rickp
Active member
Seems not. I just can't see the point in solving a problem which, from all the available evidence, doesn't seem to exist.
Rick
Rick
Should you have to qualify to skipper a boat in the UK?
- Thread starter db631018
- Start date
SnaxMuppet
New member
At last! Someone else who sees the sense of proper training!
Funny how you are a pilot like myself... can't be a coincidence can it?
I think the reasons so many people object is that they realise that THEY might need to be trained and they cannot face the idea. They have managed to stay safe so far and think that if they can do it then so can everyone else.
Clearly not everyone else can but they see the introduction of a minimum standard as, somehow, insulting to THEIR abilities.
I can see no reasonable or sensible arguement against basic minimum training becoming compusory to taking a boat to sea. No one here has put forward an arguement against it that is either sensible, thought out nor has any element of common sense about it.
I am sorry if this goes against the grain with most of you but I think you should think long and hard about whether you want the sea to be more safe or not. The arguement here is not about whether you nor anyone else is safe. It is about whether newcomers coming in to the hobbie are save. That is the issue and I think most of you have lost the plot with this one.
Funny how you are a pilot like myself... can't be a coincidence can it?
I think the reasons so many people object is that they realise that THEY might need to be trained and they cannot face the idea. They have managed to stay safe so far and think that if they can do it then so can everyone else.
Clearly not everyone else can but they see the introduction of a minimum standard as, somehow, insulting to THEIR abilities.
I can see no reasonable or sensible arguement against basic minimum training becoming compusory to taking a boat to sea. No one here has put forward an arguement against it that is either sensible, thought out nor has any element of common sense about it.
I am sorry if this goes against the grain with most of you but I think you should think long and hard about whether you want the sea to be more safe or not. The arguement here is not about whether you nor anyone else is safe. It is about whether newcomers coming in to the hobbie are save. That is the issue and I think most of you have lost the plot with this one.
Renegade_Master
New member
all this talk of training compulsory or not? I saw on sat TV yesterday the story of the hapless Maureen trying to learn to drive in her Lada. Remember the scene when her husband had to grab the wheel as she changed lanes without looking and nearly rammed an overtaking car.
Possible illustration of someone who is not destine to drive. She had done 400 lessons x £20 enough apparantly to buy a brand new Lada and still she was hopeless. Could'nt even pass her theory test.
Just thank our lucky stars she did'nt buy a boat instead and go out without any training think of the havoc that would have been caused.
That said most people are sensible and do the training before taking their new pride and joy out.
Possible illustration of someone who is not destine to drive. She had done 400 lessons x £20 enough apparantly to buy a brand new Lada and still she was hopeless. Could'nt even pass her theory test.
Just thank our lucky stars she did'nt buy a boat instead and go out without any training think of the havoc that would have been caused.
That said most people are sensible and do the training before taking their new pride and joy out.
rickp
Active member
[ QUOTE ]
I think the reasons so many people object is that they realise that THEY might need to be trained and they cannot face the idea. They have managed to stay safe so far and think that if they can do it then so can everyone else.
[/ QUOTE ]
What evidence do you have for such a ludicrous statement?
Oh doh. You're just trolling. Got it.
Rick
I think the reasons so many people object is that they realise that THEY might need to be trained and they cannot face the idea. They have managed to stay safe so far and think that if they can do it then so can everyone else.
[/ QUOTE ]
What evidence do you have for such a ludicrous statement?
Oh doh. You're just trolling. Got it.
Rick
nonitoo
New member
I have to admit a sneaking feeling of agreeing with Arny. I am reluctant to develop this due to the flaming that always follows.
While working on the Thames Estuary I have listened every summer to the endless stream of calls for help (thankfully rarely serious) from hapless boaters who have lost their way, run out of fuel etc. A classic was the large speedboat that set off from Herne Bay and got lost in the fog, he was eventually found tied to Black Deep 3 buoy, way to the north, with not a chart or radio aboard.
I know none of us feel we need compulsory training but it might be those who will never grace these hallowed portals who might benefit (along with us all picking up the odd snippet of knowledge).
Tom
While working on the Thames Estuary I have listened every summer to the endless stream of calls for help (thankfully rarely serious) from hapless boaters who have lost their way, run out of fuel etc. A classic was the large speedboat that set off from Herne Bay and got lost in the fog, he was eventually found tied to Black Deep 3 buoy, way to the north, with not a chart or radio aboard.
I know none of us feel we need compulsory training but it might be those who will never grace these hallowed portals who might benefit (along with us all picking up the odd snippet of knowledge).
Tom
rickp
Active member
I'm not flaming anyone (well, apart from Arny for the troll attempt). I just want to see some real figures rather than hearsay.
What problem do you think having mandatory qualifications would solve? I don't think that its going to stop anyone running out of fuel and I don't think it will stop ignorant/selfish people being ignorant/selfish.
We have a very low rate of accidents in the UK in boating - but can you show that it would be less if we had mandatory licensing. Is it less in countries which do have mandatory licensing? Presumably you're happy that spain has mandatory licensing - but their licence doesn't involve any boat handling at all.
Why are the RNLI not calling for it, if it were such a problem?
You yourself say that problems are rarely seriously - so I am confused that you see a requirement for licensing. I'm doubly suspicious when you couple the lack of statistics showing licensing would be beneficial with the fact that this thread was started by a training school.
Rick
What problem do you think having mandatory qualifications would solve? I don't think that its going to stop anyone running out of fuel and I don't think it will stop ignorant/selfish people being ignorant/selfish.
We have a very low rate of accidents in the UK in boating - but can you show that it would be less if we had mandatory licensing. Is it less in countries which do have mandatory licensing? Presumably you're happy that spain has mandatory licensing - but their licence doesn't involve any boat handling at all.
Why are the RNLI not calling for it, if it were such a problem?
You yourself say that problems are rarely seriously - so I am confused that you see a requirement for licensing. I'm doubly suspicious when you couple the lack of statistics showing licensing would be beneficial with the fact that this thread was started by a training school.
Rick
Nick_H
Active member
[ QUOTE ]
I can see no reasonable or sensible arguement against basic minimum training becoming compusory to taking a boat to sea. No one here has put forward an arguement against it that is either sensible, thought out nor has any element of common sense about it.
[/ QUOTE ]
or maybe you just didn't understand their point? Some people are happy with every aspect of their lives being regulated by one authority or another, others believe they should be allowed to go about their lives with only the minimum level of interference necessary to ensure a safe, just and functioning society. If you believe the latter, then you would want to see strong evidence that more regulation is needed, and the real benefits that would ensue. If you believe the former, then you're just happy that one more burden of personal responsibility has been lifted from your shoulders.
I can see no reasonable or sensible arguement against basic minimum training becoming compusory to taking a boat to sea. No one here has put forward an arguement against it that is either sensible, thought out nor has any element of common sense about it.
[/ QUOTE ]
or maybe you just didn't understand their point? Some people are happy with every aspect of their lives being regulated by one authority or another, others believe they should be allowed to go about their lives with only the minimum level of interference necessary to ensure a safe, just and functioning society. If you believe the latter, then you would want to see strong evidence that more regulation is needed, and the real benefits that would ensue. If you believe the former, then you're just happy that one more burden of personal responsibility has been lifted from your shoulders.
SnaxMuppet
New member
Rickp, why are you so agressive here? I am not trolling (whatever that is anyway). I am voicing an opinion which is what I thought the forum was about. I need no evidence to believe that something is true because it is based on what I have seen and heard over the past weeks, months, years. You, and a number of others on this forum seem intent on being confrontational... it serves nothing except your own ego.
You say that you don't think it will stop people running out of fuel... now who is making rediculous statements. Clearly you haven't given this any serious thought whatsoever. If newcomers to the boating world are given proper training then it is certain to help them develop more sea safety and better etiquette. I do agree with you though on one thing... if compulsory training was introduced now it certainly will have little effect you most people that are already boating... such as you for instance!
The RNLI ARE calling for better training and better sea safety!!!!! It isn't in their remit to call to make it compulsory... they are just interested in better safety and less loss of life. If you talk to any RNLI crewman or officer I am sure most if not all would say that generally speaking, a large number of their shouts could have been avoided with better training and better sea safety awareness. That is a fact and that means that better training would make a significant difference.
You say that accidents are rare... you have absolutely no evidence yourself for that. Accidents are certainly not rare... fatal accidents and reportable accidents may be rare but there are a lot more than reach the statistitics. Many, many RNLI shouts never end up as an fatal accident because the RNLI are there. Take the RNLI away and see then just how many lives would be lost because of a lack of training or sea safety awareness!
I cannot SHOW that the accident rate would be less with mandatory training (don't forget I am not advocating licencing - just training) but it is just plain common sense that if people have incidents because of lack of training and sea safety awareness so more training will help in that respect.
Hougn... I believe I fully understand people's arguements here but I just don't agree with many of them that is all... that is allowed here isn't it? Seems to me that if someone disagrees then it is called trolling...
I don't fit into either of your two categories! I fit somewhere in between. I certainly don't see regulation as interference. We live in a society that relies totally on regulation for it to function. People that don't agree with regulation in general, in my opinion, are often those that want to do things that the regulations don't allow and so resent them. Unfortuately, they are often the people that choose not to comform and often don't comply with them... often to everyone's detriment except themselves.
The evidence is already compelling for compulsory training it is just that many choose to ignore it because it isn't affecting them directly. They are safe because of experience and because of the mistakes they made and got away with. Why should others have to make those mistakes and risk not getting away with it quite so lightly? It is about getting to new people coming into boating and ensuring that they are set off in the right direction before they become set in their ways and believe they don't need any training either.
You see training as interference? Not a benefit? If that is so then it is a dangerous attitude to take that you nor others would benefit from training.
This whole arguement is going nowhere here. No one has put forward any sensible reasons why we should not have compulsory training except that it violates some right of non-interference in their lifes. Well I am sorry but if a little interference makes boating safer and better for everyone then it has my full support.
You say that you don't think it will stop people running out of fuel... now who is making rediculous statements. Clearly you haven't given this any serious thought whatsoever. If newcomers to the boating world are given proper training then it is certain to help them develop more sea safety and better etiquette. I do agree with you though on one thing... if compulsory training was introduced now it certainly will have little effect you most people that are already boating... such as you for instance!
The RNLI ARE calling for better training and better sea safety!!!!! It isn't in their remit to call to make it compulsory... they are just interested in better safety and less loss of life. If you talk to any RNLI crewman or officer I am sure most if not all would say that generally speaking, a large number of their shouts could have been avoided with better training and better sea safety awareness. That is a fact and that means that better training would make a significant difference.
You say that accidents are rare... you have absolutely no evidence yourself for that. Accidents are certainly not rare... fatal accidents and reportable accidents may be rare but there are a lot more than reach the statistitics. Many, many RNLI shouts never end up as an fatal accident because the RNLI are there. Take the RNLI away and see then just how many lives would be lost because of a lack of training or sea safety awareness!
I cannot SHOW that the accident rate would be less with mandatory training (don't forget I am not advocating licencing - just training) but it is just plain common sense that if people have incidents because of lack of training and sea safety awareness so more training will help in that respect.
Hougn... I believe I fully understand people's arguements here but I just don't agree with many of them that is all... that is allowed here isn't it? Seems to me that if someone disagrees then it is called trolling...
I don't fit into either of your two categories! I fit somewhere in between. I certainly don't see regulation as interference. We live in a society that relies totally on regulation for it to function. People that don't agree with regulation in general, in my opinion, are often those that want to do things that the regulations don't allow and so resent them. Unfortuately, they are often the people that choose not to comform and often don't comply with them... often to everyone's detriment except themselves.
The evidence is already compelling for compulsory training it is just that many choose to ignore it because it isn't affecting them directly. They are safe because of experience and because of the mistakes they made and got away with. Why should others have to make those mistakes and risk not getting away with it quite so lightly? It is about getting to new people coming into boating and ensuring that they are set off in the right direction before they become set in their ways and believe they don't need any training either.
You see training as interference? Not a benefit? If that is so then it is a dangerous attitude to take that you nor others would benefit from training.
This whole arguement is going nowhere here. No one has put forward any sensible reasons why we should not have compulsory training except that it violates some right of non-interference in their lifes. Well I am sorry but if a little interference makes boating safer and better for everyone then it has my full support.
rickp
Active member
[ QUOTE ]
You say that you don't think it will stop people running out of fuel... now who is making rediculous statements. Clearly you haven't given this any serious thought whatsoever.
[/ QUOTE ]
In the same way that the driving licence stops people running out of fuel on the roads?
I didn't realise all the folks I see walking to a petrol station, can in hand were unlicenced....
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Rick
You say that you don't think it will stop people running out of fuel... now who is making rediculous statements. Clearly you haven't given this any serious thought whatsoever.
[/ QUOTE ]
In the same way that the driving licence stops people running out of fuel on the roads?
I didn't realise all the folks I see walking to a petrol station, can in hand were unlicenced....
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Rick
beards
New member
Isnt that the point without training people would not understand that if they run of fuel they cannot walk down the road with a can it would not occur to them..........
rickp
Active member
You think that people who run out of fuel do so because they are under the impression that there are re-fueling stations out in the sea and that with training, they could be taught that there aren't?
Rick
Rick
C
Chrusty1
Guest
Hi Arny, sorry if I am asking you to go over old ground, but I haven't read all through this thread. What I would like to know is, are you suggesting that everyone should have compulsory training, or just newbies?
Further to my post above...this is part of a report in MBY any comments?
"The Bandit, is a 33ft (10.7m) Jeff Hunton designed Hunton Rib powered by a pair of 8.1 litre Mercruiser sterndrive units totalling 850hp giving a performance in excess of 80mph. It will be crewed by a trio of Watford based taxi drivers, Barry Deakin, Robin Reade and Carl Hemp plus IT consultant, Graeme Young, from nearby Chipperfield, Herts.
None have any previous powerboating experience and are hoping for good weather.
Their closest rival in the RB2 class will be the sister Hunton crewed by James May (Top Gear) and Nick Knowles (DIY SOS) who are equally new to the sport. "
Further to my post above...this is part of a report in MBY any comments?
"The Bandit, is a 33ft (10.7m) Jeff Hunton designed Hunton Rib powered by a pair of 8.1 litre Mercruiser sterndrive units totalling 850hp giving a performance in excess of 80mph. It will be crewed by a trio of Watford based taxi drivers, Barry Deakin, Robin Reade and Carl Hemp plus IT consultant, Graeme Young, from nearby Chipperfield, Herts.
None have any previous powerboating experience and are hoping for good weather.
Their closest rival in the RB2 class will be the sister Hunton crewed by James May (Top Gear) and Nick Knowles (DIY SOS) who are equally new to the sport. "
beards
New member
A bit simplistic but if people (lowest common denominator) do not have training it would not occur to them that it is different to driving a car ie get on and drive - no passage planning etc.
stamfordian
New member
.... off
Observer
Active member
Arny - I've no doubt you have good intentions but the absence of intellectual rigour that is apparent in your contributions on this thread, marks you down as fool or a knave.
If you can manage to post something that shows you have applied some joined up thinking about the claims you make and the views you express, you may win some respect. As it is, Rickp thinks you're a knave (troll). I think you're a fool and I'm not going to waste any more of my time debating with you.
If you can manage to post something that shows you have applied some joined up thinking about the claims you make and the views you express, you may win some respect. As it is, Rickp thinks you're a knave (troll). I think you're a fool and I'm not going to waste any more of my time debating with you.
Observer
Active member
[ QUOTE ]
I have to admit a sneaking feeling of agreeing with Arny. I am reluctant to develop this due to the flaming that always follows.
[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously not that reluctant.
[ QUOTE ]
While working on the Thames Estuary I have listened every summer to the endless stream of calls for help (thankfully rarely serious) from hapless boaters who have lost their way, run out of fuel etc. A classic was the large speedboat that set off from Herne Bay and got lost in the fog, he was eventually found tied to Black Deep 3 buoy, way to the north, with not a chart or radio aboard.
[/ QUOTE ]
Do you mean endless? Calls for help 60 x 24 x 7? Probably not. So how many? How many "avoidable" and how many because of something genuinely unforeseeable? You mean you haven't counted?
Witn regard to this proposed compulsory training, perhaps you would think about the following:
(i) what would be the scope of the syllabus of this compulsory training that, if undertaken only (say) by "new skippers", would materially reduce (just as a start) the incidents you mention: (a) "run out of fuel" (b) "lost your way" (c) ""got lost in fog";
(ii) what, exactly, is the mechanism that assures that people who have received this training will be materially less prone to the above type of error?
(iii) how do you propose to (a) define (b) identify the population of people who would be required to undertake the training. Would it be: (a) all owners; (b) everyone who has 'command' at any time.
(iv) what types of craft would be affected?
(v) do you propose 'grandfather' exemptions? If so, what would they be? If not, why not?
(vi) how much would this training cost?
(vii) how long would it take?
(viii) how would the requirement to undertake this training be (a) administered (b) enforced?
(ix) what would be the penalties for non-compliance?
(x) how much would the administration and enforcement cost?
The above list is just a start. If (as I suspect strongly is the case) you haven't really thought about these questions in any depth, then perhaps you should do - that is if you expect anyone to take any notice of you.
BTW - this is not a flaming - it's a critique of this fanciful idea that a desirable outcome (improved safety for water users) can be simply 'wished' into existence.
I have to admit a sneaking feeling of agreeing with Arny. I am reluctant to develop this due to the flaming that always follows.
[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously not that reluctant.
[ QUOTE ]
While working on the Thames Estuary I have listened every summer to the endless stream of calls for help (thankfully rarely serious) from hapless boaters who have lost their way, run out of fuel etc. A classic was the large speedboat that set off from Herne Bay and got lost in the fog, he was eventually found tied to Black Deep 3 buoy, way to the north, with not a chart or radio aboard.
[/ QUOTE ]
Do you mean endless? Calls for help 60 x 24 x 7? Probably not. So how many? How many "avoidable" and how many because of something genuinely unforeseeable? You mean you haven't counted?
Witn regard to this proposed compulsory training, perhaps you would think about the following:
(i) what would be the scope of the syllabus of this compulsory training that, if undertaken only (say) by "new skippers", would materially reduce (just as a start) the incidents you mention: (a) "run out of fuel" (b) "lost your way" (c) ""got lost in fog";
(ii) what, exactly, is the mechanism that assures that people who have received this training will be materially less prone to the above type of error?
(iii) how do you propose to (a) define (b) identify the population of people who would be required to undertake the training. Would it be: (a) all owners; (b) everyone who has 'command' at any time.
(iv) what types of craft would be affected?
(v) do you propose 'grandfather' exemptions? If so, what would they be? If not, why not?
(vi) how much would this training cost?
(vii) how long would it take?
(viii) how would the requirement to undertake this training be (a) administered (b) enforced?
(ix) what would be the penalties for non-compliance?
(x) how much would the administration and enforcement cost?
The above list is just a start. If (as I suspect strongly is the case) you haven't really thought about these questions in any depth, then perhaps you should do - that is if you expect anyone to take any notice of you.
BTW - this is not a flaming - it's a critique of this fanciful idea that a desirable outcome (improved safety for water users) can be simply 'wished' into existence.
nonitoo
New member
You don't seriously expect me to address each of the points you mention in the last posting - I have much better things to do with my precious time.
I leave you to your exercise in 'intellectual rigour' safe in the knowledge that you have done nothing to alter my views on the subject and your use of pejorative terms such as 'fool' and 'knave', albeit addressed to another, are hardly going to contribute to any positive outcome.
I leave you to your exercise in 'intellectual rigour' safe in the knowledge that you have done nothing to alter my views on the subject and your use of pejorative terms such as 'fool' and 'knave', albeit addressed to another, are hardly going to contribute to any positive outcome.
Andrew_Fanner
New member
Would all those advocating compulsory training be happy to have that compulsion applied to themsleves, or might that be covered by "grandfather rights".
I'm alongside those who suggest that, as the insurance companies don't refuse cover to those without a ticket, thye see no problem. In fact, the premium reduction for those with YM seems quite small...
I'm alongside those who suggest that, as the insurance companies don't refuse cover to those without a ticket, thye see no problem. In fact, the premium reduction for those with YM seems quite small...
nicho
Well-known member
[ QUOTE ]
Would all those advocating compulsory training be happy to have that compulsion applied to themsleves, or might that be covered by "grandfather rights".
[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely!! Whilst I have only done Day Skipper (both Power and Sail), and have an ICC, achieving both was in no way hard or painful Indeed it was enjoyable, and gave me a good grounding (oops, didn't mean that!!) The rest can come from experience built up over the years. I'm not advocating everyone has to have a Yachtmaster ticket.......
Would all those advocating compulsory training be happy to have that compulsion applied to themsleves, or might that be covered by "grandfather rights".
[/ QUOTE ]
Absolutely!! Whilst I have only done Day Skipper (both Power and Sail), and have an ICC, achieving both was in no way hard or painful Indeed it was enjoyable, and gave me a good grounding (oops, didn't mean that!!) The rest can come from experience built up over the years. I'm not advocating everyone has to have a Yachtmaster ticket.......
rickp
Active member
Adding to the end here, rather than any particular post, I have tried to gather some stats as requested. Firstly, I asked the RNLI about compulsory licencing for boats & skippers (via their website), and this is what they said:
[ QUOTE ]
However our postion on both is the same, in that anything that is effective, and can be proven to increase safety at sea, will meet our approval. However do note the use of the word 'proven'. I have yet to see any evidence that such an initiative can be shown to improve safety. Quite the contrary - in fact recent research has shown that in countries with a more regulatory approach their casualties/000 boaters is worse than the UK.
[/ QUOTE ]
I couldn't find the research alluded to and would be interested to see it. If its true that places like Spain do not require any boathandling in their test, you could understand why that may skew the figures and make licencing less worthwhile.
I was pointed towards some publications to look at. It seems that there was concern in New Zealand about accident levels and they had their Pleasure Boat Safety Advisory Group look into all issues surrounding boating in 1999. They came up with a very thorough report with lots of interesting stats in. Its 227 pages long, so I've not read it all yet and it probably has figures that could make the case for both sides! However, in their summary - they did not come out in favour if compulsory licencing.
In 2007, the same group did a short followup report on figures gathered since the 1999 report. The results are that:
<ul type="square">[*]Wearing lifejackets would have had a high likelihood of preventing a fatality in 66% of accidents
[*]Effective communications equipment, if available, was likely to have prevented 58% of fatalities
[*]Weather conditions significantly contributed to 47% of recreational boating fatalities
[*]Fitted level flotation was highly liekly to have prevented 43% of fatalities
[*]Alcohol was a factor in 18% of recreational fatalities, but this is considered to be a conservative figure
[/list]
They also say that "licensing and/or compulsory training might have prevented 12% of fatalities" and that this would have "a minimal effect on the number of fatalities" (see the table on page 5).
It is certainly my understanding (and I've argued the case on this forum before) that if you want to reduce boating fatalities in the UK, then making it a legal requirement to wear a lifejacket in vessels of a certain size - dinghies/tenders for instance would be far better. I think Ireland went that route...
If only the MAIB had been more rigorous in their efforts - their 2006 annual report doesn't go into nearly enough detail to be useful for debating the worth of mandatory licencing.
Cheers,
Rick
[ QUOTE ]
However our postion on both is the same, in that anything that is effective, and can be proven to increase safety at sea, will meet our approval. However do note the use of the word 'proven'. I have yet to see any evidence that such an initiative can be shown to improve safety. Quite the contrary - in fact recent research has shown that in countries with a more regulatory approach their casualties/000 boaters is worse than the UK.
[/ QUOTE ]
I couldn't find the research alluded to and would be interested to see it. If its true that places like Spain do not require any boathandling in their test, you could understand why that may skew the figures and make licencing less worthwhile.
I was pointed towards some publications to look at. It seems that there was concern in New Zealand about accident levels and they had their Pleasure Boat Safety Advisory Group look into all issues surrounding boating in 1999. They came up with a very thorough report with lots of interesting stats in. Its 227 pages long, so I've not read it all yet and it probably has figures that could make the case for both sides! However, in their summary - they did not come out in favour if compulsory licencing.
In 2007, the same group did a short followup report on figures gathered since the 1999 report. The results are that:
<ul type="square">[*]Wearing lifejackets would have had a high likelihood of preventing a fatality in 66% of accidents
[*]Effective communications equipment, if available, was likely to have prevented 58% of fatalities
[*]Weather conditions significantly contributed to 47% of recreational boating fatalities
[*]Fitted level flotation was highly liekly to have prevented 43% of fatalities
[*]Alcohol was a factor in 18% of recreational fatalities, but this is considered to be a conservative figure
[/list]
They also say that "licensing and/or compulsory training might have prevented 12% of fatalities" and that this would have "a minimal effect on the number of fatalities" (see the table on page 5).
It is certainly my understanding (and I've argued the case on this forum before) that if you want to reduce boating fatalities in the UK, then making it a legal requirement to wear a lifejacket in vessels of a certain size - dinghies/tenders for instance would be far better. I think Ireland went that route...
If only the MAIB had been more rigorous in their efforts - their 2006 annual report doesn't go into nearly enough detail to be useful for debating the worth of mandatory licencing.
Cheers,
Rick