Look what's coming

Re: Look what\'s coming

What is "on deck"? if its the open cockpit then no they don't always wear a life jacket when underway. If it's on the foredeck then yes they do.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Look what\'s coming

That' surely the point with this regualtion - it's aimed at children who don't necessarily have the experience or knowledge to know when is the right time to wear a PFD or not. My daughter will think of any number of reasons to rebel against what her dad says, but will tell me when I'm doing 33mph in a built up area. I'll be quite happy when telling her to put her life jacket on to say 'it's the law!'

As Kesey says, in Ireland, this is a law that will be followed when it makes sense to follow it - and when it's clearly not applicable it will be ignored. This distinction is crucial for the proper employment of laws in most Eurpoean countries, but seems to hit a sticky hurdle here in the UK.

<hr width=100% size=1>Nickel

Being paranoid simply means - having all the facts.
 
Re: Look what\'s coming

these rules/laws look similar to those in Spain. They only seem to get enforced when conditions are tough at which point the Guardia at the port (you has simply stared at you as you leave each day so far) suddenly starts calling boats over on their way out to discuss said PFDs.

<hr width=100% size=1>madesco madidum ..../forums/images/icons/smile.gif
 
Re: Look what\'s coming

We do. The kids never go in the tender without - either auto gas if we're going ashore, or foam if we're buggering about and they expect to fall in. We wear auto gas jackets in teh tender all the time, cos it's just too easy to flip it, get turned over by a wave/wake/gust.

A small pile of jackets on th ebach is no big deal, given the rest of the stuff we take with us, and equally, it's no hardship carrying four gas jackets round town, IMHO.

As for the legislation/nanny state aspect, who would drive a car without wearing a seatbelt these days? Or ride a motorbike without a crash helmet?

I accept that there is some tidying up to be done around definitions (cockpit on an open boat f'rinstance), but the principle is sound, surely?

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://homepage.ntlworld.com/graham.wignall/boats/eulimene600x800.jpg>The old and the new</A>
 
Re: Consummate nanny state me ass

So contraception is now freely available over the counter and it’s no longer necessary to pop over to UK for an abortion.

<hr width=100% size=1>
ladybug_zigzag_md_wht.gif
 
Re: Look what\'s coming

Actually if you read the legislation it appears to only apply to PWC's and High speed motor craft (>17 knots under engine) - does not apply to sailing boats. At least the definition of "pleasure craft" seems to say so.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Look what\'s coming

I hope you're right. Could you save me reading this c*ap again and post the link?
Many thanks

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Look what\'s coming

Nope, you need to read it again. All craft.

There are loopholes you could drive a bus through though.

What is silly is that I would be in contravention (kids not in lifejackets) when motoring a sailing boat in light airs, but at anchor on a lee shore in 35 knots it's perfectly OK for them to swing from the pulpit with no jacket?

<hr width=100% size=1>my opinion is complete rubbish, probably.
 
Re: Look what\'s coming

We had the opening shots of the UK version to-day on the local radio, boat safety is being pushed by RNLI ( I think only half listening at time, may have been RYA ). Then a interview with sailing instructure on the Scilly Isles, re life jackets and requirement for training to reduce accidents.
Every wedge has a thin end.

Brian

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Look what\'s coming

The RNLI are seriously pushing water safety at this time, but very much from an education angle not enforcement.

However I'm a little suprised by some of the comments, I haven't got the statistics to hand but if you fall overboard and have no jacket your chances of drowning are [say] 1 in 5 if you have a jacket it increases to [say] 1 in 10 but then if you have a jacket that is fitted with a sprayhood it's 1 in 15. Each time that you add some piece of safety equipment to the equation you increase your chances of rescue, thermal underwear, floatation suit, etc, etc.

So why some people feel the need to argue against the use of safety equipment is beyond me? We all have it and have paid a lot of money for the privilege of owning it, so why not use it. Having pulled a number of people out of the water that did not expect to be there the comment always seems to be along the lines of "I was only doing xyz and didn't expect to fall in" or "what the bl***y hell happened to make me fall in"
The bottom line is no one expects to fall in, it always happens when you least expect it.

As for the regulations making you use this stuff, come on guys get real Governments, councils and insurance companies are going to insist on its use and a lot more in the future. I launch in Thanet and to have that privilege I must have 3rd party insurance, Dover HB has been known to check for RYA PB2 tickets for launching skippers. It is also my understanding that Medway Council are soon to licence PWC to launch from any of their ramps, so regulation is here already in one form or another.
Admittedly we don't help our own cause, people drown because they didn't use a L/jacket, result regulations, PWC users charge about causing mayhem, result licencing etc.

IMHO within the next 5-10 years all boat owners whether power/sail or dinghy will be required to hold a minimum of a RYA/MCA ticket and this will be driven by the insurance companies. They simply won't give insurance coverage to non-ticket holders, the local councils will not let anyone berth or launch in their area without insurance, and the government will say it's nothing to do with them but they will legislate according to the demands of the sport. Insurance companies see a way of earning more dosh by issuing more policies, the government earn more tax on the extra policies, local authorities will earn more by licencing boat owners, the MCA will earn more because they will need to maintain the data base

EVERYONES A WINNER APART FROM US POOR BOAT OWNERS.

You must understand that regulation is like the galloping clap,,,,, unstopable
Peter.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Look what\'s coming

Training companies aren't going to object either, thousands of boaters all told "you must have a ticket" and all having to get one.

Assuming that HMG won't go the way that driving licences were granted to drivers in the early 1930's (or was it 20's?) then there will witheir be a new ticket or something that it will be claimed "allows a properly trained person to cope with the eventualities of the sea"

One size fits all, so either Fred JetSki will be trained almost to YM to buzz round the bay or Tracy MaxiYacht will be OK on PB1 in the Southern Ocean. I don't see a quick couple of hours from the local RNLI Sea Safety people followed by an "OK, here's the chitty, £35 donation covers it", more a long session with the duly accredited, risk assessed and legally trained inspector for the Principal Office for Training, Maritime Enforcement and Sea Safety (POTMESS) and £750 into Gordon's hot little hands.

Naturally the RYA's training programme will either become redundant or they will be forced to sign up and support the bureaucrats in order to stay relevant to any part of the boating world.

How do we escape this collective nightmare?

<hr width=100% size=1>Two beers please, my friend is paying.
 
Re: Consummate nanny state me ass

I would much rather be living in a country that wasn't using my taxes to murder innocents, and if governments legislating against murder is a sign of a 'nanny-state' then bring it on!

However, whilst I would be more than happy to enter into the aboriton debate with you, I don't really think this is the forum!

<hr width=100% size=1>Nickel

Being paranoid simply means - having all the facts.
 
Re: Look what\'s coming

I think you're confusing the alcohol bit with the lifejacket section. Also no lawyer though.

<hr width=100% size=1>my opinion is complete rubbish, probably.
 
Raving paranoia

Over a few, what most agree, are commonsense rules.

The one critical point, which many seem to overlook is who's going to pay for this additional government? Weymouth ratepayers, the visiting public through fines or carparking/access charges?

The other point, frequently overlooked by legislators and law-enforcement agencies, is that familiarity breeds contempt, all law becomes devalued if there is too great a mass of it. You only have to look at the attitude of the Italian public to their innumerable and pettifogging regulations to see this in practice.

Probably the best way of controlling the politicians (and all parties are equally guilty) is to cut off their income stream, unfortunately with PAYE the Inland Revenue have got direct taxation covered and indirect taxation is covered by VAT.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Look what\'s coming

Wiggo writes "As for the legislation/nanny state aspect, who would drive a car without wearing a seatbelt these days? Or ride a motorbike without a crash helmet?"

I do, I dislike seatbelts and rarely wear one and the same goes for crash helmets - the use of such should be up to the individual not dictated by some do-gooder in westminster as a knee-jerk reaction to injuries resulting from accidents.

<hr width=100% size=1>
hammer.thumb.gif
 
Re: Look what\'s coming

In which case perhaps your insurer should be informed and the services of the NHS withdrawn from you/forums/images/icons/shocked.gif
Actually I had an accident, before wearing seat belts became compulsory, when if I'd been wearing a belt I would almost certainly have been either killed or crippled. As it was, I was able to dive across into the passenger seat just before a very big impact. Perversely, since they were made compulsory I've happily worn one, as I know that not doing so is :- a) taking an unnecessary risk which my family could do without -(I hope!) b) can result in prosecution & a fine which my boat expenses could do without.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top