More regulations

[chanelyacht]

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". 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'd have thought the phrase "to make provision about transport safety" gave it away. Or perhaps it should have had a seperate act, in which case you'd probably (rightly) complain about the cost of introducing an entire bill for one clause.

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.You may have missed my edit of my earlier post.

No difference to doing the same with a car - if you're below the limit, you have no problem. If you're over the limit, well, sorry, an impending tide is not an excuse.

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.

But the problem is that legislation doesn't exist - not in an easily understandable and widely know format. There are plenty of laws about not killing with a car - yet a drink drive limit was still considered necessary. Yes, a minority ignore it - but at least on the roads, there are consequences.

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!

Ah, the ECA - a fully paid up subsidiary of the EU experiment. Members are appointed by the Council of the European Union for a renewable period of six years - so, like the rest of the gravy train passengers, they're unlikely to bite the hand that feeds them.

Robert Maxwell's employed auditors cleared his pension funds, too.

 

[prv]

No difference to doing the same with a car - if you're below the limit, you have no problem. If you're over the limit, well, sorry, an impending tide is not an excuse.

The rather substantial difference is that, in a car, a split-second increase in reaction time caused by alcohol can very easily cause an accident that kills or maims innocent bystanders. That is simply not the case in a cruising yacht at five knots.

For what it's worth, I'm not convinced that there's a problem needing solving, but if rules were brought in that applied only to vessels above a certain design speed, I could at least see that there might be some justification. Reaction time does matter on a fast RIB in busy waters.

Pete

 

[timbartlett]

[/quote]

I'd have thought the phrase "to make provision about transport safety" gave it away. Or perhaps it should have had a seperate act, in which case you'd probably (rightly) complain about the cost of introducing an entire bill for one clause.

"Railways and Transport" -- to my mind at least, and I'm sure to many others -- conveys an impression of Railways, plus (maybe) HGVs and commercial transport operations. It doesn't immediately suggest sailing and recreational boating. But Whitehall wasn't born yesterday. They're not going to bury a law about dinking on yachts in the Ragwort Control Act, for instance. They'll put it in one that could at least be plausibly aergued as being relavant.

BTW, the Ragwort Control Act -- same year as the Railway and Transport Safety Act. It's only two pages, most of which is taken up with coats of arms and preamble about her most excellent majesty and lords spiritual and temporal and such-like guff. Three paragraphs -- one gives "the Minister" authority to introduce a code of practice for the control of a single kind of weed, two says it applies to Wales as well, and the third tells us what it's called. So I'm afraid the argument that lumping drink-boat law in with stuff about trains was some kind of economy measure (by one of the most spendthrift governments we've ever had!) is a pretty feeble excuse.

No difference to doing the same with a car - if you're below the limit, you have no problem. If you're over the limit, well, sorry, an impending tide is not an excuse.

That, in a way, is my point. This legislationwill not stop anyone driving a boat when theyare out of their head. What it will do is frighten ordinary, decent, law-abiding folk into limiting their pleasures for fear of unwittingly crossing some arbitrary limit that they have no way of measuring. And there is one very big differnce between a boat and a car. You don't (as a rule) live in a car, for a start!

But the problem is that legislation doesn't exist - not in an easily understandable and widely know format. There are plenty of laws about not killing with a car - yet a drink drive limit was still considered necessary. Yes, a minority ignore it - but at least on the roads, there are consequences.

The PLA bye-law is perfectly clear, and sets the same legal limit as for the drivers of road vehicles (and RATSA s80) -- yet they chose not to use it. Funnily enough, last time the MAIB started campaigning for the drink-boat law, they used an accident that had happened at night, and a Harbour authority that had a perfecty clear drink-boat bye-law but had inexplicably chosen not to use it. What a strange coincidence!

Anyway, you reckon that people who are unaware of the bye-laws that they see in the harbour master's office, marina office, on the slipway and on the back of their mooring bill are going to be casually browsing through the Statute books one day, and stumble across the Railwayand Transport Safety Act, and think "I've got a boat. Maybe that will apply to me". And next time they feel like a drink, they'll cast their minds back to what they read on page 34 and think "Nah: better not. I'll just have an orange juice."

Ah, the ECA - a fully paid up subsidiary of the EU experiment. Members are appointed by the Council of the European Union for a renewable period of six years - so, like the rest of the gravy train passengers, they're unlikely to bite the hand that feeds them.

You do realise that the Council is made up of representatives of each country's government, don't you? So what you are suggesting is that all the European governments are colluding in some plot to swindle themselves, and are employing bent auditors to conceal the scam?

I know there are people on this forum who think I'm paranoid ... but that really takes the biscuit!

 

[chanelyacht]

"Railways and Transport" -- to my mind at least, and I'm sure to many others -- conveys an impression of Railways, plus (maybe) HGVs and commercial transport operations. It doesn't immediately suggest sailing and recreational boating. But Whitehall wasn't born yesterday. They're not going to bury a law about dinking on yachts in the Ragwort Control Act, for instance. They'll put it in one that could at least be plausibly aergued as being relavant.

BTW, the Ragwort Control Act -- same year as the Railway and Transport Safety Act. It's only two pages, most of which is taken up with coats of arms and preamble about her most excellent majesty and lords spiritual and temporal and such-like guff. Three paragraphs -- one gives "the Minister" authority to introduce a code of practice for the control of a single kind of weed, two says it applies to Wales as well, and the third tells us what it's called. So I'm afraid the argument that lumping drink-boat law in with stuff about trains was some kind of economy measure (by one of the most spendthrift governments we've ever had!) is a pretty feeble excuse.

So they should have been twice as spendthrift? Hybrid bills are quite common, and used by all parts of government. If DEFRA had no other legislation going through at the time, I can understand a stand alone bill - or it may have been private member driven. DfT obviously did, so it made sense to tag legislation from the same sponsoring department along with it.

That, in a way, is my point. This legislationwill not stop anyone driving a boat when theyare out of their head. What it will do is frighten ordinary, decent, law-abiding folk into limiting their pleasures for fear of unwittingly crossing some arbitrary limit that they have no way of measuring. And there is one very big differnce between a boat and a car. You don't (as a rule) live in a car, for a start!

But you can live in a car / motorhome. No-one's saying (I hope) that the alcohol limit would apply at anchor or moored - it would be "whilst underway". Obviously, had an incident ocurred earlier, the levels could be backtracked the same way they can be now if you have an accident, run home, and pretend to have been in bed.

Anyway, you reckon that people who are unaware of the bye-laws that they see in the harbour master's office, marina office, on the slipway and on the back of their mooring bill are going to be casually browsing through the Statute books one day, and stumble across the Railwayand Transport Safety Act, and think "I've got a boat. Maybe that will apply to me". And next time they feel like a drink, they'll cast their minds back to what they read on page 34 and think "Nah: better not. I'll just have an orange juice."

And people know now the section / paragraph / clause that sets the drink drive limits?

Hardly an excuse for not having any limits, is it?

You do realise that the Council is made up of representatives of each country's government, don't you? So what you are suggesting is that all the European governments are colluding in some plot to swindle themselves, and are employing bent auditors to conceal the scam?

I know there are people on this forum who think I'm paranoid ... but that really takes the biscuit!

Except it's not politicians money is it, so why care about "swindling themselves"? As with everything else, if they need more cash for a pet project, they just milk the taxpayer. Over and over again. How many opportunities to vote on Europe have we been denied? When the Irish dared vote against, it was simply sent back to them to "get it right next time". More than one senior EU politician have been caught saying the public must be denied any vote on the continuance of the EU project.
So is it credible that the whole architects of the EUSSR make the figures fit the circumstances? Absolutely.

 

[chanelyacht]

In fact, having looked it up (sad, I know), the Ragwort Control Act was an amending act to an existing provision :

"An Act to amend the Weeds Act 1959 in relation to ragwort; and for connected purposes."

 

[timbartlett]

In fact, having looked it up (sad, I know), the Ragwort Control Act was an amending act to an existing provision :

"An Act to amend the Weeds Act 1959 in relation to ragwort; and for connected purposes."

You must admit that it is a bit of a classic! Even the name sounds pretty insignificant... then when you read the Act itself you realise that the title is overstating its importance!

 

[robertj]

I do feel that the legislation, not particularly drink helming side of things, is just getting too much. When will it be that our lastfreedom
of sailing will be reeled into their corperate pay and sail, can't sail here, keepout, no anchoring, no this, no that etc etc.
But what can we do?
This country seems on the edge of something I can't quite put my finger on, disturbing, there something not quite right but I don't know what it is maybe it's our freedoms slowly being erased for money!

Bob

 

[GrahamM376]

A difficult subject and I suspect the viewpoint changes depending on whether you're the drunk or, the person just put on hospital by one after being run down.

Personally, I feel that anyone who causes damage or injury to others whilst intentionally driving a boat when well under the influence should be prosecuted but, unless the law prohibits such behaviour, how do they prosecute?

Wearing my other "hat" I see no problem in drinking whilst on anchor for the night (and do so) but, what happens if it drags and I unexpectedly have to move the boat? Would that carry the same penalty as intentionally being drunk at the wheel?

The draft of the proposed law I read a few years ago actually ruled out slow tenders which is strange as there have been many accidents involving tenders returning to their boats late at night, whereas there are few (if any?) recorded incidents with larger pleasure boats.

 

[prv]

Personally, I feel that anyone who causes damage or injury to others whilst intentionally driving a boat when well under the influence should be prosecuted but, unless the law prohibits such behaviour, how do they prosecute?

The law already prohibits recklessly injuring other people. The manner in which you are reckless doesn't need to be specifically laid down.

Pete

 

[robertj]

I know that to increase revenue to pay off the debt to the privately owned banks of the world, if you were even at anchor with a few drinks you would be done.
If you are found sleeping in the back seat of a car (with keys on you or in the car) drunk u will be arrested for being drunk in charge of a vehicle.

A difficult subject and I suspect the viewpoint changes depending on whether you're the drunk or, the person just put on hospital by one after being run down.

Personally, I feel that anyone who causes damage or injury to others whilst intentionally driving a boat when well under the influence should be prosecuted but, unless the law prohibits such behaviour, how do they prosecute?

Wearing my other "hat" I see no problem in drinking whilst on anchor for the night (and do so) but, what happens if it drags and I unexpectedly have to move the boat? Would that carry the same penalty as intentionally being drunk at the wheel?

The draft of the proposed law I read a few years ago actually ruled out slow tenders which is strange as there have been many accidents involving tenders returning to their boats late at night, whereas there are few (if any?) recorded incidents with larger pleasure boats.

 

[timbartlett]

A difficult subject and I suspect the viewpoint changes depending on whether you're the drunk or, the person just put on hospital by one after being run down.

Personally, I feel that anyone who causes damage or injury to others whilst intentionally driving a boat when well under the influence should be prosecuted but, unless the law prohibits such behaviour, how do they prosecute?

(1) The MAIB report on the Morfil/Sun Clipper collision claims that there have been 45 fatalities in pleasure craft involving pleasure craft in which alcohol was a contributory factor between 2001-2010.

Off hand, I cannot think of any in which there have been any casualties other than on the vessel being helmed by the person alleged to have consumed too much alcohol.

But perhaps we shall soon see. I have made an FOI request for "sufficient information for me to be able to link each of the 45 fatalities to the corresponding MAIB report in which alcohol was identified as a contributory factor.". Afterall, they must have been investigated, mustn't they? Else how would anyone know what the contributory factors were?

Actually, I doubt whether it will be "soon": I anticipate that in a month's time, I will get a letter telling me that it has not been possible to accede to my request. Last time I asked tihe MAIB to substantiate its statistics with evidence, it transpired that it was unable to do so because it didn't actually have any evidence!

(2) Most collisions happen in harbours, wherethe harbourauthority bye-laws already prohibit drink-boating. The Morfil case certainly did. But they chose not to use it. Strange, that. I wonderwhy not?

 

[robertj]

A difficult subject and I suspect the viewpoint changes depending on whether you're the drunk or, the person just put on hospital by one after being run down.

Personally, I feel that anyone who causes damage or injury to others whilst intentionally driving a boat when well under the influence should be prosecuted but, unless the law prohibits such behaviour, how do they prosecute?

Wearing my other "hat" I see no problem in drinking whilst on anchor for the night (and do so) but, what happens if it drags and I unexpectedly have to move the boat? Would that carry the same penalty as intentionally being drunk at the wheel?

The draft of the proposed law I read a few years ago actually ruled out slow tenders which is strange as there have been many accidents involving tenders returning to their boats late at night, whereas there are few (if any?) recorded incidents with larger pleasure boats.

this is Common Law (not Acts or Statutes), where if you injure a third party then you are at fault, and fall foul of the Law.

 

[Tranona]

But perhaps we shall soon see. I have made an FOI request for "sufficient information for me to be able to link each of the 45 fatalities to the corresponding MAIB report in which alcohol was identified as a contributory factor.". Afterall, they must have been investigated, mustn't they? Else how would anyone know what the contributory factors were?

Actually, I doubt whether it will be "soon": I anticipate that in a month's time, I will get a letter telling me that it has not been possible to accede to my request. Last time I asked tihe MAIB to substantiate its statistics with evidence, it transpired that it was unable to do so because it didn't actually have any evidence!

Expect they will struggle with that one. As you might recall from the last round of trying to bring in the regulations the headline number of cases got down to a small handful (forget exactly how many) where drink really was a cause. The MAIB reports are not the only source of data about causes of accidents. Coroners reports will also provide reliable information, but not sure there is any centralised record of findings.

 

[timbartlett]

Expect they will struggle with that one. As you might recall from the last round of trying to bring in the regulations the headline number of cases got down to a small handful (forget exactly how many) where drink really was a cause. The MAIB reports are not the only source of data about causes of accidents. Coroners reports will also provide reliable information, but not sure there is any centralised record of findings.

Everything you say is quite true, and is exactly the point I was trying to make.
The MAIB have claimed 45 drink-related fatalities in 2006-2010.
Knowing their track record of inflating figures, I want to see them justify that statistic.
The funny thing is that if it were not for their past history, an average of 9 per year would probably sound plausible.
... that, and the fact that according to Hansard for 10 July 2006 the (then) Shipping Minister gave a written answer to a Parliamentary Question about alcohol-related deaths and injuries figures for 2001-2005. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo060710/text/60710w0006.htm
For recreational craft, the number of alcohol related deaths were:
2001: 2
2002: 0
2003: 1
2004: 0
2005: 5

Eight in five years gives an average of 1.6 per year.

The corresponding figures for 2005-10 given in the Morvil report are:
2005: 8
2006: 8
2007:13
2008: 3
2009: 7
2010: 4
(Doesn't add up to 45 because I've taken out the "small commercial pleasure craft" figures to give a like-for-like comparison with the Hansard figures)

The figures for the overlap year aren't even consistent !!

Do they seriously expect people to accept this kind of discrepancy without question? It would seem so!

 

[Tranona]

Might be looking for something to fill my time in the next couple of days - will trawl the reports.

2007 just jumps out. Can't even remember a year when there were 13 fatalities overall let alone drink related.

 

[Boathook]

Might be looking for something to fill my time in the next couple of days - will trawl the reports.

2007 just jumps out. Can't even remember a year when there were 13 fatalities overall let alone drink related.

Normally, drink related death on a pleasure boat results in headline news or at least a large thread on the forum. Not to sure when I last read one.

 

[Tranona]

Exactly. However, the MAIB is not obliged to investigate every incident that involves just leisure craft - the majority are either commercially operated or one of the parties involved was a commercial operator. However, it does pick up some where only leisure boats are involved.

All accidents involving deaths will however, have an inquest, but I am not sure there are any reliable statistics for that.

 

[prv]

Exactly. However, the MAIB is not obliged to investigate every incident that involves just leisure craft

Sure - but as Tim points out, if they haven't investigated, how can they state what the reasons for an accident (eg, alcohol) were? So all their "alcohol-related accident" figures must come only from investigated incidents.

Pete

 

[savageseadog]

Everything you say is quite true, and is exactly the point I was trying to make.
The MAIB have claimed 45 drink-related fatalities in 2006-2010.
Knowing their track record of inflating figures, I want to see them justify that statistic.
The funny thing is that if it were not for their past history, an average of 9 per year would probably sound plausible.
... that, and the fact that according to Hansard for 10 July 2006 the (then) Shipping Minister gave a written answer to a Parliamentary Question about alcohol-related deaths and injuries figures for 2001-2005. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo060710/text/60710w0006.htm
For recreational craft, the number of alcohol related deaths were:
2001: 2
2002: 0
2003: 1
2004: 0
2005: 5

Eight in five years gives an average of 1.6 per year.

The corresponding figures for 2005-10 given in the Morvil report are:
2005: 8
2006: 8
2007:13
2008: 3
2009: 7
2010: 4
(Doesn't add up to 45 because I've taken out the "small commercial pleasure craft" figures to give a like-for-like comparison with the Hansard figures)

The figures for the overlap year aren't even consistent !!

Do they seriously expect people to accept this kind of discrepancy without question? It would seem so!

Lots of people boat around over the limit and don't have accidents, lots more people probably boat around not over the limit and have correspondingly more accidents. I will accept that being over the limit is not good for safety but you couldn't directly correlate the drinking to all accidents or fatalities. As I've already said the existing laws suffice if the authorities want to use them, I suspect they want to create a revenue stream from new legislation to employ more jobsworths.
I will say the penalties for manslaughter on the roads at least are often pitiful, perhaps some long sentences would go some way to deter a few people.

 

[andymcp]

I haven't stayed close to this debate for a long time, but if I recall correctly, the planned legislation was that it would be an offence to be drunk in charge of a vessel, which while reasonable as a starting position, would extend to cover you at a mooring, at anchor etc, even if you (as skipper) were off-watch and had a couple of drams before turning in. Was it not also aimed at vessels over 7 metres or those that had a design speed of above x knots (can't recall what x actually was)?

Would be a pretty dull place if you couldn't have a pleasant days sail, grab a mooring/drop your (insert choice of...) anchor, then relax in the cockpit with your choice of liquid refreshment.