Jet Ski legislation on the way?

[Sandy]

Bit like having newly qualified yacht-master on board, bloody nightmare!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That could well be balanced out by having the insurance companies needing to have evidence of competence. Bit like the grandfathering in that many professions use.

I always like the way that Chesley 'Sully' Sullenberger summed it up in the film

Funny thing is, I've delivered a million passengers over 40 years in the air and in the end I'll be judged on 208 seconds.

Change the words to fit the incident.

 

[Bristolfashion]

[QUOTE="Bristolfashion, post: 7624607, member: 170846"

I've still got my cycling proficiency badge from 50 odd years ago, so I'm qualified on the push bike!

Has ha, I've probably got mine from 60 years ago, so beat ya!!! Lord knows where it is though. I still remember the emergency stop. Had to ride flat out at a wall, when you passed a line, brakes on and hope. bent front wheel and bloody nose = failure!
I was amazed about 15 years ago when the government abolished the test, thought it had gone years earlier.
[/QUOTE]
I dropped a mark (or whatever) for starting off with the wrong foot - pure prejudice against left feet!

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Any move towards compulsory qualifications would have to take into account those of us who learned to sail long before yachting qualifications existed. My father did do a course before we got our first "big" boat - a 27' converted lifeboat - but as far as I know, there was no recognized certification at that time. I learnt from him and from books for navigation; I have a few certificates from courses that I've done since becoming a boat owner, but these are mostly practical things like the diesel engine course or required ones like the SRC. I did do the ICC, but only because I plan on going overseas, and it's there to satisfy officials!

 

[Stemar]

While I'm miles away from the view that jetskis and motor bikes are intrinsically dangerous, it is true that users of both are more vulnerable than I am in my tin box box with airbags or my GRP box that won't go more than a steady jog. It's also true that they are noisier and more exciting - wind in your face, closer to the road or the water (far too close when things go titzup ? ), so they tend to attract the young, because they're still immortal, and adrenalin junkies, because they need their fix of excitement. Neither group is exactly renowned for common sense and consideration. Not sure that compulsory training will do any good. You can only train those who want to learn. The trouble-makers already know it all, so the only way they'll become safer is via trips to A & E

 

[Never Grumble]

Ofcourse because everything these days is all about that paperwork and certs. Same in work environments, I know lads that have been welders/fabricators for 30years and are FANTASTIC at their jobs but DONT have qualifications as they learned on the job and did not acquire papers at the end. On the other hand all sites nowadays prefur that newly qualified tradesman that has just acquired his L3 to do the job on site whereas the old timer with 0 qualifications could do the job 100x better. But the lad just out his time gets the job as he is QUALIFIED.

Its all about the certs these days and certs dont prove nowt, all it means is you've been shown parrot fashion and skimmed through an exam to get a piece of paper so your now qualified and if any accidents you can be held accountable as your seen as a professional rather than a amateur.

To me personally paperwork means nothing, experience and competence is key and that takes TIME and PRACTICE not a piece of paper

I think you have drifted a bit ... this thread started as being about legislation to classify Jet skis as vessels and for them to be registered. Generally speaking someone with a piece of paper has made an effort to learn something to a minimum standard and are more likely to operate in a wider sense within the law, and whilst doing so they can gain experience. My father was a shipyard welder and even in his days you had to be certified or you couldn't do certain work.

 

[Mark-1]

While I'm miles away from the view that jetskis and motor bikes are intrinsically dangerous, it is true that users of both are more vulnerable than I am in my tin box box with airbags or my GRP box that won't go more than a steady jog. It's also true that they are noisier and more exciting - wind in your face, closer to the road or the water (far too close when things go titzup ? ), so they tend to attract the young, because they're still immortal, and adrenalin junkies, because they need their fix of excitement. Neither group is exactly renowned for common sense and consideration. Not sure that compulsory training will do any good. You can only train those who want to learn. The trouble-makers already know it all, so the only way they'll become safer is via trips to A & E

Motorcycle training is already excellent IMHO and has been since DAS came in. My experience of DAS was it was far in advance of the car test.

I'm yet to be convinced Jetskis cause a meaningful number of deaths or injuries compared to everything else we could legislate for.

What problem are we trying to solve? If it's deaths and injury we should look elsewhere.

I watched a jet ski playing off the beach yesterday. It was noisy, there was a lot of spray but he really wasn't going to hurt himself. There were two swimmers towing bouys. If the problem is swimmers the solution is exclusion zones of beaches, not training. (I suspect they already exist.)

Never Grumble makes a good point, this is about classification of Jet skis as vessels so maybe we should stick to that. Jet skis already are vessels, so presumably the article means classify them as "ships" according to the MSA. Again, if a court ever looked at this again they're likely to decide Jet skis always were ships and can already go on the SSR and already get automatic status as "British Ships" just as all vessels owned by UK residents under a certain length do. So we need more information, I think, the article tells us nothing except "something" is under consideration.

 

[MystyBlue2]

I think you have drifted a bit ... this thread started as being about legislation to classify Jet skis as vessels and for them to be registered. Generally speaking someone with a piece of paper has made an effort to learn something to a minimum standard and are more likely to operate in a wider sense within the law, and whilst doing so they can gain experience. My father was a shipyard welder and even in his days you had to be certified or you couldn't do certain work.

It was an example of wanting to legislate EVERYTHING. that was my example of the answer to safety and competency is not always "Force everyone to be qualified" As there still will be plenty of idiots with half a braincell, Just newly qualified idiots and the training will make 0 differance to idiocy. It's just going to add yet another inconvenience and expense to sensible people's wallet and lives. Like boating isn't complicated and expensive enough eh. Back in the 70's look how many folk bought an CJR Dory boats and off they went, No dramas or qualifications needed. Just a sensible head on and everybody enjoyed the water safely. Nowadays its nothing but a headache with all the bloody Do's and Don'ts and rules and regs. It has definitely took the fun out of boating and at what cost?

Has anything changed?

Is the water a safer place to be?

NO its pointless...

 

[Giblets]

If the problem is swimmers the solution is exclusion zones of beaches, not training. (I suspect they already exist.)

They do indeed. The problem is the more neanderthal operators of PWCs either don't know about them or just ignore them. The PWC zones also tend to be some distance out from the shore which does not suit some users as it inhibits their ability to pose!

 

[JumbleDuck]

What problem are we trying to solve?

Good question. I think some people just like qualifications, and want everybody else to have them too. To me it's like doing grades in music as an adult - fine if you like that sort of thing but not necessary to have fun or be a competent participant.

 

[Mark-1]

They do indeed. The problem is the more neanderthal operators of PWCs either don't know about them or just ignore them. The PWC zones also tend to be some distance out from the shore which does not suit some users as it inhibits their ability to pose!

Sounds plausible. Qualifications won't solve those problems.

 

[Bristolfashion]

Good question. I think some people just like qualifications, and want everybody else to have them too. To me it's like doing grades in music as an adult - fine if you like that sort of thing but not necessary to have fun or be a competent participant.

Well insurance is ensuring that there's cash available if someone is injured or their property damaged.

 

[Mark-1]

Good question. I think some people just like qualifications, and want everybody else to have them too. To me it's like doing grades in music as an adult - fine if you like that sort of thing but not necessary to have fun or be a competent participant.

I suspect there's a lot of truth in that.

It does seem to apply almost exclusively to boating, which is weird because you can get in a boat as a toddler and many of us did. There are no rules to understand, no need to be able to read or write. No need for well developed fine motor control. It's weird that a pastime that requires so little knowledge, talent or skill is the one singled out as one that might benefit from formal qualifications. (...and a large array of them.)

Meanwhile in (say) cycling and horse riding where people regularly die and mixing with traffic is common there's no enthusiasm whatsoever for qualifications or legislation.

In fact, I can get a sailing engine maintainence qualification, but I'm not aware of similar amateur qualification in maintaining my car which would have more potential punters and be much more useful because it's 100x more complicated. I know - I completely rebuilt my outboard this winter when the main crank bearing went - I'd never dare do that to my car.

Beyond we how we ended up with this qualifications culture in this one sport. I'm sure it didn't exist when I was a kid, nobody I knew had sailing quals and when I needed an RYA sailing qualification for a scout badge it was a nightmare finding someone who could test me. (And my memory is a bit hazy but I think I met the guy at an open meeting and he just handed it to me with no test. Certainly I didn't get in a boat with him.) I was ~20 when I first came across someone with a Day Skipper Qual and I recall all of us viewing it as something of a novelty. Possible I just lived a sheltered life.

 

[Mark-1]

Well insurance is ensuring that there's cash available if someone is injured or their property damaged.

Insurance isn't a qualification.

 

[MystyBlue2]

Well insurance is ensuring that there's cash available if someone is injured or their property damaged.

But like someone state earlier, under 18's cant get insured. Its totally unfair to make insurance compulsory for adults (Which can be quite expensive), But on the other hand let under 18s rake round on PWC, RIBS, SIBS and small sailing yachts with NO insurance causing damage to other vessels and property. And no further action as they are classed as a minor.

It's either 100% everybody's insured OR keep it as is and its personal preference as to weather you want to take out insurance.

They cant have different rules for different people and different ages.

I for one wouldn't be very happy if i where FORCED to be insured (Even though i am, But its principle here) but kids didnt have to be. As kids with them being young and daft have more chance of accidents and causing damages over an adult.


Just like driving on the road. The younger drivers are the most "High risk" lets say.

 

[Mark-1]

But like someone state earlier, under 18's cant get insured.

That was me, and all I said was I'd looked hard for under 18 boat insurance and failed to find it. Mind you, nobody came back with a source so it seems I might have been right.

 

[ProDave]

That was me, and all I said was I'd looked hard for under 18 boat insurance and failed to find it. Mind you, nobody came back with a source so it seems I might have been right.

So what do the junior Dinghy sailors do if they can't get insurance?

 

[Mark-1]

So what do the junior Dinghy sailors do if they can't get insurance?

That's why I was looking. I assume their parents insure the boats. I had no problems at all getting boat insurance as a child, it wasn't even remarked on, but when I looked (fairly recently) I couldn't find anywhere. Maybe my Google Fu was weak.

Anyway, I hope I'm wrong and someone will link to a provider

 

[JumbleDuck]

Well insurance is ensuring that there's cash available if someone is injured or their property damaged.

True, but I think making it compulsory would be problematic. Easy enough in a marina, perhaps even do-able in harbours with existing rules and staff, but to enforce it for the thousands (tens of thousand? hundreds of thousands?) of boats on the shore or private mooring around the coast would be an expensive nightmare.

 

[DinghyMan]

That's why I was looking. I assume their parents insure the boats. I had no problems at all getting boat insurance as a child, it wasn't even remarked on, but when I looked (fairly recently) I couldn't find anywhere. Maybe my Google Fu was weak.

Anyway, I hope I'm wrong and someone will link to a provider

Try Sports Insurance - SportsCover Direct

From their FAW:
"CAN YOU INSURE MY CHILD TO GO KITESURFING?
Yes, we offer children’s cover for all of our listed sports for children up to the age of 16 years at inception of the insurance, or up to 18 years if still dependent, or up to 23 years if dependent and in full time education"

No relationship with them, just remembered them from when I was looking for under 18's kayaking insurance

 

[Mark-1]

Try Sports Insurance - SportsCover Direct

From their FAW:
"CAN YOU INSURE MY CHILD TO GO KITESURFING?
Yes, we offer children’s cover for all of our listed sports for children up to the age of 16 years at inception of the insurance, or up to 18 years if still dependent, or up to 23 years if dependent and in full time education"

No relationship with them, just remembered them from when I was looking for under 18's kayaking insurance

Isn't that personal cover holiday insurance stylee rather than boat cover including third party?