Another yes or no question: this time on tests for powerboaters

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by Rokraider

I think the petty bickering and sniping as seen above, highlights why the Ribnet credibility post is relevant.

One mans petty bickering & sniping is another mans healthy open debate.
I don't take anything that is said on here personally, I've far more important things to worry my pretty little head over. Anyone who takes any of this to heart is in the wrong place.


.....sh1t happens.......

[Starovich]

No, there's no requirement to even have a VHF. You certainly don't need a VHF certificate to use a boat

just to prove a point. I didn't bring up VHF on purpose but..

We all recognise that it is a prudent thing to carry a VHF on a boat and the CG actively promote it.

So therefore if you are to carry a VHF on a boat AND want to remain "legal" you have to have a VHF licence, so to use a boat in a safe and prudent manner you do have to be licensed of sorts.

I am not saying i agree or disagree, just pointing out logic and facts.

No one here will change my mind about a mandatory PB2 style certification being a good thing, there is room for debate about the content changing slightly, and how you would "grandfather" those who have more skill and experience than the minimum needed into any licence requirement.

Poly, I don't feel the need justify my reasoning with where I have worked and who for, even without the experience and qualifications I have, 13 years full time, 30 years on boats overall, 26 countries (lots of time in the UK) I am entitled to my opinion.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Starovich

So therefore if you are to carry a VHF on a boat AND want to remain "legal" you have to have a VHF licence,

since you clearly in the mood for being pedantic:
carrying a VHF does NOT require a VHF Operators Certificate. using a VHF other than in an emergency requires the operator (or a person supervising the operator) to have a certificate.
[boats also need licensed with a free online registration]

But more to the point this highlights the futility of regulation. There are people on here who will admit to owning and operating a VHF without a license. It is widely recognised that the chances of being stopped and asked for a license are very small, and the probability of being prosecuted is tiny unless you have gone out of your way to abuse the system.

Yet, many people pay to "become legal". The law abiding pay, whilst others do not. Imagine if your free boat license became £100 a year tax to pay for checking up on the people who don't bother to do a VHF course. YOU would be paying extra, when you already comply with the rules; and its unlikely that you'd even notice an improvement in VHF comms as it would inevitably only catch a few people in the busiest areas. YOU might even find yourself picking up a fine for having forgotten a piece of paper that nobody has asked for in 20 yrs but you are technically supposed to carry.

there is room for debate about the content changing slightly, and how you would "grandfather" those who have more skill and experience than the minimum needed into any licence requirement.

so you want a licensing scheme that exempts experienced people (like you I assume) from actually sitting the test.

I don't feel the need justify my reasoning with where I have worked and who for...

and I didn't ask you to - but since you didn't answer the question I asked, I'll continue in my belief that there is not a systematic large scale problem with power boaters dying in UK waters due to not having a basic level of ability.

...I am entitled to my opinion.

Of course you are - and this is a discussion forum so its quite proper that people discuss their opinions. This is a recurring topic which has been robustly discussed on here for many years - and I've probably been increasingly convinced away from certification which would have been my gut feel when I joined. Now if you asked should (3rd party) insurance be mandatory you might be surprised at my position!

[Rokraider]

Originally Posted by Pikey Dave

One mans petty bickering & sniping is another mans healthy open debate.
I don't take anything that is said on here personally, I've far more important things to worry my pretty little head over. Anyone who takes any of this to heart is in the wrong place.


.....sh1t happens.......

From an outsiders point of view, the tone of some of the comments looks stroppy and will put off potential newcomers. Which is a shame as it is an excellent resource full of good advice and enthusiasm.

[Starovich]

so you want a licensing scheme that exempts experienced people (like you I assume) from actually sitting the test.

Where did I ever say Exempt, I said grandfathered in, and that it was up for debate. If there was the need for a licence ofc I would get one. Either quote me or don't, but don't put words into my mouth.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Starovich

Where did I ever say Exempt, I said grandfathered in, and that it was up for debate. If there was the need for a licence ofc I would get one. Either quote me or don't, but don't put words into my mouth.

Perhaps you picked the wrong word then? Here's the dictionary definition of the verb grandfathered:

tr.v. grand·fa·thered, grand·fa·ther·ing, grand·fa·thers
To exempt (one involved in an activity or business) from new regulations: The new ordinance restricts the size of billboards, but it grandfathers those erected before 1997.

[Starovich]

Originally Posted by Poly

Perhaps you picked the wrong word then? Here's the dictionary definition of the verb grandfathered:

tr.v. grand·fa·thered, grand·fa·ther·ing, grand·fa·thers
To exempt (one involved in an activity or business) from new regulations: The new ordinance restricts the size of billboards, but it grandfathers those erected before 1997.

Perhaps the wrong word.

[Maximus]

Originally Posted by Starovich

Perhaps the wrong word.

Or Perhaps ...quite a Few?
CHOICE FREEDOM LIBERTY ALL...HARD WON! ....AND SO VERY EASY TO LOOSE!

[Starovich]

Originally Posted by Maximus

Or Perhaps ...quite a Few?
CHOICE FREEDOM LIBERTY ALL...HARD WON! ....AND SO VERY EASY TO LOOSE!

On other forums that would be regarded as a troll comment.....

[PeterM]

Originally Posted by Poly

since you clearly in the mood for being pedantic:
carrying a VHF does NOT require a VHF Operators Certificate. using a VHF other than in an emergency requires the operator (or a person supervising the operator) to have a certificate.
[boats also need licensed with a free online registration]

Not wanting to be pedant about being pedantic but ....can we be clear on the differences and words used when pointing out in a pedantic way the difference between the license the boat needs (which I believe is legally needed even to have the VHF on board) and the certificate for someone to legally use said licensed VHF on the boat either themselves or under supervision of a said certificated person.................

Clear ?

Oh - this thread is becoming a good example of why I don't post 'sensibly' much now (stats allowing for an approximate halving of my post rate per day)

Oh there's nothing wrong with Brigs or Ribcraft or Avon adventures but Osprigs are lucky if they can even float as I've never owned one (but the two I've driven went OK - even the one with the ETEC on it)

Maybe the thread will be closed soon as we're dangerously close to politics or religion or 2 v 4 stroke.

[John Kennett]

Originally Posted by Starovich

I am not saying i agree or disagree, just pointing out logic and facts.

Not really. Just missing the point!

No one here will change my mind about a mandatory PB2 style certification being a good thing

Not the ideal basis for a useful discussion.

Someone may well change my mind about it one day if they can demonstrate that it would be practical and serve a useful purpose, but there's no sign of that happening so far.

[John Kennett]

Originally Posted by Rokraider

I think the petty bickering and sniping as seen above, highlights why the Ribnet credibility post is relevant.

We're having a discussion. We disagree, but that's OK.

What in your view makes it "petty bickering and sniping"? How would you suggest that we conduct this debate differently?

[Rokraider]

I am dipping in and out between jobs at the moment and do not have time for a proper response, however, read back through the posts and see how many become more bullying than objective with ego needing to belittle and score points rather than constructive debate. If you can't see it, then that is part of the problem.

[paddlers]

Did someone mention 2 stroke V 4 stroke ?

[Dhf]

Originally Posted by paddlers

Did someone mention 2 stroke V 4 stroke ?

Or steam engine!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVBnkOL-8Jw

[John Kennett]

Originally Posted by Rokraider

I am dipping in and out between jobs at the moment and do not have time for a proper response, however, read back through the posts and see how many become more bullying than objective with ego needing to belittle and score points rather than constructive debate. If you can't see it, then that is part of the problem.

I'm sorry you feel that way but I disagree with you, as I disagree with the proposal in this thread.

I'm not interested in scoring points, but am happy for there to be a discussion about the pros and cons of your idea. Where do we go from here?

[biffer]

It's a bad idea, who will police it?

[Rokraider]

I am also against red tape and 5estrictions on freedom, however I would like to see the general level of competence raised. The hard core regular users of powered vessels are not the problem as I see it, they gain experience and as a regular user keep their eye in. I am aiming this more at the occasional drivers who dip in and out and do not drive regularly, starting with virtually no knowledge and not getting beyond that point. If they were forced to have at least taken some instruction before being allowed out on their own, hopefully the basics will have sunk in. One way this could be enforced is using the insurance companies to only issue cover on proof of paasing PBL 2 for example. I realise the argument can be shot full of holes on the basis that people won't bother getting insurance in some cases. The vast majority are law abiding and will tow the line rather than risk their toy not being insured, so there would be some level of improvement and backed up with a refresher course every couple of years. It will make our hobby more expensive, but also safer for all and more boats will have proper insurance. It is somewhat vague and will be unpopular with regular drivers who will undoubtably feel they don't need refreshers, but that is another problem in itself.

Let the flack begin!

[Boatnomad]

Which all goes to prove, there is never a YES or NO question on forums

[Portholme]

I started reading this thinking it was a 'yes' 'no' post. It's turned into a rather puerile one.

Please open up Ribnet Credibility again mods, I'm not sure the users of this site have all had their say. Or am I missing the point?