Drunk in Charge...?

[FishyInverness]

As usual(!) I'm In a little confusion and wondering if someone can clear something up for me.

I do some work with a volunteer safety/awareness organisation, "Lochwatch Loch Awe" and, not so long ago there was a post on their forum about Loch boat users being completely rat-a**ed when out in their boats fishing - some readers may be aware that one of the reasons for LochWatch being set up was the loss of lives of some fishermen who decided to travel back to their campsite by boat one evening after leaving a pub on the other side of the Loch on a horrendously foggy night, they were not deemed by most to be overtly drunk, but the inquest did state if they hadn't been drinking they would have had more chance of survival.

About 5 years ago I used to work for the police so did a bit of research to see whether there were any laws being broken to try and cut down on this behaviour which seems to be becoming more common at Loch Awe after a camping ban at Loch Lomond.

At the time, with my limited knowledge, conferring with ex-colleagues and trusty Beat Officer's Handbook, I couldn't find anything in law which prevents a private boat owner (non-licensed/non-commercial) from putting to water completely under the influence, and reported back to that effect.

Recently another forum member (on that forum) has said that he was doing RYA training and reported that he was informed that the law had been changed so that police
could now breathalyse and charge private boat owners for being under the influence - But I still can't find any evidence of this, plenty regarding licensed commercial owners, but nothing for Bob in his Dory necking a dozen drams before heading out....

...anyone know of anything more concrete to this statement?

 

[Searush]

I think there was a legal decision recently where a boat was considered to be a vehicle & thus came under car drink drive laws. But I don't think it has been tested in court.

 

[oldsaltoz]

Well it is law in Oz.

Police have breathalysed suspected overindulgent boat operators and have fined tham as well as taken away their drivers licence, so no driving the car home either.

However, a small rowing boat is imune but a small outboard engine is enough to cost you your drivers licence for a few months.

 

[uxb]

We live in a big enough nanny state without jobsworth **** like this.

It's Darwinism in action- the weak and the stupid should be allowed, indeed encouraged, to off themselves in any way they see fit....

Have you EVER heard of a drunked yotty injuring someone with their boat?

Edit :why can't I write c r a p ?

BTW - the solution to drowning drunks on Loch Awe would be to ban them from going there and making a pig sty out of the shore line with their filthy behavior- have you seen the mess they leave behind??

 

[davidej]

We live in a big enough nanny state without jobsworth **** like this.

It's Darwinism in action- the weak and the stupid should be allowed, indeed encouraged, to off themselves in any way they see fit....

Have you EVER heard of a drunked yotty injuring someone with their boat?

Edit :why can't I write c r a p ?

BTW - the solution to drowning drunks on Loch Awe would be to ban them from going there and making a pig sty out of the shore line with their filthy behavior- have you seen the mess they leave behind??

I am glad to see some people don't mince their words - to hell with the PC brigade.

I love it - more please!!

 

[FishyInverness]

BTW - the solution to drowning drunks on Loch Awe would be to ban them from going there and making a pig sty out of the shore line with their filthy behavior- have you seen the mess they leave behind??

uxb, appreciate your sentiment - but that last bit is *exactly* why the legislation is gently probed in this case. No-one really has any issue with a skipper having a few drinks on a leisurely day on the Loch, but the guys involved in the scheme have experienced people literally falling out of boats into the water and laughing at how out of it they are, then spouting foul mouthed abuse when given some friendly advice about safety on the Loch.

I think the volunteers were wondering if there was legislation available to use in order to prevent "that type" of partaking boater from returning...I doubt it would ever be utilised for anyone else!

 

[uxb]

I think the volunteers were wondering if there was legislation available to use in order to prevent "that type" of partaking boater from returning...I doubt it would ever be utilised for anyone else!

A slippery slope my fishy friend...best just leave the drunks to drown in peace.

BTW- was in your place in the 'Snecky on Saturday, very nice.

 

[Ianhampshire]

If you are deemed old enough to drink, then you should also be deemed old enough to be responsible for the consequences of your drinking. If you freely choose to get legless, freely choose to then go out in a boat and then freely fall overboard, why should others put their own lives at risk. Depriving us of the right to learn that our actions have consequences is to deprive us of our human right to learn from our mistakes.

Seriously, the problem I suspect with any law dealing with this is that once it’s in place, it invites some over officious bureaucrat to "tighten up on the legislation" and progressively, what was once a free choice, becomes eroded away until it is banned by law.

 

[2Tizwoz]

We live in a big enough nanny state without jobsworth **** like this.

It's Darwinism in action- the weak and the stupid should be allowed, indeed encouraged, to off themselves in any way they see fit....

Have you EVER heard of a drunked yotty injuring someone with their boat?

Edit :why can't I write c r a p ?

BTW - the solution to drowning drunks on Loch Awe would be to ban them from going there and making a pig sty out of the shore line with their filthy behavior- have you seen the mess they leave behind??

'Alcohol use is the leading contributing factor in fatal boating accidents; it was listed as the leading factor in 16% of the deaths.' From here

Unfortunately the drunk weak and stupid are not necessarily the injured party. Hence the intervention of those concerned to prevent it occurring.

 

[Seajet]

You can prove anything with statistics, and I see those are American ones so there may be a cultural difference.

If 16% of accidents are caused by drunks, we'd better ban these sobre types quick, they cause 84% of accidents, they're lethal !

 

[FishyInverness]

If 16% of accidents are caused by drunks, we'd better ban these sobre types quick, they cause 84% of accidents, they're lethal !

Like it, and a good point!

Just to make things abundantly clear, this thread wasn't started as some puritan.. "Clean up our waterways" approach!

I agree in principle with uxb about the darwin approach, but all these people have families and also there are people who put their lives on the line to save people who get themselves into that state and are compelled to, either morally or contractually, to aid them, but I digress...

I was just wondering if the legislation had changed. From a bit more research it seems it has, but it is not officially "on the books" as yet. It appears that an officer can detain and breathalyse a drunk private skipper, as to whether anything happens after that, who knows.

That may well be a sufficient tool for an organisation such as the one I mentioned who might be concerned about mixing alcohol and water safety use to have a quiet word with the local beat officer in order to prevent isolated incidents as and when they happen..

But the flipside is, and is well taken from those that mentioned it, if the "fast-track" inspector who has hardly had any experience of the real world sees the analysed arrest statistics from those incidents and feels it's relevant to "get tough" and start a drinking on the waterways campaign and nick anyone in a boat who has had a drink in order to look good or get some extra arrest statistics that weren't necessarily in the public good, this would defeat that use.

Thanks anyway to all, and glad you popped in on the Saturday uxb. You wouldn't have seen me, i'm a Monday to Friday desk jockey i'm afraid!

 

[Seajet]

As someone else mentioned, I've never seen an accident caused by someone being drunk - or at least I haven't been aware of it.

However at the marina near me the last count I heard was 3 deaths among liveaboards in the winter, all thought to have been involving alcohol; that was years ago, the number has probably increased by now.

It must be said though that the marina in question can have pontoons covered in ice and floating at an angle, I've been heart in mouth there stone cold sobre !

It really is common sense and there's only so much one can do to wrap people in cotton wool; and I'd worry too about some newbie over-zealous inspector enforcing this and other rules.

 

[DownWest]

As someone else mentioned, I've never seen an accident caused by someone being drunk - or at least I haven't been aware of it.
.[/QUOTE

I watched a flotilla crew coming into Skiathos, not aware that the reverse was not immediate. Plowed in to the quay at a few knots. She did a forward flip onto the quay, he thought it was hilarious. Both pissed. OK, nobody injured (lucky) but it could have been much worse.
DW

 

[daveyw]

Of all the accidents that happen in the home, how many happen while "under the influence". I think the police should raid random houses and check there is no one drunk there!

 

[Ceejay]

Is it not the case that there is no intention by the authorities to carry out random breath tests of persons in charge of leisure craft, however, should an accident or incident occur that comes to the attention of the authorities, the police may be called to breath test the person in charge, with a view to securing evidence to support in full, or in part any subsequent prosecution.
For example; the crew of a power boat spend the evening drinking ashore and have the misfortune to run aground while returning to their holiday accommodation. A crew member suffers serious head injuries, and dies. The skipper is breath tested and found to be over the drink drive limits. He would probably be charged with manslaughter and the fact that he was found to be drunk would be used to support that charge. Were he to be seriously over the drink drive limit, to the extent that his actions are seen to have been reckless, he might even be charged with murder.
CJ

 

[Baggywrinkle]

My parents lived in Ford at the bottom of Loch Awe for a good few years. The rubbish left behind certainly doesn't contribute to the beauty of the place, and the general behaviour from memory was pretty anti-social too.

Let 'em have as much water with their whisky as they can swallow would be my take on it. Means they won't be back next year.

 

[ffiill]

Back in 1999 the then owner of the Lock Inn Fort Augustus went out on Loch Ness rat arsed as was his want.
He returned at full speed and rammed into the pontoons at the mouth of the Caledonian Canal and nearly hit someone.
He was charged as being drunk in charge of a vessel as I recall and was put on probation.Shortly thereafter he dropped down dead and his boat could be seen in Inchnacardoch bay where at one point it sank with only its bow above water.
On a more recent occasion a fishing boat spent the night at the South Laggan Bridge heading north towards Inverness.
The captain and crew got rat arsed and the next morning they bounced through the bridge and mounted a sandbank at the mouth of Loch Oich completely blocking the Caledonian Canal.As I recall they went after his Masters certificateand he was charged with beingdrunk and disorderly;causing criminal damage.
Then there was the time in the middle of Loch ness when a Caley Cruiser ran through the side of a sailing yacht.
My own experience was when locking through the locks at Fort Augustus to be sharing the Lock with a Caley cruiser where he was so pi..d and thought it was funny when his boat drifted across the canal lock.
Little did he know that I was more than ready to smack him round the face with an oar if he had damaged my boat!

 

[William_H]

Drink and water

In Oz all states have different laws however collectively some of you posters would describe it as a nanny state. certainly in West Australia officers patrol the water ways with radar speed detectors and breathalyser kits. Of course you have to have a skippers ticket to be in charge of any power boat or sail boat with engine facilities.
The Darwinian theory does not work. As said because we as a community are obliged to help anyone in trouble be it by search and rescue, hospitalisation or support of bereaved families. The cost is just too high to let people die or be injured by their own stupidity.
Certainly drink does impair judgment and while boating is far less judgement critical than driving a car there are still decisions to be made which can affect lives. I think alcaholism in our community is a major "elephant in the room". ie we all turn a blind eye to it. I am constantly amazed at the lack of nanny state in UK especially in boating. olewill

 

[Seajet]

Blimey ! I never thought I'd see an Australian say that !

 

[GrahamM376]

If 16% of accidents are caused by drunks, we'd better ban these sobre types quick, they cause 84% of accidents, they're lethal !

Better not go to bed, that's where most people die.

Never heard of anyone having a bad accident due to being drunk in charge while underway but I know of a couple of guys found floating face down in marinas where being pissed was said to be the cause.

There was a proposed change in the law some years ago to include leisure skippers in "drink driving" laws but I don't remember whether it became law or not. Maybe the RYA can advise?