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

[pvb]

Do try to keep up!...

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]The proposal is that the regulations apply to every vessel except "a vessel which is less than 7 metres in length and is not capable of a maximum speed of over 7 knots".

 

[jenku]

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

Dunno about France but can tell you that the same thing is en route here in Sweden. The 7m/7kn distinction actually comes from the Colregs. There vessels below that do not need to show proper lights, and this the politicians have found a nice spot to draw the line through.

This is how it is going to be up here (presumably from 2008): vessels beyond 7m/7kn will need a skipper's license, they will need an insurance and they will be subject to the same drink and drive rules as on roads. The speed limit will be over ground, not through the water, as our Coast Guard already now uses lasers for speed control and those do not care about currents. Sorry for your tides then, fortunately we don't have them
There will be some exceptions rule about moving a boat in wind shifts or when anchors are dragging, but hey, you can drive your kids to the ER in your car as well, while drunk, if there is an emergency.
Also we will have special fast speed licence for boats +25 knots which I personally find is the only sane thing in the whole process.

Oh and it is longer than 7m OR faster than 7 knots. So if you are 5m but can do 15 knots you are busted. Jet skis will be included here if they are of the kind that floats with the engine turned off, because then they are boats. The other kind I do not know. Maybe they get banned completely or something.

 

[bumblefish]

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

Same with my Elizabethan 30, I would love to get to 7 knots but I will settle for a drink!

 

[steve_cronin]

Why do people automatically assume that Scandinavian = Wise?

Scandinavia INVENTED the Nanny State. They thrive on rules and being regulated. they see it as some sort of prophylactic panacea and seem to go to the greatest lengths to protect themselves against dangers that aren't really there.

There is absolutely NO justification for this sort of regulation and control. NONE whatsoever and NOBODY can prove to me that there is. It is an evil government that actually admires totalitarianist regeimes and the amount of control they have.

Trouble is that all the Auntie Bettys and Mrs Trellis's, living dull lives in their little retirement bungalows, watching, with Joey the budgie, TV soaps as a source of second hand real life experiences and dutifully sorting their household rubbish into seperate "re-cycling" bins only to have it all mixed back again at the depot* will respond "Well if they aren't doing anything wrong what do they have to fear?"

As to "Who is going to impose it" fear not: THIS government will find enough of your and my money to buy and equip a whole fleet of new "Water police" or even militarise the Coast Guard to address this "Grave and Pressing Danger to the welfare of our ordinary citizens from a bunch of wealthy parasites who currently have no control whatsoever over their dangerous activities "(roll out a picture of an isolated incident in full gory colour - which will of course prove absolutely nothing) I can see John Reid doing it on Breakfast TV NOW!

Steve Cronin

* because only 30% of collected "re-cycling" ever gets re-cycled into useful products As my wife says "You only need so many synthetic fleeces!"

 

[pvb]

Re: Why do people automatically assume that Scandinavian = Wise?

I imagine you used all the dark colours in your crayon set up first. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif

 

[Gunfleet]

Re: Why do people automatically assume that Scandinavian = Wise?

[ QUOTE ]
As my wife says "You only need so many synthetic fleeces!"

[/ QUOTE ]


Is this what they call 'talking dirty'?

 

[Fin]

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

Glad to see our lords and masters have their finger on the important issues in the country today.

Is there a way of showing our collective distaste for this?

/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

 

[Seagreen]

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

Saw the news. This has got to be resisted. I know of no one who actually sails drunk - its impossible and I tried once, never again.

In reality it is just another junior minister "Brown-nosing" (geddit?) for a promotion, and hoping that boat owners will get the thin end of the wedge with the general public in the same way that Foxhunters did, if we cause a fuss.

But these proposals are generally unenforceable. I'm damn sure that the Police don't want more work, the Customs are busy enough, and local Harbour authorities don't give a stuff anyway.

Down here on the Exe, with 1200 moored boats, we've a part time police dory that cannot make its designed speed of 12 knots as it sat on the mooring so long, its aground on its own barnacles!

But this has to be resisted. This Ladyboy character is just another small time politico looking for an easy hit. I used to see loads of his sort working as mid level policy officers in Devon County Council. He's just looking for another gold star on his CV.

I don't usually advocate such things but in his case I'd go along with the Scientologist's "fair game" principle. He ought to be ridiculed, publicly. Is he going to massively increase the Police forces maritime patrol budget? Is he prepared to put at least £20 million nationwide into an enforcement programme? New officers trained? The much vaunted "border patrol force" all pumped up to shoot terrorists and breathalyse people on pedalos? The legislation does not appear to cover youthful urbanites off the beaches not drunk but high on "recreational pharmaceuticals" doing 7+ knots amongst swimmers...

OK, rant over. This ideas so full of holes you could keep fish in it.

/forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

 

[William_H]

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

You guys are lost in your own little world. There is more world than just UK and in fact UK is way behind in sensible legislation for pleasure boating. IMHO.

Here in West Oz (this kind of issue is run by state governments)
for 2million people we had 10 boating deaths is 8 accidents last year.
The government some years back decided to introduce "Recreational Skippers Ticket" Since April this year all skippers under 25YO must have RST if they are in charge of a boat with motor greater than 6HP. By April next year all Skippers must have RST for boats over 6HP.
So far over 50000 RST have been issued. An initial exemption was given to those who have owned a registered boat for 5 years that only a written exam is required. Now for anyone a written exam and practical assessment is required. (All boats with engine over 5HP have been registered for many years, about 100000)
West Australia is way behind other states in this legislation.
All legislation includes Jet Skis
Drink (boat) driving legislation has been in for a long time. If you are involved in an incident and it can be proved you were under the influence then you are in trouble. Further there are both the water police and the government boating inspectors who do spot checks of safety equipment (also legislated) speed in restricted areas skippers licences and registration. (and cary breathalysers) Together they have a fleet of about 18 boats and as many vehicles and cover 3000miles of coast.
RST is not renewed and only cost is in assessment and trainiong by approved private individuals. Boat registration is about 80 squid PA.

Me I don't complain one bit. I don't consider it any more of a Nanny state than any other. It is no different to the need for road legislation. Me and my family have RST as a carry over from previous volutary power boat ahndling training. olewill

 

[steve_cronin]

Re: Why do people automatically assume that Scandinavian = Wise?

What is that supposed to mean?

Apart from trying to make you look sort of modern street savvy, that is.

Steve Cronin

 

[Topcat47]

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

Actually I rather like the idea that if some pissed boaty rams my pride and joy, there will be a book to throw at him/her and he/she'll have to pick up some of the aggro through his/her wallet rather than just let his/her insurance company bite the bullet and me with a crap season and a bent boat. We know there'll be no -one to breathalise us at sea, there aren't enough customs officers to prevent carrier bags of drugs being landed from boats up and down the country, so I guess there'll be no large scale enforcement activity.

I'm all for the freedom to go to hell in your own handcart, but it doesn't include the freedom to take me with you....knarmeen?

 

[steve_cronin]

And...

...if I'm wrong, I'll actually sit in a little rowing boat, at the entrance to Yarmouth Harbour and EAT a set of crayons - dark colours first.(Because like all males - according to a mag I was reading in the AID donor's waiting room - always go for the dark colours in a roll of sweets or a pack of fruit yoghurts)

Steve Cronin

 

[steve_cronin]

Not supporting it, just answering

An analogy:

If your elder son was going back to university in a non too reliable car, wouldn't you keep off the booze until he rang to confirm his arrival, just in case you had to go out and tow him in? Of course you would and i suspect that you would be more careful when at anchor for the same reasons, even without this absurd legislation.

Steve Cronin

 

[steve_cronin]

Sorry but we don\'t need telling how to run our country just...

...because they do it in Australia.

do you still have Men Only bars?

Steve Cronin

 

[steve_cronin]

Just for clarity....

.. you boat IS affected because at 9.12m it falls ouside the exemption on length. You see it is an "and" situation not an "and/or"

Steve Cronin

 

[Lakesailor]

Re: Just for clarity....

Yes, I thought the purpose was to prevent drinking and skippering. Does it make any difference if the boat is bigger or faster? You can drown yourself in a corracle whilst pissed out of your mind perfectly legally then?

Just what is the purpose of the new regulation?

 

[pvb]

It means...

[ QUOTE ]
What is that supposed to mean?

[/ QUOTE ] It means that you seem to have changed, Steve Cronin. You used to be a fairly rational poster, giving good advice most of the time. But recently you seem to have changed into a wildly argumentative poster, ranting away and writing in CAPITALS too!

 

[EdWingfield]

Re: Not supporting it, just answering

Before I sign up to Skippers Cronin and Bergman’s revolution to overthrow their hated Government may I first ask this question.

If we are against a drink-yotting law, are we in support of, or against the drink-navigating law that applies to commercial vessels? /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[Bergman]

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

I've been playing this game for some 20 years.

In that time no-one has ever run into my boat while they have been pissed.

No-one I know has ever had their boat rammed by someone who is pissed

So what problem precisely are you trying to solve?

Have you considered that the cure may be worse than the disease.

 

[Bergman]

Re: Not supporting it, just answering

The application is completely different.

A commercial vessel spends most of its time at sea - underway and only spends the minimum possible time in port, and thus exposed to the practice of this regulation.

They are not going pursue ships across the Atlantic waving breathalysers at them

The reverse is true of a leisure vessel

The implication of this law is that its implementation is likely to involve some as yet undefined "officials" having rights to stop and board your yacht and breathalyse you for whatever reason may suit them.

Further it is a stalking horse behind which will inevitably come compulsory qualification and testing and licensing, which of course already exist in the commercial world.

My reason for going sailing is to get away from this over regulated society and now I find its folowing me to sea

And I object to it

Perhaps before talking about overthrowing government you should ask yourself who will benefit from this regulation.

Will it make sailing safer? - How much reduction are you expecting on your insurance premium?