should boating be more official as in europe ?

[prv]

yes really, How can it be right that anyone can buy a boat and go to sea, without any training or legal requirements

Because we are sovereign individuals in a (notionally at least) free country, and therefore the default position is that if we want to do something we can, without asking mummy for permission. Now, of course, there are many things we might want to do which would or could harm our fellow citizens, so those things are either prohibited outright or restricted in various ways - and that's perfectly proper and reasonable in a civilised society. But we should always start from the position that people have the freedom of - and responsibility for - their own actions unless a genuine problem is shown to exist. Frankly it scares me the extent to which people today seem to be forgetting this, and assuming that it is right and natural and desirable for the government always to be involved instead. You don't even seem to have given much thought to why you want regulation here, just a vague feeling that it "seems right".

Pete

 

[lynall]

Surely if the boat is kept in a marina it has to be insured?

 

[paultallett]

Surely if the boat is kept in a marina it has to be insured?

I thought eactly the same as you. It's a condition of my berthing contract and you'd be made not to insure your boat.........

BUT...... I've never been asked by them to see my insurance details. Maybe there are a lot of un insured boats out there??

 

[nimbusgb]

Do a search on the forums for stories about uninsured losses. I've not found any so why do we need compulsory insurance? Just what problem are you trying to fix?

A bit like compulsory lifejackets!

 

[Uricanejack]

Where I live licensing is compulsory. And pointless.

The boat itself must be licensed in the. Provincial Register. Its a registration No. It gives the appearance of ownership. not actual proof. basically allows government to tax boat sales. Including every time a boat changes hands.

The operator must have a PBOC( Pleasure Boat Operator Card). It came into force just a few years ago. If you think its worthwhile check it out on line at Canada Coast guard small vessel requirements. PBOC.
You can get one in about 10m by answering a few multiple guess questions and of course paying the fee. and wasting about 10 minutes of your life.
Its primarily based on small fast motor boats. very limited knowledge requirements. Unfortunately so dumbed down to lowest common denominator its virtually pointless.

You still have to do one even if you take a CYA course or Canadian Power Squadron course.

And edgits are still edgits only the are now licensed edgits.

There is a provision for rental boat operators to just do a quick safety briefing fill out a form you sign and of you go. provide you have a credit card.
There are also minimum requirements for basic safety equipment based on vessel size. Which are surprisingly sensible.
You can find on line at Canada Safe Boating Guide.
I believe most American states have something similar.

The voluntary RYA system seems to work quite well. While I don’t think you need to acquire an Ocean Yacht master to go out on the water for an afternoon. The RYA basic courses are considerably more involved than these basic licenses.

 

[Keen_Ed]

Because we are sovereign individuals in a (notionally at least) free country, and therefore the default position is that if we want to do something we can, without asking mummy for permission. Now, of course, there are many things we might want to do which would or could harm our fellow citizens, so those things are either prohibited outright or restricted in various ways - and that's perfectly proper and reasonable in a civilised society. But we should always start from the position that people have the freedom of - and responsibility for - their own actions unless a genuine problem is shown to exist. Frankly it scares me the extent to which people today seem to be forgetting this, and assuming that it is right and natural and desirable for the government always to be involved instead.

This. x1000.
Should be recited as a creed by all school children every day.

 

[tonyh1]

Because we are sovereign individuals in a (notionally at least) free country, and therefore the default position is that if we want to do something we can, without asking mummy for permission. Now, of course, there are many things we might want to do which would or could harm our fellow citizens, so those things are either prohibited outright or restricted in various ways - and that's perfectly proper and reasonable in a civilised society. But we should always start from the position that people have the freedom of - and responsibility for - their own actions unless a genuine problem is shown to exist. Frankly it scares me the extent to which people today seem to be forgetting this, and assuming that it is right and natural and desirable for the government always to be involved instead. You don't even seem to have given much thought to why you want regulation here, just a vague feeling that it "seems right".

Pete

That is a nice sentiment, but not quite sure it is 100% correct. Another poster referred to over regulation in the light aviation sport and this has come about despite the fact that modern, lightweight aircraft would not even put a dent in the roof of the local Asda let alone plummet into a raging fireball and consume thousands of innocents bystanders. I think that aviation is regulated more than boating because of historical precedent. We are an island nation and boating has been part of our lives for thousands of years. Aviation has evolved in the last 100 years and it has a history dominated by a military perception that the "machines" are death traps in the hands of anyone other than a highly trained superman. Without wishing to be too controversial, we also have substance "laws" that do not follow the laws of "harm to our fellow citizens." The BMA/BMJ (cant remember which) posted an article a few years ago questioning our war on drugs as being somewhat off target because in a list of 20 legal and illegal drugs alcohol came out as being top of the list and categorised as being more dangerous and harmful than heroin and crack cocaine and yet we allow the active promotion and sale of this big killer....

The point I am making I guess is that some of our laws that are based on historical precedent are maybe best left alone (boating) whilst others, some may argue, should be reviewed and brought up to date.

I hold a RYA International Certificate but I am not sure it makes me better or more competent at sea. The biggest motivation for training I would imagine is the prospect of damaging a very expensive toy by not really knowing what you are doing?

 

[Tranona]

That is a nice sentiment, but not quite sure it is 100% correct. Another poster referred to over regulation in the light aviation sport and this has come about despite the fact that modern, lightweight aircraft would not even put a dent in the roof of the local Asda let alone plummet into a raging fireball and consume thousands of innocents bystanders.

You need to look at the two aspects of risk assessment to understand why aviation is regulated in the way it is and leisure boating is not.

First the probability of failure. In aviation (at least light aircraft) it is high(er). Look at the reports of accidents and the two major causes are mechanical failure and pilot error. Second, the consequences of failure. Usually the consequences are catastrophic - in other words sudden and usually fatal. So not surprising that standards of design and operation are set to minimise mechanical failure and minimum levels of pilot competence are set. However, even with all those checks accidents resulting in deaths (mostly participants rather than third parties) still occur regularly.

Contrast that with boating. Low probability of failure and less extreme consequences. Result is few accidents and tiny number of fatalities. Have a look at the MAIB reports and you will rarely find lack of experience or competence as a significant factor. This relative safety is reflected in the low insurance costs and the ease with which insurance can be obtained.

There may well be an element of historical precedent, but that reflects the lack of justification for additional legislation rather than any special treatment.

 

[maby]

I would support compulsory insurance, but I'm not at all sure that it could be enforced. As for compulsory training and licencing - when we bought our first boat, I was really pleased that it didn't exist. Now we're all trained and certified, I would be pretty relaxed about its introduction - but again unconvinced that it could be enforced.

 

[oceanfroggie]

That is a nice sentiment, but not quite sure it is 100% correct. Another poster referred to over regulation in the light aviation sport and this has come about despite the fact that modern, lightweight aircraft would not even put a dent in the roof of the local Asda let alone plummet into a raging fireball and consume thousands of innocents bystanders. I think that aviation is regulated more than boating because of historical precedent. We are an island nation and boating has been part of our lives for thousands of years. Aviation has evolved in the last 100 years and it has a history dominated by a military perception that the "machines" are death traps in the hands of anyone other than a highly trained superman. Without wishing to be too controversial, we also have substance "laws" that do not follow the laws of "harm to our fellow citizens." The BMA/BMJ (cant remember which) posted an article a few years ago questioning our war on drugs as being somewhat off target because in a list of 20 legal and illegal drugs alcohol came out as being top of the list and categorised as being more dangerous and harmful than heroin and crack cocaine and yet we allow the active promotion and sale of this big killer....

The point I am making I guess is that some of our laws that are based on historical precedent are maybe best left alone (boating) whilst others, some may argue, should be reviewed and brought up to date.

I hold a RYA International Certificate but I am not sure it makes me better or more competent at sea. The biggest motivation for training I would imagine is the prospect of damaging a very expensive toy by not really knowing what you are doing?

In fairness there is one big difference between the risks associated with operatong light aircraft and marine leisure vessels. A stick insect Cessna 150 could take out a 747 if they collided and the result even more catastrophic if the collision occurred over an urban conorbation. Not so with marine leisure craft. If a Princess 42 collided with a super tanker, only the paint would be scratched on the tanker, and they propably would not even have felt a bump.

However the total free for all in marine leisure craft seems out of step. I agree possibly the most effective way to improve standards is through mandatory 3rd party insurance and the pocket. That way folk with meaningful practical certification and experience get good discounts and lower claims excess.

 

[oceanfroggie]

Bring in compulsory insurance, that would sort it out. It would also encourage people to improve their skills to reduce their premiums.

+1

 

[superheat6k]

That a boater should place such a thread exhibits the level of brain washing our society has taken on.

We are already living under the non requested European Union Dictatorship, and here we have boaters lining up like lemmings asking for more restrictions.

Is it April 1st ?

 

[Nigelpickin]

That a boater should place such a thread exhibits the level of brain washing our society has taken on.

We are already living under the non requested European Union Dictatorship, and here we have boaters lining up like lemmings asking for more restrictions.

Is it April 1st ?

What a well put together argument, I was teetering on the edge in favour of the legislator but having read the above, well you've convinced me. What the heck, let's make Clarkson PM, tear down central government and shoot anyone who even tries to have a discussion about regulation.

 

[NormanS]

Because we are sovereign individuals in a (notionally at least) free country, and therefore the default position is that if we want to do something we can, without asking mummy for permission. Now, of course, there are many things we might want to do which would or could harm our fellow citizens, so those things are either prohibited outright or restricted in various ways - and that's perfectly proper and reasonable in a civilised society. But we should always start from the position that people have the freedom of - and responsibility for - their own actions unless a genuine problem is shown to exist. Frankly it scares me the extent to which people today seem to be forgetting this, and assuming that it is right and natural and desirable for the government always to be involved instead. You don't even seem to have given much thought to why you want regulation here, just a vague feeling that it "seems right".

Pete

Couldn't agree more. Well said that man.

 

[Davegriff]

However the total free for all in marine leisure craft seems out of step.

So not all following the same rules like sheep is an argument for regulation? 1984 is getting ever closer...

 

[superheat6k]

What a well put together argument, I was teetering on the edge in favour of the legislator but having read the above, well you've convinced me. What the heck, let's make Clarkson PM, tear down central government and shoot anyone who even tries to have a discussion about regulation.

+1 for Clarkson, now where's my gun !