PWC (again)

[Will]

Re: Considerate PWCs

Whereas folks with big pointy motorboats have nothing to prove?

Mine's a rigid inflatable by the way! (-;
Best stop this one here before we offend someone...

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[KevB]

Re: Considerate PWCs

Where are these sweeping generalisations I keep making?? and to you I said
"I take it you are a blood sport fan? If so proves my point"

I asked the question so I hadn't made up my mind. I left it for you to decide. If you were I gave my opinion.

And in your reply you even said - "And as you ask I'm neutral on hunting......."

See, I asked.


<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://static.photobox.co.uk/public/images/45/99/10714599.s.jpg?ch=97&rr=16:00:39>Nirvana</A>

 

[KevB]

Re: Considerate PWCs

"Best stop this one here before we offend someone... "

Nah, all said tongue in cheek and I hope we are all thicker skinned than that.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://static.photobox.co.uk/public/images/45/99/10714599.s.jpg?ch=97&rr=16:00:39>Nirvana</A>

 

[ChrisE]

Pah, semantics

And there I was me thinking that you were trying to have a rational debate

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ColinW]

Re: Considerate PWCs

jfm, maybe I can use another case as an example. Several years ago there was a lot in the press and on TV about anglers' lead shot poisoning swans. This could have been used by anti-angling types as ammunition for a ban on angling. Anglers themselves banned the use of lead shot, even though it was only being discarded by an irresponsible minority. This ban was later made law and a possible threat to angling eliminated. We didn't start with the arguments "there's no proof", "it's only a minority" etc., etc. We looked ahead to the inevitable and pre-empted it. If the PWC users did the same and brought in regulations (how they hate that word) like minimum age, training, proficiency testing, operational limits, engine types etc. then the more draconian measures wouldn't be needed. But that is their problem, not mine. I go for the solution which is most likely to sort out my problem. Since a blanket ban is the easiest to enforce, that is the proposal which is most likely to succeed. The irony is that almost all of the arguments against PWCs, behaviour, pollution, noise could be sorted out if the will to do it was there.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Will]

Re: Considerate PWCs

True. And you have to admit, if we all agreed on everything, wouldn't this forum be dull? I usually read your comments because they're always straight to the point. Quite often I disagree with them too, but that doesn't mean I hold anything against you.
What pisses me off on this forum is when somebody won't agree to disagree and gets into a long winded debate using longer and longer words, which I really struggle with (being as I am a simple Westcountry peasant). It seems to me that he who uses the most complicated quote seems to think he's won the argument. If you can get some Latin in there somewhere, you're definitely heads-up. There's going to be a new set of rules from now on. If anyone doesn't agree with my humble, but correct, opinion, I'll bloody well run them over in my tractor. Why can't I get little smiley faces on my messages, and please tell me where you got the v-sign from as I want to use it at work!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Sans Bateau]

Re: Exaggeration?

OK, maybe I'm not being totaly clear, I did say there are lots of PWC's out there just going about their business, out on the water, making their way into the harbour etc. You do tend not to notice good behaviour. I do recognise that these PWC's do not cause any problem, but I do not consider that I have had 'contact' with them. It is unlikely that I would come into contact with a PWC other than on open water, you don't find yourself rafting up with one do you!?
So when you do have 'contact' as I have described, its not a pleasant experience.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[KevB]

Re: Considerate PWCs

ColinW,

Exactly what I said earlier (see below). "We" tried but failed. It is not the pwc'er you need to shout at but the RYA.

"A few ago I was a member of a committee who's aim was to bring some kind of compulsory training for pwc's, my qualifications for this was that I owned one (and still do so I am a prat in your eyes).

We met with various "official" bodies to discuss how pwc riders could take the lead amongst water users and get trained. The idea was to put pwc riders beyond the criticism of the narrow minded minority (ColinW, I put you in this category) by being trained where other water users may not have been.

All South coast pwc clubs bought into the idea, if only to high light that pwc riders were at least as good as any other water user.

Unfortunately the plans were scuppered by the RYA, the reason - because if pwc riders had to have compulsory training then why not all other leisure water users? The RYA believed that the sailing fraternity would not agree to this."


<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://static.photobox.co.uk/public/images/45/99/10714599.s.jpg?ch=97&rr=16:00:39>Nirvana</A>

 

[jimi]

Re: Considerate PWCs

amabus litigo
/forums/images/icons/smile.gif/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jfm]

Re: Considerate PWCs

Colin, good example, I understand. There's difference though: what was being banned was merely the use of lead, not angling, so there was much less at stake. Here, we're talking about banning PWCs, not banning nuisance behaviour

We might be agreeing a bit. In which case what a nice thread . I think you're saying the good PWC folk need to sort out the bad PWC folk, else they will all get tarred with the same "bad" brush. I agree with you there. It might not be fair on the good guys that this job falls on them, but that's life

I think you've moved your ground though (?). You now contemplate there are good PWC folk, whereas before you were "The reason you don't notice quiet, considerate PWC riders is because there aren't any........ PWC riders are just prats".

I share your condemnation of bad pwcs, and really this thread has not disputed that the bad guys exist. But it's only fair to see that there are loads of good guys too. You may be right that the good guys are not doing enough about bad apples, I dont know any details about national associations and their efforts in this regard etc, but I can see you might be right on that. But I would on principle resist draconian measures like PWC ban for the same reasons (to repeat the analogy) I wouldnt ban cars as a means to stop bank robber getaways. You would I think (unless the AA/RAC can sort out the bad apples) and we'll have to disagree on that

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Will]

Re: Considerate PWCs

All I remember from Latin was Caesar adsum jam forte...

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ChrisE]

Re: Considerate PWCs

Gallia in tres partes divisa est.

First line of my Latin primer. It means that French boats fall apart into three bits or something like that.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jhr]

Caesar adsum jam forte..

...Pompey aderat
Caesar sic in omnibus
Pompey sic in at

(Catullus, or some such Roman bore)

We hate Pompey! We hate Pompey! We hate Pompey!

(The Northam End)


<hr width=100% size=1>Je suis Marxiste - tendance Groucho