Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
 
Old 18 December 2005, 17:32   #51
Member
 
Country: UK - Scotland
Make: HumberOceanOffshore
Length: 8m +
Engine: Volvo KAD300/DPX
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,962
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!
Pray, tell me what that will achieve.

Quote:
I know it stinks but I did my RYA2 because I cared and it should be the way forward.
I did my advanced certificate because I cared...and your point is?

Quote:
Why should you be allowed to travel on the sea in something with an engine when you can't on land?>
Why should you have to have a licence for a land vehicle when you don't for the sea?

Quote:
Common sense will NEVER prevail!
I believe it mostly does.

For me, the freedom of the sea is the joy of using it. More legislation, I can live without.

If you are a law person and use arguments like this, no wonder it's a mess.
__________________

__________________
JW.
jwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18 December 2005, 17:54   #52
Member
 
Richard B's Avatar
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Devon
Boat name: White Ice
Make: Ranieri
Length: 5m +
Engine: Suzuki 115hp
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,015
Steve, your arguments are some of the most pragmatic, balanced and realistic as I've ever seen.

In an ideal world, the responsible user of powered craft has nothing to fear from licensing, only the irresponsible will suffer. Unfortunately, a sensible implementation would be unlikely!
__________________

Richard B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18 December 2005, 18:09   #53
Member
 
Country: UK - Scotland
Make: HumberOceanOffshore
Length: 8m +
Engine: Volvo KAD300/DPX
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,962
__________________
JW.
jwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18 December 2005, 18:12   #54
Member
 
Richard B's Avatar
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Devon
Boat name: White Ice
Make: Ranieri
Length: 5m +
Engine: Suzuki 115hp
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,015
I don't think that the current situation, where irresponsible skippers get away with either lenient sentences, or winning appeals and making an ass of the law, are at all funny.

Will you be laughing at the next death?
Richard B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18 December 2005, 18:16   #55
Member
 
Country: UK - Scotland
Make: HumberOceanOffshore
Length: 8m +
Engine: Volvo KAD300/DPX
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,962
Ooooowww!

I can see how you relate to Steve's logic.

__________________
JW.
jwalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18 December 2005, 18:18   #56
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Exmouth, Devon
Length: no boat
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 765
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!!!
Within UK waters, a "small ship" does not have to be registered and does not have to fly the Red Ensign.

Where does it say in the Act that it MUST be a commercial ship for the Act to apply?

And what difference does it make if the PWC is chartered? The person in charge is still 'master' of the ship.

As Neil (Polwart) says, the Act can be applied to any ship in UK waters.

Perhaps a simple notice on every slipway stating responsibilities and penalties would be a good start.
__________________
MikeCC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18 December 2005, 19:04   #57
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 MikeCC
Within UK waters, a "small ship" does not have to be registered and does not have to fly the Red Ensign.

Where does it say in the Act that it MUST be a commercial ship for the Act to apply?

And what difference does it make if the PWC is chartered? The person in charge is still 'master' of the ship.

As Neil (Polwart) says, the Act can be applied to any ship in UK waters.

Perhaps a simple notice on every slipway stating responsibilities and penalties would be a good start.
This is yet another example of a law that has many different ways of interprating it - hence the bloke got off!!!

As the judge said


"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"

I will grant you that it MAY be possible to say that the merchant shipping act does not only apply to merchant ships - but that is down to the vague way in which it is laid out!!!

Often it is acknowledged that laws are never perfect and they take into account the original meaning or intent. Looking at the rest of the Merchant shipping act it clearly applies to MERCHANT vessels.

By declaring a PWC a ship you also have to declare a surfboard or a rubber dinghy as a ship which as the judge quite rightly said is ludicrous.

It seems to me that the act would apply to a registered vessel but of course registrationis NOT compulsory for small craft - why I wonder? Could it be they aren't really ships???
__________________
codprawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 December 2005, 02:38   #58
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Kent
Boat name: Cygnet
Make: Humber
Length: 5m +
Engine: Suzuki 70hp 4* outbo
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon B
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?

So a PWC is a Toy as they do not go on "Voyages” & as for endurance records I think this bloke takes a lot of beating!

Graham "G-Force" Hicks

Having meat the guy he is unbelievable! This 40-year-old, from Peterborough, became the first person to make a return jetski trip between Land's End and the Isles of Scilly in 2001, he also completed the fastest journey from England to Holland and back on a Jet Ski.

Now it they are not "Voyages" I don't know what is!
__________________
Swanley Sub-Aqua Club
Jackwabbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 December 2005, 04:49   #59
Member
 
MikeH's Avatar
 
Country: UK - England
Town: blackburn
Boat name: Hornet
Make: XS Ribs
Length: 6m +
Engine: Optimax 150
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 55
It was the MCGA wot got it wrong

Sorry if this has come up before but the guy was charged under the wrong section. They charged him under section 58 which is about the duties of the master of a ship..

Here is the full appeal

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2005/3184.html

In section 45 the Appeal judge says

Quote:

It is clearly arguable that this extension of the ambit of the relevant section embraces breach of duty in relation to the navigation of a vessel, and Mr Teare so submitted. This is not, however, an issue that we have to resolve having regard to our finding that section 58 had no application on the facts of this case. We would simply observe that failure to comply with the International Regulations for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea is made an offence by the Merchant Shipping (Distress Signals and Prevention of Collisions) Regulations 1996 and that the offence carries the same maximum penalty as section 58. Where allegations are made of conduct which infringes the Collision Regulations it would seem simpler and more appropriate to charge this offence rather than to allege breach of section 58.
If he had been charged with failure to comply with Colregs he would have pleaded guilty and everyone would have understood what the position is. Now we'll have to wait for another similar incident before this can be established in everyone's minds.
__________________
MikeH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19 December 2005, 07:23   #60
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 MikeH
Here is the full appeal

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2005/3184.html

In section 45 the Appeal judge says
Thanks for that - very interesting. I am currently of the opinion that the appeal judge was correct. However I am also of the opinion that the defendant was in the wrong and should have been prosecuted - just not under that section of that act.
__________________
Poly 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 10:18.


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