Jetski owners and users beware?

[john_morris_uk]

I haven’t seen another thread on this which slightly surprised me, but the Secretary for State is introducing a new law to ensure PWC’s can be prosecuted for dangerous driving etc.

The Merchant Shipping (Watercraft) Order 2023 - Explanatory Memorandum

 

[Tranona]

Has had a thread the day it was announced. Not a lot to say as the main issue of enforcement is still there.

 

[john_morris_uk]

Th

Has had a thread the day it was announced. Not a lot to say as the main issue of enforcement is still there.

Thanks. I missed the original thread.

 

[Bajansailor]

They would have a field day with all the lunatic jet skis here!

 

[dunedin]

And nothing at all in it actually covers PWCs. It covers every single motorised vessel, even if just a kayak with a small trolling motor. Thanks to RYA, Cruising Association, Canoe associations etc some of the worst madness of the original proposals were removed.

 

[capnsensible]

Yet to listen to some of the 'seniors' on here that can't abide the slightest thing that may ' disturb' them, anyone even thinking about going near a jetski should have their genitals nailed to a table.

 

[footsoldier]

anyone even thinking about going near a jetski should have their genitals nailed to a table.

That seems a fair punishment to me. How do I vote for it?

 

[Sandy]

Yet to listen to some of the 'seniors' on here that can't abide the slightest thing that may ' disturb' them, anyone even thinking about going near a jetski should have their genitals nailed to a table.

Would that be before they tear off at 20 knots?

The above should be said in a Para Handy, Skipper of the Vital Spark, accent.

 

[john_morris_uk]

Ho

And nothing at all in it actually covers PWCs. It covers every single motorised vessel, even if just a kayak with a small trolling motor. Thanks to RYA, Cruising Association, Canoe associations etc some of the worst madness of the original proposals were removed.

How does:

3.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), “watercraft” means any type of craft which—

(a)is capable of moving under its own mechanical power,

(b)is used, navigated or situated wholly or partly in or on water, and

(c)is capable of being used to carry one or more persons.

not include PWC’s ie Jetski’s?

 

[dunedin]

Ho

How does:

not include PWC’s ie Jetski’s?

It includes every form of motorised watercraft, down to the smallest and slowest. All the publicity refers to PWC’s but there is nothing I can find in the actual proposals that is specific to PWCs. The media, and most punters, seem to have been fooled by the PR rather than looked at the wording.
Fortunately it doesn’t look like we will need full ships equipment for using a dingy with a 1/2kW trolling motor, as looked likely at one stage.

 

[john_morris_uk]

It includes every form of motorised watercraft, down to the smallest and slowest. All the publicity refers to PWC’s but there is nothing I can find in the actual proposals that is specific to PWCs. The media, and most punters, seem to have been fooled by the PR rather than looked at the wording.
Fortunately it doesn’t look like we will need full ships equipment for using a dingy with a 1/2kW trolling motor, as looked likely at one stage.

Are you missing the point? There was an appeal court ruling a little while ago where it was ruled that PWC’s are not ‘vessels’ and therefore IRPCS don’t apply to them. My understanding is that this legislation changes this.

 

[dunedin]

Are you missing the point? There was an appeal court ruling a little while ago where it was ruled that PWC’s are not ‘vessels’ and therefore IRPCS don’t apply to them. My understanding is that this legislation changes this.

OK, I assume you didn’t read or respond to the consultation document as that might give you a better perspective of the proposals and changes.

 

[Spirit (of Glenans)]

Ho

How does:

not include PWC’s ie Jetski’s?

I took Dunedin's post to imply that it covers ".....not just PWCs....".

 

[shan]

Yet to listen to some of the 'seniors' on here that can't abide the slightest thing that may ' disturb' them, anyone even thinking about going near a jetski should have their genitals nailed to a table.

I have a hammer and nails. Came with my picture hanging kit.

 

[oldgit]

Some insensitive soul might comment the those PWCs can often be seen out on the water all year round and in the back ground large numbers of yachts firmly ashore in the club compound, even larger numbers of smaller yachts either in garages at home or a cradle on the driveway.
Not suprised to see half a dozen " vessels" from the local Hovercraft club out on the 1st of January this year and a fair distance from home.

 

[RogerJolly]

Would that be before they tear off at 20 knots?

The above should be said in a Para Handy, Skipper of the Vital Spark, accent.

Is it the genitals that tear off? Is there an infamous accident I missed?

 

[Daydream believer]

How does:

not include PWC’s ie Jetski’s?

Simple
Here in sunny confrontational Essex, the Romford navy does not come within the strong arm of the law. So any reference to them, be it jetski, speed boat, PWC, Ford truck etc. is totally ignored, as being entirely irrelevant.

 

[Juan Twothree]

Simple
Here in sunny confrontational Essex, the Romford navy does not come within the strong arm of the law. So any reference to them, be it jetski, speed boat, PWC, Ford truck etc. is totally ignored, as being entirely irrelevant.

A couple of years ago I met a jetskier who had been caught speeding on the River Blackwater by Essex Police.

He was due to appear before Chelmsford magistrates, but I don't know what the outcome was.

 

[Daydream believer]

A couple of years ago I met a jetskier who had been caught speeding on the River Blackwater by Essex Police.

We all laughed when Alert, the police launch caught a jetski. Obviously a launch cannot normally catch one, but this skipper played it clever.
The day was hot, Beach crowded, jetskis racing between swimmers etc. There is an 8kt speed limit inside the mooring trots.

The launch just drifted quietly down through the moorings past Stone SC along to where the Stone public launch ramp was.
As a jetski came roaring in he did not see it was a police boat & probably took it for a moored boat. As he went past the launch the skipper opened the throttle wide & did a hard turn. This suddenly threw up a big wave & loads of spray from the powerful props.
This resulted in the jetski rider being thrown off his jetski, whereupon the police hooked the dazed rider & dragged him aboard. His jetski drifted away. We all think it ended up on a thick muddy bank in the bay where it would have been difficult to recover as the tide was ebbing

They then bought the launch very close inshore, infront of where the jetski yobs were gathered. The people on the beach could all clearly see & there was some cheering from the families. They stood the guy on the high stern & a policeman gave him a ticking off, with lots of visual finger wagging for effect. That guy just stood like an idiot with head bowed. Then they threw him overboard to swim ashore.

Whether he was fined or not we do not know. However, the jetskis suddenly obeyed the speed limit & kept well away from the swimmers for the rest of the day.

I am sure it would lead to all sorts of complaints these days , but it was a good few years ago. Maldon river baliff & the river police now have fast jetskis for the purpose of pursuing nuisance users.

One sunny day we stood on the bridge of the club & noted the noise & agravation being caused by them. We counted something like 16 jetskis. Then we realised that it was just the same 4 causing the trouble. The rest observed the speed limit & were well out in the bay having fun & upsetting nobody. Like lots of things it is the actions of a minority that spoil for the many. There is nothing wrong with jetskis. It is the idiots that use them. I suppose that the same applies to the thread on E-scooters

 

[STATUE]

As an idiot I would love one. Vroom Vroom here we go ! What's that , registration and the Reg. No. in 6" letters both sides !!