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

[Cruiser2B]

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

How's that, then?
Really I don't understand what the issue is - if you don't boat while impaired then this legislation won't affect you, so why are so many opposed to it? If you don't think drunk boating is dangerous, I think you should go review the MAIB reports and look at all the fatalities where alcohol was a factor. Not having access to the legislation, I can only comment on what has been reported, but it seems perfectly sensible to me. Obviously, the 7m/7kt cut-off was a concession to allow yotties to get back to their anchored boats from the pub in their dinghies. Since the Appellate Court, in all its wisdom, has deemed that jet-skis are not ships, the Transport Ministry can't legislate them - but are clearly trying to figure out how to. As with a lot of legislation, the law has to be described in writing in ways that seem very cumbersome; the reality is the spirit of the law (how the law will be applied) can't be described in the letter of the law. In this case there is probably no intention to spot-check saily-boats in the Solent; but where the yahoos congregate in confined waters with fast mobos, they'll probably check for booze. More than anything, the law is there to serve as a deterrent - it shouldn't affect the responsible boaters; and those irresponsible few will find their insurance nullified and their prospects for large fines and/or gaol are pretty good. Are you lot opposed to drunk-driving laws too? /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[jenku]

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

[ QUOTE ]
Scandinavia INVENTED the Nanny State.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right, at least partly. However boating has been totally free, in fact it is still until 2008. We do not even have to register our boats, so the government does not know what boats we have. We have no mandatory boating license (for boats under 12m, no matter how strong the engine).

So we may have invented the Nanny state, but boating has been excempt. Until now.

 

[mono]

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

Those who support this legislation try to strengthen their argument by using emotive language like "rat-arsed" or "pissed" or "drunk" - words which are intended to conjure up an image of someone, who can barely stand up, being behind the wheel of a large boat careering out of control towards some hapless dinghy with a couple of terrified and soon to be mown down children aboard.

This actually weakens the argument because it doesn't reflect the sort of experiences that any of us encounter in the real world. This is not to say it won't or can't happen. We have to acknowledge that there are idiots - both drunk and sober but no amount of laws or well intentioned hand wringing will prevent their existence or their anti-social antics

What's next?
Speed cameras along river banks?
Licences?
Compulsory tests?
Police patrol boats waiting in some hitherto deserted creek?

I'm amazed to see so many turkeys here voting for Christmas.

 

[Bergman]

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

"Really I don't understand what the issue is - if you don't boat while impaired then this legislation won't affect you,"

You clearly do not appreciate the implications of this.

Perhaps you would do better to wait until you do have access to the legislation and reserve your comments until then.

I really do not need someone telling me that drinking and driving is dangerous.

t may come as a surprise but I do know that.

Many things are dangerous perhaps you want to make all of them illegal I can't speak for you but I can be trusted not to act in a way that is criminally negligent I do not need the threat of legislation to stop me drinking and driving.

"In this case there is probably no intention to spot-check saily-boats in the Solent;"

If you have not read the proposal how do you feel justified in making this statement - speaking from a position of ignorance is not helpful.

It affects responsible boaters when clumping flatfoots start boarding them and threatening them with breathalysers and interfering with their freedom to enjoy their expensive investment.

It affects them when they suddenly find that they need qualifications and training courses to be able to sail the boat theyhave owned for years and that this license can be taken away for a whole range of infringements at the whim of a vindictive and incompetent government.

Have you never heard the term " the thin end of the wedge?"

 

[steve_cronin]

Re: Not supporting it, just answering

No revolution from me matey! Don't need to; I sail in Greece.

As far as i'm aware there is already sufficient legislation in place to give the necessary protection to society. What i object to is the imposition of yet another futile law which will be costly to implement and enforce.

 

[ShipsWoofy]

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

I base it upon my own lightweight cheap date consumption limit. If I am at the limit I am impaired beyond making a fast and correct decision, so, pissed.

I used to be able to drink a lot more, or at least I thought I could without such impairment. Drinking 2 pints for anyone, IMO, makes them too pissed to drive a boat, work machinery, drive a car etc etc.

If I drink 3 pints say, I will still be able to hold a coherent conversation, I will not be swaggering yet, might have a teeny slur. In that state, would you let me move your boat, I am sure I could protest quite well how able I was? I know my answer if the roles were reversed, sober, anyone I deemed competent can have the keys to my boat if needed.

I think the language used is fine, in fact I think there is a scale..

merry
pissed
rat arsed
legless
lashed
A&E

This is not prohibition chaps, it is if nothing else, hopefully going to make a few people think about how much alcohol they are drinking while navigating their boats. As far as I am concerned, a couple of glasses (small) of wine at lunch is more than enough.

As for needing to reset your anchors, I really don't imagine the rozzers will be about in the circumstances that an anchor may drag, so that is a moot point.

 

[Lakesailor]

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

[ QUOTE ]
As for needing to reset your anchors, I really don't imagine the rozzers will be about in the circumstances that an anchor may drag, so that is a moot point.

[/ QUOTE ]Astonishingly, I agree with you.
I wonder what the purpose is behind these changes.
For instance. Water Companies apply for Hose-pipe Ban orders not to conserve water, but as part of the process towards a Drought Order, should they need one.
In this instance we ask, what will be the penalty. OK there can be a fine, but no chance of points on a licence or revoking a licence because we don't have licences.

Yet.

 

[steve_cronin]

Re: It means...

[ QUOTE ]
[ But recently you seem to have changed into a wildly argumentative poster, ranting away and writing in CAPITALS too!

[/ QUOTE ]

tell me what is wrong with stimulating arguement on a subject that will have a deleterious effect on boating as we know it?

Then I tell you all about some oiks who vandalise my property and the police (initially) do nothing and all the furies of the smelly gutter left-wing of political (mis) thought descend. Yiou'd have thought it was MY fault that they trashed the place for setting up a local community service in the first place.

Then you start making accusations about stealing childrens colouring sticks or somesuch!

We are getting close to attempted character assasination here I think.

Steve Cronin


Actually, I find this to be one of the most exciting interactive games on my computer. Always a fresh scenario and it's FREE!! I used to play Hearts in the lunch hour but this is MUCH more fun

Incidentally, in MY i-vocab., upper case is just to emphasise. Is it different in yours then?

 

[mono]

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

Ah..this is how misunderstandings begin. I wasn't actually thinking of you when I wrote my post, though reading back I notice that you did say:
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Anyway...let's look at what you are saying here. If people were actually arguing for the right to take their boats out when pissed I would agree with you, without reservation. But they aren't are they? I'm not going to re-read all the posts but I'm sure no-one has said this or even implied it obliquely.

My worry is that legislation will further erode our liberties, further erode the reputation of the police and all for absolutely no gain.

I don't personally care about not being able to drink - I gave up a year ago anyway and never touch a drop - but this isn't about the right to drink - it's about other rights.

Perhaps my views are coloured by being stopped whilst driving, for no apparent reason, and being breathalysed. The only possible explanation being that it was chucking out time. I was totally and boringly sober - as I explained to the policeman at the time. If it can happen when you're sober in a car it can happen when you're sober in charge of a boat.

I go sailing to get away from this type of interference.

 

[Cruiser2B]

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

"You clearly do not appreciate the implications of this."

Evidently not. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

"Perhaps you would do better to wait until you do have access to the legislation and reserve your comments until then."

Have you read the bill/legislation (is it law yet, or just before parliament?)

"I really do not need someone telling me that drinking and driving is dangerous."

Yet drinking and boating is not??? Pray tell what is the difference?

"Many things are dangerous perhaps you want to make all of them illegal I can't speak for you but I can be trusted not to act in a way that is criminally negligent I do not need the threat of legislation to stop me drinking and driving."

Apparently not everyone is the good citizen that you are - else there would not be a need for laws and punishments.

"If you have not read the proposal how do you feel justified in making this statement - speaking from a position of ignorance is not helpful."

They've had drinking-boating legislation in this country for years, and it hasn't led to a police-state. I don't think any boaters here feel their freedoms have been compromised by this law. So I don't think I'm the one who's speaking from a position of ignorance.

"It affects them when they suddenly find that they need qualifications and training courses to be able to sail the boat they have owned for years and that this license can be taken away for a whole range of infringements at the whim of a vindictive and incompetent government.

Have you never heard the term " the thin end of the wedge?" "

Same arguments were probably made a hundred years ago when they started making laws for the horseless carriage. You really are paranoid if you think the government is out to get you.

 

[rudolph_hart]

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

Hear, hear!

As Bergman wrote:

"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."

Now, THAT'S what I would object to. /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif

 

[roly_voya]

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

Just a small point - are you all aware that under most habour bylaws it is already illegal to navigate ANY vessel including a dingy or jet ski when over the limit so this really make any difference!! - BUT i do agree its a total wast of time and resources

 

[Bergman]

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

The implications are that this legislation will lead to compulsory licensing, training, registration. It means that our ability to sail our own boats will be entirely at the whim of the government.

In exactly the way that drinking and driving has not been prevented by legislation drinking while afloat will not be prevented. But surley you will appreciate that a typical car journey last 2 or 3 hours a voyage an a boat may last several days or weeks - an entirely different proposition.

I think punishments should be reserved for crimes, and even then rehabilitation is to be preferred, that is why we have probation services etc, we do not destry peoples ability to enjoy their possessions for one small slip. If your concern is safety you have to pursuade them to act safely only as a last resort do you resort to prosecution.

There is existing law that is capable of punishing someone for driving a boat when they are drunk So why have another one. I would suggest that it is to provide the state with the ability to act against individuals in a proactive way, To board ones boat and breath test everyone on board and arrest the vessel and crew. It will be used to create more government financed snoopers to "enforce this legislation" the word enforce features in the press release.

The only thing this legislation will add is the specific limits of blood, breath and urine levels and the means by which it will be enforced, and that will inevitably, like the roadside breathalyser, by used in "fishing trips" (and I know the police will deny it and I know it happens) It will be used as an excuse for "officials" to board our boats breath test us search our boats and all the rest.

It does not solve any problems It does not make anyones life better, It does not make the sea safer It is, like so much of the governments legislation, ill thought out, unwanted, unhelpful and likely to produce a range of unwanted and unfortunate effects

You say I am paranoid

I live in a country where local government employe people who wanderaround in paramilitary uniforms and issue members of the public with fixed penalty notices for dropping toffee papers.

They patrol parks dishing out fines to for walking in the wrong place.

The police have arrested a woman for walking on a cycle path

A member of the Labour party was arrested as a terrorist for heckling the PM

Where a student was arrested for taking a photograph of a road.

Where government scientists who annoy the government "commit suicide"

Where a police officer can fire sevcen bulets into an innocent mans head at point blank range.

Don't tell me I'm paranoid - I live here

 

[TheBoatman]

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

Having spent the last 15 minutes reading this thread ~ I must admit that I'm totally confused.

I find myself agreeing with both sides and I find my head in a whorl!

Below are some of the questions running around in my head and they are represented in no particular order.

1. I'm a professional boatman (25 years) so I have been subject to drink driving (MCA) laws all that time ~ I don't have a problem with that.
2. Do I think that DD laws are good ~ yes.
3. Do I think that they should be set at the same levels as for cars ~ no.
4. Have I broken those DD laws in my time as a Pro boatman ~ probably.
5. Why is HMG so interested in introducing new legislation?
6. HMG have cut budgets to the MCA and this may be a way of increasing funding to those organisations!
7. 7+ knts SOG would cover even Toppers under certain conditions!
8. The vessel has to be under "navigation" ~ that doesn't include dragging anchors or boats asked to move from berth to berth.
9. Is there any proved reports that DD boaters are a serious problem ~ nope.
10. When I'm sailing, I love to have a drink both during the sail and after the engine is off and tied up stuff.
11. Do I think the current government is looking to raise revenue from a vulnerable group ~ yes, most definitely.
12. Can they police it ~ doubtful.
13. Will they police it ~ yes ~ if it means the chief constable can make money from it and HMG offer incentives ~ like keep the cash.
14. Who is responsible for "navigating" the vessel, is it the helmsman, the navigator, the person trimming the sails ~ in fact, who on board the vessel is not helping to navigate the vessel whilst it's underway?

There are many more questions but it's late.

The bottom line is I just don't know.

I'm against DD boats but it's coming. The only problem is at what level?

Peter.

 

[Cruiser2B]

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

<span style="color:blue"> </span> "You say I am paranoid

I live in a country where local government employe people who wanderaround in paramilitary uniforms and issue members of the public with fixed penalty notices for dropping toffee papers."

<span style="color:black"> </span> Personally I advocate floggings for litterbugs.

<span style="color:blue"> </span> "They patrol parks dishing out fines to for walking in the wrong place.

The police have arrested a woman for walking on a cycle path "

<span style="color:black"> </span> Well cyclists can't ride on the sidewalk, so that's fair. Problem today is too many people walk around with their heads up their a*ses, with no consideration for those around them.

<span style="color:blue"> </span>" A member of the Labour party was arrested as a terrorist for heckling the PM"

<span style="color:black"> </span> There must be more to this story...

<span style="color:blue"> </span> "Where a student was arrested for taking a photograph of a road."

<span style="color:black"> </span> Ahhh! Your media is like ours - your news isn't cluttered up with facts and truth, is it?

<span style="color:blue"> </span> "Where government scientists who annoy the government "commit suicide""

<span style="color:black"> </span> Well, they knew too much, didn't they?

<span style="color:blue"> </span> "Where a police officer can fire sevcen bulets into an innocent mans head at point blank range.

Don't tell me I'm paranoid - I live here "

<span style="color:black"> </span> You know too much. Sit tight and the police will be by shortly.

 

[rhumlady]

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

Two points:
1. Robin Knox-Johnson will have to stop talking about his sundowners or they will be waiting for him.
2. I can just see us being stopped by some jobsworth for being unable to sail a streight course and tyring to explain the theory of tacking!

 

[Gunfleet]

Teetotaller says

I don't even drink and I'm against this. It will simply be a reason for bossyboots uniformed twits to demand papers from us. I'm just sick of the way this government's going. Less and less performance for more and more tax while they find it difficult to conceive of us living our lives unsupervised by them. Grr.

 

[Gunfleet]

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

<<" A member of the Labour party was arrested as a terrorist for heckling the PM"

There must be more to this story...>>

Yes there is. The heckler was an 80-something Jew who'd come to Britain to escape the Nazis and had spent his life in the British Labour party. He was arrested under anti-terrorist legislation at his own conference and roughed up by Blair's boot boys. That's the more there is to the story. Mugabe move over.

 

[Cruiser2B]

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

Apparently you work in the liberal media as well. Thanks for the extra details - found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Wolfgang
I'm not impressed by his age - perhaps I'm not afflicted with agism, or perhaps it comes from seeing too many cases of elder protesters pulling out the age card when they're busted for trespassing. From my many years in the Pacific North West I had become inured to the antics of the "Raging Grannies", just one of the many groups of neo-hippie malcontents, who are well-schooled in the arts of protest and organized anarchy (how's that for an oxymoron?). Mr Wolfgang paints a familiar picture - a fervent socialist with 5 decades of social activism to his name. He heckled Jack Straw, not Blair and was detained when he tried to re-enter on a voided security pass. If you truly believe that was due to the machinations of Blair et al, then you must have an inordinate faith in the efficiencies of government bureaucracies. I personally don't believe Big Brother is quite so on-the-ball. More likely it was a jumpy security guy, which is all the more likely considering it happened just a couple of months after the wave of London bombings.

 

[Cruiser2B]

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

In my professional realm, I too frequently enjoyed sundowners. We had rules though - no-on was to be intoxicated on board; no-one was permitted more than 2 drinks per day; no hard liquor was served underway; and no-one was allowed to drink within 6 hours prior to going on watch. Recreationally, alcohol and boat laws are provincially applied and enforced. In my province, boats underway are treated like cars - no open alcohol at all. Anchored or alongside, the boat becomes a dwelling and there are no limitations until you disturb the peace. Do I miss having a drink while daysailing? - not really; I see it as a small price to pay so that I am less likely to be cut in two by some pie-eyed moron in a cigarette boat. Will I imbibe while cruising around the world? - absolutely, but in moderation.