More regulations

[robertj]

What's ghe forums views on more and more regulations in our short lives.
It seems to me that another regulation pops up in our ordinary life every week.
With the mcz's beginning the end of anchoring but not doubt will enforce paidmoorings in the same sties, anchor charges now run of the mill in this part of the country going against an age old right of free shelter.
Very well publicised (though very very few drunk boaters) boating accidents involving drunk skippers.
The border agency dropping in from time to time to get one used to more control?
Where will it end?
So much for the millions of men women and children killed in the last two world wars?!

Bob

 

[timbartlett]

...It seems to me that another regulation pops up in our ordinary life every week. ...

You are vastly understating the case. Another regulation pops up roughly every 40 minutes of the working week.

In 2010 and 2011 Civil servants generated a total of more than 6000 "Statutory Instruments. So far this year, they are already over the 1000 mark. That's more like 60 per week -- nodded through by ministers with no Parliamentary scrutiny.

The "drink-boating" issue is a good example: it was sneaked into law by burying it in the middle of an Act about something completely different (The Railways and Transport Safety Act) which meant that the committee that was supposed to scrutinised it knew nothing about what they were scrutinising. Parliament didn't like it, so they didn't allow that section of the RATS act to be brought into force. But the MAIB and MCA are on a mission to revive it -- and can do so, simply by getting their tame minister's autograph on the bottom of an SI.

 

[robertj]

You are vastly understating the case. Another regulation pops up roughly every 40 minutes of the working week.

In 2010 and 2011 Civil servants generated a total of more than 6000 "Statutory Instruments. So far this year, they are already over the 1000 mark. That's more like 60 per week -- nodded through by ministers with no Parliamentary scrutiny.

The "drink-boating" issue is a good example: it was sneaked into law by burying it in the middle of an Act about something completely different (The Railways and Transport Safety Act) which meant that the committee that was supposed to scrutinised it knew nothing about what they were scrutinising. Parliament didn't like it, so they didn't allow that section of the RATS act to be brought into force. But the MAIB and MCA are on a mission to revive it -- and can do so, simply by getting their tame minister's autograph on the bottom of an SI.

So am I right in understanding it's not law yet?

 

[robertj]

Tim

when is it going to end? If ever!

Bob

 

[timbartlett]

So am I right in understanding it's not law yet?

Unless I've missed something (I don't think I have, but it's quite possible) then No, it's not.

The infamous "drink-boating law" was Section 80 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003. It was not brought into force, but it is still in the law, and could be brought into force at any time.

Having wound its neck in for a few months, it seems the MAIB is once again actively campaigning for it to be activated in their recent report into the Morfil/Sun Clipper collision last year.

Tim

when is it going to end? If ever!

Bob

When our so-called "elected" representatives have the guts to stand up to the civil service. They need to pass some legislation that will allow Parliament to fire civil servants who mislead Parliament or its committees, and that prevents civil servants (and their tame ministers) from using secondary legislation to rewrite the legislation that Parliament has approved.

i.e. never.

 

[electrosys]

Apparently a law has already been passed by the EU to require motorists to re-sit their driving test every few years - but no government has dared to implement it yet ...

I'm a bit troubled by the EU's decision to pass passenger travel information onto the US (which includes credit card details, religion, sexual preference info - although exactly how they gather the latter is something of a mystery - as well as travel times & dates etc) - can't help thinking this will be collated with eBorders info, so the Americans will have some say in whether I'm allowed to sail over to France or not ...

Now the gov are talking about real-time mass computer monitoring by GCHQ, and compulsory micro-chipping of all dogs - can't but help think that this is the thin end of a very slippery slope.
(Visions of humans being micro-chipped, or tattoed with bar-codes - and extradited to America for dropping litter in a London back-street - yes, you may laugh ...)

 

[Easticks28]

(Visions of humans being micro-chipped, or tattoed with bar-codes - and extradited to America for dropping litter in a London back-street - yes, you may laugh ...)

Didn't the Germans do something like that some years ago?

 

[Tranona]

So am I right in understanding it's not law yet?

It is "law". However the law is written in such general terms, something like" operating a pleasure vessel while under the influence of drink" that it is difficult to enforce.

To make it workable it needs to have a set of regulations that defines things such as the type of boat it applies to, where it applies, how you define "use" and the definition of "under the influence" plus who is responsible for enforcing it and in what circumstances they will be allowed to test (for example random or only if there has been another offence). There has never been agreement on these issues in the three attempts to implement the law, and in the last attempt it fell primarily becuase the minister was not convinced by the "evidence" presented to demonstrate that it was an issue that required action (and made himself look a bit of a fool as well). This does not mean that another minister might not ignore the advice and pressure and do it anyway. Hence the need for vigilance amongst those who represent our interests.

It has always been possible to prosecute somebody for operating a boat while under the influence. Many harbours and river authorities have a byelaw to this effect. The only difference is that they have to go to court and present a case which shows that drunkeness caused a danger. Perfect example of that last week, reported here in the news pages of a successful prosecution following an accident on the Thames involving a RIB and a passenger boat where the RIB driver was drunk. This has prompted the MAIB to renew its pressure with a claim that this is the latest of 46 accidents where drink has been a factor. However, I expect if you looked at all the cases you would kind that there were many fewer where drink really was the cause - which is what happened last time the claims were challenged.

 

[timbartlett]

PS to my earlier post

Unless I've missed something (I don't think I have, but it's quite possible) then No, it's not.

PS: I should have added that although RATS section 80 isn't in force yet, there are loads of local bye-laws against the demon drink.

It's a bit of an irony, really, that the MAIB is using the Morfil case as an excuse to press for the commencement of Section 80, given that the Morfil collision happened in the PLA area, where there is already a very well-defined drink-boat byelaw setting the same blood/alcohol limit as RATS s80. It's even mentioned in the MAIB's own report!

The helmsman of the Morfil was (successfully) prosecuted, instead, for "navigating in a manner liable to injure or endanger persons, or other vessels"

I wonder why drink-boat legislation is so essential, given that authorities choose not to use the legislation they already have? Or was the Morfil incident not really quite such an open and shut case of "drunk in charge" as the MAIB would have us believe -- in which case, it's not quite such a powerful argument in favour of even more legislation.

The MAIB has "form" on this, and seems determined to keep trying it on at the first available opportunity after every change of government.

 

[Sybarite]

It is "law". However the law is written in such general terms, something like" operating a pleasure vessel while under the influence of drink" that it is difficult to enforce.

I operate mine under the influence of drink.

Water; I couldn't operate it without it. Can I be fined?

 

[chanelyacht]

With regard to "drink boating", the current situation is limits apply for those professionally in charge of a vessel - i.e. paid skippers, captains, crew etc. The MCA do not have an army of breathtesters, the process is to request qualified police assistance in instances where we have reason to believe alcohol played a part in whatever happened.

Unpaid members of the public are not affected by this - although many harbours already have navigation byelaws in place to cover similar circumstances.

The provision for leisure boaters is in the appropriate act, but has not been enacted. The MAIB exists to report on accidents without blame , and it's a bit far fetched to claim they're part of some great conspiracy to enact the provisions.

Regardless of what the law says, why navigate when impaired?

And if you don't like the ever increasing amount of statutory instruments (and I don't), then vote to get us out of the EU and hold our politicians to account.

 

[savageseadog]

I might possibly be wrong on this but I've noticed that much recent legislation has been minutely detailed and proscriptive and tries to eliminate loopholes and grey areas as much as possible. By setting out every permutation of multiple possibilities the drafters of these new laws hope to make fining and controlling us a ticket issuing exercise. In the past it was left to the courts to decide the rights and wrongs. Yes you will find all sorts of laws to prevent drunken boating, you will find it bye laws, old drunk in charge laws and of course manslaughter for death cases, these could indeed be used but they want to make it easier for themselves. I believe much the same is happening with other areas of law.

 

[Grumpybear]

And, of course, the lawyers doing the drafting always build in a few more loopholes so their mates can make serious money out of arguing in front of a judge when some serf (sorry, citizen) has the temerity to challenge the legalised extortion to which he has been subjected.

 

[NormanS]

- can't but help think that this is the thin end of a very slippery slope.
(QUOTE]

There obviously should be a law against mixing metaphors.

 

[Tranona]

The provision for leisure boaters is in the appropriate act, but has not been enacted. The MAIB exists to report on accidents without blame , and it's a bit far fetched to claim they're part of some great conspiracy to enact the provisions.

Don't think anybody is suggesting a conspiracy. Their job is to highlight issues that might need attention, which in some cases may need legislation - just as the Act we are discussing was moved along as a result of their report into the Marchioness incident.

The danger is in taking the "headline" statements literally, when it was clear in the last round of trying to bring in the regulations that a more detailed analysis showed a very different picture from the headlines.

There are many examples of ill thought out kneejerk pieces of legislation that fail to deal with a perceived problem, often because the perceived problem is not real.

 

[chanelyacht]

Don't think anybody is suggesting a conspiracy.

Tim usually does.

(Sometimes he's right as well)

 

[timbartlett]

...The provision for leisure boaters is in the appropriate act, but has not been enacted....

The "provision" for nicking a liesure boater who is reckless enough to share a bottle of wine with his wife while on board his own boat is including in an Act called the Railways and Transport Safety Act. In what way is that "appropriate"?
Does it have anything to do with Railways?
Does it have anything to do with Transport?

The MAIB exists to report on accidents without blame , and it's a bit far fetched to claim they're part of some great conspiracy to enact the provisions.

It is not "far-fetched" to claim that the MAIB has a long track-record of pressing the government to introduce drink-boat legislation, or for using the flimsiest of excuses for doing so. Whether you wish to call that a conspiracy or not is up to you.
The principal recommendation ofthe Morfil report, for instance, is "The Department for Transport is recommended to: Expedite the commencement of the subsections to Section 80 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, in order to implement the limits on the amount of alcohol which may be consumed by persons in charge of pleasure vessels." Not exactly sitting on the fence, is it?

The fact that the Marchioness was used as a trigger for drink-boat laws is a classic example: neither of the vessels involved were recreational craft, and alcohol was not listed among the contributory factors! So the Marchioness is irrelevant. But I bet most people wouldn't remember that: they would just remember an accident in which a lot of people died. They might remember that it was a "party boat". Mentioning it in connection with drink-boat legislation would probably be enough for most of them (including MPs) to add 2 and 2 and make 22, and to assume that drink boating laws would have saved the Marchioness!

Last time I checked (admittedly a few years ago), not one ofthe MAIB inspectorate had any small craft qualifications at all -- and the depth of their ignorance has been amply demonstrated on many occasions (One classic was their assumption that the race officer in a dinghy race could contact all the competitors by VHF! Another was when a report used an illustration from a book about dinghy sailing to demonstrate the appropriate procedure for gybing a cruising yacht!).

They have a track record for using misleading statistics to pressurise government into making ill-informed decisions, in particular in respect of drink-boat legislation.

Regardless of what the law says, why navigate when impaired?

Not really the point, is it? Existing laws and bye-laws do not succeed in stopping or discouraging the tiny minority of boaters who "navigate while impaired". The only effect of any new legislation will be to detract from the overall boating experience of those for whom a drink or two in the evening or a beer while fishing is a reasonable part of their boating pleasure.

And if you don't like the ever increasing amount of statutory instruments (and I don't), then vote to get us out of the EU and hold our politicians to account.

That is a myth. Relatively little legislation comes out of the EU, and what there is generally makes better sense than the national legisation it replaces. The trouble is that the UK civil service does not allow it to replace UK legislation -- they either add the two together, or they gold-plate the EU version. Then they blame the EU !!

In that respect, the EU is far more "democratic" than the UK Parliament: the Commission may propose EU legislation, but nothing can be passed without the positive approval of the EU Parliament (made up of our elected MEPs) and the EU Council (made up of representatives of our elected government).

 

[Tranona]

Tim usually does.

(Sometimes he's right as well)

That is why as I suggested earlier it is so important to have an effective body representing boaters interests. So far the RYA has been successful in this particular case, although as we know they are not always effective, or rather they have difficulty in presenting a united front.

 

[chanelyacht]

The "provision" for nicking a liesure boater who is reckless enough to share a bottle of wine with his wife while on board his own boat is including in an Act called the Railways and Transport Safety Act. In what way is that "appropriate"?
Does it have anything to do with Railways?
Does it have anything to do with Transport?

Is a boat not a form of transport?

A leisure boater having shared a bottle of wine would have no problem - if he was at anchor or moored. The only problem would come if he then was underway - and I have no issue with that. Would you demand the right to drive to a picnic spot, share a bottle of wine, then expect to drive home? Perhaps you do...

It is not "far-fetched" to claim that the MAIB has a long track-record of pressing the government to introduce drink-boat legislation, or for using the flimsiest of excuses for doing so. Whether you wish to call that a conspiracy or not is up to you.
The fact that the Marchioness was used as a trigger for drink-boat laws is a good example: neither of the vessels involved were recreational craft, and alcohol was not listed among the contributory factors!

So if the MAIB didn't list alcohol as a contributory factor, how could they have used the Marchioness as a lever?

Why do you want the right to get p1ssed as a fart, then drive a 500hp powerboat with your family on board as much as you like? That's bonkers...

That is a myth. Relatively little legislation comes out of the EU, and what there is generally makes better sense than the national legisation it replaces. The trouble is that the UK civil service does not allow it to replace UK legislation -- they either add the two together, or they gold-plate the EU version. Then they blame the EU !!

In that respect, the EU is far more "democratic" than the UK Parliament: the Commission may propose EU legislation, but nothing can be passed without the positive approval of the EU Parliament (made up of our elected MEPs) and the EU Council (made up of representatives of our elected government).

If you think the EU is democratic, you cling to that belief. Perhaps you could make a democratic enquiry to see their last audited accounts? (clue - there aren't any).

 

[timbartlett]

Is a boat not a form of transport?

Yes, but that's hardly the point, is it. I'm sure if you were looking for a book about sailing you wouldn't look in the "Railways and Transport" section of the library. It is difficult to imagine how a paragraph about pleasure boating managed to find its way into the middle of an 86 page document that described itself as "An Act to make provision about railways, including tramways; to make provision about transport safety; and for connected purposes" unless someone was trying to "sneak it in".

A leisure boater having shared a bottle of wine would have no problem - if he was at anchor or moored. The only problem would come if he then was underway - and I have no issue with that. Would you demand the right to drive to a picnic spot, share a bottle of wine, then expect to drive home? Perhaps you do...

There is no need to make offensive insinuations. If you cannot discuss this without making personal remarks, then it shows how weak your arguments are.

I suggest you look at the limits, and consider what would happen if you had half a bottle of wine with dinner, a scotch nightcap, and then caught the early tide in the morning.

So if the MAIB didn't list alcohol as a contributory factor, how could they have used the Marchioness as a lever?

You may have missed my edit of my earlier post.
I think the answer is "by association." Mention legislation to reduce alcohol-related accidents, then mention a famous accident, that happened longenough ago for most people to have forgotten most of the details, and I bet most people would simply assume a valid connection even if it didn't exist!

Why do you want the right to get p1ssed as a fart, then drive a 500hp powerboat with your family on board as much as you like? That's bonkers...

There is no need to make offensive insinuations. If you cannot discuss this without making personal remarks, then it shows how weak your arguments are.

I don't. Nor do most people.
And the incredibly tiny minority that might are hardly likely to be discouraged by another layer of legislation on top of all the legislation that already exists.

If you think the EU is democratic, you cling to that belief. Perhaps you could make a democratic enquiry to see their last audited accounts? (clue - there aren't any).

No need to "make an enquiry": it's on Europa.
So is the Auditors report for every year up to and including 2010 http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/9766724.PDF, In the Court’s opinion, the annual accounts of the European Union present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Union as of 31 December 2010, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended, in accordance with the provisions of the Financial Regulation and the accounting rules adopted by the Commission’s accounting officer.

Not like the UK government accounts!