RYA money money money

The comment about pedestrians being killed by experience drivers as opposed to new drivers is simply nonsense. Its well established that the risk of accident in any activity is greater for a/ beginner b/ newly qualified c/ young males because they are more risk inclined. Doesnt matter whether that activity is driving, divi9ng, sailing or operating machinery.

No reason for not training them - in fact a very good reason for training them. And its fair to say that even for the new and young, sailing is still far safer than motoring.
 
Thanks for the comment. It was not a comment it is a fact

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5256506.stm

You do understand I am talking about the 1930s and 1940s? When there were 2.7 million cars on the road killing 7,000 people as opposed to 27million now killing 3,000. As you (sic) would not be an adult until your 21st birthday in those days, you would not start earning full pay until then therefore it as older people who had the money to be able to afford a vehicle. I will leave you to extrapolate.

As to the second part of your post ref training. Training is what we're advocating. Read my first post.

The third part of your post ref ....safer than motoring. I did say

[ QUOTE ]
Boating has a wonderful safety record. I do believe though that the highest call-out for the RNLI ref boats is for 'older' people.

[/ QUOTE ]

The highest RNLI call-outs are for older people, not youngsters, who are to be encouraged into training and enabled in what they wish to do as per initial post.
 
I was puzzled by your apparent reference to older people currently causing more road accidents. I can see now that you were referring to road accidents 60 to 70 years ago - which if anything is even less relevant and more puzzling. I have no knowledge of the age profile of drivers in those days as compared to today, but then as I already posted "the risk of accident in any activity is greater for a/ beginner b/ newly qualified c/ young males because they are more risk inclined". So I've no doubt that older drivers when first driving a car back in the 30s were fairly accident prone, though I wouldnt know for sure - I wasnt there.

I would expect the MCA callouts to be mainly for older people - ever looked at the demographic of yacht owners? Its your argument about the 1930s drivers all over again.

But what you really seem to be advocating is not training, but some sort of free ride for potential trainers from the RYA. They for their part have a training scheme to run, standards to check and control and it all costs money. So it seems entirely reasonable to me (and judging from the responses to most other posters on these forums) that your wife should be qualified to the appropriate standard and pay the fairly small costs of doing so. No doubt there will be some local authority social services / central govt budgets that can help if necessary.

Maths, physics etc are some help in the teaching of this subject but not a huge amount. And poersonally, I dont see the disaffected being any less so because of the provision of free training that they can then no longer use because they dont have a boat to use it in. But thats another debate
 
You have missed the point of the 30s and 40s again. The fact you [ QUOTE ]
weren't there

[/ QUOTE ] has nothing to do with it. The figures still stand for ever. The details of the Battle of Waterloo are as easily defined today as they were back then.

Newly arrived participators are of course more likely to have an accident/mishap than a more experienced person. BUT there are more accidents among the OLDER more experienced drivers than there are with the young newly arrived.

Glad you appreciate that older boaters too are accident/mishap prone by the very nature of the fact it is older persons, who in the main do not have, or have only recently gained, qualifications in boating, that can afford to own the vessels. Therefore we can conclude that being older and more experienced is no guarantee not to have mishaps. By proportion it must be something in the order of 90/95% of call-outs are for older, experienced, persons.

We do not advocate a free ride for trainers and your rhetoric takes a poor turn saying this.

Yes, you are right, trainers should be qualified to an appropriate standard. However, in symbiosis with the Chief Trainer at the RYA (read his articel in PBO last or one before that issue) we are saying that over-qualification is not necessary and to have to have YM Offshore practical is and unecessary over-qualification to teach Day Skipper, no matter how noble the the cause or regime.

[ QUOTE ]
So it seems entirely reasonable to me (and judging from the responses most other posters on these forums)

[/ QUOTE ] Never take comfort in numbers, mob rule is not necessarily correct, a whole nation followed Hitler and tried to exterminate the Jews and recently a chap was kicked to death by a crowd of youngsters for standing up for what he believed was right, with no help from the concerned citizens no doubt watching.

Thank you for pointing us towards Government help in the same paragraph that you also mention you think we're advocating 'free rides'.

[ QUOTE ]
Maths, physics etc are some help in the teaching of this subject but not a huge amount.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, very much OVER-QUALIFICATION. You hardly need a degree to teach, or learn a much lesser discipline. The degree or other eminent qualification is only to show that you are capable of learning other disciplines. Don't you think?

[ QUOTE ]
I dont see the disaffected being any less so because of the provision of free training that they can then no longer use because they dont have a boat to use it in.

[/ QUOTE ]

It boils down to inclusion in life and not feeling disaffected, excluded, not wanted. Exclusion or disaffection does not have to be pro-active, the fact a person doesn't have enough money to join in, what ever, is self-exclusion. Some years ago it was found that consumers were self-disconnecting themselves from the electric because they did not have the money to put in the meter. This left the young, the elderly and disadvantaged very vulnerable. Hope you follow the thread.

What we would like to create is a whole heap of youngsters who are trained and will in turn train others.

It is pompous and naive of you to make the smug statement 'because they don't have a boat to use it in'. There are numerous ways of ensuring they do have access to boats and I hope you will take a couple of youngsters out with you and show them how to sail while letting them see minor chart work in operation. You will need to notify your insurance company, have up to date lifejackets, flares, at least have had a Sea Check by the RNLI and a whole list of other things like seacocks in good order when you had them out to look at last year an so on. So no need for another debate on the boat issue. We've got the will, the youngsters, the boats, a whole pile of philanthropist boaters, volunteers, insurance and I'm sure you can think of more.
 
You do like an argument, dont you? But then I suppose I'm guilty of that too. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

In an earlier post to me you put the link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5256506.stm as justification of "When there were 2.7 million cars on the road killing 7,000 people as opposed to 27million now killing 3,000. As you (sic) would not be an adult until your 21st birthday in those days, you would not start earning full pay until then therefore it as older people who had the money to be able to afford a vehicle."

Well I've just got round to reading the report and it does nothing of the sort. The only specific accident mentioned is the death of a middle aged woman caused by a youth of 20 allegedly speeding. If that doesnt lend some (limited) support to my comment "Its well established that the risk of accident in any activity is greater for a/ beginner b/ newly qualified c/ young males because they are more risk inclined." then I dont know what does. Insofar, of course, that any media report adds any useful information.

You go on to say "BUT there are more accidents among the OLDER more experienced drivers than there are with the young newly arrived" which is simply incorrect. For example ROSPOA say " Younger drivers are more likely to be involved in accidents because they are young, but once they have had one or two years driving experience the effects of age on their accident risk seems to disappear." They go on to say "Lack of driving experience is a major reason for the higher accident risk of novice drivers, especially in their first three years of driving. As new drivers gain more driving experience, their accident rate begins to fall. However, the effects of increasing age and increasing driving experience combine, and together they produce even higher reductions in accident risk. Overall, the accident risk of 17 year old novice drivers reduces by 43% after their first year of driving experience. For 18 year old drivers, the reduction is 40%, for 19 year olds it is 38%. The accident risk of 25 year old novice drivers reduces by about one quarter after the first year of driving." And of course the insurance industry knows this well which is why premiums for young drivers are very high - higher for males than females.

None of which is really relevant to your argument about the cost and level of qualification required to teach kids shorebased courses up to day skipper. I am a shorebased teacher - been doing it for 8 years now, but gradually winding down. And before you jump to any conclusions about financial interests, apart from the rare private courses I do it all foc for my clubs. Either way, I reckon I'm in a position to comment on your points.

I half agree with you about the YM practical - its nice to have but not really necessary in a practical sense to teach DS shorebased. In fact the RYA rules as explained to me require for the Principal to have that qualification but allow him / her to use teachers for various subjects who know the subject but arent YMs. So your wife could teach nav under the aegis of a recognised school provided she knew her stuff. Thats possibly a way forward for your project and its an approach I've taken in my classes many times.. Incidentally, the rules are different for practical courses - those she couldnt teach without qualification at a higher level than YM.

You went on to say "It is pompous and naive of you to make the smug statement 'because they don't have a boat to use it in'. " and you're wrong. Whats more likely to cause disaffection than getting a taste of something you cant have? Because thats the reality. At one of our local clubs, they made an effort to get youth involved - or at least a couple of members did. But only a couple would consider taking the kids out in their boats and that was before all the rules about CRO checks. Personally, I wouldnt consider taking kids out in my boat without both parents present and I'd be doubtful even then. But then you dont need a boat to do the DS theory anyway.

" It boils down to inclusion in life and not feeling disaffected, excluded, not wanted. " Nice theory but the problem is that a lot of these feral disaffected kids arent wanted, by their mothers, their absentee fathers or the rest of us in society. And thats a problem that well intentioned do-goodery isnt going to solve. Having said that, your intentions are admirable and I wish you the best of luck with your project.
 
What a shame,I hoped we could remain free of this type of nonsence.

Take it elsewhere please guys.
 
[ QUOTE ]
these feral disaffected kids arent wanted, by their mothers, their absentee fathers or the rest of us in society.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are incorrect in what I have said, your facts ditto.

I am appalled that you should refer to another person but particularly young people in this manner. You are revolting. I have no more to say on the matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

S
Amiable demands for money!
Replies
15
Views
850
penberth3
P
lustyd
VHF course help
4 5 6
Replies
113
Views
2K
billskip
billskip

Share this page

Top