Oh dear, when will they learn?

Exactly!

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps over there they are more clued up before they go out and bear in mind that a call out is chargeable if it is through stupidity (run out of fuel, lost steering (oh, cancel the mayday, sorry, still had the autopilot on,har har)

[/ QUOTE ]

Point well made!
 
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with this is that people will be put off calling for help until it's too late. That's why the RNLI is dead against charging salvage. Even if they do think those on board are utter plonkers, they'd much rather tow a boat in in daylight and decent weather than be looking for bodies at night or in a storm.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the helicopter isn't run by the RNLI. It's funded by the MCA, who get their money from taxes. Maybe the RNLI won't charge, but I wouldn't bet on the Government.
 
Re: I honestly believe

[ QUOTE ]
But a compulsory system will only mean people doing minimum to pass and get a piece of paper.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly my opinion. If it becomes compulsory to hold ICC or some other crappy qualification.Schools will spring up to churn out ICCs to bored candidates only doing the minimum for a pass.

Most people have a limited budget so how many will carry on to get a worthwile qualification after spending hard earned cash on an ICC or similar?

Despite the lurid headlines and usually inaccurate reports in the press incidents are very few compared to the numbers out there.
 
Re: I honestly believe

[ QUOTE ]
If it becomes compulsory to hold ICC or some other crappy qualification.Schools will spring up to churn out ICC to bored candidates only doing the minimum for a pass.

[/ QUOTE ]

Conversely it may scare off the idiots who couldn't be bothered to learn. It could be argued that it would be better if people were at least trained up to ICC standard.

Whilst I enjoy the relaxed, informal lack of legislation which we have with boats there are always fools around who make people question if there should be more control.

If I had to make anything compulsory I would start with 3rd party insurance!
 
Nearly there ....

"If I had to make anything compulsory I would start with 3rd party insurance!"

OK - Tisme ..... that is nearly there - as anyone who operates / has a boat in a UK water under Harbour Master or Regulatory body is required to have cover 3rd Party to at least certain standard .... often quoted as 1 million quid.

That means all speedboats etc. launched of slipways into harbours, creeks etc.
If you are in Solent - you are under the Queens Harbour master for a major portion and under others for other parts ...

OK - we know that HM's officers do not go down to slipways and ask "Can I see your Ins. please ...." - but they can.

Berthing / mooring a boat under any club / HM / authority already requires you to have levels of insurance - oitherwise no boating here laddie !!

Insurance is a weaker one - as its effectively already there ... but that speedboat lout doesn't understand or doesn't want to ....
 
Re: I honestly believe

[ QUOTE ]

As to enforcement - the police don't check every driver to see if they've got a licence... . You mess up, you don't have one, and you’re on you own. No insurance, nothing! Should be enough as an incentive!

[/ QUOTE ]

Sadly, I think this is an important point. The level of competence, facilities for training, etc. are mere diversionary arguments. You could give every one a 'licence' for being able to spell their name (another few quid a go for Mr. Brown). The point is that you then have something to lose. Insurance co.s will insist on you holding one, as will mooring officers / marinas. So is created a sanction that the Powers That Be can apply for bad behaviour, which is easily understood by the great and the good, and all is well in their world.

I am against further regulation, because at some point, people have to become responsible for their own actions. There already exist mechanisms for prosecuting the reckless and irresponsible.

My personal opinion is that the neither the MCA or RNLI owe a Duty of Care in rescue situations unless they've taken control of someone (picked someone up / taken them in tow, etc.), although there is a danger of creating a duty of care by assuming that one already exists (if you understand what I'm trying to say!).

Grrrrrrr! /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Andy
 
Re: I honestly believe

[ QUOTE ]

My personal opinion is that the neither the MCA or RNLI owe a Duty of Care in rescue situations unless they've taken control of someone (picked someone up / taken them in tow, etc.), although there is a danger of creating a duty of care by assuming that one already exists (if you understand what I'm trying to say!).


[/ QUOTE ]

The duty of care of an ambulance sercvice does not start the moment they've picked you up from the street - it starts the moment they receive the 999-call.
The moment you send out a MayDay the UK - or it's agencies (MCA,...) - has a duty of care.
 
[ QUOTE ]
If not compulsory - anyone without a basic ticket (independently tested) should be made to pay the full cost of his/her rescue"

...

[/ QUOTE ]

Here in Switzerland, one is used to being charged for everything (and, of course, you need a ticket for everything). After a while it even stops being annoying. If ever I was to require rescue on one of the lakes, I would expect some form of charge for it, probably depending upon the circumstances.

In the regulations however, there are two sentences put close together in the section about storm warnings: one describes the system of storm warnings installed on many lakes; the other states that if rescued, one may be required to pay the full associated costs. The only linkage between these two is proximity - it does not actually say that if you ignore the warnings and need rescue then you get charged but otherwise rescue is free - but the inference is invited.

Sure, it is important not to put people off calling for help and I feel that neither compulsory charges nor licencing would help. But perhaps the possibility of significant charges for complete plonkers - a few instances of which would probably hit the headlines - might just be a small step in helping to improve things.

Alan.
 
Re: I honestly believe

Thanks. Thinking about it, I'm sure you're right - the UK has obligations for rescue under SOLAS(?) which is discharges through the MCA.

Explains the over-cautious approach of the Beach Patrol, too.

Sigh....

Andy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top