Powerboat and RIB magazine are campaigning for compulsory licensing

It probably makes sense to bring compulsory licences in for the "bungalow" sized high speed craft. However, this is Britain - where we are supposed to be fundamentally libertarian (and don't we Rule the Waves)? - so I for one wouldn't want to see us going down the European route and setting a minimum CE standard of competence to be attained by all users of leisure craft, the vast majority of whom use fairly modest kit, including RIBs.
 
Tranona said:
There seems to be no pressure from insurance companies to require licences. Very few, if any give any recognition to existing qualifications by way of a discount. The cost of insurance is low which suggests the risks in general are low, and in my experience insurers operate a more focused system of determining risk related to a particular boat and its owner. If you fit the "normal" low risk category they ask few questions. However, once you move out of the ordinary - old boat, powerful boat but no experience, boating in high risk locations or situations, or in areas where repair costs are high then the premiums are adjusted, or cover refused.

Agree third party cover should be compulsory as it is cheap (compared with cover for the boat).
Click to expand...

Since there is no requirement for anyone to be insured, thats hardly suprising.
However, when insurers do get involved, such as club safety boat, then some qualification is expected.

Third party cover alone, is more expensive ref car insurance & last time I asked for third party only boat policy, I was told the same.
 
Last edited:
alant said:
Since there is no requirement for anyone to be insured, thats hardly suprising.
However, when insurers do get involved, such as club safety boat, then some qualification is expected.

Third party cover alone, is more expensive ref car insurance & last time I asked for third party only boat policy, I was told the same.
Click to expand...
Would suggest that the vast majority of boats are insured and insurers do not always ask about qualifications, nor do they vary premiums for those with qualifications, which suggests that having a qualification has little impact on claims record and therefore risk. They will as I suggested take into account general experience and claims record in relation to the boat and anticipated usage in calculating premiums.

Not sure who you asked about third party, but as Pete says it is readily available at low cost.

Club safety boats are different things and both clubs and their insurers would require drivers to be qualified as the potential liabilities are much higher than an ordinary leisure sailor. Not unusual for organisations to require drivers of their cars to undertake additional training for exactly the same reason.
 
With no prejudice whatsoever to the terrible event in Padstow there are already laws that could be used I'm sure. In extreme cases the charge on involountary manslaughter could apply if a person was killed by the failure to use a kill cord when throwing a high speed RIB around http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/#gross. I'll stress though that, as far I'm concerned the tragedy in Padstow was just that an no more until the facts are known.

FWIW I think that far more people will use kill cords and become more risk-aware as a result of Padstow and similar incidents than through any legislation around boating.
 
Tranona said:
There seems to be no pressure from insurance companies to require licences. Very few, if any give any recognition to existing qualifications by way of a discount. The cost of insurance is low which suggests the risks in general are low, and in my experience insurers operate a more focused system of determining risk related to a particular boat and its owner. If you fit the "normal" low risk category they ask few questions. However, once you move out of the ordinary - old boat, powerful boat but no experience, boating in high risk locations or situations, or in areas where repair costs are high then the premiums are adjusted, or cover refused.

Agree third party cover should be compulsory as it is cheap (compared with cover for the boat).
Click to expand...

I had a client who was buying a £2m boat as his first boat. His insurance co made him do dayskipper. This is the only time I've heard of them insisting.
I did however get a discount when I got my YM. In fact I told them by chance at the boat show in conversation and they sent me a cheque for retrospective discount to the date I passed. That was craftinsure.
 
grumpy_o_g said:
FWIW I think that far more people will use kill cords and become more risk-aware as a result of Padstow and similar incidents than through any legislation around boating.
Click to expand...

Exactly - as I've said elsewhere, my mate with the shoestring speedboat (bought off eBay, no motorboat experience, something breaks every time it goes out, not insured, etc) phoned me the other day to ask how to fit a kill-cord to it. Hopefully he's not alone.

Pete
 
alant said:
But how much is their fully comp for the same boat?
Click to expand...

They don't do fully comp, only third party / wreck removal / etc. Basically all you need not to be a liability to other people, but if you bend your own boat it's your problem. They have only three fixed prices - £70, £80, £90 - depending on whether you're on inland water or the sea, and under 17 knots or over it.

Pete
 
The low cost of third party reflects the low incidence of claims for those limited risks, although the consequences of an individual claim can be severe - the crash with the control tower in Genoa a good example.

Most of the risk in boat insurance is related to damage to the boat but not caused by a third party, so it is that part of the premium that rises in relation to the boat's value and the way in which it is operated.
 
GrahamHR said:
Admittedly it's "after the fact", but every time we have moored up, I stop the engine using the kill switch. OK, next time out it may not work, but on a petrol engine boat it actually usually cuts the supply to the ignition; I (still) can't envisage how it could "fail unsafe" and allow the engine to carry on running with out a +12V supply ( there again, due to what I can only attribute to wiring/ connecter corrosion issues and a relay on the engine circuit box latching on, mine did just that about 5 years ago whilst on the drive; I switched off the ignition switch and removed the key. the only way I could stop it was to remove the connection to the ignition amplifier !)
Click to expand...

A kill switch actually earths the relevant part of the ignition, if the switch fails it will fail to earth anything and not stop the engine.
 
sarabande said:
I agree that compulsory licensing will not necessarily prevent similar tragedies, but compulsory USE would make a significant contribution to preventing similar accidents.


Perhaps it's time to invent a proximity device so that the driver is not physically connected to the kill-cord switch. Something about the size and shape of a watch strap, so that if it goes more than a metre or so from the controls, the engine /gearbox goes to neutral. The 'wimp' factor of having a piece of red plastic tied to the driver is then mitigated.

I suspect that legislation will be overtaken by insurance companies requiring kill-cords or neutralisers. If indeed some speedy craft are insured in the first place :(
Click to expand...

There are at least two of these on the market, Coastkey and Autotether
 
gravygraham said:
I can't see proximity tags or radio devices working. The fools we're trying to protect will leave them in the glove-box or tape them to the dashboard. It's got to be something like a pressure pad on the seat, or better still, a killcord with a heart rate monitor/detector on the human end.
Click to expand...

The complexity would rule that out immediately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top