Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Dinghy sailors and canoeists to be subject to shipping laws

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Hillsborough, N.Ireland
    Posts
    68

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Warwickshire
    Posts
    107

    Default

    They gotta catch you first.
    I refuse to tip toe through life just arrive safely at death.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    North Devon
    Posts
    2,089

    Default

    If it keeps some of the idiots on Jet skis and Zapcats etc of the water then bring it on.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    161

    Default

    I really don't understand how anyone can see sense in labelling canoes and surfers in the same bracket as Jet-skis?! Surely its a very simple split of powered and un-powered? Of course there would be more complications regarding sail powered craft but surely its not impossible to classify these by length so that a tallship is controlled differently to a dinghy?!

    That said I actually struggle to see a situation where this would actually affect a responsibly canoeist or surfer anyway. It's not very clear what this law intails but the only change I could see is more liability for surfers if they brain a swimmer whilst riding a wave. Maybe someone can clarify this?

    Also "The change was initially prompted by pressure to reduce accidents involving reckless use of jet skis, which have caused nine deaths in the past ten years"
    9 deaths in 10 years doesn't seem like that much to me? Am I wrong.

    So I started this post with an opinion. By the time I had finished I have thoroughly talked myself through both sides and now have no idea what I think. Damn it.

    Instructor at Ember Survival

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Devon
    Posts
    182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paulsmith View Post
    If it keeps some of the idiots on Jet skis and Zapcats etc of the water then bring it on.
    Just like not everyone in a canoe is an idiot,by the same token neither is everyone on a jetski or a Zapcat.

    Unfortunately I have seen this attitude in one of my other hobbies where sport people are willing to sacrifice one branch of their sport,by which in this case I mean watersports.

    So what happens once they have licenced and knowing the way things work in this country eventually banned jetskis and zapcats. Who do you think they will look at next ????

    Yes it will be you!

    If this is true then all branches of watersport have to stick together or I can assure you that divided you will all fall.

    GS
    If at first you dont succeed ,pay someone who knows what they are doing

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Static View Post
    Also "The change was initially prompted by pressure to reduce accidents involving reckless use of jet skis, which have caused nine deaths in the past ten years"
    9 deaths in 10 years doesn't seem like that much to me? Am I wrong.

    So I started this post with an opinion. By the time I had finished I have thoroughly talked myself through both sides and now have no idea what I think. Damn it.
    It's 9 deaths but the accidents rarely kill, just maim - dont know the numbers but i'd expect it's at least 10X that number wounded.

    I can't see how the laws would affect us on jet skis in canoes or surfing? Doesn't it basically mean you can't drink and canoe which threatens to stop the little trips to a pub along the avon but i can't imagine police breathalising anyone!
    And that if you hurt someone you're responsible which kinda makes sense anyway.
    Or have i read it wrong?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Hebrides
    Posts
    3,254

    Default

    I have taken the time to scan through the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and as far as I can see there is nothing that should bother people using small boats responsibly.

    The inclusion of small craft in the definition of ships should (hopefully) make some less thoughtful users be more careful about what they do with them depending on the conditions surrounding their use.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Warwickshire
    Posts
    107

    Default

    erm...

    I refuse to tip toe through life just arrive safely at death.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    North yorkshire
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quercus View Post
    I have taken the time to scan through the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 and as far as I can see there is nothing that should bother people using small boats responsibly.

    The inclusion of small craft in the definition of ships should (hopefully) make some less thoughtful users be more careful about what they do with them depending on the conditions surrounding their use.

    Is this just a closing of a legal loophole in reaction to some slithery lawyer getting the successful prosecution a careless jet skier overturned, or is it being used to ensure all water users have to pass a test/have a license to be on the water? From the little I've found it looks to be the former, but wouldn't be surprised if we're heading for the later.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Buckland, Gloucestershire
    Posts
    688

    Default

    This wretched government isn't happy unless it's introducing three new laws every day. MAKES ME ANGRY!

    There... that's better...
    I'm at that difficult age... somewhere between birth and death.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Hebrides
    Posts
    3,254

    Default

    There is another thread that has highlighted this also and someone (sorry forgot who but thanks to them) has put this link to the consultation document

    Reading through that it would appear that the main concern is to close the loophole of a jet skier being able to get off for a very serious incident.

    The govt. prefered option of those proposed is not too bad and will not require the compulsory registration of craft but provides for the voluntary registration of small craft.
    However like many things it could be just the thin edge of the wedge if the proposed change does not live up to expectations. Plus the opportunity to extract a little more tax could then be there.

    If I've understood all the implications then one interesting aspect is that those involved in a collision or causing an incident are obligated under the Shipping act to render assistance and I think (have to check) there may well be penalties for failing to do so.
    So if a boat of any description causes a canoeist to overturn or get swamped they will have to render assistance or else we could report them under the act which seems quite a good idea to me.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    393

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Static View Post
    9 deaths in 10 years doesn't seem like that much to me? Am I wrong.
    9 deaths in 10 years is a lot if you either happen to be one of the dead ones or related to them! I would be annoyed if it was me

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Buckland, Gloucestershire
    Posts
    688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quercus View Post

    Reading through that it would appear that the main concern is to close the loophole of a jet skier being able to get off for a very serious incident.

    Maybe I'm not angry after all!
    I'm at that difficult age... somewhere between birth and death.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MountainDaze View Post
    9 deaths in 10 years is a lot if you either happen to be one of the dead ones or related to them! I would be annoyed if it was me
    Well no doubt 1 death in a million years is still upsetting to family but I was just saying, it didn't seem like enough to draw the governments attention, especially when compared to other causes of death. Of course it has to be taken in proportion to the amount of Jet-ski's on the water.

    Instructor at Ember Survival

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Devon
    Posts
    182

    Default

    Just a couple of statistics.

    Home and leisure accident report
    Key facts

    Accidental death
    Statistics for accidental deaths in the home
    are given on pages 5#7. During 1998:
    3,946 people died as a result of an
    accident in the home
    400 of these people were aged
    under 25.
    1,650 people died as a result of a fall
    649 people were accidentally poisoned
    by drugs
    356 people drowned, suffocated or
    choked on foreign bodies

    Just a few items,

    Best not to stay at home then,and I can definitely see a case for ladder licensing

    GS
    If at first you dont succeed ,pay someone who knows what they are doing

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Hebrides
    Posts
    3,254

    Default

    Interesting - but how many deaths or injuries were caused to third parties as a result of reckless use of a ladder?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    North yorkshire
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quercus View Post
    There is another thread that has highlighted this also and someone (sorry forgot who but thanks to them) has put this link to the consultation document
    Thanks for bringing that to over to this thread, I missed the other one.

    Reading through that it would appear that the main concern is to close the loophole of a jet skier being able to get off for a very serious incident.

    The govt. prefered option of those proposed is not too bad and will not require the compulsory registration of craft but provides for the voluntary registration of small craft.
    However like many things it could be just the thin edge of the wedge if the proposed change does not live up to expectations. Plus the opportunity to extract a little more tax could then be there.

    If I've understood all the implications then one interesting aspect is that those involved in a collision or causing an incident are obligated under the Shipping act to render assistance and I think (have to check) there may well be penalties for failing to do so.
    So if a boat of any description causes a canoeist to overturn or get swamped they will have to render assistance or else we could report them under the act which seems quite a good idea to me.
    I've read this and arrived at much the same conclusion as you. I do find some of the craft included in the example list pretty bizarre. Skim boards/boogie boards and the like are not going to make it on to any register anywhere if the register is only voluntary.

    A lot of the wording of this paper appears to be dealing with drugs and alcohol and their abuse. From which I deduce, maybe incorrectly, that Mr Goodwin had sunk a few tins before heading off on his jet ski. Even so, surely this whole thing stems from the judge/s of the appeal court not saying that the defendant was reckless and that doesn't change whether you class a jet ski as a ship or not - conviction stands!

    This proposed legislation brings registration and licensing very close and will cost us dearly as tax payers in setting it up and then as small craft users for registration etc.

    I'd hope that the BCU might represent paddlers, but they seem about as much use as a mermaid in a chorus line, unless you're trying to get to the Olympics, so I'll not be holding my breath.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    North yorkshire
    Posts
    128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Quercus View Post
    Interesting - but how many deaths or injuries were caused to third parties as a result of reckless use of a ladder?
    When was the last time you watched a Laurel and Hardy film?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Hebrides
    Posts
    3,254

    Default

    long time ago

  20. #20

    Default to much big bro

    i can see the future
    floating gatso cameras
    traffic wardens on pedlo,s
    disabled parking bouys

    i bumped into a steel hull ship in my inflatable kayak
    ripped a 30 foot gash in the ship ,kayak was fine
    preparation is everything--oh dear,where,s the

  21. #21
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Wargrave, Berkshire
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Don't see what the fuss is about ... International Colregs are very clear, in simple terms they apply if you are in charge of any vessel capable of being used for transport on water & that vessel is on the high seas or any navigable water connected with the high seas, e.g. Thames above Teddington, scottish lochs, unless modified by 'Special Rules', e.g. Water Ski areas or specific port clauses.

    The 'loophole' is that the Colregs currently cannot be applied to all vessels as there is a weak description of a 'vessel' in UK law. Rather than split hairs over what is and isn't a 'vessel' it's much more simple to call all craft 'vessels' [this stops the lawyers talking and racking up fees]. This would actually bring the UK into line with Internatonal maritime law. It's not a new law or anything of the sort, simply the press over egging what is in fact a clarification and tightening of an existing set of laws.

    This seems like a good thing to me as it 1. Means that everyone will be clearly responsible for their actions regardless of what they are in and 2. No one is going to get off due to a legal technicality if they screw up and there is an accident causing injury and/or damage.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •