Should there be an alcohol limit for leisure boaters?

These twats get no sympathy fom me, all they do is strengthen big brothers case to legislate an activity that is largely trouble free.

Every other EU country requires a licence to operate powered watercraft. Much as I dislike the idea you have to wonder if it is not about time for the UK to take this route. At least then it would be possible to take away people's ability to endanger others?

As ever a handful of idiots spoil it for everyone.

Chris

As ever a handful of idiots spoil it for everyone.

Chris

And these would be the type that would never bother with a licence anyway.

Maybe education and basic checking of kit before launching by Harbour masters might be another way. But I'm not sure without the Police and Harbour Masters being a lot more proactive enforcing of licences would work.

Every other EU country requires a licence to operate powered watercraft. Much as I dislike the idea you have to wonder if it is not about time for the UK to take this route.Except that most of these incidents occur in relatively small and specific sections of our coast. There are many thousands of boaters all around our coastline who go to sea without incident.

Licensing won't prevent a fool being foolish.

Every other EU country requires a licence to operate powered watercraft. Much as I dislike the idea you have to wonder if it is not about time for the UK to take this route. At least then it would be possible to take away people's ability to endanger others?

As ever a handful of idiots spoil it for everyone.

Chris

having a license to helm a boat won't change a thing, there's still plenty of idiots driving cars out there isn't there! does passing a test and making them own a license stop them from being idiots? i don't think so! idiots will always be idiots licensed or not.

Someone i was chatting to at cobs quay yesterday told me in the states if your caught buggering around in charge of a boat while drunk they take your (car) driving licence off ya.....

There are idiots who crash private aircraft which as a pursuit is much more heavily regulated. I think a plane crashed on the IOW over Cowes and called all four of its crew! Cars are crashing all day long killing people.

People have been drinking happily on the high seas for centuries. I think the last high profile incident was when some commercial bloke took out hythe pier!

What no one thinks of is the cost of all this regulation. Do we want to start paying £150 a ticket to a bunch of Asylum seekers to tell us where we can and cannot leave our boats whilst they line their pockets in the process.

The hamble river where I come from is a classic example. We now have to pay £6.00 a day to lauch our boats. Yet another example of stealth tax. The Harbour Office is swelling into a rather typical labour style bloated public service.

If you guys keep wanting to pay more tax then regulation is the way forward!

What no one thinks of is the cost of all this regulation. Do we want to start paying £150 a ticket to a bunch of Asylum seekers to tell us where we can and cannot leave our boats whilst they line their pockets in the process.


Yeh, Just why does it work out like that !


The hamble river where I come from is a classic example. We now have to pay £6.00 a day to lauch our boats. Yet another example of stealth tax. The Harbour Office is swelling into a rather typical labour style bloated public service.


Thats not really a bad price for a launch. I pay the yearly fee which works out at £30 and even though I'm a tight b___er I think thats very reasonable. It includes free parking at the moment. Can't see that lasting long though.

Nick R.

I dunno.

Obviously I don't drink alchohol when I'm training or driving comercially, We have random and frequent testing out here so not a drop has passed my lips for quite a few weeks and it's a silly rush for the Bar when we hit the beach!

Socially however I seem to wind up having a few and then driving my boat home, In fact most of the At Sea Ribnet meets which I used to attend seemed to rendevous in licensed premisies and stay there for a while.

My old buddie, Whiteshoes, was excellent company at these events and we seemed to get back all right! It is a bit weird though driving your boat home and then calling a cab cos you cant drive your car!

So I guess it's all about knowing your limits!

Ironically I am very much in favour of an anti drinking law for the private boating community and would comply with it wholeheartedly if introduced! Easiest way of encouraging compliance is to link it to your car ticket, drunk on a boat lose your car lticket, that would certanly get people thinking twice!

I certainly don't think the thought of losing your RYA PB2 would be much of a deterent

About this accident very unfortrunate and the skipper should be prosecuted for ABH at least.

I'll have a Magners please

I believe that there is a time and a place for everything including having a few. That is why when we go out for and evening the Missus is the designated driver and I am the designated drunk.:D

There are idiots who crash private aircraft which as a pursuit is much more heavily regulated. I think a plane crashed on the IOW over Cowes and called all four of its crew! Cars are crashing all day long killing people.

People have been drinking happily on the high seas for centuries. I think the last high profile incident was when some commercial bloke took out hythe pier!

What no one thinks of is the cost of all this regulation. Do we want to start paying £150 a ticket to a bunch of Asylum seekers to tell us where we can and cannot leave our boats whilst they line their pockets in the process.

The hamble river where I come from is a classic example. We now have to pay £6.00 a day to lauch our boats. Yet another example of stealth tax. The Harbour Office is swelling into a rather typical labour style bloated public service.

The people in the rib got what they deserved as in a good fright and a bit of embarrassment but calls to send them to jail as in the case of the poor Kieran French is ludicrous.

If you guys keep wanting to pay more tax then regulation is the way forward!

With all due respect have you ever visited the planet earth?

To drive a car you need a licence and you can't drink and drive.
To fly a plane you need and licence and you can't drink and fly.

To drive a boat you don't need a licence, you can't drink and drive.
How on gods green earth can that be right?

If you knowing get drunk and drive like a loon at night you then crash, you hurt or mame the others in your boat but you expect to get away free?
Again I ask have you ever visited the planet earth.
Anyone who gets done and banged up for this kinda thing gets what they deserve.
Also in some of these cases it is not just a the fact that they drunk, drove and crashed, there is always something else to it!

I feel the ban or limit on drinking on boats is long over due.

All IMHO of course.

I feel the ban or limit on drinking on boats is long over due.

All IMHO of course.

Oh snore...bring on the nanny state. People killed or injured due to drinking and boating on private vessels per year is absolutely minimal. Of course there should be no ban, or even limit...far too difficult to police for a start. Just leave it as it is.

Oh snore...bring on the nanny state. People killed or injured due to drinking and boating on private vessels per year is absolutely minimal. Of course there should be no ban, or even limit...far too difficult to police for a start. Just leave it as it is.

I echo what Tim has said - very wise words

Oh snore...bring on the nanny state. People killed or injured due to drinking and boating on private vessels per year is absolutely minimal. Of course there should be no ban, or even limit...far too difficult to police for a start. Just leave it as it is.

That's as maybe, but if you got sloshed, and through your drunkeness, injured me, any of my family, or my boat, I would want your blood, and quite rightly too.

If you can't have a good time on, or off the water without getting pissed, you're a sad little bloke and arguing that it should be your 'legal right', is even sadder.

Grow up.

That's as maybe, but if you got sloshed, and through your drunkeness, injured me, any of my family, or my boat, I would want your blood, and quite rightly too.

If you can't have a good time on, or off the water without getting pissed, you're a sad little bloke and arguing that it should be your 'legal right', is even sadder.

Grow up.

I rarely drink, and never when operating craft. That's my choice.

Your post appears to be directed at me personally. Best to know the facts first otherwise you might look like a fool.

That's as maybe, but if you got sloshed, and through your drunkeness, injured me, any of my family, or my boat, I would want your blood, and quite rightly too.


I totally agree. While people whinge about the nanny state and keep coming out with 'I can do what I want', they rarely think about the potential impact of their behaviour on others.

I totally agree. While people whinge about the nanny state and keep coming out with 'I can do what I want', they rarely think about the potential impact of their behaviour on others.

Most people do think about their impact thats why the system has worked so well in the past. However well regulated things become you can never regulate an idiot. Take my old business which everyone on Rib.net loves so much. We were prosecuted for not having a licence. The licence was withdrawn because someone soaking up a lot of the tax payers money was trying to do their job and justify their rather bloated government department.

We decided that we had had enough of this red tape bollocks so we set up as a non profit making private members club and despite doing lots of things which as risk assessments would deem as suicidal have never had an injured person.

Diabetes will be one of the biggest problems for the emerging youth of today. So what would we rather have kids pursueing 'the dangerous book for boys' style activities or a bunch of Fat Lard Asses getting kicks from the colouring in a chicken tandori and injecting insulin for their rest of their lives whilst on the playstation!

Your post appears to be directed at me personally. Best to know the facts first otherwise you might look like a fool.

I don't know you from adam, but it looks like you should take some of your own advice.

The post was directed at the person who wrote the post, posted in your name, because it's pathetic.
However, my comments are aimed at anyone who has that approach to drink-driving, of any vehicle, regardless of what you/they choose to label it as.

I appear to be living in a country full of drunken chavs with no common sense, so regulation is probably the only way.
Ask David Manning how well behaved the average drinker is when he's scraping them up off the pavement in Wolve.

Most people do think about their impact thats why the system has worked so well in the past. However well regulated things become you can never regulate an idiot. Take my old business which everyone on Rib.net loves so much. We were prosecuted for not having a licence. The licence was withdrawn because someone soaking up a lot of the tax payers money was trying to do their job and justify their rather bloated government department.

We decided that we had had enough of this red tape bollocks so we set up as a non profit making private members club and despite doing lots of things which as risk assessments would deem as suicidal have never had an injured person.

Diabetes will be one of the biggest problems for the emerging youth of today. So what would we rather have kids pursueing 'the dangerous book for boys' style activities or a bunch of Fat Lard Asses getting kicks from the colouring in a chicken tandori and injecting insulin for their rest of their lives whilst on the playstation!

Rupert - I am with you on the red tape front, mostly it is unnecessary, & I am not in favour of licencing pleasure boat drivers. However, I am in favour of preventing drink/boating, even if regulations only allowed the police to confiscate the keys from the cowes breakwater morons until morning.

I quite like the French approach to some problems, whereby your boat is confiscated if you are caught breaking the law.

You could split the issues & actions down - would appreciate some constructive opinions :) :

Drink boating, no harm done : open to suggestions here, even keeping it as present?
Drink boating, damage caused to your own boat : as above
Drink boating, damage to others property : pay for damage (a must IMHO), fine/compensation depending on damage/inconvenience caused?
Drink boating, injury to 3rd party : compensation? fine? loss of boat? prison?
Drink boating, 3rd party fatality : compensation? fine? loss of boat? prison?

I appreciate these could apply to negligence and incompetence too - not sure what is currently legislated for right now.

No ones trying to justify getting sloshed and taking up the helm! but what we realize is government and council intervention is just bullshit that causes malfunction where ever it goes! why change a law that all ready works fine, if it aint broke then don't try and fix it is my motto, the only reason why the government would get involved and undoubtedly furk things up like they always do is for financial gain! do you really believe they give a shit about joe bloggs killing himself on his boat, get a grip and stop sticking up for the enemy. Don't you know that having fun is at the bottom of their list and creating more reasons for tax and controlling everything is very much their priority, people that try and come up with excuse's and reasons for more and more laws are just pro state control muppets that don't like seeing other people have a good time. As i said in an earlier post having a license does not make you any less of a fool or danger to anybody else, just look at our roads does having a license stop idiots from drink driving, speeding or any other foolish antic that gets people killed or injured, duur no!!! then get a life, get a grip or get f----d with yur pro control philosophy.

No ones trying to justify getting sloshed and taking up the helm! but what we realize is government and council intervention is just bullshit that causes malfunction where ever it goes! why change a law that all ready works fine, if it aint broke then don't try and fix it is my motto, the only reason why the government would get involved and undoubtedly furk things up like they always do is for financial gain! do you really believe they give a shit about joe bloggs killing himself on his boat, get a grip and stop sticking up for the enemy. Don't you know that having fun is at the bottom of their list and creating more reasons for tax and controlling everything is very much their priority, people that try and come up with excuse's and reasons for more and more laws are just pro state control muppets that don't like seeing other people have a good time. As i said in an earlier post having a license does not make you any less of a fool or danger to anybody else, just look at our roads does having a license stop idiots from drink driving, speeding or any other foolish antic that gets people killed or injured, duur no!!! then get a life, get a grip or get f----d with yur pro control philosophy.


Couldn't agree more.

As i said in an earlier post having a license does not make you any less of a fool or danger to anybody else, just look at our roads does having a license stop idiots from drink driving, speeding or any other foolish antic that gets people killed or injured, duur no!!! then get a life, get a grip or get f----d with yur pro control philosophy.


So by your logic if we removed all legislation relating to drinking and driving, speeding or any other foolish incidents there would be no increase in the amount of deaths or accidents that such behaviour causes and from your arguement above can I also assume we should remove the driving licence?

You assume too much, removing drink drive laws or a license on the roads was not mentioned by me, but bringing in the same amount of law and legislation to our favorite sport i am 100% against, did you not read my post correctly?

. Don't you know that having fun is at the bottom of their list and creating more reasons for tax and controlling everything is very much their priority, people that try and come up with excuse's and reasons for more and more laws are just pro state control muppets that don't like seeing other people have a good time.

Stand for Government Tim, you got my vote.

Tim - I think we are spending too much time at the extremes of the issue here.

As in my post earlier, I was not after licencing of pleasure boat users, but was asking for what could/should be done in a number of scenarios, should something go wrong.

I am quite sure you would be upset if some drunken tosser smashed up your boat, and I would like to know: what would you would expect the consequences be for the responsible party, should that (or the other scenarios happen).

Stand for Government Tim, you got my vote.

And here begins my political career:D or more like political prisoner:D :D

You assume too much, removing drink drive laws on the roads was not mentioned by me, but bringing in the same amount of law and legislation to our favorite sport i am 100% against, did you not read my post correctly?

I read your post several times and am assuming nothing, by an extension of the logic you're applying then removal of all legislation and licencing is a good thing.
You say you are not justifying getting sloshed and taking the helm and I believe you, by the same token I am not trying to advocate a nanny state. However, I do believe that there should be legislation when it comes to drinking and boating. I have posted on these forums before about people I know who have been so drunk they couldnt stand who then proceed to drive a speed boat capable of 50 knots, but they wouldnt drink and drive!!
If legislation is introduced which prevents the death or injury to just one person I think it would be worth it.
I have access to several pubs along the river,but I am more than able to go out have a great time in the boat and not call at the pub at all, or if I do I am able to control myself and only have one pint or a soft drink. I know others that would save themselves a fortune in marina fees and fuel if they just walked to their local, because ALL they use their boat for is to go to the pub, its stupid and its irresponsible and it puts yourself and others at risk.
If you wouldn't drink and drive why do you feel the need to drink and boat? Simple, because you CAN!

, get a grip or get f----d with yur pro control philosophy.

Bit strong don't you think!

We could set up lynching mobs on our street corners to police the roads ourselves. Say anyone with ginger hair, balding and overweight ( I count for 2 out of 3 of those as it happens ) gets it.

The problem is you can't please all the people all of the time. Whatever law comes out there's someone who's got a view on it. My personal view is that anyone caught by speeding camera has no one else to blame but themselves and there should be a zero tolerance to drinking and driving.

On the boating front I have saved lives over the years when dobbins go to sea without knowing squat all about boats. If there was some basic controls on boats/owners I would vote for it. How it would be implemented I don't know but I'm sure some one's going to have a view.

If you feel passionate about it, as opposed to sounding off for the sake of it, do something about it.


Peace

Tim - I think we are spending too much time at the extremes of the issue here.

As in my post earlier, I was not after licencing of pleasure boat users, but was asking for what could/should be done in a number of scenarios, should something go wrong.

I am quite sure you would be upset if some drunken tosser smashed up your boat, and I would like to know: what would you would expect the consequences be for the responsible party, should that (or the other scenarios happen).

totally i agree, and i don't want to turn this thread into a handbag throwing contest, but people that stand up for more legislation etc etc yank my chain. we should be standing up for more freedom not backing the Nanni state and making excuses for more ridiculous legislation.

I think we are spending too much time at the extremes of the issue here.


I would have thought that the injuries sustained by the three people in Cowes which this thread is actually referring to could be considered extreme.

Diabetes will be one of the biggest problems for the emerging youth of today. So what would we rather have kids pursueing 'the dangerous book for boys' style activities or a bunch of Fat Lard Asses getting kicks from the colouring in a chicken tandori and injecting insulin for their rest of their lives whilst on the playstation!

With all due respect the words uneducated twat spring to mind.

I think you will find one of the biggest problems with the "youth of today" is drink followed by drugs and not early on set diabetes

Having lived with diabetes since the age of 14 your comments are bordering offensive.
Having diabetes should not make you a couch spud or mean that you are any less of a human than any other person, as your post would indicate.
I can do most things in life that you or any others may choose.
Most diabetics I know are the same.

The only two things it has ever stopped me doing is joining the police force and learning to fly.
Both of which I could now do if I so choose.

Injecting insulin 4 times a day does not mean I can't live life to the full.
Those that know me know I do!

I would request you put you brain into gear before you put your fingers into motion that way you are unlikely to offend people in the way you have and do.

Am now climbing down off of my soap box.

Fair comment mugshot, i would never get sloshed and take the helm myself and right we want are waterways to be as safe as possible but when law and legislation is concerned a little needs a lump if yu get what i am saying and thats what concerns me.

totally i agree, and i don't want to turn this thread into a handbag throwing contest, but people that stand up for more legislation etc etc yank my chain. we should be standing up for more freedom not backing the Nanni state and making excuses for more ridiculous legislation.

Great - so given the scenarios I outlined, I am interested to know what your non nanny state approach would be?

totally and making excuses for more ridiculous legislation.

So, legislation that could restrict idiots from driving fast craft while pissed is: "ridiculous". very good!

I hate the nanni state more than most, but you're just talking rubbish when it comes to this particular subject. I hope you, or any of your family never fall victim of this sort of thing....It 'may' just change your mind.

I find it hard to comprehend why anyone who is into boating would want any form of legislation upon us.

The incident that this thread starteed on occured during Cowes Week, the guilty party were clearly incompetent. Planning to take a boat out from Cowes to Mainland at night with no nav lights, lifejackets etc demonstrates that.

In this case they have not harmed anyone else only themselves.

So in summary "If it aint broke dont fix it".

The incident that this thread starteed on occured during Cowes Week, the guilty party were clearly incompetent. Planning to take a boat out from Cowes to Mainland at night with no nav lights, lifejackets etc demonstrates that.

In this case they have not harmed anyone else only themselves.

So in summary "If it aint broke dont fix it".


If I took a gun, and fired randomly into a crowd, but failed to hit anyone, would that mean it's ok, and stopping people firing guns into crowds was an unnesasary piece of ridiculous legislation coz it 'quite clearly isn't dangerous, as I tried & got away with it'....no.

Best thing is, you carry on just as you please.

I'm 'staggered' that an rya trainer thinks it's ok to drink drive a boat.

In this case they have not harmed anyone else only themselves.

So in summary "If it aint broke dont fix it".

Yes that is all well and good but all of them are brothers, sons, daughters, better halves etc of someone else.

It is not just them that are hurt in this.

I am not one for laws for the sake of it but there seems to be a very strong case for some changes here.

Also a huge amount of this goes unreported so the real facts are never seen.

You don't need to drink to have a good time on the water and if you do my guess is you aint doing it right :thumbs:

With all due respect the words uneducated twat spring to mind.

I think you will find one of the biggest problems with the "youth of today" is drink followed by drugs and not early on set diabetes

Having lived with diabetes since the age of 14 your comments are bordering offensive.
Having diabetes should not make you a couch spud or mean that you are any less of a human than any other person, as your post would indicate.
I can do most things in life that you or any others may choose.
Most diabetics I know are the same.

The only two things it has ever stopped me doing is joining the police force and learning to fly.
Both of which I could now do if I so choose.

Injecting insulin 4 times a day does not mean I can't live life to the full.
Those that know me know I do!

I would request you put you brain into gear before you put your fingers into motion that way you are unlikely to offend people in the way you have and do.

Am now climbing down off of my soap box.

Hi I am not being offensive just pointing out that childhood obesity is said to reach epidemic levels soon. I am also referring to type two diabetes which is now seen more often in children. Not to be confused with juvenile diabetes and meaning no offense to people with this disorder.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/01/2007_26_mon.shtml

If I took a gun, and fired randomly into a crowd, but failed to hit anyone, would that mean it's ok, and stopping people firing guns into crowds was an unnesasary piece of ridiculous legislation coz it 'quite clearly isn't dangerous, as I tried & got away with it'....no.

Best thing is, you carry on just as you please.

I'm 'staggered' that an rya trainer thinks it's ok to drink drive a boat.

I think if you read my posts you will find I have never advocated drink driving however, you have also rather dramatically miss quoted me, I never said "quite clearly is not dangerous"

Your example of firing a gun into a crowd is a strange argument against my post but as you suggest carry on as you please.

but all of them are brothers, sons, daughters, better halves etc of someone else.

It is not just them that are hurt in this.



jon

You are of course correct, but do we not all have a right to make our own decisions and if we make the wrong decision to pay the consequences.

As an instructor I teach my students all sorts of things, here are a few

Wear a kill chord
Wear a life jacket
Carry safety equipment
Do a SRC course
Dont drink and drive
get a forecast b4 going afloat

All of things are importatnt and can save lives, they all form good practice which you and many other powerboaters follow, however why pick on the alcohol debate, why not pass hundreds of acts telling us exactly how to enjoy ourselves.

As an instructor I teach my students all sorts of things, here are a few

Wear a kill chord
Wear a life jacket
Carry safety equipment
Do a SRC course
Dont drink and drive
get a forecast b4 going afloat

All of things are importatnt and can save lives, they all form good practice which you and many other powerboaters follow, however why pick on the alcohol debate, why not pass hundreds of acts telling us exactly how to enjoy ourselves.

Because pretty much every other detail you list, if ignored, will in most cases only affect the twat that chooses to ignore your advice. Except maybe the danger the rescue services put them selves to rescue them when it goes wrong. With maybe the only exception being the kill cord.

Bottoms up.

So, legislation that could restrict idiots from driving fast craft while pissed is: "ridiculous". very good!

I hate the nanni state more than most, but you're just talking rubbish when it comes to this particular subject. I hope you, or any of your family never fall victim of this sort of thing....It 'may' just change your mind.

Sorry but thats just a typical stealth pro nanni state view, and if thats hating the nanni state more than most perhaps you should be asking yourself a few questions about who's talking rubbish here? maybe i do talk rubbish sometimes but i'm big enough to admit it and laugh about it:D unlike some that will go to any measure just to prove or should i say try and prove that they are right and always right.

If all of the rib-net members were split into 2 groups one anti nanni and the other pro it would be easy to pick out which group was which, and i know which group would get the most from a weekend together, life is for living not legislating.

.... life is for living not legislating.

...as long as some "Piss Head" doesn't kill you first......

If all of the rib-net members were split into 2 groups one anti nanni and the other pro it would be easy to pick out which group was which, and i know which group would get the most from a weekend together, life is for living not legislating.

What differences do you think you would see Tim? What differences would stand out so you could tell who was who?

If all of the rib-net members were split into 2 groups one anti nanni and the other pro it would be easy to pick out which group was which, and i know which group would get the most from a weekend together, life is for living not legislating.

This thread is turning into "Lord of the Flies"

You either with us or against us....

This thread is turning into "Lord of the Flies"

You either with us or against us....

iym wiv napowleon de pigg

gaRf

What differences do you think you would see Tim? What differences would stand out so you could tell who was who?

Hard too explain but you can just tell people apart sometimes, some people just have a hang loose look while others appear to be??? not quite so for want of a better word? and their usually the types that sit there reading the paper with the stiff upper lip quietly agreeing with all this nanni state policy! i'm not saying that all the people from the pro group would look the same or vice versa but on overall average i could just tell which group was which, it would be fairly easy to do, and thats not stereo typing people either thats just how it is.

Hard too explain but you can just tell people apart sometimes, some people just have a hang loose look while others appear to be??? not quite so for want of a better word? and their usually the types that sit there reading the paper with the stiff upper lip quietly agreeing with all this nanni state policy! i'm not saying that all the people from the pro group would look the same or vice versa but on overall average i could just tell which group was which, it would be fairly easy to do, and thats not stereo typing people either thats just how it is.

Rather than generally slagging people off who don't share your point of view Tim, how about answering the questions I posted further up this thread?

Hard too explain but you can just tell people apart sometimes, some people just have a hang loose look while others appear to be??? not quite so for want of a better word? and their usually the types that sit there reading the paper with the stiff upper lip quietly agreeing with all this nanni state policy! i'm not saying that all the people from the pro group would look the same or vice versa but on overall average i could just tell which group was which, it would be fairly easy to do, and thats not stereo typing people either thats just how it is.


And I fit that group do I?

Fool.

You SO don't know me. go and have a drink and just 'hang' man.

Just out of interest, how old are you?

Hard too explain but you can just tell people apart sometimes, some people just have a hang loose look while others appear to be??? not quite so for want of a better word? and their usually the types that sit there reading the paper with the stiff upper lip quietly agreeing with all this nanni state policy! i'm not saying that all the people from the pro group would look the same or vice versa but on overall average i could just tell which group was which, it would be fairly easy to do, and thats not stereo typing people either thats just how it is.

Hmmmm, well that seems clear enough.
So a RIBnetter that wants to see some restriction on the amount of beer people can throw down their necks before taking the helm will be more likely to be sitting quietly reading a newspaper (would have thought it would get wet on the rib) maybe wearing slippers and smoking a pipe just to complete the image. Whereas the people that don't want any restictions will be hanging loose, maybe at the bar, laughing and singing for the joy of being alive.
Then when we all set off the paper readers will all put on their life jackets and attach their kill cords, before setting off at sensible non-planing speeds. Whilst the cool crew will stagger onto their RIBs and blast off into the sunset whooping and laughing, cos lifes for living, right?
I hope you can sense the sarcasm in my post Tim, unfortunately I couldn't sense any in yours. Maybe we're going to have to agree to disagree but I cannot understand why legislation whch could prevent some pisshead taking you and your family out is so abhorrent to you. I don't want to have Big Brother contolling my every move and I know you cannot legislate for idiots, but, if the regulations had been in place then three people may not have been hurt off Cowes, wouldn't it be worth it just to have prevented that?

Bottom line is.....legislation.... it aint never gonna happen in our lifetimes.. so just drink sensibly - be safe - and have maximus fun when the sun shines - and try to be as professional as you can most of the time -

anyone for pimms...... :-)

Great - so given the scenarios I outlined, I am interested to know what your non nanny state approach would be?

I will do my best and start by saying off coarse all of us do not want to see or hear of horrible accidents on the water, unfortunately thats part of life and we have to deal with it, and if somebody is guilty of causing injury to others then off coarse justice must be done. For instance Confiscating boats from people who are a danger to others i'm not against but bringing out any form of compulsory licensing that involves taxing us yet more money and no doubt will not end there i am totally against, i ask myself why would people want to change a system that all ready works ok, incidents are very rare and there is no way that bringing in tighter laws will necessarily make things safer anyway? and i'm not knocking everybody who doesn't agree with me i like to disagree with certain types and i think you will find its them getting aggressive not me, i'm as cool as yu like.

Bottom line is.....legislation.... it aint never gonna happen in our lifetimes.. so just drink sensibly - be safe - and have maximus fun when the sun shines - and try to be as professional as you can most of the time -

anyone for pimms...... :-)

well said that dude:thumbs: :D

.....i think you will find its them getting aggressive not me, i'm as cool as yu like.

Yes.... very cool:rolleyes:


....get f----d with yur pro control philosophy.

Yes.... very cool:rolleyes:


yer well i did say i dont want a hand bag throwing contest so i'm not going there, it wasn't directed at anybody particular anyway and wasn't ment to be offensive, sticking 2 fingers up to the mentality of some people is good for the sole.

And I fit that group do I?

Fool.

You SO don't know me. go and have a drink and just 'hang' man.

Just out of interest, how old are you?

Chill jonny Its this type of aggression that i'm not gonna get involved in and people that post aggressive posts like telling people to hang should be ashamed of their selfs. I wasn't saying that any particular person was in that group and i didn't mention any names, do you really expect me to answer your question about my age? after your remarks! besides my age is not important, what is important is to be appy, better a happy fool than an angry wise guy.

I am referring to type two diabetes which is now seen more often in children. Not to be confused with juvenile diabetes and meaning no offense to people with this disorder.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/01/2007_26_mon.shtml

That is not what you were trying to say at all.
Your statement included a reference to injecting insulin, this is only required by type one diabetics not those suffering from type two.

The main reason that there are higher reported case of diabetes, full stop, is far better detection. Whilst there is some links to the diet and life style better detection is one of the main reasons.

You should take more effort to make your posts clearer, you are less likely to suffer from instant epistaxis than when you make sweeping statements.

I therefore refer you to my earlier statement of "uneducated twat"

All the best.

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/party/party0052.gif (http://search.orange.co.uk/all?q=site%3Awww.arlingtonhotelgroup.co.uk+norfolk )

Chill jonny Its this type of aggression that i'm not gonna get involved in and people that post aggressive posts like telling people to hang should be ashamed of their selfs. I wasn't saying that any particular person was in that group and i didn't mention any names, do you really expect me to answer your question about my age? after your remarks! besides my age is not important, what is important is to be appy, better a happy fool than an angry wise guy.

duur no!!! then get a life, get a grip or get f----d with yur pro control philosophy.

MMn, well, I've certainly given my opinion a few times in this thread, but aggressive...I don't think so. I reckon you've cornered the market there yourself.

I have to assume from your avaisive comments that you're an 11 year old with 'attitude'. Keep up the good work! By the time your legaly old enough to drink alcohol, you could be the leader of the waterborn drunken chav pack. :thumbs: God help us when you reach puberty and the aggression really kicks in though eh. =)

I'm bored with this one now, so I'll see ya later.

Am i supposed to be insulted by that last post jonny:D trust me it takes alot more than them pathetic comments to even begin to get me stop smilling:D i would swoop down to your level and start posting nasty personal and aggressive posts but thats not really in my nature (although exceptions are sometimes called for) but should i ever turn up to a ribnet cruise why don't you come and say hello:D well it seems that aggression and arguing is yer specialty:yawn: so i am too laying this little pissing contest to rest having learned at least one thing i.e yu aint cool dude.

Oh and ban me if yu like if it means i don't have to read any more of yer pathetic posts then good.
Oh and just for the record many 11 year olds are far smarter than they get credited for and also act more grown up than some adults, bless um.

Going back to the original thread, I agree with Codprawn, I don't think any legislation would have affected the behaviour in Cowes. They had already been warned by the police - they were driving at night - no lights - no lifejackets. Drunk or Sober they were going on that course of action and the outcome would have probably ended up the same - perhaps worse.

There is an argument for and against legislation. Nobody believes that drink driving a car is a good idea and there is legislation to prevent this and yet people still do it.

I do not drink and drive over the limit in a car or a rib and to be honest, it is fun enough without alcohol. Having said that, at the priory bay meeting I had a pimms and lemonade, who is to say that I wasn't over the limit as there are so many factors that would determine whether I would be over the limit.

However a zero tollerance would be unworkable in some situations. You are at a beach planning to spend the weekend there, have a few beers. You've listened to the forecast and know the tide times and yet you have to move your boat in the middle of the night for whatever reason. Do you:-

a) not have any alcohol - just in case;
b) not move the boat even though this may put yourself or your boat in danger;
c) move the boat and hope that everything will be OK.

Clearly, the most sensible answer is a) but in reality!

Tim,

FYI Johnny Fuller runs another forum called boatmad and not this one.

John Kennett runs this one and from what I have seen runs things very fairly.

Chris

Hi chris how yu doing mate? thanks for that:thumbs: i know that i may have said a few things which perhaps i shouldn't but that dude asks for it.

Going back to the original thread, I agree with Codprawn, I don't think any legislation would have affected the behaviour in Cowes. They had already been warned by the police - they were driving at night - no lights - no lifejackets. Drunk or Sober they were going on that course of action and the outcome would have probably ended up the same - perhaps worse.

There is an argument for and against legislation. Nobody believes that drink driving a car is a good idea and there is legislation to prevent this and yet people still do it.

I do not drink and drive over the limit in a car or a rib and to be honest, it is fun enough without alcohol. Having said that, at the priory bay meeting I had a pimms and lemonade, who is to say that I wasn't over the limit as there are so many factors that would determine whether I would be over the limit.

However a zero tollerance would be unworkable in some situations. You are at a beach planning to spend the weekend there, have a few beers. You've listened to the forecast and know the tide times and yet you have to move your boat in the middle of the night for whatever reason. Do you:-

a) not have any alcohol - just in case;
b) not move the boat even though this may put yourself or your boat in danger;
c) move the boat and hope that everything will be OK.

Clearly, the most sensible answer is a) but in reality!

Well said Sarah, back to reality, although i admit i am one of the offenders, but i agree with yer post:thumbs:

However a zero tollerance would be unworkable in some situations. You are at a beach planning to spend the weekend there, have a few beers. You've listened to the forecast and know the tide times and yet you have to move your boat in the middle of the night for whatever reason. Do you:-

a) not have any alcohol - just in case;
b) not move the boat even though this may put yourself or your boat in danger;
c) move the boat and hope that everything will be OK.

Clearly, the most sensible answer is a) but in reality!

Remember unlike RIBs many boat owners will actually live on their boats for a while. Imagine being securly anchored or attached to a mooring buoy for a whole weekend. A skipper has a few drinks and retires to his bunk. Then wakes up to discover another yacht has dragged his anchor in the Force 7 that has sprung up. What is he supposed to do???

This situation is highly unlikely to occur to a car driver so why try and apply the same laws? Also apart from the South Coast most areas of Britain are pretty deserted. Things happen a lot slower at sea than they do in a car and there is a lot less to hit. Also most boats carry a crew - whilst it's ulimately the skippers responsibility usually the crew will also lend a hand - a bit difficult on the M4........

... I don't think any legislation would have affected the behaviour in Cowes. They had already been warned by the police -...!

Of course it would. They'd have been nicked on-the-spot, much like if Police see an obviously drunk individual getting into a car....

Remember unlike RIBs many boat owners will actually live on their boats for a while. Imagine being securly anchored or attached to a mooring buoy for a whole weekend. A skipper has a few drinks and retires to his bunk. Then wakes up to discover another yacht has dragged his anchor in the Force 7 that has sprung up. What is he supposed to do???

This situation is highly unlikely to occur to a car driver so why try and apply the same laws? Also apart from the South Coast most areas of Britain are pretty deserted. Things happen a lot slower at sea than they do in a car and there is a lot less to hit. Also most boats carry a crew - whilst it's ulimately the skippers responsibility usually the crew will also lend a hand - a bit difficult on the M4........

We had a situation many years ago - drinking rather merrily. Went to bed, woke up with the call of nature when my dad saw some distress flares. We were the first to see them and called in the coastguards. Turned out to be a fishing boat in Chichester Harbour that had overturned. Two found but the third was still missing. We were requested to help with the search. Didn't think about it, just did it and yet we were all clearly over the limit.

Drink legislation is not the answer for boats, but perhaps they could come up with some common sense rules instead. i.e. if you are stupid enough to be going out of a harbour without lights at night - your nicked. Lifejackets -well that is another difficult one but it only affects those that choose not to wear them. Going out at night without lights has a potential risk for everybody else on the water.

Going out at night without lights has a potential risk for everybody else on the water.

...and being drunk doesn't ?

...and being drunk doesn't ?

Jono - read my thread - That is not what I said.

Being drunk clearly has implications to other boat users - however, it is not as simple as drink driving rules in a car. You can hardly hail a taxi to get you home.

If you know that you are travelling back that night - such as these guys in Cowes, then they should refrain from drinking, if nothing else, many people have to drive a car at the other end to retrieve the boat or to go home. I have no doubt - although no proof - that these guys (or gals) would have probably got into a car and driven home - they clearly didn't care!

But in the scenario I outlined, it would make things very difficult. Considering how many boats are/were in the solent over the Cowes week, I can imagine that many of them had skippers who would 'technically' be over the limit with very few accidents - and before you jump in - that doesn't make it right but in our scenario - should we have just stayed at anchor and not assisted in the rescue? There weren't many people up at 3.00 am. What would you do Jono?

Jono - read my thread - That is not what I said.

Being drunk clearly has implications to other boat users - however, it is not as simple as drink driving rules in a car. You can hardly hail a taxi to get you home.

I read your thread quite clearly thanks. What came across was that you choose an example to back up your "drink boating" argument. You could use the same argument on dry land if you wished

.... next-door neighbour rushes around to your isolated farmhouse because her father has fallen onto a hay-bailing spike and is bleeding profusely. Unfortunately as all the local roads are flooded there is no chance of an ambulance getting through, but you're able to put him in your Tractor and drive him the 10 miles to hospital… at least you would ...but you’ve had a couple of glasses of cider as is your want at this time of year…..what would you do?

Same argument? Legislation happens because there are idiots out there with no self-control and scant regard for the welfare of others. It’s inevitable. I have always been against compulsory licensing and legislation for boating activities, but following the steady rise in popularity of boats over my 25 years of association with them it has become inevitable that it will attract more and more of these idiots and as sure as night follows day, legislation will follow…

My two cents from the land of libation.

The fact that one can seat himself at the helm of a power boat, turn the key and "drive" this way and that at an elevated speed with no more skill than a mongoose makes it more likely that bad things are going to happen, accompanied by drink or not. We had an incident less than a month ago where a jet ski rental blew in front of the seaplane that ferries passangers from here to St. Thomas on an hourly basis. The airplane was aready "up on the step" and the alert pilot shut down best he could and missed the jet ski by less than a meter. Had the aircraft struck the ski, surely the lives of 19 passengers and two crew would have been seriously in danger, to say nothing of the nit wit on the jet ski.

Lack of practiced skills, ease of operation and speed of power driven vessels present the greatest danger to the ignorant operator and others that cross their path.

I drive a RIB around here and although I know there is a certain bias against what you guys I believe call, "yachties", a sail boat operator will, nine times out of nine demonstrate better safety skills than your average power boat jockey. Too many of these folks have horsepower ratings greater than their IQ numbers.

Sounds to me like if you guys want to add additional regulations like not drinking and driving boats, which is a sensible thing to do, you might want to get the government to eliminate some of the stupid regs. you already operate under as a trade off. The first one that comes to mind is the requirement for a Station and Operator License for a VHF radio. That's like requiring a license for a life jackets and nav. lights. Please...make essential safety gear as available to everyone as possible. We have had very few incidents here of people on VHF radios subverting the government or jamming commercial channels endangering oil tankers and the like...HA!

"The government that governs least governs best"
Thomas Jefferson

"The constitution of the US doesn't guarantee happiness, only the persuit of it. If you want happiness you've got to catch up with it yourself"
Benjamin Franklin

Tomas

I read your thread quite clearly thanks. What came across was that you choose an example to back up your "drink boating" argument. You could use the same argument on dry land if you wished

.... next-door neighbour rushes around to your isolated farmhouse because her father has fallen onto a hay-bailing spike and is bleeding profusely. Unfortunately as all the local roads are flooded there is no chance of an ambulance getting through, but you're able to put him in your Tractor and drive him the 10 miles to hospital… at least you would ...but you’ve had a couple of glasses of cider as is your want at this time of year…..what would you do?

Same argument? Legislation happens because there are idiots out there with no self-control and scant regard for the welfare of others. It’s inevitable. I have always been against compulsory licensing and legislation for boating activities, but following the steady rise in popularity of boats over my 25 years of association with them it has become inevitable that it will attract more and more of these idiots and as sure as night follows day, legislation will follow…

As I explained in my thread, but perhaps I wasn't clear - I do not drink and drive a car or a rib - although saying that I had one drink at priory bay.

In your scenario, I wouldn't drive my tractor as I would probably do more harm than good to the patient by moving them, I am not a medically trained individual and would therefore request an air ambulance. Not the same at all.

We were looking for a possible survivor in the water - as it turned out he had died.

As you say, there are idiots out there which is why we need legislation, and in theory I agree. Unfortunately, these 'idiots' are not the ones to follow the legislation, only the law abidding people. It will not cut down on idiots behaving or trying to get away with sailing whilst drunk - although I grant that it would give the law inforcement officers a fighting chance to nick these people if they catch them first.

You are fighting me as though I am against legislation - I am not - but I think that it has to be workable and thought through.

It's a shame that this forum doesn't have any voting functionality, as this would be a great topic to get the forum's view on.

My guess is that 70% would be against any kind of formal legislation.

The fact is, that any death caused by a person in charge of a boat while in British waters can still lead to a prosecution for man slaughter etc. Which, in my view is legislation enough.

What we could probably do with is a number of high profile prosecutions to make people realise that there are possibly negative consequences, which may change some people's behaviours.

In the case highlighted in the start of this thread, the guy's lost his boat,which is probably justice enough. Now, if I was one of his passengers, I'd probably sue - another way to enforce behaviours without going down the legislative route.

It's a shame that this forum doesn't have any voting functionality, as this would be a great topic to get the forum's view on.

Could be fun to see the answers!

In the case highlighted in the start of this thread, the guy's lost his boat,which is probably justice enough. Now, if I was one of his passengers, I'd probably sue - another way to enforce behaviours without going down the legislative route.

Perhaps taking this a step further - if they have insurance, their boat is not covered when the skipper is under the influence - but then there is another debate as insurance is not compulsory :D

As I explained in my thread, but perhaps I wasn't clear - I do not drink and drive a car or a rib -

That’s admirable, but I suspect you are generally a responsible law-abiding person. Unfortunately, because of the state of modern society as a whole, you are heading into a minority. Legislation is, generally, with some exceptions, aimed at protecting us even if we don’t agree with it (Codders step in here for your traditional Tony Blair rant..)

In your scenario, I wouldn't drive my tractor as I would probably do more harm than good to the patient by moving them, I am not a medically trained individual and would therefore request an air ambulance. Not the same at all.

Why not? Requesting an Air Ambulance around here would have been futile especially with the weather conditions prevalent at the time. …but my point was simply that you can find a convincing argument to back up support or opposition fore anything…

As you say, there are idiots out there which is why we need legislation, and in theory I agree. Unfortunately, these 'idiots' are not the ones to follow the legislation, only the law abiding people. It will not cut down on idiots behaving or trying to get away with sailing whilst drunk - although I grant that it would give the law inforcement officers a fighting chance to nick these people if they catch them first. .

Which is pretty much what I said in my previous post.. if the law had been in place that RIB crew would have been sobering up in the cells..not A&E…

You are fighting me as though I am against legislation - I am not - but I think that it has to be workable and thought through. .

I’m not fighting you at all… I believe that the time has come for sensible legislation on drinking … enforced properly…


PS Please accept my apologies if I don’t respond further… I’m off for a while and not sure of Internet access..…cheers, Jono

.

Could be fun to see the answers!



Perhaps taking this a step further - if they have insurance, their boat is not covered when the skipper is under the influence - but then there is another debate as insurance is not compulsory :D

Why When driving a car your still insured when under the influence

Which is pretty much what I said in my previous post.. if the law had been in place that RIB crew would have been sobering up in the cells..not A&E…

I wasn't there at the time, but they say that the police warned these people not to go out. I would have thought that if the Police were that concerned that they could have retained them on other grounds. Perhaps the police had seen them, warned them not to go, they said 'oh no officer we won't go we were just getting our jackets' and then left anyway.

Isn't there legislation for boats having lights for nightime navigation? If my memory serves me correctly, the skipper of the ill-fated motor boat that collided in Scotland with another boat killing the other skipper get charged on grounds that neither boats were correctly lit, that both were over the limit, etc. Perhaps somebody who knows whether this is a legislation already could confirm/denigh this.

It could be that there is sufficient legislation to stop these idiots just it has to be enforced.

Why When driving a car your still insured when under the influence [/QUOTE]

Check your insurance documents. Many companies opted out (I think it was Pearl that started it after a big incident involving a drunk driver that killed a number of people). If you are involved in an accident when over the limit, your car is not covered even if it is not your fault. I am fairly sure that they will repair the other peoples cars in the event that it was your fault.

Correct - my car insurance doesn't cover me if driving while over the limit or under the influence of drugs. I'm almost certain that is industry wide now.

[

Check your insurance documents. Many companies opted out (I think it was Pearl that started it after a big incident involving a drunk driver that killed a number of people). If you are involved in an accident when over the limit, your car is not covered even if it is not your fault. I am fairly sure that they will repair the other peoples cars in the event that it was your fault. [/QUOTE]


They paid out for a new car at xmas to a mates son who was only 20

Might depend on the different companys

[QUOTE=Jono;214117] That’s admirable, but I suspect you are generally a responsible law-abiding person. Unfortunately, because of the state of modern society as a whole, you are heading into a minority. Legislation is, generally, with some exceptions, aimed at protecting us even if we don’t agree with it (Codders step in here for your traditional Tony Blair rant..)



You say about the state of modern society and legislation which is there to protect us?? but its legislation thats got society in this crisis! why would more legislation achieve a better society?? whats a system that keeps piling legislation upon legislation, its a system thats in a mess, and as soon as i have become a fully qualified electrician i'm of to oz to live:D :D :D

It's a shame that this forum doesn't have any voting functionality, as this would be a great topic to get the forum's view on.
OK, I've added a poll. Let's see how the figures come out.

John

As a hepatologist (liver specialist) who spends most of his working life dealing with the very distressing and rising effects of alcohol abuse/excess, maybe I have a slightly different view of the subject.

Firstly, I dont believe in the conspiracy theory that all legislation is out to "prevent fun" as some naiively put it.

Secondly, I would think that if you asked the same poll of most harbour masters, RNLI and coastguard then their opinion would be very different. Or are they all government agents hellbent on destroying fun?

Thirdly, what would those that are against any limit suggest should happen to a boater who does kill/injure someone whilst under the influence? The same as if alcohol wasn't involved?

And yes, I do drink but not whilst at the helm of a 1 1/2 tonne boat travelling at 40mph.

It's a shame that this forum doesn't have any voting functionality, as this would be a great topic to get the forum's view on.

My guess is that 70% would be against any kind of formal legislation.

The fact is, that any death caused by a person in charge of a boat while in British waters can still lead to a prosecution for man slaughter etc. Which, in my view is legislation enough.



Spot on!!!

Legislation is not the key. Education and awareness of consequences is. If legislation worked then there would be no drink driving.

You can't (unfortunately) legislate against having no common sense as there will always be complete idiots. (for example the guy I saw get his divers in on Thursday who then got out a FISHING ROD....!!!)

I wonder how close the correlation between drink drivers and drunken boaters is?

I don't see any need for any more laws.

They only tend to penalise the law abiding public anyway, because they are the ones that will tend to obey them. And it only encourages the 'Jobsworths' who let a little power go to their head and for whatever reason have no reason !

The laws are already in place. Lets have some proper enforcing of them by the proper parties (Police).

but I cannot understand why legislation whch could prevent some pisshead taking you and your family out is so abhorrent to you.

One good reason maybe,is that he thinks it would'nt.

Going back to the original thread, I agree with Codprawn, I don't think any legislation would have affected the behaviour in Cowes. They had already been warned by the police - they were driving at night - no lights - no lifejackets. Drunk or Sober they were going on that course of action and the outcome would have probably ended up the same - perhaps worse.

There is an argument for and against legislation. Nobody believes that drink driving a car is a good idea and there is legislation to prevent this and yet people still do it.

I do not drink and drive over the limit in a car or a rib and to be honest, it is fun enough without alcohol. Having said that, at the priory bay meeting I had a pimms and lemonade, who is to say that I wasn't over the limit as there are so many factors that would determine whether I would be over the limit.

However a zero tollerance would be unworkable in some situations. You are at a beach planning to spend the weekend there, have a few beers. You've listened to the forecast and know the tide times and yet you have to move your boat in the middle of the night for whatever reason. Do you:-

a) not have any alcohol - just in case;
b) not move the boat even though this may put yourself or your boat in danger;
c) move the boat and hope that everything will be OK.

Clearly, the most sensible answer is a) but in reality!

Plagiarist :D

As a hepatologist (liver specialist) who spends most of his working life dealing with the very distressing and rising effects of alcohol abuse/excess, maybe I have a slightly different view of the subject.

Firstly, I dont believe in the conspiracy theory that all legislation is out to "prevent fun" as some naiively put it.

Secondly, I would think that if you asked the same poll of most harbour masters, RNLI and coastguard then their opinion would be very different. Or are they all government agents hellbent on destroying fun?

Thirdly, what would those that are against any limit suggest should happen to a boater who does kill/injure someone whilst under the influence? The same as if alcohol wasn't involved?

And yes, I do drink but not whilst at the helm of a 1 1/2 tonne boat travelling at 40mph.

Wise words :thumbs:

And as I said before do you really need the drink to have fun in a boat?
If not then why all the up roar on something that is likely to make the boating world a safer place?

Yes we all should have a choice but when more and more loons, who are not as respectful of others as most of us here, are causing drink related problems them maybe it is time for a change.

Just one thing - I don't even drink and yet I am still against such laws - the sea is one of the few places I can escape from the real World - if only for a little while!!!

Wow!! Fast expanding thread!

Wow!! Fast expanding thread!

American beer is that classed as drinking alcohol :D

On a recent MCA mid season audit of our passenger boat the inspector left us a couple of packs of beer mats, not very suitable to have on the bar of a passenger boat as the bar is what earns the money on trips. We put them onboard our self drive dayboat and it has reduced the amount of excessive drinking by hirers. Excessive drinking seems to be very common on the inland waterways.

If alcohol was responsible for 1,000 deaths out of 7,000 then I reckon they should ban water because that was responsible for the other 6,000!!

Thirdly, what would those that are against any limit suggest should happen to a boater who does kill/injure someone whilst under the influence? The same as if alcohol wasn't involved?


I've not been able to get an answer on this one from the anti crowd yet :)

Good thread, some interesting reading from both sides.
I am in no way trying to advocate the use of legislation to limit peoples enjoyment and has been pointed out by some already, I don't actually see that going out and getting wrecked (pun intended) has to go hand in hand with having a good time.
If you don't get drunk and then use your boat, which I can't recall anybody putting their hands up to, then why not try to limit those that do, why shouldn't the authorites have the power to prevent people from endangering themselves and others? I don't buy the "it's the thin end of the wedge" arguement.
I can understand fully the arguements regarding the change in weather conditions requiring an unscheduled move, in such circumstances why can't common sense be applied?
I think we all know that we are talking about the type of person that goes out knowing that he will almost certainly be coming back drunk, but doesn't care.

I can understand fully the arguements regarding the change in weather conditions requiring an unscheduled move, in such circumstances why can't common sense be applied?


The law is black and white, it has to be to counter smart lawyers, are you suggesting discretion on the part of the Officer?

I think it would be the thin edge of the wedge, random stopping for drink driving I fully agree with on the road, it’s a totally different scenario to the sea. I for one could envisage marina entrances becoming favourite haunts for patrol boats.

We break the law almost every time we drive a car, from hard rubbers on your wipers to variances in tyre pressures, (dozens of things) so naturally a traffic car could charge you with something if they really looked for it. Luckily they don’t, it’s a balancing act on their part, but the threat is there.

It’s a threat I would rather not have when I’m out on the boat
:)

Instead of addressing the majority, address the minority; if someone dies because of this issue, it’s premeditated; the appropriate charge should apply.

The law is black and white, it has to be to counter smart lawyers, are you suggesting discretion on the part of the Officer?

We break the law almost every time we drive a car, from hard rubbers on your wipers to variances in tyre pressures, (dozens of things) so naturally a traffic car could charge you with something if they really looked for it. Luckily they don’t, it’s a balancing act on their part, but the threat is there.

Yes I am suggesting that discretion could be employed, if we look at the case of the Cowes ribbers, as has already been pointed out, I would personally have considered it preferable for the helmsman to have sobered up somewhere other than A&E, the police had warned him that he was in no condition to leave port but were powerless to stop him.
You appear to be suggesting that traffc police use discretion with drivers.

Instead of addressing the majority, address the minority; if someone dies because of this issue, it’s premeditated; the appropriate charge should apply.

Addressing the minority is precisely what I'm suggesting. I believe it is very much the minority that would be drunk in charge. Do you think that waiting for someone to die before any charge can be brought is acceptable?

I've not been able to get an answer on this one from the anti crowd yet :)

I would suggest we all have to take reponsibility for our actions, regardless of drink, penalty for harming somone else due to your negligence should be the same.

I dont think that any of the members who are anti legislation advocate drink boating, we are not all planning to drive around plastered. I suspect most like me do not want to see the boating part of society policed and HSE led like so many other parts of society.

So many leisure users actually sleep on their boats that anti drink laws would effectivly prevent them from drinking in their own home when entertaining guests in the evening. We dont want to see a governemnet who has no understanding of leisure boating cast blankets laws on us that have been copied from the roads. I do not want to pay for the policing of a system that many of us believe is unnecassary and I dread to think what would follow after the drink laws.

Coastal waters and roads are very different, they feature different problems and should not be treated in the same way. What is good for one is unlikely to be good for the other. We need to think outside the box. Replicating road laws at sea is wholly inappropraite

Spot on Doug :thumbs:

I would suggest we all have to take reponsibility for our actions, regardless of drink, penalty for harming somone else due to your negligence should be the same.

I dont think that any of the members who are anti legislation advocate drink boating, we are not all planning to drive around plastered. I suspect most like me do not want to see the boating part of society policed and HSE led like so many other parts of society.

So many leisure users actually sleep on their boats that anti drink laws would effectivly prevent them from drinking in their own home when entertaining guests in the evening. We dont want to see a governemnet who has no understanding of leisure boating cast blankets laws on us that have been copied from the roads. I do not want to pay for the policing of a system that many of us believe is unnecassary and I dread to think what would follow after the drink laws.

Coastal waters and roads are very different, they feature different problems and should not be treated in the same way. What is good for one is unlikely to be good for the other. We need to think outside the box. Replicating road laws at sea is wholly inappropraite


So what would be a more appropiate solution Doug?

I actually agree with you in principle about individuals taking responsibility for their own actions. Arrangements of this nature are fine for people like you and me - we know our limits (and don't experiment with them whilst in charge of a 250hp boat with 8 people on board) and have experience of seeing the horrific consequences when others get it wrong. However, not everyone operates like this and therein lies the problem. Some people just are not responsible enough to consider factors like these and act accordingly - and it's quite tricky to persuade them to act appropriately, without having to resort to using legislation and enforcement of it to force them to do so.

Nauti

Before you look for the solution you need to identify the problem.

Is it a fairly isolated incident wher a few p£$% heads who were told by the police not to go afloat and then did and hurt themselves?

Or is there some wider problem?

Accidents do occasionally happen, there are anglers who sit on the river side with a couple of tinnies and slip on a muddy bank.

I have been reading this thread since it started with interest but have so far refrained from joining it.. but I would like to add a small contribution.

I voted against legislation.. not because I would in any way advocate drinking excessively and being in control of any craft be it car, boat, truck or otherwise. .but because it is my firm belief (and one that has been born out by this discussion in many ways) that the vast majority of people that are involved in boating realise the dangers involved are sensible and level-headed enough to know their own limitations.

One of the main attractions with sailing/boating for me has always been the fact that in general it doesn't attract the kind of ignorance/selfishness and arrogance that are to be found in many many areas of modern society, and that it still maintains an ability to be self-controlling and rely on an individual's common-sense and judgement of a situation.

Now, I know that there are cases such as this one, where the norm is not the rule and common sense does not prevail or is lacking and it is a sad day when things go wrong, but I beleive that we have to find a way to better educate people rather than enforce by rules which are difficult (and expensive) to enforce. I don't know the answer, I only wish I could come up with one, but I am certainly sure that enforcing a drinking limit will not solve the problem... I don't know about you but I have certainly seen many cases in the past (and still do now) of people drinking far in excess of any legal limits and still driving ..(and not just in this country having spent many years in international haulage) these are the type of people that would still do the same if it were a boat rather than a car, regardless of the legality of it. Perhaps in this situation it may have averted what happened as they were spotted, but that isn't always the case.

It seems that this is a debate which will go on for a long time and no doubt there will be many many more incidents of this type before anyone comes up with a solution - legislation or no legislation.

I'll shut up now... thanks for letting me rant :thumbs:

Nauti

Before you look for the solution you need to identify the problem.

Is ia a fairly isolated incident wher a few p£$% heads who were told by the police not to go afloat and then did and hurt themselves?

Or is there some wider problem?

Accidents do occasionally happen, there are anglers who sit on the river side with a couple of tinnies and slip on a muddy bank.

Agreed.

I think there is a wider problem - alcohol is just part of it. I think poor general safety awareness is closer to the heart of the problem. Education about safety is certainly easily and cheaply available - although the onus is on the boat owner to arrange this and I would suspect that it is generally the more responsible variety of boat owner that will sign themselves up for this in the first place.

I'm not in favour of unnecessary legislation and those that know me will know that I like an adventure and night on the razzle as much as the next! It just worries me that Joe Bloggs with no previous marine experience, but with a few grand to spare, can buy a powerful boat and head off across the Solent without thinking about even the weather/tides, a lifejacket or handheld VHF.

Perhaps compulsory education is the way forward? It seems to be becoming more prevalent ... I know one insurance company we used in the past wanted to see copies of our Level 2 certs before they would insure us. The company we're with now won't insure us to cross the Channel unless we can prove that we have a small outboard as backup or are in the company of another suitably equipped RIB. I know you can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink ... but maybe a little education and a horror story or two might trigger a spark of responsibility in some of these people.

When you look at the statistics it says out of 7,000 drownings booze was a factor in 1,000 of them. of course this means it was NOT a factor in 6,000 - a much higher figure.

The main thing the stats don't show though is what sort of drowning the booze factored in. it doesn't mention boating - I suspect a great many are people jumping into rivers or the sea or swimming whilst drunk which means the number of boating related deaths is tiny.

When you look at the statistics it says out of 7,000 drownings booze was a factor in 1,000 of them. of course this means it was NOT a factor in 6,000 - a much higher figure.

The main thing the stats don't show though is what sort of drowning the booze factored in. it doesn't mention boating - I suspect a great many are people jumping into rivers or the sea or swimming whilst drunk which means the number of boating related deaths is tiny.

It's not just about deaths though....

Remember unlike RIBs many boat owners will actually live on their boats for a while. Imagine being securly anchored or attached to a mooring buoy for a whole weekend. A skipper has a few drinks and retires to his bunk. Then wakes up to discover another yacht has dragged his anchor in the Force 7 that has sprung up. What is he supposed to do???

This situation is highly unlikely to occur to a car driver so why try and apply the same laws? Unlikely to happen to a car driver, but what about a camper van driver, or someone towing a caravan?? Imagine the scenario, Mr and Mrs Flatcap have decided to spend a quiet weekend exploring Stratford Upon Avon.. Seeing as they are both well away from the twitching curtains of their neighbours, they decide to have a few glasses of wine, which lead to a few more.. After retiring to bed, they are awoken by the sound of another camper revving their engine as they try to tow their second home away from the rapidly rising water using their trusty Kia Rio..

So, what does Mr Flatcap do? Both are over the drink drive limit, but the water is soon going to turn their little palace on wheels into a little palace on water..

Similar situation as your Codders, one places the skipper in a predicament, the other places the soon to be skipper in a predicament..

Perhaps those who are in charge of a vehicle, (any sort of vehcle,) should take their responsibility seriously, and avoid placing themselves in a position where they may have to break the law..

Accidents do occasionally happen, there are anglers who sit on the river side with a couple of tinnies and slip on a muddy bank.

True, but they are not usually doing 30+ knots at the time and they are unlikely to do too much damage to my boat or injury to my family or myself if they managed to somehow skim across the water and collide with me.

I would suggest we all have to take reponsibility for our actions

In an ideal world this would be the case, the unfortunate fact is that some individuals are irresponsible.

I do not want to pay for the policing of a system that many of us believe is unnecassary and I dread to think what would follow after the drink laws.

I don't want to have to pay, nor would I like to see anyone else pay, with something far more valuable than money just because some people believe it is an infringment of their civil liberties to be prevented from doing whatever they like whenever they like and bugger the consequences. It strikes me that some people consider it an attack on their machismo if they are restricted from getting drunk.

Coastal waters and roads are very different, they feature different problems and should not be treated in the same way. What is good for one is unlikely to be good for the other. We need to think outside the box. Replicating road laws at sea is wholly inappropraite

Whilst the mediums are significantly different many road laws can be applicable to the sea, insurance of your vehicle, ensuring your vehicle is in a fit state for use, making sure your safety equipment is in a fit state of repair, driving appropriately for the conditions, sticking to the speed limit if the fuzz are around, the benefits of learning how to drive before you're let loose on your own. I don't see it as that much of a leap of the imagination to see the benefits of not allowing inebriated individuals behind the wheel.

Isn't it strange that depsite a raft of new laws covering all sorts of things crime continues to rise? i suspect that a drunk boating law will be about as much help as ASBOS..........

Isn't it strange that depsite a raft of new laws covering all sorts of things crime continues to rise? i suspect that a drunk boating law will be about as much help as ASBOS..........

I would suggest that the average boater tends to be a little higher on the evolutionary scale than the average hoodie and is therefore a little less likely to consider a drink driving conviction as an opportunity for bragging rights over his peers, unlike an ASBO which so clearly is for the people that earn them.
The biggest criticism I hear or read concerning new laws which are introduced is that they appear to be protecting the criminal and the rights of the protagonist rather than the victim, maybe thats why crime continues to rise.

I would suggest that the average boater tends to be a little higher on the evolutionary scale than the average hoodie and is therefore a little less likely to consider a drink driving conviction as an opportunity for bragging rights over his peers, unlike an ASBO which so clearly is for the people that earn them.
The biggest criticism I hear or read concerning new laws which are introduced is that they appear to be protecting the criminal and the rights of the protagonist rather than the victim, maybe thats why crime continues to rise.

In that case the "average" boater isn't going to drink to excess in the first place so why do we need new laws?

In that case the "average" boater isn't going to drink to excess in the first place so why do we need new laws?

That doesn't add up at all, you don't get ASBOs for drinking, hoodies don't generally boat. The distinction I was making was between the way in which each offence is viewed by the people you would generally associate with. I really don't know what you are talking about.

Mugshot

A long reply deserves a long reply

True, but they are not usually doing 30+ knots at the time and they are unlikely to do too much damage to my boat or injury to my family or myself if they managed to somehow skim across the water and collide with me.

Do you have any evidence of this problem, how many cases a year are there of a drunken powerboater doing 30 knots and harming other peoples propertyor in fact other people who are not on board his/her craft?


In an ideal world this would be the case, the unfortunate fact is that some individuals are irresponsible.

This is a classic labour government approach (im not trying to start a new thread on politiical parties), rather than teach people how to be responsible for themselves we treat them all as irresponsible and take away their right to think for themselves, this is how we have ended up with crazy H&S and so much litigation.

I belive most people have got basic common sense, many of us need pointed in the right direction now an again but we dont need someone to dictate how we live. Encouraging good practice is a far more effective than regulating. It may intrest you to know we have the second lowest accident fatality rate per participants in watersports in the developed world. We are second only to New Zealand who also do not have compulsary licensing


I don't want to have to pay, nor would I like to see anyone else pay, with something far more valuable than money just because some people believe it is an infringment of their civil liberties to be prevented from doing whatever they like whenever they like and bugger the consequences.

I refer you to my earlier question. Is there a problem or just a perceived problme by people who assume all of the horrific accidents that are occuring on the roads are also occuring at sea? It easy to suggest people may die if we dont do something BUT are people actuially being killed by these "drunken boaters"?


It strikes me that some people consider it an attack on their machismo if they are restricted from getting drunk.
You may be right, some people may think like this- are you going to re educate them for the benefit off society by regulating them.



Whilst the mediums are significantly different many road laws can be applicable to the sea, insurance of your vehicle, ensuring your vehicle is in a fit state for use, making sure your safety equipment is in a fit state of repair, driving appropriately for the conditions, sticking to the speed limit if the fuzz are around, the benefits of learning how to drive before you're let loose on your own. I don't see it as that much of a leap of the imagination to see the benefits of not allowing inebriated individuals behind the wheel.

Im afraid you have blown it here for me, you are effectivly saying that you belive we should be subject to all sorts of laws and in the same sentance saying you only stick to the speed limit if the fuzz are around. If that is the case what is the point of making safety related laws to start with?

Not looking for a fight but intrested how you validate your comments

[QUOTE=Doug Stormforce;214723]


This is a classic labour government approach (im not trying to start a new thread on politiical parties), rather than teach people how to be responsible for themselves we treat them all as irresponsible and take away their right to think for themselves, this is how we have ended up with crazy H&S and so much litigation.

I believe the reason why we have Health and safety Regulation is as a direct result of the recomendations of the Cullen Report into the Piper Alpha Tragedy.

This was probably before your time but an Oil platform caught fire, and because production was more important than safety. The overall manager of the field refused to shut down the flow of oil from two other platforms to the burning one. He waited to get the OK from his boss on the beach ,who was not answering his phone (pre mobile) and the fire kept getting it's fuel at high pressure resulting in 170 men being aspyxiated or incinerated and hundreds being at risk in the rescue process.

I for one am glad that we have a Health and Safety legislation if it means I don't get toasted at work.

When one of your lads is operating a power drill, grinding whel or stike tool do they were goggles? if you find them not doing so d'ya make em put goggles on? If this is so the do you do it because you're a good caring guy or because the HSE and compensation lawyers will bite you in the arse? or both?. In my case it's both but the legislation probably wins.

Agred some of the people involved should have been traffic wardens, but whilst people continue to die at work they still got a job to do. One thing you can guarentee is that the workplace is a damned site safer nowadays than it was ten years ago?

Get back to drnking . which I like by the way, I presume you respect the RYA's laws about instructors not drinking during the course, in which case explain to me why a competent experienced instructor shouldn't be allowed a drink while on the water but a guy imaybe a novice in his twin 250 hp rib powerboat should!

I like having a few when I am out on my boat but would support legislation and comply with it? Presently as has been recently proved by the Hampshire Constabulary I can have two Magners and still pass a breathalyser. 5 more and I'd have trouble driving a car and five more after that I have trouble staying upright. So whats wrong with legilation stopping me at two when every once of my moral fibre says go on have a few more

Any idea why commercial ships are dry and boozing is a sacking offence? Look up Exxon Valdiz. Till then you could drink away on the High seas quite freely.

Taken your comments about speed related laws, I love driving fast and am quite good at it, but when I first moved to Southampton I was struck by the amount of flowers tied to lamposts and thought that a lot of people must be dying on the city's roads. Since then they have intoduced Speed Cameras throughout Southampton which has effectively slowed the traffic and guess what theres not so many flowers on lamposts. Given the choice of mowing a child down at 30 rather than 40 I'd take the thirty opttion. But truly would hope never to be in that situation!

So yes we all slow down when we see a cop car or a camera but enough of em bring the road speeds down and make them a safer place. I was approached by a fellow instructor about 8 months ago who'm had eight points on his license and had been caught by a Camera and wanted to pay me to take the points for him, What a twat! I would have thought the eight points would have been enough to cool things down but hey obviously not! Surely the point of regulation is to deter irresponsibilty and set standards of safety, behaviour etc.

Hi Doug,
I'll avoid the "quote unquote" otherwise we'll end up taking up a page each and instead attempt to summarise whilst answering the points you raised.
My experience of boating is from an area which is, to the best of my knowledge, significantly less congested than the one you are used to using. However even in this relatively quiet back water I have been witness to or have heard first hand of people falling off their boats, ripping the prop off their boats and having to be towed in, capsizing with passengers resulting in a search and rescue, falling over in the back of their boat leaving the helm unmanned, passing out in their boats and drifting down river and grounding 'til they come round the next morning, all because they were drunk, all in the space of one season and thats only the ones I'm aware of which I can immediately recall. I'm sure you would have many more examples.
The statisics may indicate that relatively few are injured as a result of this, but I don't see that as a reason to allow it to continue unchecked. Pleasure boating as an industry is I believe growing, incidents will increase accordingly. Why do we need to wait until a problem is at such a level that the solution will be dictated by government including draconian measures and enforced codes of conduct across the whole spectrum of boating.

You have mentioned education being the way forward but I can't remember seeing how you plan to implement this, I would educate with a bloody big stick, not really the Labour way. What would your approach be?

You stated that it was "wholly inappropriate" to replicate laws which apply to the road at sea, I was pointing out that it isn't all that different really. From your profile I assume that you train people in various aspects of safe and practical boating with a pass certificate at the end of it if appropriate, it's not really that much of a leap of the imagination to compare this to a driving licence although not compulsary. I am NOT saying that they should be compulsary, I was answering your "wholly inappropriate" comment.
My comment about the police was a little tongue in cheek, had I said "abiding by the speed limit" then I would have been throwing a nice big bone to certain dogs who would have immediately asked if I ever sped in a 30 zone, so I used a different tactic to see who'd bite.

I may have missed a particularly salient point which you wanted me to answer from your post, please point it out if I have.

Interesting point there Doug about the uk and Newzealand having the lowest accident fatality rate and both states not having compulsory licensing. well if it aint broke then don't try and fix it! though thats left me even more lost for words why people would try and find reasons that we should change things and want to adopt a more legislated approach to are favorite past time??
Although i don't like to think it i get the notion that most people don't seem to really mind or care about having yet more restrictions implemented upon them, maybe their just not clued up enough? i mean where has peoples sense of freedom gone today:] we need to look at the bigger picture before ticking all of the boxes in favour of yet more laws.
Its not about not caring or being irresponsible its about valuing our freedom, and keeping the sea a free place, whats all this talk of it being like a road and comparing it to things that happen with guns and stuff, please give us a break fellas! and at least give me more creditable examples before i even begin to think differently.

whats all this talk of it being like a road and comparing it to things that happen with guns and stuff, please give us a break fellas! and at least give me more creditable examples before i even begin to think differently.

I think the analogy with the road law was originally cited by someone from the anti legislation side.
Where is the post about guns? I've missed it.
Which examples are you discrediting exactly?

I think the analogy with the road law was originally cited by someone from the anti legislation side.
Where is the post about guns? I've missed it.
Which examples are you discrediting exactly?

Thats maybe so, but besides my point, the point is that the pro legislation side are commonly referring to implementing road type law and order to our sea's immaterial to who mentioned it first as an example. There was something mentioned about guns on the streets in an earlier post but to be quite honest i cant even be bothered to look it up, i'm sure some meticulous person will oblige though and try and quote me wrong. As for which examples being discreditable, it's more of the repetition of worse case scenarios that are becoming boring and predictable to hear and basing grounds for more policy and regulation around them.

Thats maybe so, but besides my point, the point is that the pro legislation side are commonly referring to implementing road type law and order to our sea's immaterial to who mentioned it first as an example.

No they're not, what they are saying is that they don't think its acceptable for people to be allowed to get as drunk as they want before they drive their boat home.

There was something mentioned about guns on the streets in an earlier post but to be quite honest i cant even be bothered to look it up, i'm sure some meticulous person will oblige though and try and quote me wrong.

Thats what the quote button is for Tim, the onus is on you to find it, I'm not suggesting you're wrong but it's up to you to post the quote.

As for which examples being discreditable, it's more of the repetition of worse case scenarios that are becoming boring and predictable to hear and basing grounds for more policy and regulation around them.

I find it rather boring that anybody that would like to see a restriction on the amount of alcohol which people are permitted to consume before taking the helm, is immediately labelled as some lilly livered liberal lefty, with the inference that we are immediately in support of a raft of legislation which affects all aspects of boating.

Thats what the quote button is for Tim, the onus is on you to find it, I'm not suggesting you're wrong but it's up to you to post the quote.




Maybe he can't find it cos it's not there? A few of our posts seem to have succumbed to the "iron fist" of god..............

Most people, pro or anti legislation find it totally unacceptable i am sure, that other people might be in control of boats while over the limit! or being a danger to others without touching a drop for that matter, thats not the argument here though is it. Do you really think that i would waste my time sticking up for some nobber that jumped in a boat, got pissed crashed into somebody and caused them injury, i would say if he's guilty then throw the book at him! laws are already in place that deal with such cases though so why worry? I can only assume that people who want system change have a view that the present one does not work? am i missing something here? I have to be honest though something that does concern me a bit sometimes is people being in control of 30ft+ class cruisers that have little or no experience with no qualifications, sometimes it can be difficult to spot small craft from the bridge?

If I took a gun, and fired randomly into a crowd, but failed to hit anyone, would that mean it's ok, and stopping people firing guns into crowds was an unnesasary piece of ridiculous legislation coz it 'quite clearly isn't dangerous, as I tried & got away with it'....no.

Best thing is, you carry on just as you please.

I'm 'staggered' that an rya trainer thinks it's ok to drink drive a boat.

Not that i am particularly bothered cuz this post means naf to me but here yu are anyway

I like the bit about carrying on as yu pleaze though, wise words Doug.

Maybe he can't find it cos it's not there? A few of our posts seem to have succumbed to the "iron fist" of god.............. It's still here as Tims Osprey found. Isn't the search feature great? :D

I have deleted some of the less enlightening and more inflammatory posts in this thread as it's getting very long and really doesn't need any padding. I haven't deleted anything that's actually relevant to the discussion though.

John

I have to be honest though something that does concern me a bit sometimes is people being in control of 30ft+ class cruisers that have little or no experience with no qualifications, sometimes it can be difficult to spot small craft from the bridge?

So there should be legislation in place to protect yourself and others once you go beyond a certain limit? I couldn't have said it better myself, welcome to the pro side Tim!!
You might want to ask John if you can change your vote.

Thank you for finding the quote too, I'd forgotten about that one.

So there should be legislation in place to protect yourself and others once you go beyond a certain limit? I couldn't have said it better myself, welcome to the pro side Tim!!
You might want to ask John if you can change your vote.

Thank you for finding the quote too, I'd forgotten about that one.

yer no worries, my argument has never been against protecting the people, its been about the freedom of the people:thumbs:and choice which i feel is important, i don't want to rant on about my political views so i will leave it there on that one.

Mr Wave




I believe the reason why we have Health and safety Regulation is as a direct result of the recomendations of the Cullen Report into the Piper Alpha Tragedy.

Not true, Health and Safety legislation has been around since 1977, Piper Alpha was 1988


This was probably before your time but an Oil platform caught fire, and because production was more important than safety.

Patronising, I remember the incident well. However its not got much to do with legislation for leisure boating


The overall manager of the field refused to shut down the flow of oil from two other platforms to the burning one. He waited to get the OK from his boss on the beach Not entirely true, it was one other platform called Tartan





I for one am glad that we have a Health and Safety legislation if it means I don't get toasted at work.
I also respect the concept of H&S, if you read my post you will see Im against "crazy Health and Safety" . Let me give you an example, the pool we use for Sea Survival last year told me that the new Health and Safety Officer
had decided we could not use the hose during amandonment sessions in case we got the pool side wet.


Get back to drinking . which I like by the way, I presume you respect the RYA's laws about instructors not drinking during the course,
It not the RYA that make the laws, this is part of an act passed by government to stop commercial mariners drinking. But yes I dont drink during a powerboat course. Mostly because it would set a pretty bad example to our students

Im not going to reply to your comments about speeding - its a bit off topic and I dont want to get started on stealth taxing, sorry I mean speed cameras

I think we do have some common ground here, I am not advocationg drinking and powerboating as being a good mix however I don't think we need legislation to fix something that is not broken.

Doug i would come to your school any day should i wish tu further my boating skills:thumbs: your posts are about the most informed and level headed among us and i think i may start using your carry on as yu please approach to debates:D cod yur a well informed conscious character tu, welcome tu the revaluation:D :D

I have deleted some of the less enlightening and more inflammatory posts in this thread as it's getting very long and really doesn't need any padding. I haven't deleted anything that's actually relevant to the discussion though. Oh, and I reserve the right to keep on deleting any off topic posts in this thread.

If it's relevant it stays. If not, it takes me less time to delete it than it does for you to type it ! :)

John

John

Replying to your own posts, that's a bad sign.

Mark

Mr Wave

Not true, Health and Safety legislation has been around since 1977, Piper Alpha was 1988



No need to be formal Douggie you can call me Stuart

Would that be the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

Mr Wave

Patronising, I remember the incident well. However its not got much to do with legislation for leisure boating

Not entirely true, it was one other platform called Tartan



Not entirely that well it would seem, two platforms Tartan and Claymore declined to shut down until it was too late. regarding the relevance I dunno you brought the HSE into the debate!



I also respect the concept of H&S, if you read my post you will see Im against "crazy Health and Safety" . Let me give you an example, the pool we use for Sea Survival last year told me that the new Health and Safety Officer
had decided we could not use the hose during amandonment sessions in case we got the pool side wet.



Glad to hear it, whats the oldest person you've sold, or would sell,
a sea survival course to?




Im not going to reply to your comments about speeding - its a bit off topic and I dont want to get started on stealth taxing, sorry I mean speed cameras



Hey If you can't do the time don't do the crime. The Speed limit laws have ben around a lot longer that the Gatzo's. If you really object to the speed camera/stealth tax the put the fkkrs out of business .....don't speed!



I think we do have some common ground here, I am not advocationg drinking and powerboating as being a good mix however I don't think we need legislation to fix something that is not broken.


[QUOTE=Doug Stormforce;214860]
I think we do have some common ground here, I am not advocationg drinking and powerboating as being a good mix however I don't think we need legislation to fix something that is not broken.

Have We? I think legislation's a good thing cos it would stop me from doing it Until then I'm gonna preach one thing and practice another and I don't that level of hypocracy in myself

what we need is another poll to see how many of the training schools have voted to have legislation,all that extra income if you would then need to take a test for a license:D

Mr Stu


Would that be the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974



Yes that will be the one - well spotted

we need is another poll to see how many of the training schools have voted to have legislation
.....all that extra income if you would then need to take a test for a license:D :)

If you wouldn't drink and drive why do you feel the need to drink and boat? Simple, because you CAN!

Thing is, I dont drink and drive, not because it is illegal, but because it is not sensible - training teaches you that. I am also very aware that drinking and boating at speed is not sensible, so I wouldnt do it. However, the interesting thing here is "at speed." What speed? -my sailboat does much more than 7knts (clocked 19 a couple of years back!)

It is legal to ride a bike on the road with over 80mg/l in your blood which can easily do more than 30 mph in a thirty zone (yes with pedals), however you can be arrested for public order offences if you are a danger to others - is this not a more sensible approach by the authorities in harbours (where they can issue bylaws) to restrict the use of boats that are used in an inappropriate manner?
some harbours round the solent have a bylaw controlling the use of vessels capable of more than 7knts by minors so it must be possible with national legislation.

Once a boat is on open water, I suspect the number of incidents is likely to be very low that affect anyone except those on the boat in question ....

Yeezz, you guys were having some fun while I've been on holiday!!

I think we may well find, with a good trawl through the MCA records that in fact more lives have been lost / injuries sustained by not having a kill cord attached than alcohol in our type of boat.

Certainly more yachtsmen have been drowned falling from their tender (capable of under 7knts) with no lifeljacket (basic safety ignored) than in their yacht, admittedly alcohol induced, but as these craft are likely to be exempt we are not getting much nearer.
Oh, and while we are at it tombstoning has now killed more people than p****d boat drivers this year.

Oh, and while we are at it tombstoning has now killed more people than p****d boat drivers this year.

And how many more paralised. We had one here in the last weekend.

Ian

In the first chapter of this fine book, Arthur Ransome wirtes, "Better drowned than duffers. If not duffers won't drown"

A modern equivalent would be, "If your actions are irresponsible, you should be removed from planet earth, most likely by your own acts. If you are sensible you and those around you will be ok."

No need for legislation :thumbs:

When you look at the statistics it says out of 7,000 drownings booze was a factor in 1,000 of them. of course this means it was NOT a factor in 6,000 - a much higher figure.

The main thing the stats don't show though is what sort of drowning the booze factored in. it doesn't mention boating - I suspect a great many are people jumping into rivers or the sea or swimming whilst drunk which means the number of boating related deaths is tiny.

There was in fact one year in the UK history where more people were drowned in their cars than in boats. Not sure when this was - but I wonder whether they were drivers who were over the limit in Richmond when the tide came in - perhaps alcohol was to blame and they should have driven home instead :D