nanny state, more legislation & it doesn't cover jet skis !

[simonfraser]

nanny state, more legislation & it doesn\'t cover jet skis !

see here: /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6749253.stm

 

[moodycruiser]

Re: nanny state, more legislation & it doesn\'t cover jet skis !

So presumably if you are at anchor, you are no longer actively "involved in the navigation of a vessel" /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[steve_cronin]

A little grub screw on the throttle lever is called for then.

How bloody rediculous!

How do they justify "Excluding PWCs"?

So if I do the above or re-engine and therefore she is incapable of doing that last knot, I can sail as drunk as a lord? Is that how I read it?

It's almost as bad legislation from this "One 'good' idea a day government" as the HIPS farce [For sale three bedroom house with games room on ist floor - could be converted to 4th bedroom - therefore HIP exempt!]

What a load of tossers. Get rid of them and get rid of them quick. Come back John Major. I know you were dull but "Dull is beautiful"!

Steve Cronin

 

[Koeketiene]

Re: nanny state, more legislation & it doesn\'t cover jet skis !

Doesn't say who's got to be "sober" - just the skipper or the whole crew.

If it's just the skipper - my eldest's just been promoted to skipper.

 

[Brayman]

Re: nanny state, more legislation & it doesn\'t cover jet skis !

It says it applies to those persons exercising a function in connection with the navigation of a vessel.

Therefore presumes the skipper knows what he is doing perhaps? I thought it was all luck where we end up!

 

[moodycruiser]

Re: nanny state, more legislation & it doesn\'t cover jet skis !

that's where they've got you: "involved in the navigation of a vessel", - but then they can't have it both ways, surely. Harrumph.

 

[Koeketiene]

Re: nanny state, more legislation & it doesn\'t cover jet skis !

In that case; she's just been promoted to singlehanded skipper - the wife & I are just a bunch of freeloaders along for the ride.

 

[moodycruiser]

Re: nanny state, more legislation & it doesn\'t cover jet skis !

/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[pvb]

Are we sure it doesn\'t cover jet skis?

I'm not sure whether jetskis are excluded from the proposal. The proposal is to make exceptions to section 80 of the Railways & Transport Safety Act 2003. Section 80 covers non-professionals navigating "on board a ship which is under way". Later, in section 89, the Act says that " 'ship' includes every description of vessel used in navigation" - so wouldn't that include jetskis?

The proposed exception is for "a vessel which is less than 7 metres in length and is not capable of a maximum speed of over 7 knots", so this exception wouldn't apply to jetskis.

So jetskis might be included.

 

[Bergman]

Re: nanny state, more legislation & it doesn\'t cover jet skis !

Yes

Thats fine

But does it say who will enforce it

And how

Will policemen swim out to an anchorage and drag you protesting to the shore?

And what the penalties will be

And is there any way to "disqualify" a drunken sailor

More seriously and more worringly for me is that this will be used as a lever to introduce a "sailing license" which could be taken away.

Once again lots of time and effort and money completely wasted to solve a non problem. The only gain is a one day wonder, a 10 second slot on BBC news and then forgotten.

 

[ShipsWoofy]

Re: nanny state, more legislation & it doesn\'t cover jet skis !

Personally I am not for todays new law, but I am struggling to work out why some on here are fighting for the right to take their vessels out when pissed.

I think if we are to fight this ruling, we had better find a more appropriate argument than I have always managed to sail pissed and I will continue to do so. We need to outline why this ruling is unworkable.

I realise what you are saying is tongue in cheek, but remember, in a dictatorship, scrabbling at the tail of the snake gets you bitten, you have to attack the head.

 

[clyst]

Re: nanny state, more legislation & it doesn\'t cover jet skis !

but what happens if your anchor drags and you are over the limit??? you just got to let her go !! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

 

[Bergman]

Re: nanny state, more legislation & it doesn\'t cover jet skis !

I don't think its really about having the right to drive when pissed. After all you have a right to stick needles in your eyes but very few people exercise the right. And why is it necessary to make everything that NuLabour disapproves of illegal?

If there was a problem with pissed sailors going around causing mayhem I would probably support the proposal.

Clearly there is no such situation, yes, I know there have been a couple of incidents where drink is believed to have been a contributory factor but that hardly constitutes a justification of this piece of legislation, particularly since the worst example occured after work started on the proposal.

It is hard to see how it will be applied in a proactive way, and unless an incident occurs close to civilisation its application after the fact will be a problem.

Add to that all the issues about who can and cannot drink on a boat, who is taking part in its navigation, dargging anchors and all the rest, it really is difficult to see how it can be applied.

Except, that is, as the thin end of a legislative wedge, which I suspect is the real agenda. This misbegotten government cannot abide people acting in any way that they cannot control (and tax) and I believe that will be the end game of this.

 

[Poignard]

Re: nanny state, more legislation & it doesn\'t cover jet skis !

[ QUOTE ]
The drink limit will apply to those "involved in the navigation of a vessel" ....... capable of speeds of 7 knots or more.


[/ QUOTE ]

And how is that to be decided, and enforced?

 

[moondancer]

Re: nanny state, more legislation & it doesn\'t cover jet skis !

It's OK you just need to buy a boat that is under 7M.

 

[Csail]

Re: nanny state, more legislation & it doesn\'t cover jet skis !

Guess my 2 year old is our new captain then. F*&^%$G stupid legislation.
A car does 70 mph with 3 ft clearance to another car.....we do 6 knts with a mile clearance, so in that case walking from a club/bar while pissed is more dangerous! I don't mind the road legal bit but boats......come on!
Jet skiis can't really cause enough of a drink drive problem to create another legislation?
Next pubs will be banned.

 

[Poignard]

Re: nanny state, more legislation & it doesn\'t cover jet skis !

Hang on a minute!

Twister lwl = 21'6". Therefore, [if I've done my sums right], maximum hull speed = 6.2 knots

That's alright then - open another bottle!

 

[clyst]

Re: nanny state, more legislation & it doesn\'t cover jet skis !

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The drink limit will apply to those "involved in the navigation of a vessel" ....... capable of speeds of 7 knots or more.


[/ QUOTE ]

And how is that to be decided, and enforced?

[/ QUOTE ]

Also is that speed over the ground or through the water ?? Its just a load of unenforceable bo***cks /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif. there are laws already existing for boaters mainly the IRPCS .

 

[steve_cronin]

Jealousy and hitting well off toffs mate. Up the Labour!

RIGHT UP it as far as I'm concerned.

It is just another instance of whipping up the approval of the nodding (sub) classes
Those grey suited, short haired (except their legs), miserio- sexually repressed female nurds that run the labour party these days are behind this. Then they get some patronising Scots git to use that "When Talking to the English" tone to tell us all how good the latest nannying is for us and how we really KNOW that it is if we are honest.

John Reid=Twatus Maximus IMO

Steve Cronin

 

[Captain_Chaos]

Re: Jealousy and hitting well off toffs mate. Up the Labour!

It has been a long day and this is typical nanny state stuff written by morons.
At a time when our soldiers are dying needlessly in Iraq and Afganistan, the NHS is bust, the economy is about to crash and burn it is comforting to know that the w4ankers in whitehall have nothing better to do.

What exactly do the new regs relate to
1. boats over 7m capable of +7 knots, or
2. boats over 7m, and boats capable of more than 7 knots?
There is a difference.

I wonder if the penalty for being caught will be a driving ban!

As a previous commenter stated, what happens if the anchor drags and you've had a few? Save the boat and get done or take to dinghy and claim on the insurance?

Presumably, this will apply only in UK waters. What are the regs in France?