So what happens if you're caught "bladdered"

Re: Confused

Sufficient legislation already exists to give certain harbour and river authorities the powers. What is proposed in this quirky kneejerk reaction "Railways and Transport Safety Act" is that "officers" - who have already been determined as police officers & MCA officers (& there is a possibility that this will be extended to include Bryn the local hitherto friendly HM)

The whole thing is just that the section of society that can't exist without regulation in all facets of life wants to extend it into an area where it just isn't needed. But that's regulators - they're out of business unless they ever widen the envelope.

Steve Cronin



<hr width=100% size=1>The above is, like any other post here, only a personal opinion
 
Re: That\'s about MY position....

What if you are hit by an un-insured drunk ?

Would their insurance be valid if they were drunk ?

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: How can it be enforced?

humph ... can't get near the mag at Paddington Station WH Smug because Smug's have moved Zoo etc above yottie mags so place is full of blokes in macs reading them .. wouldn't be you, would it???!!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: That\'s about MY position....

Un-insured drunk, same as un-insured - would pursue through courts for personal claim.

Insured drunk - depends on policy but more than likely not valid (some where in small print) - so pursue through courts for personal claim.

<hr width=100% size=1>
fishing_boat_md_clr.gif
 
Re: That\'s about MY position....

There isn't currently any such exclusion on MY policy but if this proposal becomes universally adopted there probably soon will be.

So then you still get hit but now by someone who can't afford to recompense you because his insurance is invalidated. Great. Then either your insurance company tells you that it can't recover it's losses or we all pay out of the Policyholders Compensation Scheme or a Court Order needs to be put into force distraining his goods. OK if you get hit by a Swan owner (he's probably loaded) but if it's the prow of a 25 year old Silhouette that holes your bow, he mightn't have the wherewithall to distrain upon.

Since it is regarded widely within the informed section of the boating world as un-necessary legislation since there isn't any sort of a problem, what level of reduction in associated casualties to you estimate that we can expect?

Steve Cronin



<hr width=100% size=1>The above is, like any other post here, only a personal opinion
 
Re: How can it be enforced?

No, I'm the resident gurner at Waterloo, where the boaty mags are next to Mountain Bike Weekly and Practical Skateboarder - so the browsers, whilst still undoubtedly weirdos, are younger and spottier /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>Je suis Marxiste - tendance Groucho
 
Re: That\'s about MY position....

Well of course, we are all in a catch 22 here.

Until there is a legally enforced limit, we will not know how many people sail whilst over it, or how many accidents are caused by it.

You may be correct, there may be no problem at all, if so, why not suggest a period of data collation, whereby every accident and insurance claim must have a compulsory alchohol test of the helms person at the time.




<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: That\'s about MY position....

I know this sounds like the ideal answer, but..

People who have actually done it, tell me that it very costly, time consuming and there are a number of ways people can permanently delay payment of awards. And that is assuming you can get a good independent witness in the first place, and assumes their lawyer is not smarter than your lawyer.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: That\'s about MY position....

I have a theory that most accidents are caused by Welshmen

So what we must do is ban all Welshmen from sailing and see how much the accident rate is reduced by.

Then we can decide whether or not to ban Welshmen

Er perhaps not

(apologies to the Welsh - nothing personal, just an analogy)

Have you really thought this through?

Some geezer shouts at you from the quayside and says he thinks you're ratted so you must stop and wait for bobbies to breathalyse you.

Do you stop?

If so for how long

If not, have you commited an offence?

Husband, wife and 2 kids go sailing, husband has a drink - does he get prosecuted?

What if wife is skipper

Or one of kids or all the family?

Is the helmsman considered to be "in charge" or the skipper, or either or both

Can you be prosecuted if having a drink when off watch, or is skipper never off watch.

Can anyone on board be prosecuted?

Will you be prosecuted for something if you refuse a breathalyser - if so what and why.

Will this apply to yachts flying foreign flags?

Will MCA, Harbourmasters etc have to be multilingual?

Will they need to be in uniform.

Will failing to stop for a MCA "official" (whatever that is) be an offence

This idea is complete and utter nonsense

And before you accuse me of condoning drunken sailing (or driving) which is the usual counter argument - I don't

I just don't see that there is a problem

This is simply regulation for it's own sake - a job creation exercise for overpayed underworked civil servants who have nothing better to do with their time.

It will also be a lawyers field day if anyone tries to enforce it, can't you just imagine the defences that could be run.

You may have gathered I do not support the motion.







<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: That\'s about MY position....

Some have claimed that drink/sailing is not a problem, therefore we do not need a law, however neither side can claim to know this as a fact.

The law will be put in place by default, no amount of protesting that there is no problem, will work, because there is no leisure boat data to prove this, and the public in general will draw a parrallel with driving.

If you believe there is no problem, then it would be in your interest to suggest an interim monitoring scheme, to ensure a more considered decision could be made.

So for example you could make it a requirement to record the helms person on the log and the time of change.

Where an incident has caused injury, then the authorities would take an alcohol test of the recorded helmsperson(s) (or prosecute for failure to note the helms person) , and statistics derived.

In reference to your specifc queries

1. Only incidents where injury is caused would have compulsory alcohol test, you could argue a case for insurance claims, but I agree that would be harder.

2. The recorded helmsperson(s) would be tested.

3. Why would refusal of a test not be an offence ?

4. The continentals have their own rules, and we ignore them at our peril, so why can't we have our own ?

5. Multilingual, how do the authorities deal with them now when they break other laws.

6. Where an injury has occurred then failure to stop would be an offence.

I realise there is a need to consider what craft should and should not need a log.

Can I just re-iterate, my original point was, the argument that there is no problem will not stop the law, if you really believe there is no problem, you should be suggesting a data collection period.


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: That\'s about MY position....

The only way such a "collation of data" could be carried out would be to enact the legislation.

Please tell me the last piece of legislation that was rescinded.

The point is that there would be a right to stop even when there had not been injury. Just like Road Traffic Act.

Failing to stop for a policeman is an offence in itself on the road

If after being stopped you seek to continue about your business then whoever stopped you can only prevent you from doing so by arresting you.

Is it your case that MCA "officials" and harbourmasters etc will be given rights of arrest?

Wrongful arraest costs the police lots of money and they are the experts, how much do you think it will cost in wrongful arrest claims with this legislation.

Citizens arrest is a possibility but only for imprionable offences so is it your argument that someone who has had a drink should be locked up?

You say the helmsman would be tested, but I thought responsibility was with skipper. My daughter could steer (after a fashion) at 5 years old would you breathalyse her?

The recorded helmsman? Recorded where, will that be a legal requirement too and presumably have rights of access for inspection for a range of busybodies. Dunno about your sailing but helm changes on mine by the minute, I pass to wife to trim sails, who passes to daughter to go to heads, who passes to me to go play music. I would need a log the size of War and Peace.

And what if boat is on autohelm, how are you going to breathalyse that?

Why would refusal not be an offence Wrong Question! why should it be an offence? The question is a clear indication of legislation for its own sake.

What constitutes an injury, if I trap my finger in companionway hatch (again) am I likely to be breathalysed.

Are you seriously suggesting that the process for enacting legislation should be to enact anything at all then wait for a few years to collect data to see whether or not it works and then change or rescind the law.

Surely no-one can believe that is a sensible option

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: That\'s about MY position....

An interesting point you raise about "neither side can claim to know this as a fact". Paragraph 19 of the consultation document makes a point about this:

"19. Generally, it will be much easier to move towards the right balance from a position where the exceptions are cast widely initially. This is because it is much easier to prove a positive than a negative. Hence, a safety justification based on evidence showing that there is a group where drinking is a problem and that limits should be made to apply is easier to construct than a safety case based on evidence showing that drinking is nota problem and that existing limits should be lifted."

So, "based on evidence showing that there is a group where drinking is a problem". I suggest they except all non-professionals, until they have such evidence. After all, thats that their own consultation document suggests.

Rick

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: So what happens if you\'re caught \"bladdered\"

Has anybody read my post on page 2? Are there any Maldon forum members who can enlighten us as to how they are planning to apply what law?

<hr width=100% size=1>my opinion is complete rubbish, probably.
 
Re: It\'s already here..

Referring to the point that 'marine officials will call the police etc etc....', I'm an auxiliary coastguard and can confirm that instructions have been issued that the police should be called to meet skippers, if those involved in rescue suspect drinking is a factor.
Am I happy about this? Not really. I joined up as a CG to help people, not act as an unpaid copper. I don't have any power to detain anyone landed by the lifeboat, for instance, and I don't expect I would try. We're supposed to summon the law in advance, but in my experience they won't turn up for hours anyway, if at all.
On the other hand, if a jet-skier is brought in legless, I expect I'll feel different about it (being a yottie) so you can see I will struggle with conscience versus 'duty'.
I suspect that if this all gets onerous I shall give up the (voluntary) CG role which I dare say will be someone else's loss.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: It\'s already here..

To my mind the real issue is that legislation is proposed / enacted for seemingly "good" reasons, but then the welter of words / conditions / regulations makes the whole issue so complex and vague at the same time that nobody knows where they stand - if in doubt look at the other posts on this subject.

Once regulations are made it is difficult to get them changed, the civil servants have moved on to something more exciting - or more career enhancing.

I don't go out to pubs of an evening 'cos I'm afraid that the second pint will put me over the limit, and soft drinks are disgusting. I don't want to be afraid to have a lunchtime sherry (!) in case some mobo / yottie / jetskier / rowboat shops me etc.etc.

Examples of sensible legistation with silly consequences:-

Not being able to wear / fly certain flags on inland waters (reasonable at sea, but of no practical value on a ditch)

Having to "give my inside leg measurement" every time I buy MGO to go directly in my boat. Incidently are people aware and not concerned that C&E require these purchases of MGO to be recorded and checked. If you heat your house with MGO, the distributor is obliged to monitor your purchases for increased consumption, and note wthether you have a fuel hose - just in case you might be running your car(s) on MGO. that really sticks in my craw, I feel uneasy about 'authority' monitoring my purchases . 1984 rules OK?

It's a bit more than a rant, but goes to the root of our society; dunnit?

Sound your horn / whistle if you agree.

<hr width=100% size=1>
x_sm.gif
ICOS X: Stop what you're doing and wait my signal
 
Re: It\'s already here..

So you don't feel that a legless yottie that needs the rescue services called out deserves to have the police called, but a jetskier does???/forums/images/icons/mad.gif
Personnally I don't drink if I need to drive the boat( same as when I need to drive a car) so proposed legislation doesn't bother me, but I would have thought that any skipper that causes the rescue services to have to come to his aid or causes an collision because he's had too much to drink deserves everything he gets.
I'm also sure pc plod will turn up very quickly to ensure the proposed legislation can be justified

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: It\'s already here..

Not what I meant, really. In 45 years of sailing I've never encountered a legless yottie anyway but I expect if I did I'd want to see the police involved.
My main point (badly put, probably) is that having volunteered to be an Aux Coastguard with the prime purpose of helping people in trouble, I'm now faced with becoming part of the Blunkett Law Machine. I reckon I can speak for most other auxiliaries when I say that's not why I joined. I, and most others, are not turned on by being in a uniform!
And believe me, the police DON'T turn up. Far too busy, apparently.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: That\'s about MY position....

"This is simply regulation for it's own sake - a job creation exercise for overpayed underworked civil servants who have nothing better to do with their time."

I couldn't agree more. It is yet another way for Gordon Brown and Bliar to increase the number of Civil Servants and so to further massage the "wonderful" unemployment figures.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: It\'s already here..

Cantata

Sympathise completely.

Still don't understand though. The Maldon HM calls the Police (and let's imagine for a moment that they do turn up) - what actual offence do they charge a drunken yottie/jetskier with? To my knowledge there isn't one, so what are the Maldon bods talking about?

<hr width=100% size=1>my opinion is complete rubbish, probably.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top