Prosecution follows collision

[bedouin]

An interesting piece has been posted in the news about a Motoryacht prosecuted after colliding with a breakwater in Weymouth.

Being fined for failing to keep an adequate lookout I can understand, and agree with. What is more worrying is that he was also fined for out-of-date pyrotechnics and other safety equipment issues.

Now, I didn't realise it was mandatory to carry any safety equipment, so how can one be fined for such breaches.

Or is it that he is a commercial skipper - in which case he should lose his licence!

 

[NigeCh]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse ... That why I quit as an architect and allowed the office to dismiss itself - I couldn't keep up with statute, modifications to statute, direcitives, modifications to directives ..etc, etc, etc ... so I went back to what was unregulated: painting VAT-free pictures ... Now I find that I can't buy uranium depleted paint because some set of eurocrats (British led) arseholes have declared it a health hazard - never mind butter, nor sugar, nor soft water ....

Who knows whether what is mandatory is mandatory till the Magistrate (fellow wanker) is advised by the Clerk of the Court that extra penalties should be invoked? Did you read the newspaper today where a car owner had his car writtten off by a driver with an unlicensed, un-MOT-ed, uninsured car and the Police said that they couldn't be bothered to follow it up?

I don't know everything about what I'm supposed to know ... and my ignorance is the same as your ignorance ... even reading and digesting Sweets won't keep us to date. Ergo, ignorance of the law IS an neuro-transmitter-braincell-receptive excusable excuse ... but then you just have to prove it to the overpaid-underqualified-petty-frogging wigged solicitor/barrister actors in fauncy dress who pirouette around the courts to coin our taxed moneys in.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by NigeCh on Thu May 9 16:24:47 2002 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[bedouin]

That's dodging the issue Nige.

I don't believe there is a low requiring the owners of UK registered pleasure craft to carry pyrotechnics - so on what basis was he fined?

 

[NigeCh]

Legal pyrotechnics?

I wasn't dodging the issue - merely ampllifying it in common cause in defence of common law as is common. The (ultra) point that I was trying to make was that as common subjects we, the majority, are out of kilter with the Law because we haven't a clue as to what is common sense and what is law - If I can't, now as an ex-archtect, can't keep up with the toilet tissue of new directives that affect stautue that affect everything else under the UK/Euro sun, then what hope is there for everyone else or even the Daily Telegraph/Sun reader Joe Punter for that matter ?

(The above may be difficult to read as reading. May I suggest that you speak the words out loud - IMO self listening is far better than scanning ... and I still haven't worked out the lee bowing thingmebob ... It's now in the hands of serious navigators and even they can't work it out.)

 

[NigelW]

Re: Legal pyrotechnics?

I believe that the answer to the issue of safety equipment is in the length of the vessel. It was 50ft. I recently read that any vessel over about 47ft is regarded as a commercial vessel, and therefore has to comply with relevant regulations, ie it has to carry appropriate safety equipment, including in-date flares.

The skipper also has to be sober!!

Unfortunately my, and I suppose most of your, vessel is not long enough to qualify under this regulation, so we are not aware of the implications, more's the pity!
If anyone can confirm this, or otherwise, please enlighten us.

Nigel

 

[Chris_Stannard]

Re: Legal pyrotechnics?

It might be that the yacht was licensed for charter work or commercial operation in which case a whole set of different criteria apply. I am an RNLI Sea Check Advisor and we are specifically told that we should not carry out checks on vessels over 15 metres or on those that are registered for commercial purposes since they are subject to stringent equipment standards and regimes by the MCA.
As far as I know below 15 metres and for pleasure purposes there are no rules about what you should have, however what is the point of having flares if they are out of date. You might just as well have a fire extinguisher with no powder in it.

Chris Stannard

 

[pvb]

Out-of-date flares...

Not sure I altogether agree with your comment on out-of-date flares. I have a selection of very out-of-date flares at home, and I use them from time to time to get reluctant bonfires going. Even 5 or 6 years after their "death date", they always seem to work. I'm sure the flare manufacturers would claim to have our best interests at heart, but their rather arbitrary self-determined "death dates" must help their sales figures.

 

[steve_cronin]

Re: Legal pyrotechnics?

It's 74ft isn't it? Bill Coper has problems every now and again as I remember.

Incidentally we're all over here because Marian Martin's excellent BYM forum is offline for the moment. Nigel, myself and a few others will push off back when the parlour is open for business again and leave you guys in peace!

 

[muchy_]

It is not compulsary to have radar aboard but if you have it is compulsary to use it in poor vis. Perhaps we don't have to carry flares but if you do they must be in date?
Just a thought.

 

[NigeCh]

Re: Legal pyrochronics?

and he told me to shut up ... but yes SteveC is right ... We fingertappers who love a good jaw and a good joustabout are waiting for arborior to pull it's finger out of the IDE serving-maid-comptrollers-whatsit and get us back where we piranical outcasts belong: We're the arcane square rigger set lost on http://www.boatsyachtsmarinas.com/ who just love to sail (and talk) full and by.

 

[Calluna]

Just out of interest...

Does anyone know who was responsible for prosecuting the motor boat owner in this case and how bad a commercial skipper or pilot has to be to lose their licence?

 

[Guest]

Re: Out-of-date flares...

Agree with pvb. I certainly always on my boat carry out-of-date flares as experience (testing on dry land) has shown that they work. If a flare is faulty, it is probably faulty after one year. Of course, I carry currently dated flares as well, but don't throw away the old ones. Just let one off now and again!

 

[LadyInBed]

Re: Out-of-date flares

Theirs nothing wrong with out-of-date flares, the more flares you have the more the chance is that you will have enough to cover a situation.
I also buy and eat food that is past it's sell by / use by date. It's a manufacturers recommendation / best guess, all be it based on research plus a percentage to air on the side of safety, so who's to say what anything's actual usable life is.

 

[Guest]

Re: Drink

You forgot drink, myboy, we love to drink too. Pity some of us let work get in the way <G>

Humperdinck

Email: HJ@Seacracker.org
Website: www.seacracker.org

 

[Chris_Stannard]

Re: Out-of-date flares...

The problem with out of date flares is that as time goes by the probabilty of them failing to work increases. I have no figures or knowledge of how fast the deterioration is. At a recent RNLI briefing we were told, if my failing memory serves me right, that the probability of one flare working was 95%. This means if you have two parachute flares there is a 99.755 probability of one of them working.

If you now take the probabilty of them working down to 80% the chances of one of the two working is about 95% or one chance in 20 of failure of both flares.

Next question is how out of date is out of date? On a Sea Check I came across the boat whose flares were 1982, or more than 16 years out of date. So when does out of date become not acceptable? My own policy is to have in date flares and to retain recent out of date flares as back up.

As skipper you make your own judgement, remembering that the safety of all on board is your responsibility.

Chris Stannard

 

[Guest]

I was just wondering if a 50 ft. powerboat rated as a "cruiser" or "destoyer" in the ROMFORD NAVY. Destroyer by the sound of it.
Like everyone else, I carry out of date flares as well as current, they have never failed to go off. Am I committing an offence?

 

[tome]

Re: Out-of-date flares...

I recall hearing (on an offshore survival course ?) that red flares start to lose their colour after time, so that eventually they turn in to white flares. Not very useful if you're in the s**t.

Tom

 

[AndrewB]

By letting them off, you very likely are!

 

[oldharry]

AS far as I am aware any British registered Vessel over a certain size is required to carry certain safety equipment, and prosecution follows if it is found to be missing or not up to standard.

However ANY boat carrying paying passengers - even a rowing boat - legally is regarded as a commercial vessel and is subject to strict legal requirements and is subject to annual inspection and licesning by the Local Authority for vessels carrying less than 12 passengers, or the DOT for larger numbers. Life saving and emergency apparatus must be up to prescribed standards on all boats, and DOT certification includes structural integrity, freeboard and an actual stability test in which a pre-determined weight (dependent on the capacity of the boat) is placed on the gunwale, while freeboard and stability measurements are taken. Mechanical, electrical, fire fighting and emergency installations must also comply with the regulations.

When I worked with Adults with a Learning Difficulty, i wanted to take some of them out for a sail. As a paid employee - even working in my own time - I would have had to register my boat with the local authority, and have it inspected and certified, have obtained commercial insurance, and would have been subject to the local Harbour Boards commercial regulations - which include a boarding fee for every passenger!

Why bother? Why not just go for a sail with 'friends'? Because I also had a legal 'Duty of Care' which in the event of any injury or accident on board would have resulted in prosecution.

So they never got to go sailing.

The same probably applies to 'corporate hospitality' on board if you as an employee are taking yours or your firms clients out on your boat this would almost certainly be construed as a commercial operation by the courts as it is connected with your work. And if the b..s dont get you on that - they will go for 'Duty of Care' which is an extraordinarily elastic bit of legislation whch can be made to fit almost anything where negligence can be proved.

Its a sad world.