Jump to content

Health And Safety


Recommended Posts

The cancellation of confirmed bookings by Richardsons together with Hoseasones regarding solo helmsman and single parent families stating in their catalogue that they are unable to accept bookings in this category has caused not only disappointment but a departure from that which has been considered the norm up until the present day.

This decision does not seem to be have made on the statistics which were referred to earlier on a previous thread or indeed on data has been updated by the latest Annual Marine Incident Statistics dated April 2016 to March 2017

Notable issues are:

• Boat fires continue to remain at a low level demonstrated in previous years. All boats involved in fires held current Boat Safety Scheme Certificates

 • The fire boating related statistics suggest that when viewed over several years, the statistics continue to demonstrate a fairly static position

• It should be noted that there were five fatalities relating to incidents from boat use, two from Carbon Monoxide poisoning from a petrol engine exhaust and the remaining deaths were primarily natural causes

• The majority of incidents where hospital treatment was required continue to be attributed to embarkation and disembarkation with an increase in numbers in comparison with the previous year

It is also interesting to note that the number of persons reported as requiring hospital treatment for the period stood at 30. A number last seen in 2010. Other years being considerably lower.

One can expect the figures for the period April 2017 to March 2018 to be published in May 2018.

I would like to refer to a post made by JohnK on Feb 12th:

I wonder if it’s partly down to the indemnity insurance of the boat yard. 
Since we seem do have now adopted US litigation laws could someone who had an accident sue the boatyard because they hired a boat to an unsuitable party?

What is an unsuitable party? Someone with mobility issues, someone who is considered not old enough – a minor? Someone on their own, a solo helm, who, challenged by weather and tidal conditions is unable to handle a given situation. Finally a party who had been given insufficient instruction from a boatyard who employed an individual who was unable to offer a suitable or meaningful introduction as to the basic skills and methods required.  

If you, or your party suffered life changing injuries from the actions of an individual at the helm of a hire boat primarily brought about by inexperience, who would you pursue? The hirer who more than likely has limited financial means, or perhaps the hire boat company, or even the agent who sold you the holiday.

What has been witnessed is the recognition of accountability. That by the actions of Richardsons and Hoseasones in this particular matter would seem to be a reaction to circumstances experienced by themselves or other hire boat companies not necessarily limited to the Broads. There may well have been an incident in another part of the UK.

A reaction which not only affected future bookings but bookings which had been confirmed. A course of action unheard of within the Broads hireboat industry with the exception of that which we have currently experienced with regard to adverse weather conditions . Even so there is always the exception and even during the hard weather which we have experienced over the last few days boats are still being hired out.

Historically over the years single parents and their children have enjoyed the holiday, as indeed has the loan hirer.

Like many of you I have been on these rivers for many years. I cannot remember during all these years a specific incident specifically  involving these two seemingly innocuous parties where they caused concern to their selves or others.

One can speculate as to the motivation, the reasoning behind the decisions made not only by Richardsons  and Hoseasones but by other boat yards as well.

There were two points that Richardsons made which in my opinion were very relevant. That of providing a duty of care towards their customers and staff and in this respect one might like to look at so called trial run.

In itself the trial run is a misnomer. It is not a trial, it is not an evaluation of an individual’s ability to handle a boat and that individual either fails or passes, it is primarily instruction.

Several years ago this instruction was somewhat limited; it was quite literally “Have you got a minute George. Can you show Mr Smith round his boat and take him up river for a couple of minutes” and ten minutes later with a cheery wave Mr Smith was on his way. Health and Safety, was unheard of as indeed the compensation culture which has become a part of our lives.

When you consider that the average time that could be spent on the “Trial Run” may well be in excess of 45 minutes. With shall we say 50 boats on a turn around that amounts to 2250 minutes – just over 37 hours, man hours of instruction. All of which has to take place in a limited period of time. In general the hirers start to arrive at midday up to 5pm or just after so it is not unreasonable to say that the yard has five hours to complete the instruction. That equates, if I have done my sums correctly, to 7 or 8 instructors or trial run drivers working at capacity all afternoon. A difficult ask!

Of course it does not work quite like that. The first question the trial run driver asks is “have you been on the broads before”. If the answer is yes then that will be followed by “do you need me to take you up river “ and if the answer is no then all that is required is a quick run through the boat to acquaint the hirer with that particular craft, two minutes to do the paper work, help cast the boat off and then move onto the next trial run.

Would that stand up in a court of law, in the event of a fatality, of an incident of life changing injury?

There is no audit trail. No substantive documentation. It is simply word of mouth. Is that sufficient to satisfy a court that reasonable care been demonstrated?

Another factor which could be considered relevant is that of the other members of the party. For example six adults and only one receives instruction. It is impossible or rather unreasonable to expect that each crew member receives the same. It would therefore suggest that the tradition of “see one, do one, teach one” takes precedence over the official instruction.

How does this relate to the single helm or indeed the one parent helm? I find this difficult to understand when it could be explained that the single helm, the single parent is a person of considerable experience. But how do they convince a representative of the hire company based on the relatively calm waters seen on the northern rivers compared with that which may be experienced elsewhere.

It would seem that there are companies who are comfortable with the procedures and disciplines which they have put in place and are pleased to welcome the solo helm and single parent up until that time where circumstances or pressure from an authority dictates otherwise.

Indeed it may not happen, or they may be obliged to introduce additional procedures and safeguards to be put in place. If that is the case it may be the opportunity for the other companies to revisit their position on disallowing the single parent and loan helmsman.

It is supposition on my part to suggest that there has been an incident on the broads or indeed elsewhere which has prompted a reaction but if this proves subsequently to be the case then we may expect a substantial change in the manner in which the trial run is carried out and documented. A procedure which may well be applied to the private sector as well.

Andrew

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what about the Stag/Hen party who arrive with boxes of beer

on trolleys from Roys/Lathams and may already have had a few

whilst awaiting the boat's readiness? Dancing on the cabin roofs

as soon as they arrive and causing mayhem because they can't

moor outside the pub due to the moorings being full already. One

guy walked out the rear door of their hire boat for a 'jimmy riddle'

and went straight into the river and couldn't get out because he was

so pi**ed. If it hadn't been for friends of ours being on their boat, he

would have drowned. He did stop breathing after he was rescued but

fortunately the paramedics had arrived by then. This is not an isolated

incidence either, having witnessed several of those over the last few

years, but it is OK to hire to these people? I know which I think are safer.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am aware of an incident whereby 1st time hirers (a couple) collided with a moored holiday boat in the yard allegedly causing pain to the solo occupant (a seasoned hirer awaiting crew). The injured party contacted a no win no fee solicitor, who I believe are persuing the hire company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, BuffaloBill said:

So what about the Stag/Hen party who arrive with boxes of beer

on trolleys from Roys/Lathams and may already have had a few

whilst awaiting the boat's readiness? Dancing on the cabin roofs

as soon as they arrive and causing mayhem because they can't

moor outside the pub due to the moorings being full already. One

guy walked out the rear door of their hire boat for a 'jimmy riddle'

and went straight into the river and couldn't get out because he was

so pi**ed. If it hadn't been for friends of ours being on their boat, he

would have drowned. He did stop breathing after he was rescued but

fortunately the paramedics had arrived by then. This is not an isolated

incidence either, having witnessed several of those over the last few

years, but it is OK to hire to these people? I know which I think are safer.

 

"Dancing on the roof as soon as they have arrived" should and could have been dealt with by the hire company and to my mind their behaviour was an indication as to what was likely to be expected in the future. However some save their antics for later and is outside the remit of the boatyard.

Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Londonlad1985 said:

I am aware of an incident whereby 1st time hirers (a couple) collided with a moored holiday boat in the yard allegedly causing pain to the solo occupant (a seasoned hirer awaiting crew). The injured party contacted a no win no fee solicitor, who I believe are persuing the hire company.

A practice I feel may well be copied by others.

Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There must be something very specific behind this.

To me, hiring to a solo hirer is a safer bet, because it is less likely that they have not done some sort of boating before, unlike many multiple member crews, many of whom have no regard for the risks involved, as seen in the number who don’t even use the lifejackets that have been provided free of charge.

In fact; let’s consider an extreme; if a solo hirer actually had some sort of RYA certification, proving their experience, would they still not be able to hire the same boat that could be hired to a completely novice crew?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PastorsDayOff said:

There must be something very specific behind this.

To me, hiring to a solo hirer is a safer bet, because it is less likely that they have not done some sort of boating before, unlike many multiple member crews, many of whom have no regard for the risks involved, as seen in the number who don’t even use the lifejackets that have been provided free of charge.

In fact; let’s consider an extreme; if a solo hirer actually had some sort of RYA certification, proving their experience, would they still not be able to hire the same boat that could be hired to a completely novice crew?

Sadly today, an exception to the single hire policy could not be made by an individual it would require a written policy with measurable qualifications e.g RYA PB2, "I've hired 10 times before" I doubt would be sufficient. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Andrew is quite right to post his concerns about this.

I have re - read Richardsons' conditions of hire and they now say, in clause 2, that there must be two persons over 18 in each party. So they have indeed, fallen into line with the conditions of Hoseasons. They also say in clause 11, significantly, that they are not responsible for damage, etc, to the boat whilst it is "in your charge". 

So where do we go from here? Is the boatyard now to be held to blame by ambulance chasers every time some Nautical Embolism * decides to crowd it all up the bank?

In my opinion, this revolves around the fact that in GB, there is no legal requirement for a master's ticket for a pleasure craft on inland or coastal water, although they are available through the RYA and most recommended.

So in the absence of a paper qualification, how is the boatyard to define the experience of its customer? The way it always has done, is the best for me.

 

* Nautical Embolism - A clot between the tiller and the mainsheet.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting you could buy a boat never having been on the water take it out and do untold damage, so who could be sued?

The seller, you, the insurance company presuming you had it?

I see this as an introduction of a new type insurance if you want to hire ANY boat.

Cynic yes I am.

Buy a car now and the amount of upselling involved is amazing.

Alloy wheel damage, key, depreciation if written off, PPi, I was even offered insurance against the paint fading told them the deal was off if they expected the risk of paint fading in 3 years.

paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

I think Andrew is quite right to post his concerns about this.

I have re - read Richardsons' conditions of hire and they now say, in clause 2, that there must be two persons over 18 in each party. So they have indeed, fallen into line with the conditions of Hoseasons. They also say in clause 11, significantly, that they are not responsible for damage, etc, to the boat whilst it is "in your charge". 

So where do we go from here? Is the boatyard now to be held to blame by ambulance chasers every time some Nautical Embolism * decides to crowd it all up the bank?

In my opinion, this revolves around the fact that in GB, there is no legal requirement for a master's ticket for a pleasure craft on inland or coastal water, although they are available through the RYA and most recommended.

So in the absence of a paper qualification, how is the boatyard to define the experience of its customer? The way it always has done, is the best for me.

 

* Nautical Embolism - A clot between the tiller and the mainsheet.

I would really like to know what event "triggered" this new policy as "The way it always has been done" has seemed to work very well for a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would really like to know what event "triggered" this new policy as "The way it always has been done" has seemed to work very well for a long time.


I’d guess changes in the legal system.
Lawyers didn’t used to be allowed to advertise I think.
No win no fee is a relatively new thing in the uk.
In the dark and distant past people used to be responsible for their own actions. But not anymore. I’m an idiot and did a stupid thing used to be my fault but now I can sue Joe Bloggs because he didn’t check whether I was an idiot or whether I’d do a stupid thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, JohnK said:

 


I’d guess changes in the legal system.
Lawyers didn’t used to be allowed to advertise I think.
No win no fee is a relatively new thing in the uk.
In the dark and distant past people used to be responsible for their own actions. But not anymore. I’m an idiot and did a stupid thing used to be my fault but now I can sue Joe Bloggs because he didn’t check whether I was an idiot or whether I’d do a stupid thing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I agree and I would imagine that one of the first publicised instances of someone being an idiot and then suing led to coffee cup lids being labelled "contents may be hot".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Philosophical said:

I agree and I would imagine that one of the first publicised instances of someone being an idiot and then suing led to coffee cup lids being labelled "contents may be hot". 

Do you remember "The poodle in the microwave"?

There was a woman in America who was in the habit of putting her little dog in the oven with the door open, to dry it out after its bath. When she bought a new microwave she did the same thing, and frazzled the dog!

The story had it that she successfully sued the manufacturers as there was no label, to say she should not put a live dog in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you remember "The poodle in the microwave"?
There was a woman in America who was in the habit of putting her little dog in the oven with the door open, to dry it out after its bath. When she bought a new microwave she did the same thing, and frazzled the dog!
The story had it that she successfully sued the manufacturers as there was no label, to say she should not put a live dog in it.


I used to like those stories.

My favourite was a guy had a beware of the dog sign. He crossed out dog and wrote Siberian tiger. A burger broke in and was mauled by a Siberian tiger. He sued the house owner because he didn’t have a proper sign and wouldn’t have burgled the house if he believed there really was a Siberian tiger inside.

True? Who knows?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The American who put his mobile home in cruise control to make a cup of whilst driving on the highway crashed!!! but he successfully sued the manufacturer of the mobile home and maybe the engine manufacturer as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I'm as anti formal boating qualification as the next man, and maybe woman, I do question the person who blows a quarter of a million on a plush bling-boat, a boat weighing many tons, capable of thirty five miles an hour over a foul tide, and who blasts off down the River Yare because that's what the salesman did. Anyone who regularly uses the Yare will at one time or another have suffered the wash from a passing t***t with no brains and a new boat, it does happen! It's times like that when I do question whether there shouldn't be some form of qualification before such idiots are let loose with their new toy! A few years ago a highly polished, very new looking three decker came through the Lock at Oulton Broad, despite the Broad being crowded, it being Oulton Regatta, the maniac opened up and shot off up the Broad, arghhhhh, total disregard for the rule of the road and the consequence of his wash!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JennyMorgan said:

Whilst I'm as anti formal boating qualification as the next man, and maybe woman, I do question the person who blows a quarter of a million on a plush bling-boat, a boat weighing many tons, capable of thirty five miles an hour over a foul tide, and who blasts off down the River Yare because that's what the salesman did. Anyone who regularly uses the Yare will at one time or another have suffered the wash from a passing Twit with no brains and a new boat, it does happen! It's times like that when I do question whether there shouldn't be some form of qualification before such idiots are let loose with their new toy! A few years ago a highly polished, very new looking three decker came through the Lock at Oulton Broad, despite the Broad being crowded, it being Oulton Regatta, the maniac opened up and shot off up the Broad, arghhhhh, total disregard for the rule of the road and the consequence of his wash!

It is not a yachting qualification that is required to stop this: an IQ test would be more appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Philosophical said:

It is not a yachting qualification that is required to stop this: an IQ test would be more appropriate.

Unless the useless erhem has just won the lottery he must surely be reasonably bright enough to have earned the dosh! I could mention a nouveau millionaire who lives besides Oulton Broad, bought himself a rather tasty sports cruiser, shot off his newly acquired mooring and smacked into the side of a boat moored to a buoy some hundred yards away. The next day he demanded that the harbour master move the mooring buoy! 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I like the idea of mandatory qualifications.
RYA powerboat levels 1 & 2 can be done in a day and don’t cost much.
For the Broads perhaps the first handover to a new hirer could be formalised with a certificate to prove you at least understand the basics. That might solve a lot of the potential litigation stuff too. As a boat owner perhaps the BA toll could require a nominated person to be qualified.
I get that for the majority of people that isn’t required but wouldn’t it be a price worth paying to improve safety and enjoyment for others? I understand it would be easy to bypass and difficult to police but don’t we need to start somewhere?

At least on the Broads you can be fairly confident someone on the boat has shown they can steer it and it has insurance and a BSS. On the sea it’s mad. Buy a fast boat or jet ski no experience necessary, no insurance necessary, no maintenance on said floaty thing necessary. Again, not necessary for the majority but some of the madness you see in coastal waters really needs something done about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, JohnK said:

Personally, I like the idea of mandatory qualifications.
RYA powerboat levels 1 & 2 can be done in a day and don’t cost much.
For the Broads perhaps the first handover to a new hirer could be formalised with a certificate to prove you at least understand the basics. That might solve a lot of the potential litigation stuff too. As a boat owner perhaps the BA toll could require a nominated person to be qualified.
I get that for the majority of people that isn’t required but wouldn’t it be a price worth paying to improve safety and enjoyment for others? I understand it would be easy to bypass and difficult to police but don’t we need to start somewhere?

At least on the Broads you can be fairly confident someone on the boat has shown they can steer it and it has insurance and a BSS. On the sea it’s mad. Buy a fast boat or jet ski no experience necessary, no insurance necessary, no maintenance on said floaty thing necessary. Again, not necessary for the majority but some of the madness you see in coastal waters really needs something done about it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand the current position with some yards is that there must be at least 1 person over 18 on board, even if that 1 person had RYA Yacht Master or A Commercial Captains Ticket they would still not be allowed to hire.

Until we really understand the root problem we are trying to correct it is difficult to introduce testing and certification that will be effective, I also fear that testing or qualification would seriously affect the bookings for hire craft, hence the importance of getting it right. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

For details of our Guidelines, please take a look at the Terms of Use here.