High profile debate

[Twister_Ken]

Re: On the road again

Ok, a little more grist to the mill.

Leisure related at-sea deaths in the UK are very low. The following are deaths per 100,000 leisure vessels, taken from RYA figures compiled from 1997 stats.

Denmark 24.6
Argentina 9.0
NZ 8.7
Canada 7.8
Aus 7.2
Singapore 7.2
US 6.0
Sweden 3.1
Germany 2.5
Israel 2.5
UK 1.5

Rod Carr, head honcho at the RYA , states there were 9 'recreational' deaths at sea last year. Playing rugby is 49x more dangerous, and even badminton and angling are riskier.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>

 

[ccscott49]

Re: On the road again

You want to try driving in "civilised" countries, like greece, spain, france, italy. But the countries you mentioned, don't have licencing for boats either, so whats your point about those? What are the valid points in the others arguments, reference saving lives?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[bigmart]

Re: On the road again

The points that those who reckon it won't cost much miss is this.

What is the value of a licensing system that has no method of policing it?

If the licence is to be policed, who will bear the cost?

Logic would suggest that the licence fee should pay for the new regulatory force. Now consider what the cost of a license may be.

All this when the figures clearly suggest that there is no value in the licence & the examination standard would need to be on the low side.

Better to use the insurance premium reduction as a method to encourage the improvements in standards/qualification.

From previous threads I could always be a lot more inflammatory with my arguments, but lets start here.

Martin

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Rob_Webb]

Re: On the road again

Useful info, Ken, and interesting reading which certainly makes the UK appear to not have any serious problem when deaths is your measure..... only question in my mind is whether # of deaths is the right measure at it's a rather bleak yardstick and only meausres (the!) ultimate outcome.... whereas the point of some of our critics is probably that many more incidents occur which could easily have the potential for death but thankfully don't result this way, hence miss this league table - but if we also score equally well on a plain 'incidents' league table then we really do have a good case for saying "bog off and leave us alone".

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Twister_Ken]

Oh naive and innocent one

>Better to use the insurance premium reduction as a method to encourage the improvements in standards/qualification<

Premium reduction? That's not how the insurance industry works. More likely a surcharge if you're not qualified. But first I'd like to see evidence that unqualified sailors have bigger or more frequent claims than those with all the medals and ribbons.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>

 

[Twister_Ken]

Re: On the road again

I know of no way of comparing the UK with others on an 'incident' basis - especially when it has often been alleged that the CG and RNLI escalate incidents to crises for their own purposes. I have a very capable friend who was surprised to find himself listed as a life saved when a passing lifeboat offered him a tow back to his mooring. His engine had failed and he was trickling along in light airs, no danger to anyone including himself, and quite happy to keep sailing for as long as it took to get back to his buoy.

Maybe one measure of how 'dangerous' Brits are in comparison to others would be insurance premiums, but insurance is such a peculiar market that I'm not sure that figures would be meaningful.



<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>

 

[zefender]

Re: bleak but not open to interpretation

Because there can be little doubt about death, it is perhaps the best statistic to use - though it is far from perfect. If you broaden it to include 'incidents' you'll never have the same definition to work with. Some country would be all healthandsafetyish and count an incident of a colregs type issue where someone complains about another boat getting a bit close for comfort, (ie it could have been a serious accident, but wasn't) whereas others would just ignore it. Those countries with easy reporting procedures would have more incidents, just because of this facility. However, the main flaw with all incident data, whether death or not, is that it assumes that skipper competency correlates with incidents. It may be that one country has more incidents simply because its weather, tides, motor/sail mix is different from another.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Dominic]

Britain and Eire are the only EU countries that do NOT have compulsory licensing/boat registration.

(But I do not know the comparable accident figures.)

Brussels would love us all to be the same.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Dominic]

Re: Oh naive and innocent one

You are assuming that everyone has insurance. I don´t bother with it.

Rather than telephone the insurers and ask permission to scuttle the boat I prefer to save it, or not get into that situation in the first place.

I suspect that most of the insured boats are tied up in marinas on the Solent and most of the un-insured are out sailing across oceans.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Robin]

Re: Oh naive and innocent one

I once heard a comment twas much safer to charter your boat to a relative beginner than a boatload of Yachtmasters, on the priciple that the former would be very cautious and the latter gung ho.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Peppermint]

Re: I\'m assuming...

...that you have no assets then. It wouldn't take much of an accident for you to loose everything you own in compensation.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[zefender]

Re: uninsured losses

Think I'm grateful that most of the uninsured are out of the way on the oceans rather than sailing about in crowded waters!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[bigmart]

Re: Oh naive and innocent one

Ive never been called naive & Innocent. The accused would be more common.

Like you I don't trust the insurance companies. I am also vehemently against licensing. The only thing that licensing boating offers is a load more jobs for a bunch of Civil Servants. The Civil Servants I meet in the rest of my life are a load of overpaid deadbeats so I have no reason to assume that these new ones, that would be created, would be any improvement & they certainly would not offer any value for money.

The insurance argument does at least have the merit that there is no cost to boating in general. Manyharbours will not let you in without Third Party Insurance. Market forces should offer some protection to us should one company try to screw up the premiums too high. Being tight I only carry Third Party cover now. I'll always shop around for the best price.

Another part of the problem that rarely seems to get a mention is the fact that it's the Motorboaters who seem to be less inclined to seek qualifications. Yachties, I presume, feel a lot more vulnerable at Sea & are therefore more inclined to get their knowledge ratified. There, that should put the Cat amongst the Pidgeons. Where are you Brendan, it's time for another punch up!

Martin

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Observer]

Re: Oh naive and innocent one

>>the fact that it's the Motorboaters who seem to be less inclined to seek qualifications>>

What's the source for this alleged "fact". Or is it just anecdote?

Availalbility of insurance is actually quite a good test as the insurance market is relatively efficient. If insurers found that there is a statistically significant higher incidence of claims from less qualified or unqualified skippers/owners they would, I believe, quite quickly start to include "qualification" as a pre-condition. As they have not done so, I suspect there is no such correlation. I hasten to add I have no actual knowledge of this. Perhaps there's a reader out there who does have actual knowledge?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Jools_of_Top_Cat]

Compulsary licence

What about those who cannot read and write, but have been in boats all their lives, would they be denied a licence because they could not sit down and complete an exam.

Don't believe me, having worked on many trawlers with many skippers, 50% plus of the older guys would really struggle with a formal examination, but would sail rings around 99% of the leisure sailors.

People sailing all their lives, self taught, but not the RYA way, are they wrong, would fail an exam for doing things differently, there is a lot of grey area in this sport, for instance I bet 10 people in a room would all navigate slightly differently, then there is anchoring, setting sails, waypoints, all different. I bet I sail further of a head land than many, or closer than many too.

No-one is incorrect, just different, that is the difference between a road licence and this fictitious licence to be safe on the water.

Apples and oranges, can we please stop this non argument, all of us are different, different boats, different methods. We are all generally safe and conscientious about our safety and passage plan well in advance for eventualities.

I get the feeling those with paperwork look down on those without, trust me, I do not want to die, I am continually learning, but I will be 0% safer for having a certificate of competence, I would learn how to pass the paper, not how to sail better. That is experience.

Misery loves company I think is a very apt statement here.

Fair winds to all…….


<hr width=100% size=1>Julian

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk/TC_minicruise_2003_01.html>Cardigan Bay Cruise</A>

 

[peterb]

Re: Compulsary licence

It always interests me to se someone arguing from a position of ignorance. Jools obviously thinks he knows all about the "RYA method", but doesn't approve.

Any instructor will tell you that there is no such thing as an "RYA method". I've seen lots of different methods used; the only thing in common is that they work. And the RYA examination for a Certificate of Competence isn't a formal 'sit at a desk' exam, it's a practical test to see if you can really cut the mustard. Thinking back on some of the exams I've seen, the only written part was filling in the application form. Don't get it confused with the test at the end of a shoe-based course.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jac]

Re: Oh naive and innocent one

Martin makes a good point here about the insurance element. You need to have Insurance to moor anywhere but what about those that launch from a slipway. Regulations may say they need insurance but how many do.
Regulations may say 6knots - doesn't mean that the jetskis and other forms of motorised pondlife obey it.

Effective policing of existing regulations would be enough to stop most cowboys.

If we have to endure more regulation it will be the conscienscious(sp?) that will register in the same way it is the conscienscious that obey existing regulations. Those that know no better won't bother and will get away with it.

No more regulations, better policing of the existing is my answer.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Bergman]

Re: Fortunately

Tend to agree about Torygraph, don't think this government reads anything that it has not written.

Also about lack of votes.

My worries are:-

1 That there are no votes in NOT doing it
2 If Eurocrats catch on, UK Government won't have a say. Probably accept it as quid pro quo for relaxation in banana straightening legislation.
3 As Chas points out will be seen as useful job creation scheme for Civil Service.
4 Just because an idea is stupid does not mean it can't become policy.

As an afterthought maybe a congestion charge on the Solent would be a good idea, think I'll write to Red Ken






<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

Re: Oh naive and innocent one

>>Where are you Brendan, it's time for another punch up!<<


Look you miserable raggie, why do you always pick on me? Just cos your 43 times my size you big bully! Where you been hiding recently?

Insurance - well stinkies usually go for comprehensive cos their boats are actually worth something, and would cost a great deal to replace them after they are t-boned and sunk by a raggie. your bathtub with washing line is probably worthless, so no point in comprehensive, hence third party only.

Training - it's well known that stinkies were born with higher intelligence, and have less need to be taught 'the bleedin obvious'. Actually, it's a big supposition that stinkies don't do training, otherwise there wouldn't be so many powerboat training schools. Looking through this years club directory, about 90% are qualified to level 2 RYA or yachtmaster. How does that compare to sailing clubs?

<hr width=100% size=1>Err, let me know if Depsol enters the forum, I'll go and hide

 

[bigmart]

Re: Oh naive and innocent one

There you go Brendan. Loads of misguided assumptions & spelling mistakes.

I'm not a miserable Raggie. I'm very happy to be one. I know my belly is 43 times your size but there's no need to get personal about this. I knew you felt inadequate about being a Stinkie but, I must confess that, I didn't know the size of your belly was also a source of anguish. The moral degredation of being a Stinkie eats further into the mind than I could ever imagine.

Seriously though I do not know of a Sailing Club that publishes details of the level of training of its members. My comments regarding training were based on something I read many months ago, which said something like, 65% of new RYA members were Motor Boaters but nearer to 80% of trainees on courses were Raggies. Ive no doubt that many will contrive to shoot me down in flames but what the heck.

Surely the real point is, that the accident figures show, the only point in compulsory qualification is the create jobs for a bunch of wasters we don't need. There is no real point in getting into the Raggies are better/safer/worse/more dangerous than Stinkies debate. Better that we all fight together!

I hear Peter Hain has already heard the call & is looking for ways that the general populous can join is!

It's great to pay more tax!

Martin

Martin

<hr width=100% size=1>