Dont Drink And Navigate

[dom]

5 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

I do not for one second dispute that, but I wonder how many of the 20 to 40 of those over a period of 20 years, were drunk WHILST helming. 

It's a long time ago now, but from what I remember of things, I think most involved a completely drunk crew, someone entering the water (either deliberately or by accident) and either coming into contact with props, or drowning unnoticed by the rest of the crew - so not necessarily a drunk helm, but invariably the lack of a sober and alert crew member. It was around the same time that all male crews started to become really frowned upon and I suspect this played a part in their being forbidden by most yards, as the worst offenders tended to be all male crews.

There was no MAIB report for the last drowning on the Broads (apparently they "carried out office-based enquiries"), but I suspect the helm was under the influence of drink or drugs.

 

 

[Vaughan]

2 hours ago, Meantime said:

I think you're just baiting now Vaughan. So in the words of the Dragons.  I'm out of this discussion. 

Oh dear! 

Please don't duck out now, since you are the one who says" this should serve as a warning to us all".

I feel sorry for Hylander, who posted a link to Youtube in all innocence and now look what has happened.

 

 

 

 

[MauriceMynah]

Yes Dom, you have kindly made my point. The original post was about drinking and helming. In reality  the helmsperson is the safest person on board, drunk or sober.  I am not condoning drink driving on boats but would argue that it is no way as dangerous as has been suggested.  

Sure, the idiot cruising from the Isle of Wight deserves all he gets, but it's  no reason to start over reacting, and looking at the Broads safety rules. A boating holiday is, within reason,  a safe holiday. When common sense is left at home then there will be consequences, but we should avoid spoiling many peoples holidays because of the few prats one finds.

[dom]

26 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

Sure, the idiot cruising from the Isle of Wight deserves all he gets, but it's  no reason to start over reacting, and looking at the Broads safety rules.

I think navigating the Broads under any significant amount of alcohol is ill-advised. I suspect alcohol played a role in the last drowning, but I doubt a specific alcohol limit would have had any influence on the victim. That case aside, there's nothing to really suggest a significant need for further legislation - the existing bylaws already have sensible clauses.

The IOW case does however show a clear need for a specific alcohol limit for private individuals helming offshore. I can't help but wonder whether there ought to be a training requirement for offshore night navigation too. It'd be interesting to know if he had Day Skipper, Yachtmaster, etc. I suspect from the behaviour probably not.

[marshman]

Dear, oh dear, oh dear! You lot are enough to drive anyone to drink!

You don't need the BA to shut the Broads down, and leave it to the birds, you lot can almost manage that on your own!

I suppose it must be the weather - I cannot see anything different or indeed worse, than it was in its heyday - ask Vaughan!! I suppose one difference is that people now take it on board from the supermarket but I do think it just shows some people perhaps have nothing better to do. My guess is its changed very little over the years and not worth the discussion or paying people to perhaps try and enforce it. How on earth could you even begin to enforce it at sea. 

If it ain't broke, don't bother to fix it - its bound to be reflected in tolls and all to what end? 

A lot of not a lot at at all!!

[dom]

15 minutes ago, marshman said:

How on earth could you even begin to enforce it at sea.

The same way fishery, import regulation, immigration and current commercial alcohol limits are enforced now - random stop and inspection. Obviously, the main point is the deterrent effect though. If it was specifically illegal, it may have caused the helmsman in this case to reconsider his actions, before he caused someone life changing injuries.

 

[RumPunch]

The day I'm stopped from have A  drink on my boat is the day I sell it and leave Norfolk

[rightsaidfred]

Any law or legislation is only as good as its enforcement, the amount of drink/drug driving is still significantly high despite strong enforcement, waterborne it is only likely to be enforced after an incident, any change in legislation is highly unlikely to have any impact on those peoples  who's behaviour is a major problem when there is very little chance they will be caught.

There is the problem now days that to many want to legislate everything in life to the point where we are no longer responsible for or able to make personal choices, as with unrealistic speed limits on the roads for many this leads to legislation fatigue with a disregard for even sensible regulation.

Fred

[Smoggy]

4 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

as with unrealistic speed limits on the roads

Are there speed limits? When did they come in?

[floydraser]

No need for any new rules or regulations, it's just a lively discussion on forum somewhere; just relax.

Back to the main topic: it says there were 8 on board and some said they wouldn't have got in a car with him. So he must have been the dominant force and probably none of them were sober or strong enough to stand up to him.

[Meantime]

20 minutes ago, rightsaidfred said:

Any law or legislation is only as good as its enforcement,

That is not strictly true, you have to factor in the deterrent effect. Along with new legislation normally comes minimum sentencing guidelines. If you knew there was a legal limit for helming on the Broads and exceeding that limit could be a fine ranging from £1,000 to £5,000 that might be a deterrent.

If I drink two and a half pints I know I could still safely drive my car home, but I also know I'd be over the limit and I don't, but why? The chances of actually being stopped by the Police are quite remote, but still I don't. On the off chance I did get stopped I know I would lose my license and get a fine, that's deterrent number one. Then there's the chance I'm driving home and someone pulls out of a side turning without looking. The accident isn't my fault but I'm automatically to blame because if I'm over the limit I shouldn't have been on the road in the first place. Then there's the insurance situation. If I'm involved in an incident and found to be over the limit, whether I cause the accident or not, my insurance will only cover third parties, not my own damage. The primary legislation is the trigger for so many other deterrents all of which ensure I don't take the risk of driving over the limit. Without the primary legislation the insurance company wouldn't be able to put such clauses in place.

 

 

[grendel]

1 hour ago, rightsaidfred said:

unrealistic speed limits on the roads

I have to agree, when I was first driving between ashford and canterbury, the 15 mile journey would take 20 minutes, and it was a 60mph A road all the way, with the new speed limits thay have introduced it now takes 40 minutes and there are about 2 miles which are 'national speed limit' and now they say the pollution is higher- well no doubt because everyone is speeding up and slowing down the whole way, its a 40mph limit until about 5 miles from canterbury, then 50 / 40 for the next 5 miles

[rightsaidfred]

1 hour ago, Meantime said:

That is not strictly true, you have to factor in the deterrent effect. Along with new legislation normally comes minimum sentencing guidelines. If you knew there was a legal limit for helming on the Broads and exceeding that limit could be a fine ranging from £1,000 to £5,000 that might be a deterrent.

If I drink two and a half pints I know I could still safely drive my car home, but I also know I'd be over the limit and I don't, but why? The chances of actually being stopped by the Police are quite remote, but still I don't. On the off chance I did get stopped I know I would lose my license and get a fine, that's deterrent number one. Then there's the chance I'm driving home and someone pulls out of a side turning without looking. The accident isn't my fault but I'm automatically to blame because if I'm over the limit I shouldn't have been on the road in the first place. Then there's the insurance situation. If I'm involved in an incident and found to be over the limit, whether I cause the accident or not, my insurance will only cover third parties, not my own damage. The primary legislation is the trigger for so many other deterrents all of which ensure I don't take the risk of driving over the limit. Without the primary legislation the insurance company wouldn't be able to put such clauses in place.

 

 

Agreed but that only applies to people who react responsibly not those that have no disregard.

Fred

[dom]

2 hours ago, floydraser said:

Back to the main topic: it says there were 8 on board and some said they wouldn't have got in a car with him. So he must have been the dominant force and probably none of them were sober or strong enough to stand up to him.

I'd assume he must be a man of substantial personal means as presumably he must have just walked away from an avoidable 1/4 million or so loss by selling the boat on to someone else - assuming it was insured in the first place. His architecture business has £2m in assets. I notice he's also named the boat after himself. To my mind, that all adds up to someone who's probably far from timid. You can just imagine how ebullient he'd be after a skinful, so no great surprise if others didn't question him. It's got all the classic traits you tend to see in marine incidents and the only positive is that it could very easily have turned out much worse.

On an unrelated note, I'm not sure I'd want to be at sea in that Sealine S330 in anything other than calm conditions. The transom freeboard looks like it'd be lethal in a decent following sea of any size. I'm amazed it achieved RCD B rating.

[Happy]

14 minutes ago, dom said:

I'd assume he must be a man of substantial personal means as presumably he must have just walked away from an avoidable 1/4 million or so loss by selling the boat on to someone else - assuming it was insured in the first place. His architecture business has £2m in assets. I notice he's also named the boat after himself. To my mind, that all adds up to someone who's probably far from timid. You can just imagine how ebullient he'd be after a skinful, so no great surprise if others didn't question him. It's got all the classic traits you tend to see in marine incidents and the only positive is that it could very easily have turned out much worse.

On an unrelated note, I'm not sure I'd want to be at sea in that Sealine S330 in anything other than calm conditions. The transom freeboard looks like it'd be lethal in a decent following sea of any size. I'm amazed it achieved RCD B rating.

I suspect he would'nt have wanted you as his defense lawyer then 

[dom]

9 minutes ago, Happy said:

I suspect he would'nt have wanted you as his defense lawyer then 

Not if he's got any sense. I'd be asking the judge to increase his sentence just for naming the boat after himself.

[NotDeadYet]

On 21/02/2024 at 13:24, Smoggy said:

but without a set level.

I think Grendel may have at least one. 

[Gracie]

1 hour ago, NotDeadYet said:

I think Grendel may have at least one. 

I think Grendel is also a cyclist. Not to put a spanner (Grendel has a lot of them too) in the works but I wonder if he drinks whilst in charge of his bicycle  

I know the weather today has been awful. Spring IS on it's way, so cheer up everyone. We will soon be enjoying a libation whilst chugging along our beautiful rivers 

 

 

[Happy]

2 hours ago, Gracie said:

I think Grendel is also a cyclist. Not to put a spanner (Grendel has a lot of them too) in the works but I wonder if he drinks whilst in charge of his bicycle  

I know the weather today has been awful. Spring IS on it's way, so cheer up everyone. We will soon be enjoying a libation whilst chugging along our beautiful rivers 

 

 

Gracie.  Your not stirring it are you 

[marshman]

Gracie - you are right spring is on its way! The cuckoos are on the move from their overwintering grounds.

Thread drift again for those who hate it!!

[Gracie]

10 hours ago, Happy said:

Gracie.  Your not stirring it are you 

Who me??? As if! 

I have no intention of drifting this thread, now excuse me while I just take a sip of me Prosecco......Ooops, mind that boat coming the other way Gracie  Just kidding of course x

[Smoggy]

8 minutes ago, Gracie said:

mind that boat coming the other way Gracie  Just kidding of course

We know you're kidding,  you run and hide when something comes the other way....

[YnysMon]

On 22/02/2024 at 09:44, grendel said:

I have to agree, when I was first driving between ashford and canterbury, the 15 mile journey would take 20 minutes, and it was a 60mph A road all the way, with the new speed limits thay have introduced it now takes 40 minutes and there are about 2 miles which are 'national speed limit' and now they say the pollution is higher- well no doubt because everyone is speeding up and slowing down the whole way, its a 40mph limit until about 5 miles from canterbury, then 50 / 40 for the next 5 miles

Steer clear of Wales then. Most built up areas now have a 20mph limit. It’s a bit tedious, but on the other hand it’s now a lot easier getting out of Graham’s Dad’s road which is half way down a steep hill with a wall blocking the driver’s view uphill.