Why Do We Need More Law ?

[Woodentop]

Sailing while pissed is already covered by;

Section 58 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (Conduct endangering ships, structures or individuals)

Why do we need more law ? If there is a problem then we need existing law to be enforced.

However it has been ruled by the Appeal Court that a PWC is not a ‘vessel used in navigation’ for the purposes of the merchant shipping regulations.
It could also be argued that a typical MAB (Manky Auld Boat) used for pottering about would also be not "used in navigation". This then leads as to where the line is drawn - Carrying cargo ? Carrying fare paying passengers ?
It might seem that all private vessels are exempt the Merchant Shipping Act under the arguements put forward in the Weymouth jet-ski case.

The simple answer is a tweak to the Merchant Shipping Act to clarify but no. We have yet another slab of laws.


Speaking as someone who lived aboard for years, sailed sober but got absolutely hammered in safe anchorages; What is the problem that this law is designed to address?

 

[Jamesuk]

Marpol regulation check them out you may be surprised about how many laws most people are already breaking.

 

[Woodentop]

[ QUOTE ]
Marpol regulation check them out you may be surprised about how many laws most people are already breaking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

The automatic response to a current law not being enforced is to create a new law.
Which will continue to not being enforced unless a Minister makes it a target.

 

[jimi]

THere ought to be a law against inoperatve eberspachers

 

[Lakesailor]

"Why Do We Need More Law ?"
Good grief man. Think of all the civil servants who'd be made redundant if there weren't new statutes to progress.


Have you no feelings?

 

[Guest]

S.58 doesn't make it an offence to be drunk in charge of a ship.

It makes it an offence to do an act that causes (or is likely to cause) death, injury destruction or serious damage.

It also makes it an offence to FAIL to do something you should have done IF your failure causes (or is likely to cause) death, injury etc. AND if you meant to do it or were in breach of duty AND if you were drunk/drugged at the time. You have to prove all of that, in which case you might get a conviction.

In other words, you can sail a ship around as drunk as you want and S.58 won't kick in until you actually cause an accident, or at least nearly cause an accident.

 

[Woodentop]

[ QUOTE ]
S.58 doesn't make it an offence to be drunk in charge of a ship.

In other words, you can sail a ship around as drunk as you want and S.58 won't kick in until you actually cause an accident, or at least nearly cause an accident.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Because sailing while pissed is "Conduct endangering ships, structures or individuals".

 

[Guest]

[ QUOTE ]
No. Because sailing while pissed is "Conduct endangering ships, structures or individuals".

[/ QUOTE ]
No. "Conduct endangering ships, structures or individuals" is just the title of the section and has no legal affect on how you construe the wording of the section. You have to read the wording of the section itself, and that makes it absolutely clear that steering a ship while drunk is not in itself an offence (under S. 58 at least).

 

[Bergman]

Would the logic of this be that the new law will have to be used pro-actively.

IE "they" whoever they may be will actively go looking for examples of people driving their boats under the influence.

If they are to wait until after the even the old law is adaquate to deal with the offence.

 

[Guest]

[ QUOTE ]
Would the logic of this be that the new law will have to be used pro-actively.

IE "they" whoever they may be will actively go looking for examples of people driving their boats under the influence.

If they are to wait until after then even the old law is adaquate to deal with the offence.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. Under the present S.58 they need to catch you in the act of doing something really stupid (not just being drunk) and prove beyond reasonable doubt that your action either caused, or was likely to cause, death etc. If an accident hasn't actually happened that's a very hard thing indeed to prove.

In fact, alchohol is only partially relevant, it isn't even mentioned in the main crime in S. 58(2)(a). It's only mentioned as an extra factor in the context of an 'omission' to do something in S.58(2)(b).

What they're planning (apparently) in the new law is the ability to breathalise you and prosecute you just for being 'drunk in charge', even if you are helming your ship perfectly competently.

 

[Cornishman]

... and you run the chance of preventing this government failing to keep its annual record of making new laws. If you do that they think they might lose the next election, and who wants that? Shock, horror /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

 

[mel80]

[ QUOTE ]
S.58 doesn't make it an offence to be drunk in charge of a ship.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think that you're looking at the wrong legistlation. It is the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, that sets out maximum alcohol levels for seamen on duty. In that case, it makes it clear that there is still an offence without an accident.

It also makes it clear that the rules don't just apply to professional mariners, but that exceptions are allowed based on size, power or location of the vessel. I presume that it is these exceptions that will be changed rather than the legistlation itself.

 

[Guest]

Thanks for that. Does it say what the lower limits are in terms of power and size? Presumably only covers very big yachts?

 

[mel80]

Actually, I don't think that the relevent section of that legistlation has come into force yet. i.e. they're deciding at the moment what the exceptions should be. see here.

Personally I think that the proposed exceptions are pretty fair, and won't affect us too much; we'll still be able to use the tender etc. The only real issue I can see is that raised by a number of people here i.e. what happens if the anchor drags or there is some other emergency that neccessitates moving the boat. However, unlike others, I don't see that it's in our interests to highlight this as it could quite easily backfire. e.g. the secretary of state recognises that anchorages can become untennable for various reasons so scraps the exception for vessels at anchor!

 

[Guest]

[ QUOTE ]
However, unlike others, I don't see that it's in our interests to highlight this as it could quite easily backfire. e.g. the secretary of state recognises that anchorages can become untennable for various reasons so scraps the exception for vessels at anchor!

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that this is the big danger with creeping legislation to cover problems that don't really need legislating. Logic may say why not have such legislation, but it starts to have unforeseen repurcussions, and means that the authorities are starting to stick their noses into areas where they have no need to.

Otherwise known as the thin end of the wedge.

Though on the face of it hard to argue against its logic (and hard to argue in favour of too for that matter!), IMO the legislation will be a bad blow to boating in the UK. It's simply not needed, except in the case of powerful mobos and jetskis.

 

[Guest]

I also suspect...

I also suspect that the reason why it is being introduced has little to do with preventing accidents and lots to do with government department politics.

I have had the strong impression that the MCA for the last year or two has been on a campaign to give great publicity to every case where drink might possibly have been a factor (there weren't many though!). The publicity campaign is hardly an indicator of a sober(!) evaluation of the facts.

I suspect that it is mainly an issue of power play as far as government departments are concerned - I suspect that the MCA wants to get its claws even deeper into regulating the leisure market ultimately at the expense of the RYA. We are moving quite quickly from a voluntary self-regulatory model to one where control is from above.

All IMHO.

 

[Slow_boat]

'If you have so many laws you have to write them down then you have to many laws'

'To make a just country, first hang all the lawyers'

 

[Guest]

[ QUOTE ]
'To make a just country, first hang all the lawyers'

[/ QUOTE ]
It's already been tried. Didn't work!

 

[Twister_Ken]

There should be a law passed saying that no new law can be passed, unless two old ones are scrapped.

 

[Slow_boat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
'To make a just country, first hang all the lawyers'

[/ QUOTE ]
It's already been tried. Didn't work!

[/ QUOTE ]

Given that a high percentage of politicians are lawyers it seems to be a win win policy. /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif