PWC Conviction Appealed - Page 4

codprawn · 19 December 2005, 11:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Polwart

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.

Couldn't agree more!!!

MikeH · 19 December 2005, 11:49

That's right. In the first instance he pleaded guilty 'cos he knew he had been wrong "as master of the vessel". When it was pointed out that he probably wasn't a vessel then he went to appeal.

At the appeal the judge said he agreed that a jet ski wasn't a vessel as intended under section 58.

However under section 53 all craft (not just vessels) have to obey the COLREGS so he would have been guilty of failure to follow COLREGS. Same penalty as under 58.

Judge said should have been charged with the correct offence in the first place. I am sure he knows he was guilty and the lawyers were only appealling against the wrong charge being used.

Steve Waters · 19 December 2005, 12:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard B

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?

Thanks for the support Richard and you are right It is all to easy to get excited with various ideas and opinions but when it comes down to a loved one (or more) being killed by someone who not only has no respect but also doesn't really care then that is when people start shouting. If the only way to deal with incidents like this is to legislate then we must. Having said that very sadly the law is for those who obey it! (Look at speed limits!!) But at the very least there can be some punisment for those who transgress if the law covers their crime. If there is no legal recourse they get away with it.

Lawrence · 19 December 2005, 15:53

I certainly don't want to become a victim of some idiot in a jet-ski, speed boat, rib or whatever BUT I can't see that the answer to this situation (where an idiot has hurt someone in contravention of existing legislation) is more legislation.

Its already against the law to behave recklessly; if someone is prepared to act recklessly then I feel that licensing will make no difference to that individual's behaviour. If the possession of a licence turned all drivers into safe considerate people the roads would be a lot safer than they are.

It would mean a lot of time, effort and expense for a lot of people, for no benefit.

Nos4r2 · 19 December 2005, 21:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lawrence

I certainly don't want to become a victim of some idiot in a jet-ski, speed boat, rib or whatever BUT I can't see that the answer to this situation (where an idiot has hurt someone in contravention of existing legislation) is more legislation.

Its already against the law to behave recklessly; if someone is prepared to act recklessly then I feel that licensing will make no difference to that individual's behaviour. If the possession of a licence turned all drivers into safe considerate people the roads would be a lot safer than they are.

It would mean a lot of time, effort and expense for a lot of people, for no benefit.

Hear Hear.

codprawn · 19 December 2005, 21:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nos4r2

Hear Hear.

SNAP!!!

Richard B · 19 December 2005, 22:14

OK - so you know what the answer isn't.... but can you come up with a practical solution?

jwalker · 19 December 2005, 22:19

Lawrence already told you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lawrence

......(where an idiot has hurt someone in contravention of existing legislation) ......

Its already against the law to behave recklessly....

The appropriate response is in place already.

Richard B · 19 December 2005, 22:23

The appropriate response appears to be failing!

jwalker · 19 December 2005, 22:41

I agree someone appears to have fecked up but adding more law might confuse 'em even more.

codprawn · 19 December 2005, 22:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard B

The appropriate response appears to be failing!

It always does when people don't have any respect for the law!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4537174.stm

Would more laws have helped the poor little girl who was killed last week in London - I doubt it!!!

Jimbob · 20 December 2005, 08:36

What about ensuring that people go on a course e.g understand the Col regs,

If he had been keeping a good look out and a safe speed, would this have happened.

I realise that it is not necessary to go on a course, but most people do i think and may generate some monies for the training schools.

I know the mention of cars has been mentioned and the fact that you cannot drive without passing your tests. For such an expensive peice of equipment i figure it makes sense.

my view

DGR · 23 December 2005, 13:35

How can it be enforced?

People behaving irresponsibly and annoying other water users is always going to happen - and the easiest response (which I DON'T agree with) is banning them.

There needs to be some way of enforcing it, with a widely known and understood penalty system (like the fixed penalties on the road), rather than taking them to court and costing everyone a fortune. And more to the point, the irritating annoyances aren't acted upon, it's only when someone gets hurt that something is done.

I don't like the idea of more legislation any more than the next bloke, but how else can it be done?

D...

P.S. And it isn't only PWCs that don't follow the collregs......

Jimbob · 23 December 2005, 16:03

dont let people get insurance, without proof they have been on some training or something like that. I realise people could lie.

tcwozere · 23 December 2005, 20:54

They wouldn't have to lie, they just wouldn't bother getting insurance..

Registering, taxing, checking and loads of other stuff related to governing water based craft/sports has been talked about for decades, and will still be talked about in decades time.. If any form of legislation was introduced, it would be unworkable, and unenforceable..

jwalker · 23 December 2005, 22:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcwozere

They wouldn't have to lie, they just wouldn't bother getting insurance..

Registering, taxing, checking and loads of other stuff related to governing water based craft/sports has been talked about for decades, and will still be talked about in decades time.. If any form of legislation was introduced, it would be unworkable, and unenforceable..

Agreed, and, as usual, we're the ones who would have the inconvenience.

DGR · 24 December 2005, 10:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcwozere

They wouldn't have to lie, they just wouldn't bother getting insurance..

Registering, taxing, checking and loads of other stuff related to governing water based craft/sports has been talked about for decades, and will still be talked about in decades time.. If any form of legislation was introduced, it would be unworkable, and unenforceable..

You say that, but on the North Wales coast you have to register your PWC, prove that you have insurance, be datatagged, and have a registration number clearly displayed on their craft - and pay the launching fees etc. - before you can launch. All the local launching sites (caravan parks etc) seem to be operating the scheme alongside the council without too many problems. The council also produces a leaflet - which I think comes as part of the registration pack - which explains the collregs and the responsibilities of the operators to themselves and other water users.

However, all that means is that when someone starts acting the fool and makes a nuisance of themselves, you can identify the pillock (or at least their PWC) - but apart from getting a talking to from the Beach Patrol or the Harbourmaster, not a lot seems to happen - and BP and HM don't seem to have the authority to do much apart from giving a stern telling off.

There should be some way of enforcing it, a fine, or suspension of their usage permit if they continue to behave irresponsibly.

D...

P.S. I've just read that back, and it sounds really draconian. I don't know how else to deal with it though - and having had 3 near misses with errant jetskiers in 6 weeks this summer - I get the feeling that it's only a matter of time.........

tcwozere · 24 December 2005, 12:59

Where we are here, with 10 slipways between Warsash and Gosport, regulating pwc, (or any type of craft,) when launching would be nigh on impossible.. Daedalus slip during the summer can have upto 100 cars/4x4's using it.. Plus if it was regulated, then every accessible piece of beach would be used to avoid paying.. One way to stop people being asshole's, would be to have a minimum 5k fine, and your craft confiscated if your causing a nuisance..

neilfs · 02 January 2006, 00:27

As a PWC user, I find it annoying that the authorities seem powerless to stop the idiots.

Equally, if PWC's had not been invented, the next cheapest, smallest, fast craft would have been the problem. You will always get mindless idiots, Personal Watercraft seem to attract more than its fair share - second hand PWC are cheap, they are brightly coloured and small so can be stored in a garage or back garden.

The media does little to help, no so long ago a advert for beers showed someone running a PWC at speed onto a beach to show off.

The ruling that a PWC was a vessel was being celebrated by most PWC users, now that has been overturned it does nothing to help any water user.

I find it very annoying I cannot enter certain harbours because I am using a PWC - however someone who has just purchased their first motor boat and has never been on the water before can go places I can't without any qualifications. Maybe such bans should be limited to problem users, rather than everyone.

Personally I don't care what they call a PWC - vessel, ship or not, what I care about is the authorities being able to deal with the idiots (on any craft) - at present they seem unable to do so.

The appeal notes are flawed - from what is written they went to as much effort of examining just a single photo and drew their incorrect conclusions from that. Ie can items be stowed away - they concluded from a photo that it wasn't possible - I have over 100 litres of storage in my PWC.

The opposite is true for a standup, they have none, but as the craft involved in the Weymouth incident wasn't a standup I hope they weren't basing their decisions on a photo of one.

They have made many assumptions all the way through the document I read, for instance with SSR registrations - I've never seen a requirement when purchasing a PWC to register it on the Small Ships Register - my PWC is registered, that was so it could be used in Spanish waters.

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

Bottom line, I don't care what they call a PWC, or any small boat - what I care about is my safety, and I'd like to see the authorities dealing with the idiots regardless of what craft they are using.

Charging at launch sites and bans clearly don't work, they simply stand in the way of people who use these craft properely and set a dangerous precedent for future simular charging etc for other craft types also.