Scotty_Tradewind
Well-Known Member
anyone that drives a boat capable of going over 10knots should be licenced
did I make the 200th?.............
drat! :-(
did I make the 200th?.............
drat! :-(
Driving Licence for a boat - What's wrong with that ?
- Thread starter LONG_KEELER
- Start date
Refueler
Well-Known Member
No I think you have missed my point. There is no need to have more enforcement people as most offences would be caught inside marina's, harbours etc. - most have some sort of officialdom that can call upon a plod to drive to location. That is what happens out here - where we have far less number of plod per capita than UK. I'm sure that calls such as I made when the Jetski hit my boat outside Cowes ... swamping cabin and near causing my wife to go overboard ... I called Solent CG and as he did other boats - they called as well ... he was caught at Lee on Solent Slipway .... by Plod in a car.
I'm not saying all cases can be dealt with like that - but dangerous behaviour such that responsible boaters object to can be called in even NOW without licencing .... but if Licencing was in place - banning of the person and licence revoked will cramp his operable area ! Small part of the problem but at least something removed ....
Generally boating proceeds in reasonable manner in UK. No need to formalise licences etc. - BUT - it would be better to enact ICC as legal minimum instead of some Whitehall white collar berk appointing some Consultancy to spend millions to come up with unworkable convoluted cr*p system. Totally ignoring what is already out there voluntarily ... and works.
snowleopard
Well-Known Member
Well how about this option....
Whenever you are planning a trip you must give details on the internet not less than 24 hours in advance, giving details of the vessel and crew, start and finish points etc.
Now where did that idea come from?
Refueler
Well-Known Member
Searush
Well-Known Member
Given that many car drivers drive when banned/ not insured etc etc. What on earth makes you think that removing someone's licence will stop them boating! Get real Nigel! And car drivers are subject to automatic number plate recognition checks.
Ok, where you are, evryone knows when you are on the water, but take any of the big yottie resorts - anywhere, hardly anyone knows anyone else.
The concept is like banning pistols after Dunblane. All the legally owned & relatively safe pistol users gave up their weapons because they were law abiding. Our Olympic pistol team has to practice in Paris. But gun crime continues to rise because criminals do not obey laws! Politicians needed to be seen to be doing "something". Simples.
Ok, where you are, evryone knows when you are on the water, but take any of the big yottie resorts - anywhere, hardly anyone knows anyone else.
The concept is like banning pistols after Dunblane. All the legally owned & relatively safe pistol users gave up their weapons because they were law abiding. Our Olympic pistol team has to practice in Paris. But gun crime continues to rise because criminals do not obey laws! Politicians needed to be seen to be doing "something". Simples.
maxi77
Well-Known Member
No without actual enforcement of holding the licences it will be little different from what we have now hence compulsory licences are of little use without that enforcement. It is estimated that 10% of the vehicles on the road are illegal through lack of licence MOT and thus insurance. If some one does not expect to be challenged for their licence will they bother, well most of the trouble makers will not and they are the reason for licencing.
In general nearly all of the un- ticketed people who would get one if it was made compulsory are the people who cause no trouble. So no overall benefit.
andymcp
Well-Known Member
Late to the thread (as ever), and on past form my posting here may kill the thread dead... 
My view is fairly relaxed, although I do feel it's inevitable that some form of licensing will eventually happen. But in the meantime, I would use the comparison with driving to show why qualification or licensing based on demonstrating ability does not work, or has to be set so low that it becomes ineffective.
I passed my driving test on Skye. There were no dual carraigeways, traffic lights or roundabouts to contend with, yet the first time I actually drove a car solo was in Glasgow, with all the above. Equally, there is no requirement (although most instructors will do it) to have experience of driving at night, and equally you cannot go on a motorway until you have passed your test, and therefore most likely will be solo the first time you do. In short, the current test, while reasonable, does not take into account some of the most likely conditions (or speeds) you will soon experience in the real world. And I am likely to sit a driving test in a 1.2l Corsa or equivalent, but can then go and buy pretty much any car I want, insurance permitting. Weather experience is equally a matter of luck on the days you had your lessons and took your test. Any licensing for boat handling would experience the same problems, as described elsewhere in this thread - you cannot hope to cover all the variables in terms of weather, conditions etc that any boatie will experience. And equally, any qualified boatie could then go and buy a vessel well outside their ability.
But what seems evident from this thread is not that there is a particular issue with ability in general, but that there are repeated (albeit rare overall) cases of ambition outstripping ability, with damaging or fatal consequences. Well every time I get in the car, there's some git acting the lunatic and putting themselves and others at risk. It has nothing to do with the driving license (which I think sets a decent balance between what can be tested and what should be left to driver discretion), it's about the idiot behind the wheel. Ditto cyclists. Ditto lorry drivers. Ditto pilots. And insurance doesn't solve it - if you use premiums to control the ability to take to the road, people inclined to be reckless simply drive without it. Cheaper to pay the fine if you're caught than pay the premium.
The other major difference between roads and waterways are the confines of the traffic lanes. On the roads you have hundreds of several-tonne vehicles in extremely close proximity at significant speeds. Basic ability assurance is a must. On the water for the majority of the time you have fewer vessels, more space and lower speeds. If any part of the seafaring system requires care, it is either close quarters manoeuvring (which I can choose to avoid by not visiting marinas), or awareness of colregs, which can be achieved without practical examination. I see no reason to consider licensing over and above that, if at all.
In all cases, I simply back off, let the idiots make their mistakes and take their risks, and continue in what I hope is a reasonable manner.
And finally, on the point of compelling arguments, it is not for me to prove a negative, i.e. why something should not be done, it is for the proposer to provide compelling arguments for why something needs to be done.
My view is fairly relaxed, although I do feel it's inevitable that some form of licensing will eventually happen. But in the meantime, I would use the comparison with driving to show why qualification or licensing based on demonstrating ability does not work, or has to be set so low that it becomes ineffective.
I passed my driving test on Skye. There were no dual carraigeways, traffic lights or roundabouts to contend with, yet the first time I actually drove a car solo was in Glasgow, with all the above. Equally, there is no requirement (although most instructors will do it) to have experience of driving at night, and equally you cannot go on a motorway until you have passed your test, and therefore most likely will be solo the first time you do. In short, the current test, while reasonable, does not take into account some of the most likely conditions (or speeds) you will soon experience in the real world. And I am likely to sit a driving test in a 1.2l Corsa or equivalent, but can then go and buy pretty much any car I want, insurance permitting. Weather experience is equally a matter of luck on the days you had your lessons and took your test. Any licensing for boat handling would experience the same problems, as described elsewhere in this thread - you cannot hope to cover all the variables in terms of weather, conditions etc that any boatie will experience. And equally, any qualified boatie could then go and buy a vessel well outside their ability.
But what seems evident from this thread is not that there is a particular issue with ability in general, but that there are repeated (albeit rare overall) cases of ambition outstripping ability, with damaging or fatal consequences. Well every time I get in the car, there's some git acting the lunatic and putting themselves and others at risk. It has nothing to do with the driving license (which I think sets a decent balance between what can be tested and what should be left to driver discretion), it's about the idiot behind the wheel. Ditto cyclists. Ditto lorry drivers. Ditto pilots. And insurance doesn't solve it - if you use premiums to control the ability to take to the road, people inclined to be reckless simply drive without it. Cheaper to pay the fine if you're caught than pay the premium.
The other major difference between roads and waterways are the confines of the traffic lanes. On the roads you have hundreds of several-tonne vehicles in extremely close proximity at significant speeds. Basic ability assurance is a must. On the water for the majority of the time you have fewer vessels, more space and lower speeds. If any part of the seafaring system requires care, it is either close quarters manoeuvring (which I can choose to avoid by not visiting marinas), or awareness of colregs, which can be achieved without practical examination. I see no reason to consider licensing over and above that, if at all.
In all cases, I simply back off, let the idiots make their mistakes and take their risks, and continue in what I hope is a reasonable manner.
And finally, on the point of compelling arguments, it is not for me to prove a negative, i.e. why something should not be done, it is for the proposer to provide compelling arguments for why something needs to be done.
Refueler
Well-Known Member
Of course people drive illegally - I was one at 16 on a Lambretta and got caught. No-one would be daft enough to claim it as a solution. It is only part way towards road to answer.
What worries me is the stupidity that Govt's get into when they 'perceive' a problem. You end up with misguided do-gooder groups gaining ground over sensible people - eg Studland Bay ? You get loads of dosh wasted on consultancy and Committees ... how many remember Channel Tunnel Trains naming and the consultants / c/ttee's that after spending x millions decided on " Le Shuttle " ....
I'm only saying that if a person gets caught doing something daft / illegal / wrong etc. - if he has a licence it gives something to act on. If person then decides to be stupid and drive a boat after losing his licence - lets be honest - he's more likely to to be observed then if he's already been done in Court - then he can go to jail in fact ... if you use car basis as comparison.
The Gun law is typical daft Govt knee-jerk without sensible thought. It's not even worthy of being called a good measure ! It's just stupid.
LONG_KEELER
Well-Known Member
Late to the thread (as ever), and on past form my posting here may kill the thread dead...
My view is fairly relaxed, although I do feel it's inevitable that some form of licensing will eventually happen. But in the meantime, I would use the comparison with driving to show why qualification or licensing based on demonstrating ability does not work, or has to be set so low that it becomes ineffective.
I passed my driving test on Skye. There were no dual carraigeways, traffic lights or roundabouts to contend with, yet the first time I actually drove a car solo was in Glasgow, with all the above. Equally, there is no requirement (although most instructors will do it) to have experience of driving at night, and equally you cannot go on a motorway until you have passed your test, and therefore most likely will be solo the first time you do. In short, the current test, while reasonable, does not take into account some of the most likely conditions (or speeds) you will soon experience in the real world. And I am likely to sit a driving test in a 1.2l Corsa or equivalent, but can then go and buy pretty much any car I want, insurance permitting. Weather experience is equally a matter of luck on the days you had your lessons and took your test. Any licensing for boat handling would experience the same problems, as described elsewhere in this thread - you cannot hope to cover all the variables in terms of weather, conditions etc that any boatie will experience. And equally, any qualified boatie could then go and buy a vessel well outside their ability.
But what seems evident from this thread is not that there is a particular issue with ability in general, but that there are repeated (albeit rare overall) cases of ambition outstripping ability, with damaging or fatal consequences. Well every time I get in the car, there's some git acting the lunatic and putting themselves and others at risk. It has nothing to do with the driving license (which I think sets a decent balance between what can be tested and what should be left to driver discretion), it's about the idiot behind the wheel. Ditto cyclists. Ditto lorry drivers. Ditto pilots. And insurance doesn't solve it - if you use premiums to control the ability to take to the road, people inclined to be reckless simply drive without it. Cheaper to pay the fine if you're caught than pay the premium.
The other major difference between roads and waterways are the confines of the traffic lanes. On the roads you have hundreds of several-tonne vehicles in extremely close proximity at significant speeds. Basic ability assurance is a must. On the water for the majority of the time you have fewer vessels, more space and lower speeds. If any part of the seafaring system requires care, it is either close quarters manoeuvring (which I can choose to avoid by not visiting marinas), or awareness of colregs, which can be achieved without practical examination. I see no reason to consider licensing over and above that, if at all.
In all cases, I simply back off, let the idiots make their mistakes and take their risks, and continue in what I hope is a reasonable manner.
And finally, on the point of compelling arguments, it is not for me to prove a negative, i.e. why something should not be done, it is for the proposer to provide compelling arguments for why something needs to be done.
Interesting. Logical and reasonable.
Are you against VHF/DSC Training /Examination certificate
which is compulsory though ?
I am a great fan of this despite many not bothering. It seems to work pretty well. My own very personal view is that people are aware that it is compulsory and tread carefully.
Tranona
Well-Known Member
Interesting that you should raise that one as it is largely ignored as there is no enforcement. When I did my DSC update there were people on the course who freely admitted to having used a VHF for years without an operators certificate. Good thing they never tried the old test as based on their performance in the newly dumbed down one they would never have passed.
A perfect example of setting the standards at a low level. No wonder the Germans object to a UK certificate!
Refueler
Well-Known Member
Good avenue of thought - BUT unfortunate that UK Govt had to enact licencing by International Telecommunications Reqt's. Nothing to do with what UK wanted.
So whether it can be policed / enforced or not is irrelevant.
LONG_KEELER
Well-Known Member
Yes, it was the same for me. It was a nice winter's day out with a good crowd and we had a nice lunch. If I remember rightly no one fell asleep.
It was very similar to my Day Skipper's shore based many year's ago. I do not think that anybody actually passed it , but I think the certificate, now lost, stated that 'we had 'completed a course'. It went on for about 30 weeks . Some weeks we just tied knots or went out into the school playground and looked at the stars where the instructor gave us a talk about them. It was hugely enjoyable. Not one person packed it in. Fond memories.
Ubergeekian
Well-Known Member
Very well said, sir. Not just that bit - the whole thing.Late to the thread (as ever), and on past form my posting here may kill the thread dead...
Other threads that may be of interest
