More regulations

A couple of general comments;

Firstly, I haven't noticed drunkeness on boats to be a problem in 40 years of sailing with semi-alcoholics. Most accidents I now about have been in dinghies or on pontoons returning from the club/ pub when people believe they are in a safe environment! :rolleyes:

Also, as I understand it someone has already stated that a boat is also a "vehicle" & the drink driving legislation COULD be used to prosecute drunken sailors. However I would query who is actually "in charge" of a boat, the navigator, the helmsman, the skipper, or the owner. They could all be the same person or all different. And, as already stated, there is a world of difference between 3-5kts in open water & 25kts thro the moorings.

Finally, as a motorhome owner I am painfully aware that people have been done for sleeping off a skinfull in a car with the keys in their pocket as they are still "in charge". So sleeping in a motorhome in a lay-by or a boat at anchor are a very similar situation. Especially as, in the motorhome, there is a possibility of being woken up by Police & moved on if they so choose.

The law is designed to allow lots of discretion, sadly it is seldom used intelligently.
 
The law already exists, but the relevant sections are not yet in force.
Just so we know what it really says:-
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/20/section/80
80 Non-professionals
(1)This section applies to a person who—
(a)is on board a ship which is under way,
(b)is exercising, or purporting or attempting to exercise, a function in connection with the navigation of the ship, and
(c)is not a person to whom section 78 or 79 applies.
(2)A person to whom this section applies commits an offence if his ability to exercise the function mentioned in subsection (1)(b) is impaired because of drink or drugs.
(3)A person to whom this section applies commits an offence if the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit.
(4)The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for subsection (3) not to apply in specified circumstances.
(5)Regulations under subsection (4) may make provision by reference, in particular—
(a)to the power of a motor;
(b)to the size of a ship;
(c)to location.

81 Prescribed limit
(1)The prescribed limit of alcohol for the purposes of this Part is—
(a)in the case of breath, 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres,
(b)in the case of blood, 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres, and
(c)in the case of urine, 107 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres.
(2)The Secretary of State may make regulations amending subsection (1).

84 Detention pending arrival of police(1)A marine official may detain a ship if he reasonably suspects that a person who is or may be on board the ship—
(a)is committing an offence under section 78, 79 or 80, or
(b)has committed an offence under section 78, 79 or 80.
(2)The power of detention under subsection (1)—
(a)is conditional upon the marine official making a request, either before the detention or as soon as possible after its commencement, for a constable in uniform to attend, and
(b)lapses when a constable in uniform has decided whether or not to exercise a power by virtue of section 83 and has informed the marine official of his decision.
(3)In this section “marine official” means—
(a)a harbour master, or an assistant of a harbour master, appointed by a harbour authority,
(b)a person listed in section 284(1)(a) to (d) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (c. 21)(detention of ship), and
(c)a person falling within a class designated by order of the Secretary of State.
(4)In construing section 284(1)(b) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (detention by person authorised by Secretary of State) for the purpose of subsection (3)(b) above, the reference to authorisation to exercise powers under that section shall be taken as a reference—
(a)to general authorisation to exercise powers under that section, and
(b)to general or particular authorisation to exercise powers under this section.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
timbartlett said:
- it doesn't apply only to the person in charge -- it applies to anyone exercising any function in connection with the navigation of the "ship"
Click to expand...

so all the hungover winch gorillas going out for the races after a heavy session in cowes should watch out?
 
yesod said:
so all the hungover winch gorillas going out for the races after a heavy session in cowes should watch out?
Click to expand...
Sorry -- you commented on a bit that I edited out -- but according to the letter of the law (if it ever comes into force) it would appear so!
 
To my view all these extra regulations are caused by numpties, the numpties who cause problems by doing stupid things, the numpties in the press who distort reality to sell papers, the numpties in parliament who think they will be able to keep their snouts in our trough for even longer if they enact more regulations as suggested by the press numpties, and finally the numpties who vote for the numpty polititians, and buy the papers produced by the press numpties.
 
maxi77 said:
To my view all these extra regulations are caused by numpties, the numpties who cause problems by doing stupid things, the numpties in the press who distort reality to sell papers, the numpties in parliament who think they will be able to keep their snouts in our trough for even longer if they enact more regulations as suggested by the press numpties, and finally the numpties who vote for the numpty polititians, and buy the papers produced by the press numpties.
Click to expand...

And the civil service numpties whose job is to produce regulations to make the politicians look productive.
 
timbartlett said:
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.

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! :eek:
Click to expand...

As promised I have trawled through all the MAIB reports and other material on their website. MAIB publish 4 different types of report.

Full Report which is as its name implies a comprehensive report of the incident with conclusions and recommendations 24 published 2006-2010. Note these are the date of publication, not when the incident took place, which may be in a previous year.

Completed Preliminary Investigation which just gives a summary of the incident and brief conclusions and recommendations, including any casualties. 18 in 2006-2012.

Safety Digests Regular (usually 3 times a year) identifying key safety issues from the period. Most of these are anonymised brief accounts of incidents covered in the two types of more detailed reports, although some use examples for which no reports exist.

Annual Reports which summarise all the key features of the year, and may add some overall commentary such as highlighting the need for tougher controls on drinking and boating.

The TOTAL number of deaths from the reported incidents in each year is as follows

2006 10
2007 11
2008 5
2009 7
2010 1
2011 1
2012 1

So for comparison with the table from MAIB (2006-10) this is a Total of 34 from all causes - less than their claim of 35 from just drink related causes.

If we look at just drink we find the following

2006 2 cases, each resulting in 2 deaths, total 4 Drink confirmed by testing in both cases

2009 2 cases. One not subject to either a full report or an investigation, but written up in the Safety Digest. 2 deaths (returning from pub in dinghy). Second one 4 deaths. Investigation only. Casualties had spent the evening in the pub, but the boat was overloaded and the weather conditions poor. No clear cause identified as no witnesses and all 4 drowned.

2012 1 case, (Morphil - as already discussed). No injuries or deaths. Successful prosecution.

So, a total of 6 deaths where drink was a causal or contributory factor and 4 where it was possible.

Long way away from the claimed 45 and consistent with the figures for the previous period drawn from the Parliamentary response. That is an average of 1.6 a year. However, if you take out 2006 and do the last 6 years it falls to 1 a year - but they all occured in one year (2009), and 4 of them in one incident. Note also that virtually all deaths, whatever the cause involve RIBS, small powercraft or dinghies! (as one would expect).

Somebody is either telling porkies or there are a lot of hidden deaths that have not been properly investigated!
 
I think a few people are missing the point of the MAIB here.
A huge number of accidents are reported the the MAIB every year, only the ones where important safety lessons can be learnt are investigated fully and are written up into reports. Which is around 40-50 per year.

However the MAIB is notified of all commercial accidents and all serious non commercial accidents ie. those with fatalities. So has access to the statistics of the number of accidents of various types, and is aware of how they happened, as while they may not have been investigated by the MAIB they will have been investigated by the MCA enforcement department, and/or the coroner.
 
wadget said:
I think a few people are missing the point of the MAIB here.
A huge number of accidents are reported the the MAIB every year, only the ones where important safety lessons can be learnt are investigated fully and are written up into reports. Which is around 40-50 per year.

However the MAIB is notified of all commercial accidents and all serious non commercial accidents ie. those with fatalities. So has access to the statistics of the number of accidents of various types, and is aware of how they happened, as while they may not have been investigated by the MAIB they will have been investigated by the MCA enforcement department, and/or the coroner.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe, but all deaths on boats (& RNLI rescues) are widely reported in the press & on the BBC & RNLI websites. Most of us have an interest & so notice them & read them. Many are posted on here for "lessons learnt & comments" & my view is that Tranona is spot on. The big risks are dinghy trips back to the boat or slipping off the pontoon in the marina after a night's entertainment.

It seems extremely unlikely that the majority of drink boating deaths are obscured by the way that the MAIB reports and I am surprised that you suggest it.
 
wadget said:
I think a few people are missing the point of the MAIB here.
A huge number of accidents are reported the the MAIB every year, only the ones where important safety lessons can be learnt are investigated fully and are written up into reports. Which is around 40-50 per year.

However the MAIB is notified of all commercial accidents and all serious non commercial accidents ie. those with fatalities. So has access to the statistics of the number of accidents of various types, and is aware of how they happened, as while they may not have been investigated by the MAIB they will have been investigated by the MCA enforcement department, and/or the coroner.
Click to expand...

That is what I always thought - but the gap between what they claim in their own words "to have investigated" and what they have reported is so huge that one has to ask questions about the reliability of what they say. Do you really think there are 35 deaths (3 times those actually investigated) that have not been subject to some form of formal report?

As Searush says, accidents resulting in deaths are widely reported in the press - just look at the news page on this site and I do not recall deaths from pleasure boats in the numbers suggested, whether related to drink or not. They don't seem to show up in MCA coastguard or RNLI statistics either, but that is difficult to analyse as they are not presented in a usable form.

As you can see from Tim's post, last time the "inflated" figures were challenged, the "real" was shown to be very different.
 
I wasn't suggesting anything other than the fact that adding up the number of deaths in MAIB accidents reports will not give you an accurate figure for the actual number of deaths as not all of them are investigated by the MAIB.

Just as the total number of deaths on all uk flagged vessels would be much higher than those investigated by the MAIB.

Personally I think that it is ridiculous that you can drive 200hp ribs or huge sunseekers tanked up. Especially considering some of the other things which are illegal in this country.
 
prv said:
I'm not at all convinced that you can. Certainly if you had an accident you'd be liable in common law for your reckless behaviour.

Pete
Click to expand...

Well its not obviously illegal anywhere. and that's the point your obviously going to be in trouble if you cause an accident, but the law should be the to disscourage the accident in the first place not to punish people afterwards.

Do you think it is ok to drive a car drunk along as you don't cause an accident?
 
timbartlett said:
The law already exists, but the relevant sections are not yet in force.
Just so we know what it really says:-
.......
(4)The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for subsection (3) not to apply in specified circumstances.
(5)Regulations under subsection (4) may make provision by reference, in particular—
(a)to the power of a motor;
(b)to the size of a ship;
(c)to location.
.......
Click to expand...

Hopefully, this is the key - applied sensibly. Where we sail, it is not uncommon to see mobos and jet skis charging along at high speeds through congested areas - sometimes through a group of youngsters racing their Toppers and Oppies. Their behaviour is sufficiently dangerous sober - I have no problem with the idea that they should be subject to limits on the amount they can drink.

There's a real danger of overreacting to the prospect of laws against drink-boating. I like a drink as much as the next man, but I don't have a problem with a law that effectively resricts me to no more than one glass of wine, or one beer before taking charge of my boat. If you are pottering along the river at five or six knots, your chances of being stopped and tested are pretty much zero. if you are running flat out in a high powered mobo or jet ski, I don't see any reason why you should not e subject to the same requirements as a car driver.
 
wadget said:
I wasn't suggesting anything other than the fact that adding up the number of deaths in MAIB accidents reports will not give you an accurate figure for the actual number of deaths as not all of them are investigated by the MAIB.
Click to expand...
That may be true, butI believe the figures reported in Parliament in 2006 and the figures quoted in the Morfil report purport to be calculated on the same basis:-
"the number of fatalities from accidents where alcohol consumption has been established as a causal or contributing factor that have been reported to the MAIB between 2005 and 2010." (Morfil, 2012)
Details of all accidents reported to the Marine Accident Investigation Branch are contained on its database.... numbers of deaths and injuries where alcohol was positively identified as a contributory factor:(Hansard, 2006)

wadget said:
Personally I think that it is ridiculous that you can drive 200hp ribs or huge sunseekers tanked up. Especially considering some of the other things which are illegal in this country.
Click to expand...
You can't. And even if you could, the number of people who would do so is miniscule, and the number who would, but who would be discouraged from doing so by a law would probably be even smaller.

Quite apart from the provisions of the colregs, most harbours already have bye-laws against drink-boating. The PLA has a bye-law that sets the same limits as those for road vehicles, and has used it successfully. Surprisingly, although they successfully prosecuted Morfil's helmsman for other offences against the bye-laws, it seems they decided not to use that particular one in this case.

Curiously enough, the CarrieKate/Ketts collision in Falmouth also involved a situation in which the MAIB confidently asserted that both helmsmen were over the limit for driving a car, Falmouth also has a drink-boat bye-law, yet Falmouth Harbour Authority also chose not to bring a prosecution under that particular bye-law.

I wonder why?
 
wadget said:
Well its not obviously illegal anywhere....
Click to expand...
It is. An in particular, it is where the Morfil accident happened. But thehelmsman of Morfil was NOT prosecuted under the existing law. Why not?
wadget said:
.... the law should be the to disscourage the accident in the first place not to punish people afterwards.
Click to expand...
The existing law obviously failed to discourage. Why would another law would have made any difference? Particularly one that is buried in the middle of an Act that says it's about Railways?
 
wadget said:
I wasn't suggesting anything other than the fact that adding up the number of deaths in MAIB accidents reports will not give you an accurate figure for the actual number of deaths as not all of them are investigated by the MAIB.

Just as the total number of deaths on all uk flagged vessels would be much higher than those investigated by the MAIB.

Personally I think that it is ridiculous that you can drive 200hp ribs or huge sunseekers tanked up. Especially considering some of the other things which are illegal in this country.
Click to expand...

The MAIB specifically said that the number they quote is drawn from the accidents they have investigated. Simply untrue. I have read every report and publication from the period in question and the contents do not support what they say. If they say they have investigated all these deaths, where are the reports, or even a list of the cases? They are certainly not afraid of blowing their own trumpet as their extensive publications show - one of which focussed on drink, but mainly contained incidents that were already in their reports.

As I and others have noted it is unlikely that so many deaths not in their reports can have occurred without any investigation nor appearing in the public domain in some form or other. The pattern in the figures I posted is exactly the same as the pattern from the previous period, where the figures that were quoted were challenged and the "real" figures presented to Parliament (see Tim's earlier post).

If there is such a huge number of un investigated deaths due to drink then there is something seriously wrong with the agencies responsible for such investigations.

BTW you will not find a single incident - of any kind - involving a "huge" Sunseeker in any MAIB reports over now nearly 20 years. The vast majority of accidents involving deaths and injuries are related to small power boats, dinghies and RIBS. A small number occur in cruising and racing sailing yachts (usually MOB or injured by gear). Only two in the last 7 years involved a cruising MOBO - One was a collision with a barge (no drink involved) and the other was a drunken party of 6 who went for a ride in the middle of the night and hit a harbour wall.

Let us hope that Tim's FOA request draws something out.

Please do not take this as condoning drinking and operating a boat. Just questioning whether it is as widespread as suggested, and whether there is any evidence to support drinking as being a major contributory factor to deaths and injuries - or indeed to accidents at all. The evidence collected over the last 10 years or so since the Act came in does not support either proposition. So either the methods used to collect evidence are inadequate (unlikely) or the "problem" is not there ( seems more likely).
 
maby said:
Hopefully, this is the key - applied sensibly.
Click to expand...
Applied sensibly. Hmmm. If only that could be guaranteed. Then all we would need to do would be to define sensibly. Would it, for instance, mean "applied only to motor boats?"

I wonder how many alcohol related fatalities involve "high powered mobos"?
And how many involve people pottering back to their boats, in the dark, in under-inflated dinghies with slightly dodgy outboards? Or narrowboats, pottering along @ <4kts?

We shall see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top