Have your say about PWC's regulations.

[Concerto]

Help contribute to the regulations being drafted to make personal watercraft subject to the same safety obligations as a ship and powers for prosecution for those breaking them. Replies must be by 1st November via this government web site.

Strengthening enforcement of the dangerous use of recreational and personal watercraft - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

 

[tico]

Whoa, thin end of the wedge.

Proposed Definition of watercraft - vessel less than 24m.
proposed powers include impounding of vessels thought to be unsafe (according to who?) , alcohol limits (no sundowner at anchor) etc etc
legislation by stealth

 

[Minerva]

Not just limited to PWC's. Furthermore to quote;

"The intended effect will be to enable enforcement authorities to bring prosecutions of both the users of such watercraft, if they carry out dangerous activity on the water, jeopardising the safety of other people or property, and their owners, if they fail to prevent it."

Guess what becomes much harder to claim once prosecuted? Asylum.

So reading between the lines, refugees coming across the Channel in rubber dinghies could be prosecuted under this new legislation and immediately be refused asylum based on having a criminal conviction.

 

[dunedin]

It is worth reading the proposed definition of “watercraft”. Whilst the PR refers to controlling “these nasty PWC / jet skis”, the actual proposed legislation covers a HUGE range:
- pretty much ANYTHING that floats on water
- EXCEPT unpowered craft under 2.5m (or toys for kids under 14)

So rather than the 16,000 PWCs referred in the paper, this would in effect bring into scope of legislation millions of other small craft, such as:
- all tenders with an outboard - even a 2hp
- all sailing dinghies bigger than an Oppie
- most rowing boats and skiffs
- most canoes, kayaks, SUPs and the like
The only things that are exempted are lilos (under 2.5m) and kids toys - but why do they need less safety?

All sorts of potential rules mentioned - and who knows what safety equipment, health and safety etc rules will be applied by a landlocked bureaucrat who has never been on a boat other than a cross channel ferry
Also could be liable if let a child borrow your 2.7m tender to go for a row - the spirit of Swallows and Amazon’s is dead?

 

[Graham376]

It is worth reading the proposed definition of “watercraft”. Whilst the PR refers to controlling “these nasty PWC / jet skis”, the actual proposed legislation covers a HUGE range:

Why should anyone be exempt from prosecution for being a danger to others, just because of a loophole in the law? The proposed changes shouldn't have any effect on those (the vast majority) behaving sensibly.

 

[prv]

Why should anyone be exempt from prosecution for being a danger to others

Note that it’s specifically also intended to cover being a danger to yourself, by bringing in the parts of the MSA about detaining unsafe ships. This might be a good thing in restraining the “captain calamity” who keeps having to be rescued from his sinking eBay tub, but the point is that this isn’t just about regulating jetskis.

Pete

 

[dunedin]

Why should anyone be exempt from prosecution for being a danger to others, just because of a loophole in the law? The proposed changes shouldn't have any effect on those (the vast majority) behaving sensibly.

Well possibly.
But once in their grasp, how do you think the bureaucrats (or worse courts) will apply the existing wide ranging sets of rules for "ships" to things to a Laser dinghy, or 2.7m inflatable tender, or inflatable canoe, as all these will then come into scope of these watercraft.

The following, for example, are specifically referenced (amongst others) :

• "the owner of any watercraft might be held to have committed an offence should they, for example, lend .. out an unsafe craft to an untrained or unsuitable person in the event that the craft was involved in an accident" - so if you let somebody row your tender, or paddle your SUP, without a qualification and something goes wrong?
• Articles 10, 11 & 12 – Safety and health regulations – the provisions of section 85 and 86 of the MSA 1995 - anybody know what the implications of these are
• Merchant Shipping (Marine Equipment) Regulations 2016 - what equipment might we be required to carry on an SUP or Mirror dinghy ?

The consultation papers specifically mention 16,000 PWCs, but the scope of these proposals / definitions could cover millions of tiny craft - for which they have no statistics on. And they admit they have done "no impact assessment" of the proposed changes.

 

[prv]

Also note that not being subject to the Merchant Shipping Act doesn’t mean you’re exempt from being prosecuted for endangering others. I’m not subject to the MSA when I walk down a busy pavement, but that doesn’t mean I can swing a sledgehammer around my head with impunity and risk clouting those nearby.

Pete

 

[prv]

the provisions of section 85 and 86 of the MSA 1995 - anybody know what the implications of these are

Essentially, that there can be regulations about pretty much anything that can be related to safety (even smoking!). Of course, most of these regulations should probably disapply themselves from private leisure vessels - but if they were written with an assumption that these weren’t covered by the Act, was that necessarily done?

Pete

 

[Biggles Wader]

Ive said it many times----Mission creep. Be careful what you wish for

 

[LittleSister]

My understanding is that yachts, and most other craft we on this forum are interested in, are already covered by the Merchant Shipping Act.
Merchant Shipping Act 1995

'For the purposes of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, unless the context otherwise requires, 'ship' includes every description of vessel used in navigation. Whether a vessel comes within that meaning of a ship depends on the facts of each case; the statutory definition is intended to enlarge the meaning of 'ship'. To be a 'ship' for the purposes of the merchant shipping legislation, a vessel must be used in navigable waters, either inland or at sea.'
229. Meaning Of 'Ship' For The Purposes Of The Merchant Shipping Act 1995. | Shipping Maritime Law | LexisNexis

It used to be assumed that PWC were, too, but this was upset a few years back by a court decision that they weren't. That court decision hinged, as I understand it, on an interpretation of what 'navigation' amounted to. The court decided that just beetling about without going anywhere in particular, like wot PWC usually do, did not amount to 'navigation'.

This meant that PWC were not covered by the MSA, and not subject to its controls (hence the person being prosecuted in the case in question 'got away with it'). Presumably other small craft just jollying about could also be argued not to be governed by that Act.

 

[awol]

My understanding is that yachts, and most other craft we on this forum are interested in, are already covered by the Merchant Shipping Act.
Merchant Shipping Act 1995

'For the purposes of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, unless the context otherwise requires, 'ship' includes every description of vessel used in navigation. Whether a vessel comes within that meaning of a ship depends on the facts of each case; the statutory definition is intended to enlarge the meaning of 'ship'. To be a 'ship' for the purposes of the merchant shipping legislation, a vessel must be used in navigable waters, either inland or at sea.'
229. Meaning Of 'Ship' For The Purposes Of The Merchant Shipping Act 1995. | Shipping Maritime Law | LexisNexis

It used to be assumed that PWC were, too, but this was upset a few years back by a court decision that that weren't. That court decision hinged, as I understand it, on an interpretation of what 'navigation' amounted to. The court decided that just beetling about without going anywhere in particular, like wot PWC usually do, did not amount to 'navigation'.

This meant that PWC were not covered by the MSA, and not subject to its controls (hence the person being prosecuted in the case in question 'got away with it'). Presumably other small craft just jollying about could also be argued not to be governed by that Act.

.... and if all that was being done was to include PWCs in the Merchant Shipping Act there would be no gripe but it goes far beyond that and sucks in almost anything <24m, except LiLos and kid's toys.

 

[Mark-1]

• recreational watercraft users will be subject to the same safety obligations, where appropriate, that exist for the operators of ships

  [*]enforcement authorities will have an additional power of prosecution to be used in cases of deliberate or negligent misuse

Almost everything my kids do in a boat on their own is deliberate misuse. 'Messing about in boats' is how young kids learn and build confidence.

Fortunately it will be years before they are over the age of criminal responsibility and there's no way these rules will be enforced. Even so, this is not good news for recreational boat users.

 

[LittleSister]

.... and if all that was being done was to include PWCs in the Merchant Shipping Act there would be no gripe but it goes far beyond that and sucks in almost anything <24m, except LiLos and kid's toys.

But everything under 24m is already governed by the Merchant Shipping Act!

(That is, unless it escapes coverage of the MSA only as a result of the PWC court case or some other yet to be thought of wheeze. )

For the purposes of yachts this, as far as I can see, makes no difference at all. We are already covered by the MSA.

For the purposes of PWC and other 'non-navigating' and/or 'non-seagoing' craft this merely restores the status quo ante (except it clarifies matters by adding a sensible exclusion for small water toys).

It's a shockingly sensible bit of legislation, and unless someone can convince me it there is more to it than meets my eye, I shall be responding to the consultation by supporting it.

 

[lustyd]

With the amount of excess legislation we've seen in recent years I'm starting to think clean slate via revolution might be the only option soon!


...oh look, it's almost November 5th...

 

[westernman]

I had a hobie cat FX 1 in France (good fun to). If I wanted to go more than 2 miles from the coast, I needed to have certain safety equipment. Among other things an anchor. To anchor more than two miles from the coast you need an anchor warp of a couple of miles in length!!!!

 

[lustyd]

To anchor more than two miles from the coast you need an anchor warp of a couple of miles in length!!!!

While true, an anchor rode of 30m will prevent you from hitting that coast and in most places will keep you out of the surf.

 

[prv]

But everything under 24m is already governed by the Merchant Shipping Act!

(That is, unless it escapes coverage of the MSA only as a result of the PWC court case or some other yet to be thought of wheeze. )

For the purposes of yachts this, as far as I can see, makes no difference at all. We are already covered by the MSA.

So what about my paddleboard?

Pete

 

[dunedin]

Almost everything my kids do in a boat on their own is deliberate misuse. 'Messing about in boats' is how young kids learn and build confidence.

Fortunately it will be years before they are over the age of criminal responsibility and there's no way these rules will be enforced. Even so, this is not good news for recreational boat users.

But technically if it is your boat (even an inflatable dinghy) and you lend it to your kids you would, under these proposals, be liable for lending to them

 

[Biggles Wader]

The issue here is that they could simply amend the existing law as defined by the judgement excluding PWCs from the colregs. Im sure this could be done by the relevant minister and rubber stamped by parliament ensuring that those small craft are also required to observe the rules. But no----they are having a major "consultation" with a view to a complete overhaul of the regulatory environment. This would almost certainly involve registration and regulation similar to what happens on the continent and a bureaucracy set up to manage it all. That will need paying for and guess who will foot the bill. All of us. And for what? To solve a problem that doesnt really exist. No thanks