The Boat Safety Scheme

[Dominic M]

It is 11 years since the BSS was introduced. I was a fierce opponent at the time, feeling it was an expensive and unnecessary intrusion into my boating life. Now, with the removal of the subsidy from BW, it costs even more. Is there any hard evidence to show that it has reduced injury or fatality on the waterways? Or has it just added to the cost of boating? Is it a useful scheme, or is it "nanny state" interference? Is it possible to legislate against stupidity? I would be most interested to read views from the boating community - especially those who knew the waterways pre-1996.

Edited September 1, 2007 by Dominic M

[Dr Bradley]

Interesting point - how many lives has it saved and what cost. Leads onto the drink navigating question - how many lives might that save: answer none.

[sueb]

It is 11 years since the BSS was introduced. I was a fierce opponent at the time, feeling it was an expensive and unnecessary intrusion into my boating life. Now, with the removal of the subsidy from BW, it costs even more. Is there any hard evidence to show that it has reduced injury or fatality on the waterways? Or has it just added to the cost of boating? Is it a useful scheme, or is it "nanny state" interference? Is it possible to legislate against stupidity? I would be most interested to read views from the boating community - especially those who knew the waterways pre-1996.

 

Although the boat safety scheme has changed a lot over the years and I have a lot of respect for Rob Mclean, it is far to expensive and inefectual.

The fittng of smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms should be mandatory, and should have been from the beginning of the scheme. This alone would have saved many lives.

But was the scheme about safety or was it a money making idea by BW? It has certainly failed.

Sue

[StephenA]

I have asked several times on uk.rec.waterways for the BSS office to show us figures that show that the BSS has been effective.

 

They have failed to do so on every occasion.

 

I'm sure some parts of it are valid but a lot of it is obviously designed to make money for engineers, chandlers and equipment suppliers. I don't think the poor bastards who do the actual certificates make much money from it at all.

[ChrisPy]

like any set of regulations, it is initially set up to eliminate simply dangerous vessels from the waterways, and ends up being finely engineered so that the people involved feel they have covered all the bases.

 

having said that, there is little I can find wrong with the rules themselves, and one inspection every 4 years is not too arduous. all new boats should have little problem complying because of the RCD.

 

it would be impossible to prove it has been effective in saving lives because there are just too many variables.

[StephenA]

it would be impossible to prove it has been effective in saving lives because there are just too many variables.

 

But they provide NO stats at all - for example why not provide figures that show drops in the level of fires (caused by bas gas, electric or diesel installations), or drops in the levels of other sorts of accidents.

 

And the inspectors are inconsistent which doesn't help. Our two previous inspections have failed us because they decided that a spill from the tank filler could get onto the back deck and thus was a fail. We built a diverter which clipped onto the gunwhale to ensure that any spill went into the canal. We had a little notice stating that the diverter had to be fitted - purely to satisfy the inspectors, we never used it as it never spills onto the back deck. We no longer have the notice and this time the inspector didn't report the fill point as a fail.

[blackrose]

like any set of regulations, it is initially set up to eliminate simply dangerous vessels from the waterways, and ends up being finely engineered so that the people involved feel they have covered all the bases.

 

having said that, there is little I can find wrong with the rules themselves, and one inspection every 4 years is not too arduous. all new boats should have little problem complying because of the RCD.

 

it would be impossible to prove it has been effective in saving lives because there are just too many variables.

 

You could compare an average of figures for 10 years before and after the introduction of the BSS but that's about it. You'd have to allow for all the extra boats on the waterways, possibly a higher proportion of liveaboards?, and the installation of more equipment, some of which didn't even exist before the BSS.

 

I'm suspect that if this was done you'd find that the BSS has indeed saved lives - statistically speaking, measures to improve safety will generally result in a reduced rate of injury & death.

[Freetochat]

As with all preventitive regulations, how can you possibly record it's effect. You can record injuries before and after, but this means nothing as the variables are too great. The same is often said of the MOT for cars. Testing requires a boat to be of a standard at a certain point and this surely keeps boats maintained and as the scheme evolves so it will improve to cover the main safety aspects. As to the actual test, there will always be some variation between examiners but they should always be strivving for a similar benchmark.

[saltysplash]

You could compare an average of figures for 10 years before and after the introduction of the BSS but that's about it. You'd have to allow for all the extra boats on the waterways, possibly a higher proportion of liveaboards?, and the installation of more equipment, some of which didn't even exist before the BSS.

 

I'm suspect that if this was done you'd find that the BSS has indeed saved lives - statistically speaking, measures to improve safety will generally result in a reduced rate of injury & death.

 

I still agree with a previous post, the BSS is there to try and eliminate stupidity. All the fires and explosions due to petrol instalations.....were there that many? were due to stupidty of folk charging tanks on board or inside and not thinking of the fumes..same as folk fillingup at petrol stations with a fag on the go. So many boats which had survived many years work and cruising were suddenly deemed unsafe and yet they had never had a problem.

 

Also, whats the point in just making this legislation for inland waters, why not for all pleasure craft, seagoing as well as waterways. If they did that then my old tub would require some major refit in the engine room yet she has lasted over 70 years including 5 years of war even surviving being straffed(spelling) by a dornier.

 

We have become such a namby pamby people always worried about the 'what ifs' Just look at childrens playgrounds, They've all got soft floors so the little darlings dont get bumped when they fall off the seesaw. Whats wrong with us, Knocks and bumps are character building, we learn from them. As a race we are losing the ability to learn from mistakes because the dangers are being taken away from us. So, we no longer think of the dangers and become more suseptable to them....If that makes sense, i know what i mean

[sueb]

You could compare an average of figures for 10 years before and after the introduction of the BSS but that's about it. You'd have to allow for all the extra boats on the waterways, possibly a higher proportion of liveaboards?, and the installation of more equipment, some of which didn't even exist before the BSS.

 

I'm suspect that if this was done you'd find that the BSS has indeed saved lives - statistically speaking, measures to improve safety will generally result in a reduced rate of injury & death.

 

No they don't. In the construction industry accidents went up when people were made to wear harnesses working at heights. they fell over the harness. BSS have never published any figures about accidents/incidents.

Although the rules have been relaxed (to third person liability) the costs have escalated.

Ask who are on the BSS committees. Even the boaters representative is an examiner.

Sue

[sueb]

As with all preventitive regulations, how can you possibly record it's effect. You can record injuries before and after, but this means nothing as the variables are too great. The same is often said of the MOT for cars. Testing requires a boat to be of a standard at a certain point and this surely keeps boats maintained and as the scheme evolves so it will improve to cover the main safety aspects. As to the actual test, there will always be some variation between examiners but they should always be strivving for a similar benchmark.

 

How long has this scheme got to evolve before it improves? The scheme has been in existence for 20ish years in one form or another. Now it doesn't cover 1st party risk. People used to die in petrol explosions now they are dying of carbon monoxide poisoning. Generators sit on back decks pumping fumes into boats because people were made to believe gas is dangerous and they need to charge batteries.

Sue

[bottle]

Tin hats issued to the army

 

Head injuries increased

 

Tin hats dangerous

[ChrisPy]

I've worn a safety helmet ever since I've been at work, whether there is an overhead danger or not. It's just part of the culture.

......... very useful, it limits your vision so you don't notice many of the hazards.

 

if I could have a hot dinner for every time I've struck my helmeted head on a low beam or a scaffold tube ............. and many times it knocks you silly risking further injury.

Edited September 2, 2007 by chris polley

[saltysplash]

I've worn a safety helmet ever since I've been at work, whether there is an overhead danger or not. It's just part of the culture.

......... very useful, it limits your vision so you don't notice many of the havards.

 

if I could have a hot dinner for every time I've struck my helmeted head on a low beam or a scaffold tube ............. and many times it knocks you silly risking further injury.

 

 

The metropolitan police have had helmets since sir robert peel first introduced the filth to the streets of london. This outdated item of headwear was modeled on the current british army issue of the day. In the 80's there was requests from the rank and file that the helmet be finally laid to rest for more suitable, or no head gear for the day to day patroling constable. The Mets response was, ' the helmet offers protection to the wearer from missiles and aids in being a highly visable asset in crowd situations. (soyou can be seen)

a few years later the Met introduced a policy that all patrolling officers must now wear a high visability jacket when in crowd situations.......why?.......so that they can be a 'highly visable asset in crowd situations. Does that mean they can lose the helmet?....no. so whats the point?

 

Police officers prior to the high vis jacket must've been really difficult to spot and must've been wiped up on uk roads by the hundreds.

 

Policy for policy's sake not because it resolves a problem

[GRPCruiserman]

I no longer boat where a BSS is required, ad for short term licences I don't need the certificate, and as my boats are all exempt anyway, it's not really an issue for me any more.

 

However, when I did need the BSS, it was only a small cost compared to that of Fuel, Licence, Insurance, maintainance, etc. My last one cost £80 and of course passed first go. Unlike the MOT on a car, once you comply, unless you change something, you are going to pass every time, and I've never had a boat fail except the first one when they gave you the extra 6 months to comply, and that was only to buy me the time to change the boat to comply.

 

Every boat afterwards had either had a BSS previously or if I restored it, I did so specifically to comply. The one that annoyed me was spending a day cutting out a vent in the roof of my Yeoman, only to discover that they had been made optional that year!! The only reason it needed one was due to my moving the cooker from the cockpit to the cabin.

 

I've never had any fail and I think £20 a year or so isn't too bad.

 

An MOT on a car is more piece of mind to me as I know it's at least still safe to use at that point!! My cars cost me very little, (£200-£400) so the MOT gives it a test when it comes up. My old Saab passed every year apart from the last one which cost me £85 to get it through. Not bad for a car that cost me £200 to buy, lasted four years, and I sold it for more than I'd paid for it. I've pushed the boat out with my current car at £460 and I've not had it MOTd yet as it had 12 months with it, so it's a bit on an unknown until December when it's due, but I had the Timing Belt changed as soon as I got it as no-one knew when it was last done, and the mechanic who did it seemed to think it was a reasonble buy. I've done some pretty heavy towing with it and (touch wood) all seems well. Fingers crossed!!

 

I'd always buy a boat without a BSC if it made it cheaper as they're pretty easy to get through, especially if they are petrol outboard driven and the boat has had one before. To save £80-100 it's worth the expense. I can do more on boats than I can on cars so I'm more likely to have to spend less than on a car with no MOT.

[magnetman]

I'm just going to ask bw if they would like to fit a cctv camera in my boat so they can keep an eye on me. Interfering nanny state just let people get on with it. I got a co dector cos its sensible and worth it not cos i was told to.

[bottle]

I'm just going to ask bw if they would like to fit a cctv camera in my boat so they can keep an eye on me. Interfering nanny state just let people get on with it. I got a co dector cos its sensible and worth it not cos i was told to.

 

That is because you are a free thinking sensible person.

 

Most regulations, BSS included, are to help the fools of this world but idiots will never be helped.

[Freetochat]

I got a co dector cos its sensible and worth it not cos i was told to.

 

But that is you covering risks. There are far to many people who take uneccessary risks that put themselves and others at risk. Just look at the number of whingers who are trying to get the tax payer to pick up their flood damage costs because they didn't insure themselves. Even some of the DIY revelations concerning repairs and building on this forum shows the need for inspections where it involves gas etc. Sensible precautions and testing can only be a good thing!

[smileypete]

You could compare an average of figures for 10 years before and after the introduction of the BSS but that's about it. You'd have to allow for all the extra boats on the waterways, possibly a higher proportion of liveaboards?, and the installation of more equipment, some of which didn't even exist before the BSS.

 

I'm suspect that if this was done you'd find that the BSS has indeed saved lives - statistically speaking, measures to improve safety will generally result in a reduced rate of injury & death.

 

On the other hand, safety has also been improved by the availability of cheaper and better smoke, LPG and CO detectors.

 

If you look at the accident stats on the BSS website, a large proportion of fatalities occur when these detectors are not used.

 

IMO the BSS should require them but allow domestic detectors to be used. It could then make it 110% clear that if domestic and not marine detectors are used, liability for their operation lies with the owner and not the BSS.

 

In addition to the above I'd like to see the rest of the BSS slimmed down especially where measures result in little reduction of actual risk but cause a lot of confusion and to and froing between examiner, boat owner and BSS office.

 

cheers,

Pete.

[ChrisPy]

what parts of the BSS guide are ambiguous?

 

it seems clear enuff to me

[David Schweizer]

The metropolitan police have had helmets since sir robert peel first introduced the filth to the streets of london. This outdated item of headwear was modeled on the current british army issue of the day. In the 80's there was requests from the rank and file that the helmet be finally laid to rest for more suitable, or no head gear for the day to day patroling constable. The Mets response was, ' the helmet offers protection to the wearer from missiles and aids in being a highly visable asset in crowd situations. (soyou can be seen)

A bit but I always understood that one of the primary reasons for the policeman's helmet was added height, making him more visible in a crowd, and more impressive when using his authority.

[blackrose]

No they don't. In the construction industry accidents went up when people were made to wear harnesses working at heights. they fell over the harness. BSS have never published any figures about accidents/incidents.Although the rules have been relaxed (to third person liability) the costs have escalated.Ask who are on the BSS committees. Even the boaters representative is an examiner.Sue

Read my post again more carefully. I said such measures generally result in reduced rates of death & injury. We can all pick out random examples of where this hasn't happened: Seat belts are said to have caused deaths from people being stuck in their cars while the car burned, air bags have killed people through inflating with too much force, but these are the exceptions and in general terms these safety measures have saved lives.

if I could have a hot dinner for every time I've struck my helmeted head on a low beam or a scaffold tube ............. and many times it knocks you silly risking further injury.

But also think about the times that it may have prevented you striking your unhelmeted head...

[Jason Wilson and Family]

Most government and corporate policy I've seen regarding safety seems to exist to protect idiots from themselves or protect the government from greedy bastards.

[John Orentas]

Like many of the earlier posters, I too have striven to gain information on how well the scheme has performed over the years with no success what so ever. The basic problem is that the regulations sought to impose standards which all sensible people imposed on themselves anyway.

 

Yes we keep hearing those tales from the BS and BW about boat being destroyed by gas explosions and by occupants being killed or injured by the effects of Co2 poisoning but what we are not told is what proportion of these incidents concern boats which are compliant with the standards. If as I suspect the vast majority of incidents have happened to boat that are grossly non compliant then the issue is one of policing of the existing standard and so the gradual ramping up of standards is a complete waste of time and money for all concerned.

 

Just how much research was carried out into the ventilation standards that are imposed on all boats, I have a suspicion that it is excessive and has all the hallmarks of a committee decision with all members adding a multiplication factor 'just to be on the safe side'.

 

How many batteries have actually jumped out of their locations and caused a fire or whatever. I like many others have gone to the trouble of adding a clamping down mechanism, no great expense or inconvenience but I for one resent silly rules being thought up and imposed by people who are never called upon to explain or justify their position when it is clear that they have no technical competence at all.

Edited September 2, 2007 by John Orentas

[Guest]

This will make me unpopular, but I'll live with that:

Thinking back to some boats that I was involved with in the 1960's, I think that in general the safety scheme is a good thing. OK, it isn't perfect, and I moan about it, especially when I seem to need "different" fire extinguishers each time, but in general I believe it was/is a good thing. I do think that the latest edition is diabolically written though. The previous version was a far better document.

 

Coincidental that Chris mentions site helmets. I have cursed them many times, but in September 1990 I believe that one such helmet possibly saved my life. I suffered a fractured spine, concussion etc, but my skull was intact after a steel section fell onto my head.