Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
 
Old 18 December 2005, 07:10   #41
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Somerset
Make: Halmatic P22
Length: 6m +
Engine: 150 Diesel
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 173
Neil - please feel free to continue rambling as I find your comments:

(a) interesting

and

(b) accurate

Quite a rarity!
__________________

__________________
Nate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18 December 2005, 09:23   #42
DJL
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Make: Ribcraft 6.5
Length: 6m +
Engine: Suzuki DF175TG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 929
Quote:
Originally Posted by codprawn
Well obviously the judge is as wrong as I am!!!

Seriously though the MAIn point I think people are missing is the term "MERCHANT" which basically means commercial.

For a ship to come under the merchant shipping act it has to be registered as a commercial ship and comply with all the regs - would be funny seeing a jetski flying the red duster!!!

As Neil said there is no requirement for the ship to be commercial. Many of the Merchant Shipping Regulations have specific definitions of leisure vessels - such as the one that defines which sections of SOLAS V pleasure users are required to comply with.

Section 58(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 states that the section applies "to the master of, or any seaman employed in, a ship which" is UK registered or in UK waters. The definition of master "includes every person (except a pilot) having command or charge of a ship". So if a PWC is defined as a ship ("ship includes every description of vessel used in navigation"), then Mr Goodwin could be prosecuted under 58(2).

The more of these cases that fail, where people of obviously acted irresponsibly, will just lead to more legislation for us boaters. Letís hope they amend it to include PWCs - as I said I don't think itís particularly unreasonable for people at sea, whatever craft they are on, to be responsible for avoiding injuring/killing other people. Otherwise we are going to be one step closer to having compulsory training etc...
__________________

__________________
DJL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18 December 2005, 09:23   #43
Member
 
Country: UK - Wales
Town: swansea
Boat name: Too Blue
Make: BLANK
Length: 8m +
Engine: Suzuki DT225
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polwart
This is NOT true. The definition of a ship does not require it to be registerred or opperated commercially.
Under the MERCHANT shipping act it does!!!

Which is why the judge made his ruling.

"LORD PHILIPS OF WORTH MATRAVERS CJ, giving the judgment of the court, said that the relevant provisions, as the title "Merchant Shipping" suggested, were primarily aimed at shipping as a trade or business"
__________________
codprawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18 December 2005, 09:25   #44
Member
 
Country: UK - Wales
Town: swansea
Boat name: Too Blue
Make: BLANK
Length: 8m +
Engine: Suzuki DT225
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJL

Section 58(1) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 states that the section applies "to the master of, or any seaman employed in, a ship which" is UK registered or in UK waters. The definition of master "includes every person (except a pilot) having command or charge of a ship". So if a PWC is defined as a ship ("ship includes every description of vessel used in navigation"), then Mr Goodwin could be prosecuted under 58(2).
EMPLOYED in being the key word I believe.
__________________
codprawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18 December 2005, 10:06   #45
Member
 
Simon B's Avatar
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Leicester
Boat name: Vixen
Make: Ribcraft
Length: 6m +
Engine: Suzuki OB 175
MMSI: 235071839
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,621
This is an interesting thread, PWCs appear to be viewed differently possibly because they are relatively new. Essentially it is a craft capable of taking 1-3 people at high speeds over water. Have any endurance records been set yet? Before I google it I'd guess they had so with a little preparation they can and have undergone a voyage from A to B.

OK so if a solo yachtsman had smashed somones head in what would he get clobbered with? Whatever it is it should in the light of the above be similar with a PWC. As said previously by some of the lovers of a friend of mine size deosnt matter!
__________________
New boat is here, very happy!
Simon
www.luec.org
Simon B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18 December 2005, 14:11   #46
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Exmouth, Devon
Length: no boat
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 765
I'm not a big fan of red tape, but it really does pee me off when people wriggle out on technicalites.

I think the Court of Appeal interpretation of the section concerned is wrong.

The Act says "the master of, or any seaman employed in". As in all legal texts, the position of that comma is critical. I believe it actually means that the master does NOT have to be employed, he just is the master of the vessel.

In addition, s24 states "(1) With the exceptions specified in subsection (2) below, this Part applies only to ships which are sea-going ships and masters and seamen employed in sea-going ships.
(2) Those exceptions are sections 43, 46 to 52, 54, 55, 58, 61 to 68 and 69."

In addition, in the definitions it gives - "master" includes every person (except a pilot) having command or charge of a ship and, in relation to a fishing vessel, means the skipper;"

Note also that Keiron French was prosecuted under the same section for his unfortunate collision with an unlit buoy.

Although the judge has used the reduction argument (ie you wouldn't use the Act for a pedalo accident), a jet ski is a significant vessel. Otherwise it becomes a bit like saying the Road Traffic Act applies to HGVs but not motorbikes.

As regards sea-going, I recall someone posting here to say they could go cross-channel on their jetski.

Looks like his lawyer just did a bit of bedtime reading and thought he stood a chance of some more fees if he got a result (no doubt out of MCA funds - ie the public purse)

Overall though, as the ruling points out, it might have been easier just to prosecute under COLREGS which would have carried the same penalty.

Ultimately, I don't think anyone should be able to escape their responsibilities with regard to safety and collisions.
__________________
MikeCC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18 December 2005, 14:47   #47
Member
 
Country: UK - Wales
Town: swansea
Boat name: Too Blue
Make: BLANK
Length: 8m +
Engine: Suzuki DT225
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,791
Again it is a MERCHANT shipping act which applies to commercial vessels - if it was a coded PWC used for charter fair enough.

The ship has to be a registered vessel. it must also fly the Red Ensign!!!
__________________
codprawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18 December 2005, 14:59   #48
RIBnet admin team
 
Poly's Avatar
 
Country: UK - Scotland
Boat name: imposter
Make: FunYak
Length: 3m +
Engine: 2 stroke YAM 20 HP
MMSI: 235089819
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by codprawn
Again it is a MERCHANT shipping act which applies to commercial vessels - if it was a coded PWC used for charter fair enough.

The ship has to be a registered vessel. it must also fly the Red Ensign!!!

Please read the act as linked to in my previous email. Whilst the title of the act may suggest that there is a need for a vessel to be used in pursuit of a trade, there is no such requirement. It is quite simply FACTUALLY INACCURATE to continue claiming that the merchant shipping act only applies to coded/commercial vessels. It applies to ANY SHIP (defined several times above) BEING USED IN UK WATERS. Almost certainly most people on here with RIBs are included. It does NOT only apply to registerred vessels.

The legal argument is about what constitutes a SHIP not about whither the Ship is/was being used commercially.

NEIL
__________________
Poly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18 December 2005, 14:59   #49
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Winchester
Boat name: H2O
Make: Avon
Length: 4m +
Engine: 50hp Honda
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 78
The trap into which we fall....

Guys, as much as I admire you all ! (and believe me I do!) : all the argument will be flawed foir eternitry if you base it in English Law. I have worked on that side for 18 years! and believe me there is nothing which makes sense. Manslaughter!? Don't even go there, it is so very complicated that the Judge never understands it sufficiently well to explain it to the jury.
We need to exhort the horrendous law of the land to the sea: a mechnically propelled vehicle (will do nicely) and LICENCE its use!
I know it stinks but I did my RYA2 because I cared and it should be the way forward. Why should you be allowed to travel on the sea in something with an engine when you can't on land?>
I know you can chuck push bikes into the equation but you struggle with them on land so surfboards are always go to be a problem. I have seen people get away with the equivilant to murder on land so you are certainly not going to be able to avoid it at sea. Common sense will NEVER prevail! What you have to do is present facts in a way that a jury will belive you are right: if it is overturned later by Judges or a court of appeal it really doesn't count for much

It's the people who count!!#
H2O (matters!)
__________________
Steve Waters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18 December 2005, 15:33   #50
Member
 
Country: UK - Wales
Town: Southampton
Boat name: DynaMoHumm/ SRV/deja
Make: Avon8.4, 5.4 & 4.777
Length: 8m +
Engine: Cat3126 Yam 90 &70
MMSI: 42
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 6,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Waters
We need to exhort the horrendous law of the land to the sea: a mechnically propelled vehicle (will do nicely) and LICENCE its use!
I know it stinks but I did my RYA2 because I cared and it should be the way forward. Why should you be allowed to travel on the sea in something with an engine when you can't on land?>
It's the people who count!!#
H2O (matters!)
I'll buy a ticket for that train of thought and thats speaking as a water user and not a trainer
__________________

__________________
Here it comes again, I don't stand a chance
Soul possession, Got me in a trance
Pullin' me back to you - Deja Voodoo
Rogue Wave is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:06.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.