Jet skier gets 6 months

I think the parallel is false. It's more an issue of the person doing something which was likely to endanger life. A more apt parallel would be:

Scenario 1: Go down to shopping centre and start shooting at pigeons. Hit pigeons

Scenario 2: Ditto, hit passers-by.

The difference being that the danger is obvious to all but the most stupid.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Too many Guardian readers on here me thinks


[/ QUOTE ]
if you asked my opinion on sentences for burglars ,muggers and other forms of low life you would not confuse me with a "guardian reader " believe me!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Too many Guardian readers on here me thinks


[/ QUOTE ]
if you asked my opinion on sentences for burglars ,muggers and other forms of low life you would not confuse me with a "guardian reader " believe me!

[/ QUOTE ]Hanging is too good for them, the low lifes and Guardian readers. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
----------
hammer.thumb.gif
“Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity”
Skype id:cliffillupo
 
[ QUOTE ]
You've missed the point entirely. ... The discussion is about the outcome of accidental mishaps or mistakes. ...

[/ QUOTE ]I certainly understand your argument, but I have to disagree. An accident is an outcome which could not be foreseen by someone with reasonable care. Like when I balance my G&T on the arm of the chair.. if it fell to the floor, it would not be an accident, it was completely foreseeable.

I suggest that these jetski incidents taken in context are often foreseeable. As to the penalty, I believe that penalties should often contain a deterrent component, which intrinsicly can mean the penalty is proportionate to the outcome. I have no room for magistrates who give a 6-moth suspended for some moron who kills mother and two babies after 4pt binge at lunchtime.

(Now, where's that G&T gone....?) /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I have no room for magistrates who give a 6-moth suspended for some moron who kills mother and two babies after 4pt binge at lunchtime.


[/ QUOTE ] Doh! It is illegal to drive after drinking above the limit and 4 pints, as everyone knows will be above the limit. So the nutter you refer to is knowingly breaking the law and risking a more distasterous outcome. Just as a thief or Brinks Mat robber knows what they are doing.
I too, have no time for the loony jetskier who after annoying everyone to death all day on the water, and then actually kills someone because, as you say, everyone could guess the outcome.
But this thread seems to have moved in the direction of jailing people for unexpected, if tragic, outcomes from seemingly minor miscalculations.
Don't we all make minor mistakes every day? Sometimes you over shoot your mooring and no penalty, some times you do the same and clobber another boat or the jetty. It's your fault and you accept responsibility to makes reparations. But don't expect to have your right hand cut off! /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
I think perhaps it is you who miss the point.

The original argument was that sentencing should be on the basis of the action and not on the consequences of that action.

I was suggesting that such a basis for sentencing rasies more problems than it solves.

Apparently you condone irresponsible behaviour resulting in people losing their lives on the basis that it was a "misjudgement"

By the same logic you would permit drunken driving provided that the drunk didn't intend to kill anyone but may make a "misjudgement"
 
What caught my attention about the original story and the sentence was that there did not seem to be anything about the circumstances which suggested that the behaviour leading up to the incident was dangerous - eg drink, drugs, recklessnes.

As I understand it, if you demonstrate that kind of thing, then the sentence is going to be severe.

The postings also suggest a distinction between the behaviour and the "weapon". I wonder if the magistrate was a yachtsman, and knew and understood the danger posed by jetskis. Or perhaps not, and thought they were dangerous in themselves.

And if the accused had been a Yachtmaster, and injured someone through negligence, would the sentence have been the same?

Anyway, I will keep an eye out for more like this to see if there is any consistency.

John
 
Rob,
Your analogy is somewhat scant on detail so I will, if I may, expand on it for you. In scenario 2 does the person run in front of you as you fire? If so your actions are the same and the outcome is changed by an external factor and you should not be punished.
However, if you fire blindfolded and shoot someone unintentionally you have been negligent, an internal factor, and should be punished.
Is it possible for people to be killed accidently? I think so. My grandmother was run down and killed in a road accident after stepping out from behind a parked lorry. I do not think the driver was in any way to blame although other members of my family, who were caring for her at the time do. Guilt transferance perhaps?
BTW, I am not interested remotely in positions of power; I like people to have responsibilty and authority for themselves.
Andy
 
A piece of string in the wrong hands can be dangerous, be it a jet skier, or a boat owner who causes a death there is a common issue here - the authorities are reactive, not proactive at dealing with problem users.

I am a jet skier, and yes, I could use my craft to kill, it is fast and heavy - I spend many weekends during the summer patrolling the water, advising people of the rules.

Accidents do happen, and touch wood I've not had one.

I go for long trips, often in a group of like minded PWC users, we cover large distances and don't hang around in one place for hours on end. A quick afternoon trip would be Lee-on-Solent to Yarmouth IOW for dinner and back again.

You then have the summer idiots, who either only think a PWC/Small Boats can only be used close to shore, as they have seen them on holiday going around small marked courses, or are showing off to their friends and family and so stay a close to the shore as possible - and as such conflict with swimmers and annoy the hell out of beach users.

On our trips, I'd hope if something happened it would be seen as an accident (IE accidental), the summer idiots, all bunched up in a small area, not going anywhere, well that is dangerous.

We are all talking about after the incident, what about dealing with problem water users before an incident happens.

I've seen many craft, including sailing yachts operating around swimmers within a few ft of the shore, in the yachts case obviously racing and making use of every last inch of water. But still a yacht that close to shore is still heavy and could possibly kill someone if it hit them, and being so close to shore has limited manoeuvrability, a powered craft can react far faster.

The typically hot summers day water user sees a small boat, RIB or PWC as a toy, they forget these craft are heavy and very dangerous, very few of them are trained.

However the authorities are not proactive, they simply react when something goes wrong.

On the Solent there are many organisations which help promote safe use, but when they come across people who refuse to operate their craft within the bylaws we find the authorities are helpless to assist in dealing with them, they simply watch citing that it is difficult to identify them as they give false names and addresses.

The police will not prosocute directly, a third party has to take up the case and take the person through the legal system, such as a land owner, harbour etc.

If a driver did that, they'd be thrown in a cell, the police would deal with the issue directly.

Giving that PWC user six months does nothing except give good PWC users a bad name, the idiots don't give a...
 
[ QUOTE ]

Giving that PWC user six months does nothing except give good PWC users a bad name, the idiots don't give a...

[/ QUOTE ]

The rest of your posting was perfectly reasonable, but to end on that line is ridiculous. In this case the JS concerned caused serious injury by reckless driving. He even tried to wriggle out of it by claiming a JS wasn't a vessel and therefore not subject to Col Regs. He deserved 6 months.

Jet skiers are given a bad name by jet skiers; no one else. Not the press, not the courts, not yotties, not Kermit the frog; Jet skiers!

Personally, I think that the JS community should be doing more to be seen to be publicly condemming the rogue element.
 
Joe, earlier in the discussion people are saying six months will act as a deterrent. The idiots don't give a damn, I stand by that line - the idiots do not read these forums, they do not know about the RYA or training, and if they do they couldn't give a damn. Many of the idiots are known by the police and know how to work the system.

However yet again the good users are being tarred with the same brush, there is no distinction made - and as a PWC user I get fairly annoyed with people who make no distinction and very annoyed at the idiots who cause that to happen!

I don't know the details behind the guy that got six months, but if he was acting as an idiot in the water then he deserves more than six months.

I'm sure his case was argued over his PWC not being a vessel (a precedent was set many years ago), thats the job of any good solicitor, it only demonstrates his solicitor was doing his job. My PWC is a boat, no different to your boat and I do not expect to be treated any differently to you - ie I should be able to launch in all the same places you launch.

Equally nor should I follow a different set of rules, and I would expect to be thrown inside for not following the rules, I wouldn't claim that because I was using a PWC I was somehow exempt from Col Regs etc.

I have to launch my PWC at sites where there are many idiots, and believe me, I don't want to become the next casualty, I wish the authorities would do a lot more than they are currently doing - but charging for launching etc does nothing to stop the idiots.

The idiots know, as long as luck is on their side, they can continue to act as they do without any fear of the law.

And if the idiots all started using mobo's and yachts you'd be having exactly the same problems, and the good mobo and yacht owners would be getting annoyed by being tarred with the same brush. They don't use mobo's and yachts as it takes a lot more planning and money to own them.
 
Neil,

It's not us you should be having a go at, but the idiot Jet Skiers. Though I don't know how it should be done.

However you are right that JS's have a lousy reputation and I have some sympathy that the "goodies" are having their hobby messed about as a result of the rogues. I'm not sure, however that the authorities can do much else than impose restrictions when they are faced with criticism for not doing the proverbial "something about it". (Very often the restrictions are imposed when those in authority feel they should be seen to be addressing the problem)

I'm not even sure how big a problem it is. Reading some of the replies which have appeared on this forum in recent weeks it looks as if every J'S is driven recklessly. I'm sure that's not the case, but sometimes it's difficult not to see a J'S and think "oh dear" when in reality they are doing nothing wrong.

Part of the problem is that the things are ostentatious, very fast, very visible, and sometimes noisy. They tend to be noticed and, I suspect, the drivers want to be noticed (FWIW I think that the 20 foot high telltales are a bit daft! /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif)

FWIW there are idiots amongst other boat users. (Except yotties, who are always impeccably well behaved, thoroughly decent types /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif)
 
No new rules are needed, no additional charges or licences or permits are required.

Existing bylaws which cover all boats and water users are sufficient, and overall law including Col Regs cover the rest.

Until you have sat on a beach watching the police sat on their boat just watching someone scream up and down within 300 yards of the beach obviously going far faster than 10 knots is infuriating.

But I know many of the marine police, I meet them at various meetings with harbour masters which we attend on behalf of our club to discuss ways of dealing with problem users.

So don't get me wrong, I'm not having a go at the officers on the water, they need to be given more power to ensure they can do their job - this forum, everyone on this forum needs to realise that pressure needs to be put on local councils to ensure bylaws and law on the water is enforced!

If the authorities started dealing with those who break the law, beach users wouldn't suffer from noise problems as the motored craft would be a good distance from the beach when being operated at speed, no showing off in front of family and friends as they'd be too far out, and when close not fast enough to look cool etc.

And if they break the law, yes, take their craft, be it a yacht, mobo, speed boat or PWC and crush it making them hit the start button.

There isn't a problem in Spain, I took my PWC to Spain and had no problems meeting their requirements, and in Spain they don't treat me any differently to any other water user.

I have to carry qualification certificate, in my case my RYA PWC Card, Insurance Documents in Spanish and Proof of Ownership on board. My ski also has to show its identification, ie Small Ships Register SSR number in a minimum of 1" high lettering.

ssr-datatag.jpg


This is the front of my old ski in Spain last year, you can see the SSR 111752 number, and the AE-4827 which is the Datatag number.

That ski is no longer owned by me, and as part of the sale I had all its numbers replaced, hence not minding publishing a picture of those numbers.
 
Lets not tar every PWC user with the same brush! You could start applying the brush to all sectors of the boating communitity. When you spend as much time on the water as I do, then you'll know there are good and bad in all groups - and I can tell you there are some amongst the "raggie" communitity who are just downright stupid! There were loads of 'em out on Saturday!

There are a responsible group of jet skiers and they are just as keen to see things change as much as you are. Here is an example.

I also found this.. Even jet skiers have forums, so they can't be that bad and look what they are discussing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top