Drunk Boating

[RichardTaylor]

Another nail in the coffin?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/6939813.stm

No Nav Lights, No Life Jackets

This is the second incident of this type this (Cowes) week.

(Although not definitely drink related still insufficient life jackets)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/6932670.stm

 

[MoodySabre]

It's always the majority who have to live by regulations designed to deal the minority, and often to protect them from themselves.

Regrettably this is inevitable and will get worse. If you behave sensibly then most regulations don't affect you.

 

[Thistle]

Can they be prosecuted under a local byelaw? If they can, let's hope they are (and thus help to show that further legislation is unnecessary.)

 

[Seagreen]

I second that. There must be a local bylaw in the Solent.
What are the comparable rates of seamiles per person, per drunken incident? Far far lower than for road drink driving I'm sure.
Cowes week, like any big event, attracts all the nutters as well as the regulars and joe public. Was this a hired RIB? I find it hard to believe that a responsible owner would try getting back to Hayling with no lights! You cannot legislate against stupidity.

 

[tobble]

Forgive me for re-interpreting your words, but surely one cannot condone drink boating?

If some drunk Mobo came into your marina and damaged your boat in the process, at present, there would be no additional repercussions for his drunkenness. I would never advocate breathalysing boaters routinely, especially as it would be uninforceable, but surely it would be in everyone's interest if when a serious incident occurs and the person/people responsible were drunk they should be dealt with as such? There's nothing wrong with enjoying the odd beer at the tiller, in the same way as it's fine to have a pint and drive, but it endangers yourself and others to sail/drive a boat while completely trollied.

 

[rhumlady]

You aint going to be able to have a pint and drive soon!

 

[Gunfleet]

But I think you'll find drunk people die falling out of dinghies, not in spectacular rib bashing crashes. The law won't cover the dangerous bit. It reminds me of a remark made by a local councillor here to explain charging for car parking on Sundays, it was 'to fall in line with Sunday trading regulations'. In other words, it's bollix.

 

[Searush]

Stats presented in RNLI & HMCG beermat campaign seem to include drunks who drown while swimming in pools & rivers!

Figures are 7,000 in last 15 (yes FIFTEEN) years with 1,000 booze related. that's about 70pa. So I would guess only a handfull of those would be covered by the proposed legislation.

 

[Lakesailor]

I happened across this on a US site. Not too recent I know but interesting. I wonder what the position re:drink/boating is in the States?
[ QUOTE ]
Recreational Boating - Safest Year Yet ------ According to an article in the July / Aug, Small Craft Advisory Magazine, published by the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators, the number of recreational boating deaths in the US dropped to a record low in 2004 (676).

*Drowning accounted for 70% of the deaths and drowning remains the leading cause of death on the water.

*Alcohol use was reported in 32 % of all boating Fatalities

Source: National Association of State Boating Law Administrators

[/ QUOTE ]

 

[Anonymous]

[ QUOTE ]
*Alcohol use was reported in 32 % of all boating Fatalities

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm perfectly certain that air-breathing was present in 100% of all boating fatalities but it doesn't follow that air-breathing was in any way responsible for any of those. It does not follow that a single fatality was as a result of alcohol drinking.

I don't condone driving or sailing whilst the ability is impaired by drink, drugs, tiredness, excessive emotions or anything else that can prejudice ability but I get very annoyed by people who draw a conclusion from 'facts' like this.

- Not you, of course, LS you are only quoting what was written.

 

[Lakesailor]

Yes, what we don't know is if the reporting is as a result of the alcohol being responsible or just present.

When it comes to regulation the 70% drowning is more worrying. Stats like that here would result in compulsory life jacket wearing, which I couldn't condone.

 

[Seagreen]

I absolutely don't condone drink boating (unlike drink laptopping) but surely common law has a remedy or sanction against people being idiots on the water? The actions of a few fools will cause the vast and sensible majority to have to put up, but more importantly, pay for, new enforcement and regulation.

I'd like the name and address of this particular idiot, so that if I have to shell out for some new "licence" to pay for new "enforcement", I can send him the bill - annually.

 

[Anonymous]

[ QUOTE ]
When it comes to regulation the 70% drowning is more worrying. Stats like that here would result in compulsory life jacket wearing, which I couldn't condone.

[/ QUOTE ]Half a moment....we are talking about 70% of deaths at sea, in a recreational environment. i.e. fit young-ish people who are less likely to be dropping as a result of old age, stokes, pneumonia, infections, road traffic accidents, falling off ladders, air transport accidents... What are people who die while carrying out a marine sport, likely to die from, if not from drowning? If you fitted them all with life jackets that might reduce the total number of deaths but it isn't going to reduce the 70% significantly.

 

[Seagreen]

As Disraeli said; "there are three kinds of lies; lies, damned lies and statistics".

I will always hold the view (expressed in many posts here) that any attempt at regulation is a back door tax on boat owners - why? The vast sensible majority won't do anything stupid, and the small stupid minority won't take any notice anyway. Result, pointless, useless legislation which costs, yet doesn't deter or protect.

Nuff said.

 

[jimbaerselman]

Your argument is fine if accidents only affect the owner/operator of a vessel. What about the third parties who may be affected?

If there's a significant third party risk, then I think it's time to think of some form of regulation and policing.

 

[Anonymous]

[ QUOTE ]
If there's a significant third party risk, then I think it's time to think of some form of regulation and policing.

[/ QUOTE ] I can't disagree with the spirit of what you are saying but what do you have in mind?

Nic nic RIBS hurtling down Southampton Water with Blues and Twos? Having driven a couple of hours to get to the boat for the weekend, who wants to see the kiddies in blue hurtling up from behind with radar guns, breathalysers, CCTV cameras and all the other paraphernalia of modern policing?

I think I'd give up boating.

 

[charles_reed]

Actually

it was written far later by GBS.

 

[gandy]

[ QUOTE ]
Figures are 7,000 in last 15 (yes FIFTEEN) years with 1,000 booze related.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you're seven times more likely to drown if you stay sober?

 

[jimbaerselman]

[ QUOTE ]
what do you have in mind?


[/ QUOTE ] The Napoleonic code style.

Draconian powers to impound a vessel and arrest a skipper post accident, with the onus of proof on the skipper to show that the incident was innocent if he tests positive for alcohol. Add to that compulsory third party insurance, with the insurance company taking risk in all circumstances, but having the ability to recover costs from a drunken driver . . .

Apply to vessels over a certain size (LOA - 7m), or capable of more than a certain speed (10kts).

Police the insurance with random checks. Educate with notices at launch points and through the insurance documents.

And the pray that bribes and corruption don't render too many rich people immune . . .

 

[Anonymous]

Jim,

I think I'd give up boating if they did that (and I don't drink so that's not an issue). The moment you go down that path - or even start going down it - you will give up, for all time, freedoms we presently enjoy as rights.

Never give up your freedoms and rights. You will never, ever, get them back again.

All legislation results in false or inappropriate convictions. Peoples' lives can be ruined. Only do so if the case is overwhelming. Is it? I really don't see how a few madmen every year justifies a change in the law for all of us. Find some way to deal with the madmen, and leave the rest of us alone.