What the Hell is going on R.Y.A.(Part 3)

E

eise

Active Member
Joined
20 May 2004
Messages
65
Location
Home Somerset, Sailing, South Devon.
alancoombs.co.uk
Thanks to all who contributed to the debate. was forced to start debate by pictures of owner of lake jet- ski jumping over canoeist. Advert for lake states--"Kids have a crazy jet ski ride with Mad Mike." Nuff Said.

I taught probably thousands of youngsters and adults to sail and to teach sailing, I had 1 fatality, the cicumstances of which were totally beyond my control. 17 year old lad, 1 hour in coach on hot summers day. see's water and immediately dives in to cool off. Searching for him was not a pleasant experience! Had to attend inquest as witness. Thankfully exonerated.

MAYBE THIS WAS THE CAUSE OF MY SAFETY PARANOIA.

Sorry, if the COMPULSORY knowledge of basic Coll.Regs. means possibly a life saved, or accident avoided on the water, then I am all for it.

This is my final word on the Subject,honest.

EISE.OUT.
 
TGFT or even TFFT. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
--------------------
hammer.thumb.gif
"Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity"
sailroom <span style="color:red">The place to auction your previously loved boatie bits</span>
 
Worth bearing in mind that according to the courts in a recent judgement, colregs dont apply to wetbikes. They arent vessels.

Doesnt make sense to me either, but then it is the Law. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
Just to clarify, as I recall the case wasn't about whether ColRegs apply to wetbikes - presumably they do - it was about whether they are 'ships' under the Merchant Shipping Act (which creates criminal penalties for certain negligent acts causing injury)
 
I'm no lawyer but I thought it was the Merchant Shipping acts that implemented the colregs into English law. In the same way that Euro laws have to be legislated into effect by Parliament

Does any lawyer know what the correct answer is?
 
Colregs are implemented in Britain by the Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996. The wetbike case was about a specific section of the 1995 Merchant Shipping Act, which is different legislation and why I was saying it wasn't about Colregs.

The Colregs use the word "vessel" rather than the word "ship" used in the Merchant Shipping Act (Rule 1(a) of IRPCS "These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas...").

But looking back at the 1996 implementing regulations (not IRPCS itself), they say that the colregs apply to vessels that are (a) ships and (b) seaplanes. This is new language because the previous implementing regulations , in 1989, just referred to "vessels". So unfortunately it looks like the "ship" idea has recently been imported into the Colregs by the back door. That means that I could be wrong and the ship idea has been sneaked into Colregs indirectly /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Though I hope that any judge with a brain would do his best to distinguish the two uses, especially as the IRPCS international convention from 1972 applies to "vessels", not "ships".
 
Interpretation ..... judging by past cases and reports ...

On board Merchant Ships it is often case that accident reports / data is passed for officers to read and digest / learn from ... I know in the companies I worked we were sent these regularly.

The one point that was eveident in all - was that the Regs were interpreted not EXACTLY as people read and expect - but in the sense of the rule .... difficult to describe exactly .... The regs were the essence of the case and events leading up to .... actions taken by each ... but then Admiralty Court or whatever countries maritime authority body then evalutaed the individual case with relevant external factors. This puts a different "feel" to each incident and can lead to actions taken by vessels that can be accepted as prudent in the circumstances.

OK - what's all this to do with vessels / ships / jet-ski's ...... precisely the point that the ColRegs are able to be read such that all "vehicles" on navigable waters are subject to them ... even Jet Ski's / PWC ... I know of the ruling that said Jet Skis were not ships - but that was in relation to another matter. And of course given the manouevreability of a Jet Ski - you wouldn't expect one to stand on to a Ferry / Container ship etc. !! let alone a Sunsail boat shouting Starboard !!

The courts have it in their power to set precedent and to use or not use previous as long as it does not fall contrary to law.

OK - thats my tuppence worth !!!! Now back to sensible matters - lets hope Eise has taken a hint that legislation is NOT majority's wish !! IMHO of course !!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, if the COMPULSORY knowledge of basic Coll.Regs. means possibly a life saved, or accident avoided on the water, then I am all for it.


[/ QUOTE ]
unfortunately it probably won't - someone who has a basic knowledge of the col regs is probably more likely to stand on when he's give way because he knows (as far as his basic knowledge permits) he's right. Someone with a degree of common sense would never dream of the concept of standing on and will get out the way early - very early probably!

Both could cause incidents - as of course can any combination of experienced (with fixed expectations of the other vessel) and inexperienced (basic knowledge/no knowledge). Interestingly of course the records are littered with the experienced/experienced combination as well............. /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

Your view of discounts for experience, and increasing with more qualifications and experience is somewhat flawed I am afraid as you are ignoring the increasing exposure that experience brings to the equation. Not being in the leisure marine insurance business I do not have stats but would suspect that there is an optimum amount of usage, or pattern of usage, both above and below this increasing the insurers risk factors. As most insurers attract similar types of user and craft into their pools this is reflected in their policy conditions and premiums.

Personally I would be in favour of compulsory third party insurance for all vessels from sailboards up.....ie harnessing the wind for motive power or with a motor. This is as much to save people from themselves (financially) as anything else but should enable the insurers to work more closely with the RYA/CG/Local Authorities etc in comunication of appropriate safety messages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top