Licensing for pleasure craft.

[Talbot]

if you dont want to be seen as trying to wind people up, as a new user, you would be well advised to provide much more detail in your bio.

I totally disagree with you about the legislation. This government is into control and wants to manage anything it can - but why is legislation needed,
is our safety record worse than other countries - no,
Do we pay tax on our pleasure - you bet, crown estates are making a fortune out of us for a starter, then there is VAT, and the admiralty chart scandal.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[alldownwind]

Re: A Splendid Troll.

Well said Dominic.
I must stick my hand up and say I'm not happy that the RNLI are so willing to act like an unpaid AA. There's a lot of mobo activity where I live and the boys in yellow are for ever collecting breakdowns, out of gas etc etc and giving them long tows home along the coast. They could, for instance, drop them off at the nearest beach if it's safe, or even make a standard charge for avoidable recoveries, but I expect that would cause all kinds of problems with the RNLI's ethos.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Oldhand]

Pleasure boats free of the burden of tax? What about the vast sums of VAT paid on purchase of boats in the first place and on all subsequent equipment purchases, much of which is usaully safety gear?

If you think pleasure boats should be taxed to help pay for keeping (making?) the sea clean then perhaps you also think that every individual should be taxed for breathing from birth in order to pay for the efforts in making the air clean? Where does your point of view end and what are the bounds of your thinking?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Dominic]

Re: A Splendid Troll.

You wrote ..."Well said Dominic."

Great scott - normally I post a load of rubbish that ends up inadvertently offending people.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Bodach na mara]

Don't hold back. Please. Who is this guy rhumpole working for?

<hr width=100% size=1>Ken Johnson

 

[Mike21]

b) That those who operate equipment, for example VHF radio or VHF DSC should hold the necessary licences to do so.

You already require a licence if you have a VHF and there has to a qualified operator on board to be able to use it.

As for the rest, well in many places you have to pay harbour dues, pay for anchoring , have licenses for using inland waterways and you think that we should all pay more?????/forums/images/icons/crazy.gif
And for qualifications what would you suggest is minimum?, ICC? Dayskipper?

Or should everyone do a zero to hero course ?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Rhumpole]

Thank you all so much for your input thus far.........The mere fact that we dont like the THOUGHT of regulation doesn't mean that it has gone away! The reverse I feel sure, is looming......Debate, is good and we should be able to debate this touchy subject and play our part in its implementation, when the time comes.

- Talbot, there is little merit in my providing a full profile, for it proves nothing at all - However, if it is of any help I have been a reader (Subscribed too!) of PBO for many years.

- I concede that all who buy and equip pleasure craft pay large sums in tax for the privilige of doing so. But this is no different from the purchase of a motor car. The fact is that, just like roads, our seas DO need to be maintained for our pleasure and profit.

- Now licensing. Mike is of course, quite correct - One DOES require a licence if one has a VHF radio aboard and a qualified operator to use it. However, whilst many many pleaure craft users DO have both, thousands do not. It is this that should be regulated and enforced - I am not suggesting for a second that anyone in trouble should not use the radio. That would be foolish. What I am saying is that the norm should be that the radio or whatever should be licensed and the operator similary so. You will see threads on these forums that support this view.

- In the same way, those that take pleasure craft out to sea should have the necessary qualifications so to do......And limitations held, dependent on the qualification held.

Rhumpole


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[alec]

I think Rhumple does have a point.

I have heard it mentioned on this forum before, that a vessel capable of over 10 knots through the water should have a licensed 'driver’ for safety reasons . This seems like common sense considering the potential damage that could and does happen. This would also deter anyone who is not serious about taking up the sport. Hopefully, this would also get rid of most of the idiots who give powerboating/ jet skis a bad name.

There may also be a case for taxing the type of hull form that causes so much damage to riverbanks and other users. It is amazing how one boat travelling the length of a river can ‘bounce’ every boat that is moored, anchored or sailing. You don’t mind one now and again, but it’s beyond a joke now.

Surely the idea of a leisure pursuit is to enjoy yourself without inconveniencing others . Our Victorian predecessors seemed to be able to design a motor boat that was elegant and applicable to it’s particular water use. Everything now seems to be a fly bridged muscle boat causing massive wash that is now out of control.

Also, racing sailboats over say about twelve feet who by necessity disregard colregs for personal vanity should be required to have a racing licence that is renewable annually . Also, every entrant would pay a tax levy for every race entered .

All taxes collected would go to the RYA to help administer training and safety schemes.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Moose]

"Everything now seems to be a fly bridged muscle boat causing massive wash that is now out of control"
Would you like a trip on my boat? You may see the other side of the argument!


<hr width=100% size=1>Moose

 

[Mike21]

But that would still leave all the idiots in sailing boats who give sailing a bad name.
/forums/images/icons/frown.gif
Do you not think there would be no point in having trained powerboaters/jetski drivers unless you ensure the sailing community is adequately licensed and trained as well?


As has been mentioned on quite a few occasions, you don't have to be going particularly fast to cause substantial damage, even sufficient to sink another vessel.

Also where there are speed limits on rivers, it's normally the smaller boats that create the largest wash



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TheBoatman]

Rhumpole
Your arguement about VHF is slightly off. The regulations for licencing and operating such marine sets are already in place. What is not fully used is the enforcement part of the legislation, for what ever reasons. Therefore it is unreasonable to use it to prove that licencing a boat will have any better take up than VHF licencing!

How would you propose to enforce this licencing lark on boats when you have just admitted that VHF licencing is sketchy and we all know that of course you have to have [by law] insurance,mot and a tax disc to drive on British roads and EVERYONE has got that haven't they?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[longjohnsilver]

Since when has the RNLI received government funding?

And how many motor boats have a direct engine oil discharge overboard. Certainly none that I've ever seen. However I do agree that polution is wrong, but are you arguing that all leisure craft should have the same safety equipment etc as commercial vessels?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Moose]

Of course they should my Dear Pirate. Can you imagine how serious it would be if you weren't correctly displaying a Solas poster at the helm and if you didn't have stickers all over the boat saying "don't touch this, it might hurt you" I personally couldn't leave my berth without carrying out a full risk assesment, handing my passage plan (compiled on a government approved computer system) to the marina office, performing a radio check on every channel, checking that everybody was clipped onto the government approved harness points and was wearing regulation survival suits,,don't you take this seriously? Forgot to mention that I would of course have a back up passage plan that I had written using the government approved handwriting scheme in case the computer system broke down due to lack of funding. I would then consider heading nervously out of Chichester Harbour (after paying my harbour dues) and into the bid wide solent where I would join the West bound Traffic route to Cowes for lunch, I would of course have to take into account that if a yacht was using the same traffic route then my journey would take a fair bit longer,,overtaking is dangerous you know!!

Best stop now, I'm scaring myself /forums/images/icons/crazy.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>Moose

 

[Rhumpole]

Boatman - I can see the MCA being landed with this enforcement action. You may have seen their new fast Halmatic twin driving water jet RHIBs with the primary use, as I understand it, of enforcement.

- The RNLI has never, to my knowledge, at any time,received so much as a penny from the government. It is a sad fact that if a lifeboat has been sent to the aid of a poorly maintained or out of fuel pleasure craft as has been mentioned earlier, the possibility of someone in real distress having to wait, becomes a reality.

- No, I dont think that privately owned pleasure craft should have the same safety equipment as commercial vessels, but I DO think that there should, once again be a "scale" of equipment (For example: Lifejackets, liferafts etc) in addition to navigational aids that is mandatory in order for the craft to be licensed. This may seem, on the face of it to be draconian. However, we have all seen at some time or other those who don't even bother to carry even a modicum of life saving necessities.

Rhumpole.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

You are wasting your time. Alec has tangled with many seasoned posters on here. Including Twister Ken and tcm over use of teak. Alec is a seasoned tree hugger, and doesn't appear to want to listen to reasoned arguements. Take a look at his profile, you can then read all his posts, and by delving off the responses to them.

<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni

 

[Moose]

"However, we have all seen at some time or other those who don't even bother to carry even a modicum of life saving necessities" If people don't want to carry this equipment, why should they? It is up to them, not you.
The CG are actually pretty good at prioritising situations so the lifeboat would be diverted to the most serious incident (I have heard this happen)
Why should the MCA be "landed" with enforcement? With all this tax you are going to raise you could have a whole new on the water police service with lovely new shiny boats with Rolls Royce Waterjets and 100% accurate speed cameras.

BTW you still haven't told us if you have lost your mind yet, please do.


<hr width=100% size=1>Moose

 

[Rhumpole]

Lol Moose! - "If people don't want to carry this equipment, why should they? It is up to them, not you" - Indeed it is - However, it is also irresponsible and lacks consideration for those who may have to go to the aid of those unfortunates, who have done little to help themselves - And this is one of the reasons that licensing is needed.
- I can understand how you feel. As a responsible, able and competent skipper, you feel that that there is no need to have additional regulations. I appreciate that. But, there are those, not of the same ilk, who do. - And I think deep down you must know that.

BTW - No I haven't - At least, not yet anyway!

Rhumpole


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[MainlySteam]

<<<You are wasting your time. etc>>>

I go along with you on that Brendan. Also nowhere in his posts or his profile is there any evidence that Rhumpole owns a boat, has ever owned a boat or even knows anything about boats - a poster not worth wasting time on in my opinion. And given his desire to control the lives others, my experience with such as those is that if he now rushes in to justify his experience and knowledge it will all be distortions.

Is just a stirrer of no substance in my opinion.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Rhumpole]

Mmmmm John, I think you make too many assumptions there!

- The trouble with your posting is that it lacks logical thought, a proper perspective on what I am driving at, and last but not least politeness.

-As far as I can see any leglislation passed in the UK would have little impact on you anyway, though of course you may well sail here too.

Rhumpole.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tyger]

<<What would a similar tax on boats be for...?>> Lights and buoys?



<hr width=100% size=1>