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

[FistralG]

This is the sort of damage these things can do when not handled properly!

Fortunately for the rider the boat he hit was unsinkable and that saved his life, as he was pinned by the legs for several minutes.

 

[xyachtdave]

This is the sort of damage these things can do when not handled properly!

Fortunately for the rider the boat he hit was unsinkable and that saved his life, as he was pinned by the legs for several minutes.

There is a big empty bit of sea in the back ground of that photo to bomb around in on your jet ski......

 

[Plevier]

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.

It screams out for rationalisation.

 

[Tranona]

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.

The two things perform entirely different functions. The SSR is simply there to confirm the state of registration of your boat when in foreign waters. It has no status or relevance to a UK only boater, and I would guess only a minority of leisure boats in the UK are on the SSR. It has nothing to do with ownership or responsibility for the boat.

The CG66 can help our coastguard friends identify yachts that maybe in trouble and need their help. Owners may well think they can benefit from providing this information to the coastguard and clearly many do. But also clear that many don't - which may be from ignorance, laziness or deliberate decision (or indeed paranoia!). Good to have the choice.

 

[robertj]

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!

the 'keeper' bit on your V5 is to inform you that you are not the owner.
You gave up ownership in a way to the DVLA thats why they can crush your car if you dont pay a fine, thus this would be the same on the water if there were to be a registration scheme.

 

[chanelyacht]

It screams out for rationalisation.

To be honest, it wouldn't achieve anything apart from disruption due to change.

CG66 costs HMCG - therefore the taxpayer - nothing more than server space. As I mentioned earlier, all the local administrators do it as part of normal duties anyway.

SSR is part of the Register of Shipping and Seamen, and passing CG66 onto them would achieve nothing but giving them more work and taking it away from the main user, the ops rooms.

There's no duplication of work or cost between the two.

 

[Plevier]

To be honest, it wouldn't achieve anything apart from disruption due to change.

CG66 costs HMCG - therefore the taxpayer - nothing more than server space. As I mentioned earlier, all the local administrators do it as part of normal duties anyway.

SSR is part of the Register of Shipping and Seamen, and passing CG66 onto them would achieve nothing but giving them more work and taking it away from the main user, the ops rooms.

There's no duplication of work or cost between the two.

I'm sorry, I think you are taking a very traditional pre-information era attitude.
They are for different purposes but you are maintaining two separate registers with subsets of the same information. That is needless duplication.
You've suggested creating a CG66 registration number to be displayed on the boat. There is already an SSR number to be displayed on the boat. That's duplication, even before thinking about the callsign that you (I think) said in another post was the unique identifier, the MMSI number and the other things I mentioned before.
We need yet another registered number like a hole in the head! We already have up to 4 unique identifiers! (SSR, callsign, MMSI, sail number)
We already pay for SSR (not a lot, I know) and you can bet if CG66 became compulsory there would be a charge for that too. You've suggested £20 (is that p.a.?)
I'm actually not opposed to registration (above dinghy size vessel) but lets do it in a rational way for minimum operating overhead, unified information storage and greatest benefit and simplicity.

 

[chanelyacht]

I'm sorry, I think you are taking a very traditional pre-information era attitude.
They are for different purposes but you are maintaining two separate registers with subsets of the same information. That is needless duplication.
You've suggested creating a CG66 registration number to be displayed on the boat. There is already an SSR number to be displayed on the boat. That's duplication, even before thinking about the callsign that you (I think) said in another post was the unique identifier, the MMSI number and the other things I mentioned before.
We need yet another registered number like a hole in the head! We already have up to 4 unique identifiers! (SSR, callsign, MMSI, sail number)
We already pay for SSR (not a lot, I know) and you can bet if CG66 became compulsory there would be a charge for that too. You've suggested £20 (is that p.a.?)
I'm actually not opposed to registration (above dinghy size vessel) but lets do it in a rational way for minimum operating overhead, unified information storage and greatest benefit and simplicity.

I agree with a lot of what you say - for example, the VHF callsign as a registration number would work perfectly - but that gives rise to issues of boats without radios.

SSR, MMSI, Sail numbers are only unique identifiers for those that have them - as others have said, very few boats are SSR registered, sail numbers instantly excludes our powered friends, and I've mentioned not all boats have radios.

Of course, other countries with registrations (e.g. France) already have all the others you mention too, but nothing we have to date covers all the bases.

 

[Tranona]

Of course, other countries with registrations (e.g. France) already have all the others you mention too, but nothing we have to date covers all the bases.

The thing with other countries is that they have a tradition of the state keeping tabs on people in all parts of life that would be alien to the UK. This country has a history or minimal interference in citizens' private life, and then only if there is a public interest need. I know that it is not as extreme as that - the rot started when taxation to fund wars was introduced!, but the starting point is still minimal interference.

In the particular case of leisure yachts, as I pointed out earlier there is a huge population of existing boats for which there are no records. We have rubbed along quite nicely without the need for compulsory registration and testing - and all the things that go with it. There is nothing that indicates countries that have compulsion in these matters are any safer or better managed, or whatever excuse you dream up for such schemes. Rather, as those of us who have experience of boating in other countries have found, the opposite is more likely.

This is what I mean by the wider picture. You need to look holistically, not through you narrow (but important) lens. Wherever you look you will not find a systemic "problem" that would be solved by any compulsory registration system. You will find lots of irritating things such as the topic that started this thread, but nothing that justifies an expensive impractical imposition on people in general.

 

[Plevier]

I agree with a lot of what you say - for example, the VHF callsign as a registration number would work perfectly - but that gives rise to issues of boats without radios.

SSR, MMSI, Sail numbers are only unique identifiers for those that have them - as others have said, very few boats are SSR registered, sail numbers instantly excludes our powered friends, and I've mentioned not all boats have radios.

Of course, other countries with registrations (e.g. France) already have all the others you mention too, but nothing we have to date covers all the bases.

So if you are going to make it compulsory make SSR compulsory and use that don't introduce another!
I forgot the HIN - that's up to 5 that we already have.

 

[robertj]

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.

You work for the government don't you?!

 

[Greenheart]

Does anyone know how to transfer phone-video recordings, onto threads here? Then you could all watch the PWC fly-by on the upper Itchen, which my pal witnessed yesterday. It hadn't occurred to me that that would raise this question! I wish I'd stayed quiet...

 

[chanelyacht]

The thing with other countries is that they have a tradition of the state keeping tabs on people in all parts of life that would be alien to the UK. This country has a history or minimal interference in citizens' private life, and then only if there is a public interest need. I know that it is not as extreme as that - the rot started when taxation to fund wars was introduced!, but the starting point is still minimal interference.

In the particular case of leisure yachts, as I pointed out earlier there is a huge population of existing boats for which there are no records. We have rubbed along quite nicely without the need for compulsory registration and testing - and all the things that go with it. There is nothing that indicates countries that have compulsion in these matters are any safer or better managed, or whatever excuse you dream up for such schemes. Rather, as those of us who have experience of boating in other countries have found, the opposite is more likely.

This is what I mean by the wider picture. You need to look holistically, not through you narrow (but important) lens. Wherever you look you will not find a systemic "problem" that would be solved by any compulsory registration system. You will find lots of irritating things such as the topic that started this thread, but nothing that justifies an expensive impractical imposition on people in general.

Hmm...being French by birth and origin I always notice when I go back how much less state control there is over there than here. Or maybe the "control" is different - I don't see CCTV cameras everywhere, a massive, oppressive security operation for events far bigger in interest and crowd numbers than we have just hosted here, or security guards in every shop. Perhaps I'm not looking hard enough?

I appreciate my lens may seem narrow, but I do have a distinct loathing for state involvement in pretty much anything - given the chance I'd do some pretty radical rolling back of the state if I could!

How about a third option - the registration scheme is third party, maybe RYA or RNLI, and is accessed under the same authority we can use now for mobile phone details - i.e. life risk and audited.

The problem is that by definition, the vast majority on here are boaters and understand all the various aspects because that's the nature of people here - but by and large, this isnt the audience that gives us the largest number of issues.

 

[Searush]

Does anyone know how to transfer phone-video recordings, onto threads here? Then you could all watch the PWC fly-by on the upper Itchen, which my pal witnessed yesterday. It hadn't occurred to me that that would raise this question! I wish I'd stayed quiet...

I did warn you to be careful what you wish for, didn't I?

 

[Greenheart]

Indeed. (I must say I haven't been much of a part of the disagreement/discussion that followed hereabouts, though!)

All the same, the quarter-witted rider of the PWC seen yesterday, who stupidly 'treated' an infant to extreme peril, needed his very own private lightning-bolt. Damn governmental intrusion, but double-damn the morons who endanger life, limb and the collective's liberty.

 

[Tranona]

How about a third option - the registration scheme is third party, maybe RYA or RNLI, and is accessed under the same authority we can use now for mobile phone details - i.e. life risk and audited.

It is not who holds the register, it is the principle that it is unnecessary. (Anyway don't suggest on here that the RYA has any more control over these things or it will get a big no no from many forumites).

It is just that there is no need for such a register, whoever holds it. It is a "solution" looking for a problem to solve. Or rather the minor failings of the current state of affairs will not be solved by this mechanism. As you said yourself, it is not the people on here that create the minor issues. It is the people who don't insure their cars, don't pay their road fund licences and so on. A huge compulsory system to try and enforce these things fails spectacularly to deal with them. Why do you think such a thing would be any more effective on our environment?

As to state control over the individual, note you don't have ID cards here, nor registration of private asset such as boats, nor the state determining how you divide your assets when you die, nor police with the powers to levy huge on the spot fines and apprehend you or take away your licence until you pay your fine, nor determine the level of health insurance and pension you get from the state based on your status at work. Nor do you have unenforceable rules about how far from the shore you can take your boat without meeting arbitrary requirements for equipment. Just a few of the joys of being French. Offset by good wine and cheese, of course.

 

[clyst]

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.

Plus 1

As an ex coastguard officer I have to agree .

Personally I have no problem with full registration similar to that of the DVLC plus a compulsary "driving test ".

This is the first generation that has much "inherited wealth" makes it possible for any numpty to buy a large high powered boat to career about in without any knowledge of seamanship and unfortunately you see it all the time.

Boating has become a victim of its own popularity we have to move with the times .

 

[Searush]

Plus 1

As an ex coastguard officer I have to agree .

Personally I have no problem with full registration similar to that of the DVLC plus a compulsary "driving test ".

This is the first generation that has much "inherited wealth" makes it possible for any numpty to buy a large high powered boat to career about in without any knowledge of seamanship and unfortunately you see it all the time.

Boating has become a victim of its own popularity we have to move with the times .

Except that it doesn't work for cars anyway, does it? The people who cause problems now would still cause problems with all the costs & regulation in place cos they would just ignore the law. Just as most of the problem car drivers always have.

That's the basic flaw in laws, the only people who obey them are the people who wouldn't be a problem anyway! The people who the laws are aimed at are the ones who continue to break them. We have prisons full of people who think that the laws don't apply to them & that they won't get caught next time.

Regulation is expensive, hard to police & uttterly pointless anyway. Even if there was a major problem, it would still not be the solution!

 

[robp]

Regarding the original post. Byelaws will have been broken in that area, which can be very expensive. But was it not an issue that a judge found a PWC not to be a "vessel" on the sea? Or has that changed now?

 

[clyst]

Except that it doesn't work for cars anyway, does it? The people who cause problems now would still cause problems with all the costs & regulation in place cos they would just ignore the law. Just as most of the problem car drivers always have.

That's the basic flaw in laws, the only people who obey them are the people who wouldn't be a problem anyway! The people who the laws are aimed at are the ones who continue to break them. We have prisons full of people who think that the laws don't apply to them & that they won't get caught next time.

Regulation is expensive, hard to police & uttterly pointless anyway. Even if there was a major problem, it would still not be the solution!

So what's the answer SR ?? just let the Law breakers cause havoc because some may totally disregard them ? imagine if on the crowded roads of today if anyone could just go out and buy a powerful car or motor cycle and career along the highway .