What the hell is going on, R.Y.A. (Part 2.)

E

eise

Active Member
Joined
20 May 2004
Messages
65
Location
Home Somerset, Sailing, South Devon.
alancoombs.co.uk
If the previous post was an opinion poll the figures would speak for themselves.

934 views 34 posts, So only 3.64026% seemed concerned about legislation.

So is the R.Y.A. representing the majority of voters? Methinks not.

Perhaps the next poll should be on question of Red Diesel.
 
A dangerous conclusion to reach Eise.

Just consider for a moment that a viewer might see a posting that reflects his point of view. What would be the point in repeating it?
 
Teredo, I quite agree, just trying to make a point.
Personnally I have no idea of what the Government is intending to introduce. Is it a Boat or Owner Licence? I must admit had drafted post on NOTEPAD, but then used poll figures and deleted Notepad.

Briefly, I think if licence is for owner and is treated in a similar way as cars, i.e. discount for experience/qualification, insurance tied in with it in the form of no claims bonuses, it might prove attractive.
I think the insurance provision is the key. In the case of cars etc. we have breakdowns etc. covered by us joining A.A.
As users of the seas, our breakdown cover is provided by the R.N.L.I.and Coastguard, so why not use the money raised to (help) fund them.

Its simple really.

You take a test, the more experience and qualifications you get, the larger the no-claims bonus. In the event of a breakdown you pay the cost of a call-out,or proportion of same, to R.N.L.I./M.C.A.and claim back on insurance. The more no claims bonuses you have built up, the less likely you are likely to lose in the event of a call out.

The framework is there,it just needs pulling together.

P,S. what's your no-claims bonus?
 
I cannot think of any poster with whom I disagree more. First and most important the RNLI is not a breakdown service nor can it ever be under its current arrangements. Nor should it. It is our own responsibility to ensure our craft are fit for purpose and only used in appropriate conditions. However, because unforeseen events can happen and conditions change, thank goodness there is a self funded RNLI of volunteers who may be able to help. So under your thinking the RNLI would need completely rethinking for a start. How long do you think some of the voluntary funding would continue if it became clear it was a break down service?

Second, if you have a licencing scheme you need a bureaucracy to maintain it. Current Government thinking is for such buraucracies to have an element of 'self-funding' themselves and that's done through various 'fees' which are taxes. Even so it needs more people in the civil service. Then it needs an enforcement body. How many officers is it going to take to cover all the marinas, harbours, creeks, rivers, rias etc. And then they will need a hierarchy because we'll demand standards of their officers. Then we will demand an independent body to investigate our complains when we belive they have enforced the law wrongly. And for what? The number of people who harm themselves or others 'boating' is relatively few (thank goodness). How would licencing or insurance have prevented the tradegy of the yacht recently run down or the 8 year old jet skier? Licensing or insurance never prevented that sort of thing on the road. Most recidivist car thieves don't have either licences or insurance and those that do don't keep them for long. There is a similar impracticality about demanding some form of compulsory training.

And to finish, where do you get this notion that the Government is interested in doing anything in this area other than ensuring excessive powers for the unaccountable HSE.

Oh and your analysis of the responses to your previous post as an indication of the views of persons on this forum is so appalling as to defy any further comment. Sorry to be blunt but this is typical hand wringing 'something must be done' Liberal Guardianesque.
 
[ QUOTE ]
And to finish, where do you get this notion that the Government is interested in doing anything in this area other than ensuring excessive powers for the unaccountable HSE.

Oh and your analysis of the responses to your previous post as an indication of the views of persons on this forum is so appalling as to defy any further comment. Sorry to be blunt but this is typical hand wringing 'something must be done' Liberal Guardianesque.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think "eise" is a politician. Posts a question to which the majority of answers disagree, so adopts those that haven't responded as supporting their view and uses very flimsy stats to support it.

Rick
 
You seem to be intepreting views as individual posters. In fact, each time a person goes back to view it counts, so I will have read that thread multiple times, each time there is a new post, as would others, so I'm afraid that even from that perspective your stats don't make sense.

Many of the viewers simply won't be interested in responding to a thread. Many will be unregistered so unable to respond.

If you want a poll, set up a real one, rather than making up stats that suit you
 
Our breakdown cover is provided by Seastart ...

Consider the RNLI as across between the Ambulance service and the Fire Brigade - except they are volunteers.

Requirements for insurance are generally covered by clubs/associations/moorings/marinas/harbours/rivers/etc

and as Brendan said - the views register is each time someone looks at the thread ... out of 934 views I'm sure over 50 were mine. So that brings you down to 880 .... wish to carry on ?
 
You remind me of my 18 year old son, who is confident that he is right & can't understand why the rest of the world thinks he's a prat.

I worry that idiots like you will get your way & ruin yet another refuge, for the sane, for the rest of us. Why can't you take up football or something similar & screw that up.

Martin
 
Far too dangerous - they use a ball and boots with studs on !! You'll have to get a licence to own a football and take a test before you can wear the boots....
 
Going back to the other post you posted, why should the RYA be held responsible for a father letting his 13/14/15 years old ride a powerful jet ski, they are the same as a powerful motor bike. That is basically what you are saying.

Its a shame it happened and I hope the lad recovers, I bet the insurance does not cover that age on a jet ski either.
 
[ QUOTE ]
...934 views 34 posts, So only 3.64026% seemed concerned about legislation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm very concerned about legislation/licensing but I didn't get involved with your previous post because the subject gets aired regularly and anyway...the red mist descending before my eyes prevented me.

I could list my reasons why legislation is undesirable but others have already done that - on many occasions - so why repeat them?

You either "get it" or you don't. You appear to be missing it by a mile.
 
There was one point I'd have made on the point about the kid on the jetski story.
If the parents or anyone else is shouting for legislation in response to this-then their thinking skills are rusty.
If I let my 4 year old nephew drive my car and he crashes-I would rightly be held responsible for ALL consequences including manslaughter if he dies or kills someone.
I would expect that if I let a child of 8 years old drive a craft that has the capacity to quickly reach anything up to 80mph on water and he injures himself, causes damage or injures others, I would expect that a)as I'm the prat the let him on it I would be held responsible and b)all due retribution falls upon me.

I feel sorry for the kid, and blame the adult who let him drive the machine for the consequences. No legislation required because no legislation in existence would have prevented this unless the machines were banned completely. Knee jerk legislation is the stupidest thing ever.
 
Richard,
I agree wholeheartedly with you on this.

Parental responsibility - or irresponsibility in this case.

It's up to the parent to instill skills and responsibility into their offspring.

Not the B government.

Too much half-arsed legislation.
 
[ QUOTE ]
If the previous post was an opinion poll the figures would speak for themselves.

934 views 34 posts, So only 3.64026% seemed concerned about legislation.

So is the R.Y.A. representing the majority of voters? Methinks not.

Perhaps the next poll should be on question of Red Diesel.

[/ QUOTE ]

A more realistic evaluation might be that only 3 % think their views matter one way or another - after all, this is an oligarchy not a democracy.

Or maybe 97 % believe in Darwin and the survival of the fittest. Its sad really - I wouldnt want that accident to happen to my kid, and I've no doubt that the parents feel dreadfully about it. But so they should IMHO. I feel sorry for them.

P.S. Do you have to use a calculator to express 34 as a percentage of 934 ?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Or maybe 97 % believe in Darwin and the survival of the fittest

[/ QUOTE ]Someone mention Darwin and his theories?
What amazes me is that anyone that believes that certification is going to make one jot of difference to accident figures. There are some people who are natural sailors who learn by experience, there are some who will never be safe or competant sailors whatever courses they do or certificates they gain.
You cannot legislate for some peoples stupidity nor can you control the weather or the sea.
 
You can add me to the anti-legislation count for certain. As for the RNLI being a breakdown service, that isn't what I pay my money for and the people that man the craft should not be treated as such. Far to good for that.
 
Eise,
FORGET COMPULSORY LICENSING -- FORGET IT, DELETE IT FROM YOUR NEURONS, FOREVER -- FOREVER.

For once and for all, get sense.

If you want to see the results of compulsory licensing, come over where I live and I'll show you. Here or in France.

The best description of it is Jobs and Business for the boys -- the sailing schools, providers of Approved Kit, etc, and don't start me on that -- some of what is approved here and in France as minimum equipment makes me shudder when I think what use it would be in a F6 or F7 yachtmans gale, or other emergency.

Forget regulations, laws, and all that rubbish -- it will never improve someone who doesn't want to improve or reach any standard above zero level. Those people will just get the minimum qualification, pass the exam, and go their own way, doing just what they do today.

Just look at driving licences. The speed factor makes basic tuition necessary. The good manners, care for others, etc that turn a person who knows the basic mechanics of driving into a competent and careful driver, respectful of others on the road, etc, etc, cannot be taught, much less policed.

At sea or on the water the same applies.

The vast majority of boaters take voluntary tuition, think before they do something, are careful, considerate of others, and a pleasure to have in our company on the water. The bad apples? they'll be therewhether or not there are regulations, licensing, etc.

And on the subject of tuition, I have sampled it in Spain, in France and in the UK. The RYA variant comes out way out on top. The French a not so close second, but good none-the-less. As for the Spanish version, the less said the better, and that speaks volumes -- the practical side was worthless, and the theory side too oriented towards and influenced by big ship mentality.

So, Eise, please don't bring down regulation, legislation, licensing, etc on a population of boaters that largely don't need it and have been outspoken rejecting it as a solution.

OK? Promise?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top