricky.

 

[Litotes]

Well that was unnecessarily rude don't you think?

No. I am greatly opposed to stereotyping and reflexive jeering as modes of "thought" or communication. I suggest that you should say what you mean.

 

[Elessar]

Hold up! Don't lump me as "for" a liscence. I'm not.

But the head in the sands mentality is, in my opinion, unrealistic. At some point some numpty with a brand new boat and no training is going to cause an accident that will capture media attention, then the witch hunt will start.

I'm not proposing introducing a liscence, but it wouldn't hurt to see if we could make something work for the benefit of "us" and then lock it away until such time as it is necessary to deflect a meddling MP or two.

I wasn't - I did understand what you said and think its a good argument. Not sure I agree, but it's a good argument.

 

[Elessar]

No. I am greatly opposed to stereotyping and reflexive jeering as modes of "thought" or communication. I suggest that you should say what you mean.

Fair enough - and that makes a good point. It was still rude, and ironically the rude post was unclear - but no offence taken from it.

 

[Refueler]

On what basis do you make that statement? I would say exactly the opposite. Boat insurance is cheap considering the value of boats and the potential damage - because the risk is low!

Just about every formal berthing provider or club insists on at least third party insurance as a condition of using their facilities. There is no equivalent in marine insurance to the scheme for compensating people who are harmed by non-insured drivers which suggests there is not an issue of widespread uninsured damage.

Actually it's wider requirement than that ... Harbour Masters Byelaws will require it usually as a min. 3rd Party cover. Even for Fred with his Speedboat pushed of a slipway from his trailer ....
It is not usually checked or asked for mainly because of the hassle to 'police' all that use harbour ... but once an incident occurs ... it will then !

 

[Sandyman]

I cannot see that a License in any form would prevent accidents at sea or improve bad/poor seamanship. So just what would the point be ?

 

[Refueler]

That's an interesting idea. But where would we start?

Let's see...

How many 'boats' (needs definition) are there in the UK? Oh dear - nobody knows.

Well then, how many 'boat drivers/helmsmen(women) (also needs definition)? Again, nobody knows.

Errr so let's devise a scheme for an unknown number of persons to command an unknown number of vessels. Hmmm - this is tricky.

Don;t you think that was one of the arguments put up by people in countries that DO have licencing now ? TBH - I haven't read one reason against licences that really stands up and I'm sure have already been used in those countries.

I am not in favour of licences - BUT if it allows me to explore up rivers inland, allows me to go about my boating without limitation - then sorry I have to accept it.

The ICC is a good starting point I think if a standard is needed ... it's already accepted and promoted by UNECE ... is already part of RYA system ... is accepted by countries in / out of UNECE region.

To start on the who do you licence argument - then maybe it's like here - one person at least on the craft has appropriate licence ... and they stay sober / condition to skipper / monitor as necessary.

 

[Phoenix of Hamble]

I am not in favour of licences - BUT if it allows me to explore up rivers inland, allows me to go about my boating without limitation - then sorry I have to accept it.

While I understand your point, what this really implies is that you are rolling over to an interfering state.... no licencing means no limitations.... it is the license that creates the limitations, not removes them....

And if we need limitations then fine... but there is no evidence that recreational sailing needs a license system at all.

 

[Tranona]

.

At some point some numpty with a brand new boat and no training is going to cause an accident that will capture media attention, then the witch hunt will start.

.

But that already happens quite regularly Remember the (rich) "numpty" who wrecked his brand new Benny off the Dorset coast a couple of years ago. He was inexperienced and had left his even more inexperienced girlfriend in charge. Wonderful scenes of £250k boat breaking up and helcopters and lifeboats rushing all over the place.

Great thing was he announced immediately that he was going to buy a replacement boat!

I know you are an active person, but suggest you watch the seaside rescue and rescue heros programmes. Every one has an incident that falls into this sort of category (otherwise it does not make prime time TV) although not usually as serious.

You never hear the RNLI call for licensing even though they have to pick up the pieces.

So, as I have said several times I don't see where the threat would come from and I have confidence that "opposition" would be successful. And it is not head in the sand it is reflecting reality. Why raise an issue that is not on any official agenda. If it does get there that will be the time to respond.

 

[snowleopard]

You never hear the RNLI call for licensing even though they have to pick up the pieces.

I suspect the RNLI would lose a lot of support a substantial revenue stream if they were heard to call for us to be subjected to a bureaucratic scheme like mandatory licences.

 

[Ubergeekian]

On what basis do you make that statement? I would say exactly the opposite. Boat insurance is cheap considering the value of boats and the potential damage - because the risk is low!

Let me just check. Yup, at the moment I own six boats, of which one is insured. You'll note that I carefully didn't say "yachts" - what proportion of old Mirrors, scruffy Wayfarers and wee fishing platforms do you think have insurance. I'll bet money on "as near none as makes no difference".

Just about every formal berthing provider or club insists on at least third party insurance as a condition of using their facilities. There is no equivalent in marine insurance to the scheme for compensating people who are harmed by non-insured drivers which suggests there is not an issue of widespread uninsured damage.

And indeed I have insurance - 3rd party only - solely because the marina demands it. However, the risk that berthing providers are principally concerned with is of lines giving way and a loose boat damaging others. How would a certificate of competence alter the risk of an unattended boat?

Of course if marina staff were competent they would check and adjust lines ... perhaps they should have to be licensed ...

The answer to your last question is because they don't think there is any evidence that compulsory licencing (or even possession of an RYA certificate) significantly reduces risk!.

...

If the damage caused by this incompetent group of boat owners that some would have us believe exist is significant, then third party rates would shoot up - but they don't!

'zackly!

 

[Ubergeekian]

Actually it's wider requirement than that ... Harbour Masters Byelaws will require it usually as a min. 3rd Party cover. Even for Fred with his Speedboat pushed of a slipway from his trailer ....

This really shows the problem quite nicely. A huge number of us never go near harbours with by-laws. It's all very well to come up with schemes which work in busy ports on the south coast, but how on earth do you propose to police the dozens of possible launching places along the Galloway coast alone?

 

[NickiCrutchfield]

Everything.
Nicki.

 

[Tranona]

Let me just check. Yup, at the moment I own six boats, of which one is insured. You'll note that I carefully didn't say "yachts" - what proportion of old Mirrors, scruffy Wayfarers and wee fishing platforms do you think have insurance. I'll bet money on "as near none as makes no difference".
QUOTE]

But this is not what we are talking about - although I still think you are wrong. People who have significant value boats that can do damage are likely to be insured. How many times to you see a boat owner taken to court for third party damage? I would guess almost never, firstly because third party damage is minimal (hence low premiums) and most people are insured.

Risk is related to type of boat, area of operation, type and location of mooring and value. Just look at your proposal form to see what questions the insurer is asking as a basis for a quote. My boat insurance operating in Greece is more than 20% higher than if I had it in the UK. Why? because settling damage claims in Greece are more expensive than in the UK.

It is the same with incidents and rescues etc. How often is a third party involved? Read the MAIB reports. Almost all involve a single vessel. Rarely do they involve paying passengers, customers or any person to whom the skipper owes a duty of care. Only two major incidents for example have involved a charter boat. One the skipper was dealt with through criminal law and the other involved a boat on charter but the fact that it was a charter boat was incidental - the crew were experienced and the incident could just as easily happened to a private boat.

Discussion on policing any compulsory scheme is irrelevant because the need is not there.

 

[maxi77]

Don;t you think that was one of the arguments put up by people in countries that DO have licencing now ? TBH - I haven't read one reason against licences that really stands up and I'm sure have already been used in those countries.

I am not in favour of licences - BUT if it allows me to explore up rivers inland, allows me to go about my boating without limitation - then sorry I have to accept it.

The ICC is a good starting point I think if a standard is needed ... it's already accepted and promoted by UNECE ... is already part of RYA system ... is accepted by countries in / out of UNECE region.

To start on the who do you licence argument - then maybe it's like here - one person at least on the craft has appropriate licence ... and they stay sober / condition to skipper / monitor as necessary.

I think you miss the problem, enforcement and how you cover the cost. In the UK there are no extra plods or coastguards to go round checking. The ones who cause the real problems are most likely to be the ones who will try and avoid the licence anyway so without sensible enforcement the bit of paper will not bring peace in out time.

So now we need a whole bunch of new marine plods, if we try and pay for them from the licence fee it will be too expensive and not enough people will pay for it, so there will not be funds for the marine plods to find the unlicenced. Next solution speed cameras and fixed penalty fines. Just think how many fixed penalty tickets some one needs to issued to pay a days wages?

So if we do go down the licence route they will either be non effective, or we will become so persecuted by the marine plods to cover their costs we will all be moving to France to escapoe the bureaucracy.

 

[snowleopard]

we will all be moving to France to escapoe the bureaucracy.

ROTFLMAO