LittleSister
Well-Known Member
Exactly as was the case until the PWC court decision in 2005 ruled that the MSA wording had some hitherto unappreciated holes in it.
Have your say about PWC's regulations.
- Thread starter Concerto
- Start date
Exactly as was the case until the PWC court decision in 2005 ruled that the MSA wording had some hitherto unappreciated holes in it.
LittleSister
Well-Known Member
They are doing almost exactly what you are suggesting!
Did you not read the consultation?
It also specifically asks if you think either nothing should be done, or similar intentions could be achieved in a better way.
They are not proposing changes to primary legislation, they are using (or rather proposing to use) regulations issued by a minister to bring small non-'navigating' and/or non-'seagoing' vessels back under the ambit of the relevant bits of the Merchant Shipping Act, as they'd been understood to be until the 2005 court decision blew a small hole in that Act through which they then slipped.
It contains nothing about registration or regulation additional to the Merchant Shipping Act provisions which, until the court decision in 2005, was intended to, and thought to, apply to such craft (as indeed it continued to do to yachts, and still does).
I very much welcome the fact the Government is both doing it and consulting on it.
If you disagree with what they are proposing, how they are proposing to do it, or even disagree with them consulting on it, this is your chance to tell them.
LittleSister
Well-Known Member
Your paddleboard would have been covered (or at least thought to be covered) by the Merchant Shipping Act (unless it was a Royal Navy ship, a registered fishing vessel, or foreign registered vessel, etc.) until 2005.
Following a surprise court decision in 2005 (which changed the understood interpretation of the definition of vessels covered), it has been unclear whether or not your paddleboard was still covered. All this proposal does is make it clear to paddleboard owners, harbour authorities, enforcement authorities and the courts whether or not you are covered by the relevant bits of the Merchant Shipping Act (MSA).
If enacted as proposed it will mean your paddleboard will be covered by the MSA (relevant bits only), unless it is (a) unpowered and less than 2.5m in length; or (b) a product such as an inflatable dingy designed or intended for use in play by children under 14 years old
Elessar
Well-Known Member
We must protest against this. It’s awful for all of us.
dunedin
Well-Known Member
If that is your view you have till Sunday evening to submit a response to the consultation.
To my mind it is sensible to apply these rules to powerful / fast craft such as PWCs (which is the only statistics they cover in their consultation, 16,000 craft) , but a sledgehammer for the potentially million or so of other slow and safer craft proposed to be included (for which they admit to having done no impact assessment).
The simplest thing could be to answer under Q3 that the proposed exclusion only for "unpowered craft under 2.5m in length" should be replaced with one covering for example:
- unpowered craft under 5m say # - which would exclude the majority of small rubber dinghies, sailing dinghies, canoes, kayaks etc; and /or
- powered craft under X m and engine of under 4kw / 5hp # - which would exempt tenders etc with small electric or petrol chug chug motors
# Or whatever figures you believe would be most appropriate
2Tizwoz
Well-Known Member
Whether your paddleboard is to be captured by some proposed legislation is a concern however what about your Wayfarer dinghy? This seems to be driven by an incorrect use of the Merchant Shipping Act.
Jet Ski seems a more appropriate description.
LittleSister
Well-Known Member
In what way?
It won't make a jot of difference to those on this forum, unless they also have a PWC. And even then they'll be back where they were a few years ago.
LittleSister
Well-Known Member
In what sense is it incorrect?
It is simply restoring the bits of the Merchant Shipping Act that intentionally and always have applied (despite the name of the legislation) to leisure vessels, so that they once again include PWC.
This will enable harbour authorities and others to once again exert the same controls over them that apply to other vessels such as the ones we on this forum sail, without every harbour authority in the land having to create new bylaws specifically to cover PWC (and any other small craft which may or may not be affected by the 2005 court judgement).
It is just putting back the situation to that which pertained pre-2005.
Capt Popeye
Well-Known Member
So , reading all the above , I get the idea that theMerchant Shipping Act applies to Sea Going Craft who need to chart and navigate their way from one place to another ?
So Day Sailing as in Dinghys and rowing tenders or canoes are NOT craft that need to navigate , or are they ?
So Day Sailing as in Dinghys and rowing tenders or canoes are NOT craft that need to navigate , or are they ?
dunedin
Well-Known Member
Have you read the detail of the consultation document before making that statement?In what way?
It won't make a jot of difference to those on this forum, unless they also have a PWC. And even then they'll be back where they were a few years ago.
It is not about PWCs, but anything that floats that is over 2.5m, whether powered or not
awol
Well-Known Member
Great, so drunken trips back to the boat in a Redstart (a mere 8') are ok but not in a Redcrest (9')?
Mark-1
Well-Known Member
I'll be honest, I haven't read them, can you quote and link to that bit?
Concerto
Well-Known Member
This is the link I put in the original post, to save the effort of searching for it.
Strengthening enforcement of the dangerous use of recreational and personal watercraft - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)
Mark-1
Well-Known Member
I meant the bit about parents but I've checked and Dunedin is quite right the owner has the responsibility:
"making watercraft owners liable for unsafe operation;"
So in Club Boats or their own boats I'm fine. It's just the tender.
I hereby give my tender to my children as a gift. Let's hope for their sake I don't misuse it. (I will.)
Having skim read it, Option 3 or Option 4 seem perfectly reasonable and IMHO amount to little or no change in the law because "Goodwin" was wrong and if it ever came up again the decision would go the other way. - Jet Skis are "involved in navigation" - they regularly cross the channel. If the judges had known that they would have come to a different conclusion.
So that's a 180 degree reversal of opinion from me. ?
[70521]
Well-Known Member
I don't think you are thinking this through.
The anchor is in case you can't get back to the beach/slip/pontoon of departure and after hours of fighting tide/wind/dehydration can seek refuge in a bay 10 miles along the coast to anchor up in then find a tabac to sort out the dehydration problem and call for the car and trailer.
The French, and other seafaring nations, have carefully thought through a lot of the rules they impost on leisure seafarers. In the UK its a free for all for small boats sometimes with catastrophic outcomes.
dunedin
Well-Known Member
That’s what the proposed legislation implies. So will there be a boom in prices for old Redstart dinghies?
Or yould also leave the 2.7m RIB tender and paddle back from the pub on an inflatable lilo, as that would be allowed - and of course much safer
LittleSister
Well-Known Member
The Merchant Shipping Acts (MSAs) have covered recreational vessels for over 100 years. The 1995 MSA is but the latest version, and recreational vessels come under the heading of 'small ships'.
The definition in the 1995 MSA (and probably the earlier versions) defined ships as vessels that were engaged in navigation. 'Navigation' was always understood to mean the general sense of the word - i.e. the vessels were on or in the water and being moved about - not the specific sense about intentionally finding one's way from one place to another - e.g. passage plans, parallel rulers, charts and sextants.
A 2005 court decision took the surprising view that it should be interpreted the latter way, and that since PWC didn't usually deliberately go from one place to another, they were not 'ships' as defined by the MSA .
This meant that PWC (and by implication a variety of other craft, undefined) were no longer subject to the MSA. This meant that most of the existing controls and enforcement mechanisms for vessels, both locally (e.g. by harbour authorities) and nationally, were no longer operable.
Note that the person who, in that 2005 court case, was being prosecuted for injuring someone else with his PWC got off scot free because his lawyer successfully argued he wasn't covered by the MSA under which the prosecution was brought. (Surely that is a bad thing?)
The consultation proposals merely seek to make sure that all vessels, whether they are deliberately going from one place to another, or just aimlessly jollying about, can be subject to harbour regulations and national controls, and that people in control of them can be prosecuted e.g. for causing injuries to others.
These proposals just put the situation back to where we were until 2005. They are not draconian new intrusions.
Until 2005 they were. Since 2005 no one could know for certain until it got to court, but probably not.
If this proposal is implemented it once again becomes clear that, for example -
- if you kill/injure someone with your dinghy/canoe or whatever you can be prosecuted by the national authorities, as you would in a yacht, ferry, container ship, etc.
- that they are subject to harbour authorities' existing bylaws e.g. speed limits, exclusion zones, etc., without each harbour authority having to make new bylaws specifically to cover those vessels 'non-'navigating'.
Yes, but the Merchant Shipping Act always did cover 'anything that floats', but didn't have the sensible explicit exclusion of small beach toys, etc.
These proposals are 'a good thing'!
The definition in the 1995 MSA (and probably the earlier versions) defined ships as vessels that were engaged in navigation. 'Navigation' was always understood to mean the general sense of the word - i.e. the vessels were on or in the water and being moved about - not the specific sense about intentionally finding one's way from one place to another - e.g. passage plans, parallel rulers, charts and sextants.
A 2005 court decision took the surprising view that it should be interpreted the latter way, and that since PWC didn't usually deliberately go from one place to another, they were not 'ships' as defined by the MSA .
This meant that PWC (and by implication a variety of other craft, undefined) were no longer subject to the MSA. This meant that most of the existing controls and enforcement mechanisms for vessels, both locally (e.g. by harbour authorities) and nationally, were no longer operable.
Note that the person who, in that 2005 court case, was being prosecuted for injuring someone else with his PWC got off scot free because his lawyer successfully argued he wasn't covered by the MSA under which the prosecution was brought. (Surely that is a bad thing?)
The consultation proposals merely seek to make sure that all vessels, whether they are deliberately going from one place to another, or just aimlessly jollying about, can be subject to harbour regulations and national controls, and that people in control of them can be prosecuted e.g. for causing injuries to others.
These proposals just put the situation back to where we were until 2005. They are not draconian new intrusions.
Until 2005 they were. Since 2005 no one could know for certain until it got to court, but probably not.
If this proposal is implemented it once again becomes clear that, for example -
- if you kill/injure someone with your dinghy/canoe or whatever you can be prosecuted by the national authorities, as you would in a yacht, ferry, container ship, etc.
- that they are subject to harbour authorities' existing bylaws e.g. speed limits, exclusion zones, etc., without each harbour authority having to make new bylaws specifically to cover those vessels 'non-'navigating'.
Yes, but the Merchant Shipping Act always did cover 'anything that floats', but didn't have the sensible explicit exclusion of small beach toys, etc.
These proposals are 'a good thing'!
Last edited:
LittleSister
Well-Known Member
That’s what the proposed legislation implies. So will there be a boom in prices for old Redstart dinghies?
Or yould also leave the 2.7m RIB tender and paddle back from the pub on an inflatable lilo, as that would be allowed - and of course much safer
Nonsense!
You have misunderstood the consultation, and its implications. No one is proposing, or implying, any such thing.
dunedin
Well-Known Member
So please explain what I have misunderstood or misquoted from the consultation and its papers - all watercraft over 2.5m will become subject to a wide range of rules. So why is there this under 2.5m exclusion.
So as AWOL says, a 2.4m rowing dinghy or a lilo is exempted from all these rules, but a 2.6 m dinghy is not.
LittleSister
Well-Known Member
All craft were already covered by these rules, and for a century or more, until the surprise 2005 court decision effectively meant that PWC - and by implication some other vessels, but no one knows for certain exactly which ones - were no longer covered.
This caused no end of problems. No one knew exactly which vessels were now covered and which weren't. People causing damage or injury couldn't be prosecuted. Harbour authorities couldn't enforce their speed limits, etc.
Now, it was always open to anyone with a tiny, unpowered craft to argue, in the very unlikely event they were prosecuted, that their craft were so small and irrelevant ('de mimimis', in the legal jargon) to the purposes of the legislation, that they should be ignored. The proposal's explicit exemption of beach toys and unpowered craft is just a sensible clarification of exactly which ones are exempted by size, design and means of propulsion.
Most of the Merchant Shipping Act just provides the government with potential powers to issue regulations to control vessels in the public interest - e.g. safety and environmental issues - should they become issues. But in practice these powers are very rarely used for leisure craft.
Those powers to make regulations for leisure craft of all sizes have been in place for a hundred years or more but, contrary to the fears of those that think this signals immediate or impending draconian controls, there was until 2005 very little regulation of 2.6 metre dinghies, and there remains very little for 10 metre yachts. There is no reason to think that will significantly change because of the proposals.