PWC/Jetski...isn't there an equivalent of driving license-disqualification?

[rbcoomer]

Registration schemes are usually local council run and area specific, there isn't (sadly) a national one.

In the case the OP quotes, drop a note to Southampton harbourmaster, (southamptonvts@abports.co.uk) I'm sure they will be interested as they have achieved a few convictions in the past.

On a personla level, it really is about time the UK brought in registration for all craft, we spend too long faffing around trying to trace owners...

I've registered our mobo with Teignbridge and in effect with Coastguard via the DSC radio registration which I understand they have access to.

The problem with a national registration is who would administer/police? If it were to be the government or a profit quango then it inevitably means ever increasing cost, jobsworths looking for fine revenue and expensive bureaucrats along the way. Cost is then prohibitive and will lead to evasion and ultimately undermine any such scheme. If it's free, then who picks up the cost of enforcement/admin etc? In my experience, governments do almost nothing well and some things very badly - and the more centralised the worse the record. On the other hand, small local registration schemes are little different to harbour dues/mooring fees and the revenue is largely retained locally. A national scheme wouldn't inspire the same confidence and accountability IMHO. Whether local information could be shared better with CG/RNLI etc is another issue...

 

[Tranona]

Do we not have a system already in place? my craft is MCA part1 registered, it's also with CG66. OK they are not mandatory, but the system is in place.

The number of boats on MCA Part 1 is tiny because it is a register of title and very few boats can meet the documentary requirements, nor have a need to register title.

If you want a register that will do things that are suggested here then you would need to put in place a system that registers the "keeper" ie the person who is responsible in law for the boat, just like the car registration system. The "keeper" is often not the title holder (owner) nor the person using it.

To introduce such a system would require identification of all the tens of thousands of boats that already physically exist but for which there is little documented history of ownership, title or even existence. The army of people required to put such a system in place would make a serious dent in the unemployment numbers - to what end? Where is the "problem" that needs solving?

 

[chanelyacht]

I've registered our mobo with Teignbridge and in effect with Coastguard via the DSC radio registration which I understand they have access to.

We have access to the ITU database, which is where your radio licence registration is held (whether DSC or not). Sadly, a large amount of this information is out of date or incorrect, mainly due to unreported sales / transfers or other changes. Even a completely different boat is not unknown.

The issue is more that if a boat is found, or reported overdue, etc, there is nothing on the boat to identify it other than the name - not even that in some cases. This leads to a lot more work, often at a critical time, than there need be.

CG66 is an excellent system, but due to being voluntary the "we'll never be registered" brigade avoid it, and a large part of the boating population simply do not know it exists. Enough don't even understand radio licensing, as any day listening to Ch16 will show you, let alone other aspects of boat ownership.

A simple system to display a registration number (as in commercial fishing vessels) would be simple enough to administrate, with the cost of registering kept to enough to administer the scheme and nothing further.

(Personal view, not that of the MCA).

 

[epervier]

The number of boats on MCA Part 1 is tiny because it is a register of title and very few boats can meet the documentary requirements, nor have a need to register title.

If you want a register that will do things that are suggested here then you would need to put in place a system that registers the "keeper" ie the person who is responsible in law for the boat, just like the car registration system. The "keeper" is often not the title holder (owner) nor the person using it.

To introduce such a system would require identification of all the tens of thousands of boats that already physically exist but for which there is little documented history of ownership, title or even existence. The army of people required to put such a system in place would make a serious dent in the unemployment numbers - to what end? Where is the "problem" that needs solving?

Don't shot the messenger, I only put forward an idea to the CG rep on these fora, and I still stand by it, CG66 is already manned and is in place and takes all the relevant info free of charge.

 

[Portofino]

Don,t we see " nutter driving" every day? Cars Roads etc
What use is theDVLC here ?

Therefore it follows that all the proposed admin required to reg water craft like cars will have the same effect on users behaviour ?.

Most will be conscious of an ability to be held to account / identified . This will effect how they behave - positively to bye laws ect .

However as intimated a minority will fall outside of acceptable behaviour , with/ without registration like cars .
So education is the key here with PWC,s
Nobody told me about to controlled zone off the Lerins , I did ask at the Capitenarie , just got a shrug of shoulders
To 3 rd parties I can see how it looked

 

[chanelyacht]

Don't shot the messenger, I only put forward an idea to the CG rep on these fora, and I still stand by it, CG66 is already manned and is in place and takes all the relevant info free of charge.

I think you're right, any registration would not need to prove title (as with current car registrations) - it is the keeper we need, usually quickly.

The "problem" others are concerned about is we often need to know very rapidly the shore contact details and description of a craft - and trying to work through a database of, say, 200+ "Our Lady"'s is not something we have time during an incident to do.

The current CG66 scheme- especially the self service facility - would do the job perfectly, with the addition of creating a registration number to be displayed on the boat. Heck, for £20 a year, it could even fund the service!

 

[DownWest]

All boats must be registered in France. 'cept beach toys with a limit of 300mtrs from a supervised beach. Registration is easy and (in my case) free. Re-reg on change of ownership is also easy.
As above, the fear is that it would lead to money raising and useless red tape in the UK, while not contributing to safety. (parking?)
The rule here is that if sail is the primary motive power, no licence is required to operate. All mobos over 6hp need a license and I have no objection to that. All the PWCs that I see are well driven and respect other users. I suspect that breaking the rules is expensive and being caught is likely. The UK prob is that enforcement is patchy (as I understand it)

 

[rbcoomer]

I think you're right, any registration would not need to prove title (as with current car registrations) - it is the keeper we need, usually quickly.

The "problem" others are concerned about is we often need to know very rapidly the shore contact details and description of a craft - and trying to work through a database of, say, 200+ "Our Lady"'s is not something we have time during an incident to do.

The current CG66 scheme- especially the self service facility - would do the job perfectly, with the addition of creating a registration number to be displayed on the boat. Heck, for £20 a year, it could even fund the service!

Speaking personally, I'd have no problem with that - although free would be better. I think I've probably done the CG66 too - filled something in via the MCA website a couple of years back, but been a steep learning curve the last 3 years and forgotten what!

 

[chanelyacht]

Speaking personally, I'd have no problem with that - although free would be better. I think I've probably done the CG66 too - filled something in via the MCA website a couple of years back, but been a steep learning curve the last 3 years and forgotten what!

I can see the problem with "free" being that someone always has to pay for it - and the MCA certainly doesn't have any slack in budgets.

Plus, the press would instantly complain about taxpayers funding "rich yachties".

 

[rbcoomer]

I can see the problem with "free" being that someone always has to pay for it - and the MCA certainly doesn't have any slack in budgets.

Plus, the press would instantly complain about taxpayers funding "rich yachties".

We enter details for a CG66 or Radio for free so why not this? A self-service website that automatically issues a number like MMSI isn't difficult or costly and user could either arrange to display their own number or buy a vinyl sticker online to affix themselves. Charging creates a barrier that flies in the face of principle for many!

 

[chanelyacht]

We enter details for a CG66 or Radio for free so why not this? A self-service website that automatically issues a number like MMSI isn't difficult or costly and user could either arrange to display their own number or buy a vinyl sticker online to affix themselves. Charging creates a barrier that flies in the face of principle for many!

Fair enough, and personally I'd agree with it being free - the safety benefits would outweigh the financial costs. Any costs could be met by fining those who don't use the system.

 

[Tranona]

I think you're right, any registration would not need to prove title (as with current car registrations) - it is the keeper we need, usually quickly.

As I tried to explain above, there is a world of difference between a register of title and one that is based on the concept of a "keeper" - who does not need to have title or be the user.

The concept of "keeper" as used for registering road vehicles comes about because road vehicles and the use thereof is governed by a whole raft of legal obligations and subject to taxes specific to the vehicle. There needs, therefore to be a record of the person or corporate body responsible for ensuring the vehicle and its use complies with the law and that all vehicle related taxes are paid. Similar criteria apply to aircraft for the same reasons.

No such laws or tax obligations apply to boats, so there is absolutely no reason for any "keeper" to be identified. Owners of boats can of course enter their boats on a register to show title, or to confirm British nationality to foreign officials, or to advise third parties of their ownership if they think that might be of value to them, or as a condition of using a VHF radio. Equally harbour byelaws give harbour authorities the right to obtain ownership details (and lay down other requirements) to use a harbour or facilities.

None of this, however justifies the establishment of a central register of boats.

This would of course change if the government decided to levy taxes or introduce legislation controlling the use of leisure boats. Possibly a sound reason for resisting any attempts to establish a register when there is no other reason, and the existing voluntary registers perform the function for which they are designed!

 

[chanelyacht]

No such laws or tax obligations apply to boats, so there is absolutely no reason for any "keeper" to be identified.

Wrong.

All sorts of laws apply to boats - colregs, safety of navigation, radio licensing, radio operator licensing, etc.

The current situation, where anyone can get on a boat with nil knowledge and do whatever they like with little chance of being held to account, is not tenable.

And as I've explained earlier, there are compelling other reasons for boats to be indentifiable.

You may think that spending hours trying to identify an empty craft to ascertain no-one was onboard it is fine. Personally, I don't.

and the existing voluntary registers perform the function for which they are designed!

Except that they don't.

 

[alant]

A mate of mine in Southampton today filmed two PWC/jetskis, on the upper reaches of the tidal Itchen, each nudging forty knots by his estimation. The faster of the two was carrying an infant on the seat ahead of him.

I couldn't advise my pal who he might show the footage to - because I don't know if such recklessness is taken seriously as an offence. They were moving at around six times the speed limit in that area. As for taking the kiddie for a 'joy-ride'...it might have been his last.

Do river-police/harbour-masters give a damn, or are PWC users immune from serious censure?

There is a 6 knt limit, anywhere upstream of 'Weston Shelf' buoy, which is at the confluence of the Rivers Itchen & Test, just downstream of the VTS Dockhead.

You can contact the HM & VTS, on 02380 330022/339733

 

[Plevier]

On a personla level, it really is about time the UK brought in registration for all craft, we spend too long faffing around trying to trace owners...

I have
an SSR number
an MMSI number
an RYA sail number
a radio call sign
a hull number
a PLB number
CG66 registration

Are you suggesting we need another identifier?

 

[wadget]

I have
an SSR number
an MMSI number
an RYA sail number
a radio call sign
a hull number
a PLB number
CG66 registration

Are you suggesting we need another identifier?

I'd have thought it would have been easier to make one of your list compulsory probably SSR or CG66, rather than another identifier.

 

[Tranona]

Wrong.

All sorts of laws apply to boats - colregs, safety of navigation, radio licensing, radio operator licensing, etc.

The current situation, where anyone can get on a boat with nil knowledge and do whatever they like with little chance of being held to account, is not tenable.

And as I've explained earlier, there are compelling other reasons for boats to be indentifiable.

You may think that spending hours trying to identify an empty craft to ascertain no-one was onboard it is fine. Personally, I don't.



Except that they don't.

Not wrong at all. The existing registers fulfil their function adequately - it is just not the function you seem to want. I already covered radio where there is a register for the boat if you want to use it, and a licence to operate.

While colregs are there - where are the examples of leisure sailors being systematically penalised for not obeying them? or of difficulties in enforcing them? The tiny number of incidents where there have been significant transgressions suggest authorities have no difficulty in applying the penalties if they are due.

Thousands and thousands of people safely use their boats without interfering with anybody else. If they want to tell other people where they are and details of their boat, they have a mechanism for doing so. It is, however voluntary, and there are people who prefer not to, and accept the consequences (if there are any).

You sit in a specific position that only sees a narrow view of the wider issues. It may make your job "easier" to have more state control over peoples' activities, but for this to happen you need to demonstrate there is a an overwhelming public interest in your proposals.

So far there is no evidence of such public interest, nor of any political pressure to make any significant changes, so I guess you have to learn to live with it.

 

[chanelyacht]

I have
an SSR number
an MMSI number
an RYA sail number
a radio call sign
a hull number
a PLB number
CG66 registration

Are you suggesting we need another identifier?

No, I'm suggesting we need something everyone, not just people like yourself who are conscious of all the options, have.

The existing CG66 system would fit the bill if made compulsory and a registration number generated.

 

[Plevier]

No, I'm suggesting we need something everyone, not just people like yourself who are conscious of all the options, have.

The existing CG66 system would fit the bill if made compulsory and a registration number generated.

Why are CG66 and SSR separate anyway when they are both MCA things?
If you make CG66 compulsory a charge is bound to follow and I already pay a fee for SSR and what does that achieve?
You'd think all the things I listed except maybe the sail number could be combined in a single system, with one of these items - SSR I should think - as the primary key.
That however would mean various senior people forgoing factional interests in favour of a cost effective user friendly approach. User meaning both boaters and front end people like chanelyacht.

 

[chanelyacht]

Why are CG66 and SSR separate anyway when they are both MCA things?
If you make CG66 compulsory a charge is bound to follow and I already pay a fee for SSR and what does that achieve?
You'd think all the things I listed except maybe the sail number could be combined in a single system, with one of these items - SSR I should think - as the primary key.
That however would mean various senior people forgoing factional interests in favour of a cost effective user friendly approach. User meaning both boaters and front end people like chanelyacht.

SSR and CG66 both date back to days when HMCG and the UK Shipping Register weren't even linked by the same parent agency - HMCGs history goes back through Board of Trade and it's only been since the incorporation of the MCA that the Shipping Register team at Cardiff have come on board. Even now, they're part of seperate directorates, and they do fulfill seperate functions.

SSR also has title/ownership implications and international recognition, CG66 is a voluntary safety scheme.

I'm personally not interested in a register for "policing" activities, and am a boatowner as well. Many boats do have good means of identification on them - dodgers, sail numbers, etc - but I'd stick my neck out and say that those are, due to the type of people already using CG66, radio licencing, etc, the ones we're least likely to encounter. The issue arises when we get unaccompanied vessels, or are urgently trying to trace shore contacts, etc, and have nothing but a name to go on - and as a %age of UK boats, the number on CG66 is pretty small. And yes, HMCG are partly to blame for that in the past, during the time we didn't attend boat shows, etc. I'm very happy to say that has now changed.

I really don't see the "state control" issue with carrying a simple registration number - is anyone really saying people don't buy or use cars because they have to be registered?