Boat Handling Training??

[Chris Pink]

Are we asuming this chap is missing the relevant licence, insurance, accreditation etc?

 

Presumably, disregarding any insurance, H&S, litigious consequences; he is breaking the law and, therefore, should be treated the same as any other licence/insurance/certificate dodger.

 

Just because he's "earning a crust" doesn't make him exempt from the law.....Or does it?

 

Surely these are issues for trading standards and the environmental health department. To give judgement on a public forum is a little previous.

 

If you were potential client of geezer then, if you were so minded you could ask him, otherwise it is wise to leave him be.l

[carlt]

Surely these are issues for trading standards and the environmental health department. To give judgement on a public forum is a little previous.

 

If you were potential client of geezer then, if you were so minded you could ask him, otherwise it is wise to leave him be.l

I agree. We should probably be discussing a hypothetical person with a hypothetical venture (who ought to, hypothetically, be advertising the fact that he meets all the legal requirements for such a venture)

[Chris J W]

Are we asuming this chap is missing the relevant licence, insurance, accreditation etc?

 

I was under the impression we were Asking had he, rather than pre-supposing? Strange how we can read the same words in different ways. (And that wasn't meant as a 'pop' at you, btw)

 

If you were potential client of geezer then, if you were so minded you could ask him, otherwise it is wise to leave him be.

 

The OP did email him and ask, and got a very strange reply ... which I suspect got a few more eyebrows raised.

[carlt]

I was under the impression we were Asking had he, rather than pre-supposing? Strange how we can read the same words in different ways. (And that wasn't meant as a 'pop' at you, btw)

Well it certainly looks like a pop at me!

 

The thread did seem to be taking a "this bloke's a charlatan" direction which doesn't seem fair, though, if it were me, I'd be using one of the ebay photo allowance to show my certificates, rather than my, hypothetical, ugly mug.

[stort_mark]

This thread is definitely interesting (despite my earlier moan about people having a go at others).

 

It is interesting that a lot of assumptions are made (rather like a current thread on Benefits and disbaility Allowances).

 

The whole concept of insuring yourselves up to the eyeballs in case your boat is struck by a meteorite while standing at the tiller is a failry recent one, and is one of many administrative innovations that simply stifle business start-ups. Yet we gladly chirrup about "what if your child was killed...you'd want the insurance then". Errr....rubbish. Why do we automatically expect some kind of warranty or indemnification.

 

This bloke is offering an experience of chugging along the Cut at 4mph. It's not a night out in Baghdad.

 

Yes there are risks involved, but are there - realistically - significant additional risks from going on a friend's boat and sharing the expenses (which, quite frankly, he could probably argue that that was what any payment constituted)?

 

If we are all to live our lives "the American way" where litigation is foremost in our minds at every turn, it's a pretty bleak future.

 

Maybe there's a different perspective: perhaps if everyone on the Cut was actively encouraging use of the canals and boats, there might be more income from new boat-owners, more boat-hirers, more sales of boats, more sales at chandlers and canal side pubs, more giving to waterways trusts and charities, more boats on the furthest reaches of the BCN or Weaver, more income for BWB, more jobs, and further revitalisation and maintenance of the system.

 

Maybe he does have insurance (or maybe he requires an indemnification) and maybe he doesn't. If not...it's a risk. Maybe he has the experience, maybe he doesn't. Caveat emptor. Maybe he has all the HSE kit, maybe he doesn't.

 

However, I am sure that 20/30/40 years ago, we would all have said "Good idea", and given the **tendency** of the canal fraternity to look back fondly at the good old days, it has surprised me at the (b)anal responses, with loud squawking about insurance and qualifications (for goodness sake..he's offering a trip on his boat as an experience. What should he have? A PhD?)

 

With a bit of luck, the guy may turn this into a profitable business (maybe it is already). Hopefully, the body count will be minimal.

Edited February 15, 2008 by stort_mark

[tillergirl]

However, I am sure that 20/30/40 years ago, we would all have said "Good idea", and given the **tendency** of the canal fraternity to look back fondly at the good old days, it has surprised me at the (b)anal responses, with loud squawking about insurance and qualifications (for goodness sake..he's offering a trip on his boat as an experience. What should he have? A PhD?)

 

With a bit of luck, the guy may turn this into a profitable business (maybe it is already). Hopefully, the body count will be minimal.

Hi OP here - now I feel thats a pop at me too since I mentioned insurance etc etc.! Anyway no offence taken I guess my original gut feeling was that I equated it to me taking someone out for a jolly in my car. If I had an accident I would have thought my passengers would automatically expect me to have insurance especially if I was using my vehicle for "hire and reward" AND more to the point if I'm tootling down the road and theres a traffic cop behind me and I had no insurance at all he'd not be long in pulling me over if I did'nt have insurance - and HE would know exactly what ceritifcation my vehicle had and it would soon come out that I'd taken money off people for the ride - I'd be in a whole mess of trouble!!.

 

Does it not follow then that someone who is using a vehicle (any vehicle) car/plane/boat etc etc that if you take paying passengers on/in you would be expected by your paying passengers to have to correct insurance and whatever else is required by the laws and statutes of this country?. And if they haven't, should they be stating that you should be purchasing your own travel insurance?

 

Its just a minor point but in a society of "whipcash" and other such insurance claims you would be foolish to think that Mr Nice Guy would'nt possibly sue the pants off you in the event of an accident if they thought there would be good chance of winning.

 

At the very least ebay should be instructing him to specify his cover if any or if that would an extra cost to the purchaser.

 

Up here we call it "Keeping your a*se covered"

Edited February 16, 2008 by tillergirl

[saltysplash]

Im not sure where i stand with this anymore,

 

How many of us take our friends and families on our boats and let em have a turn at the tiller and we dont think for a moment about litigation...this bloke is doing the same thing for a small fee.

 

 

On the other hand would we go on board a high speed vessel and be happy without knowing the skipper is fully qualified?

 

 

We pays our money we takes our choice......if your not happy with it dont do it, if your willing to live everyday for what it brings then crack on.

[RichardH]

Im not sure where i stand with this anymore,

 

How many of us take our friends and families on our boats and let em have a turn at the tiller and we dont think for a moment about litigation...this bloke is doing the same thing for a small fee.

On the other hand would we go on board a high speed vessel and be happy without knowing the skipper is fully qualified?

We pays our money we takes our choice......if your not happy with it dont do it, if your willing to live everyday for what it brings then crack on.

 

The critical difference is that when you take your friends and family or even lend them the boat for a holiday your insurance (or mine certainly did when we had our non-hire boat) will cover you adequately because it is not for reward.

 

The problem is as soon as money or reward in kind transacts the insurance is null and void unless it is specifically a hire and reward policy.

 

I fully agree with your comments Salty, if you are not happy, don't do it. I fully admit to having taken unregulated mini-cabs in London - why? because they are cheap, there are limited black cabs at 3 in the morning and when p*ssed perspective is less conscious of regulation. I was once in one and the driver was pulled over by the Bizzies. Turns out he'd no licence, no insurance and the tax was nicked. Car was impounded and I was given a lecture about the dangers of unlicenced taxis by Plod. Point here is that I didn't really care about getting home in one piece I just wanted to get home !

 

There have been many comments previously on this forum about the high costs of hire - one reason is because the licence and insurance on average cost around 1000-1500 more than a private boat p/a.

[NB Alnwick]

If we are all to live our lives "the American way" where litigation is foremost in our minds at every turn, it's a pretty bleak future.

 

Amazing how things have changed - the 'American way' used to be about enterprise and entrepreneurialism - now its about don't do a thing for fear of being sued!

 

By the way I love the phrase 'Forgiveness is often easier to obtain than permission - so if you're thinking about it; have a go !' - this is the right attitude for business provided of course, you are prepared to stand up and accept responsibility (and any consequences) should things go wrong. The latter encourages proper planning and common sense - something that is becoming less common in our 'Nanny State' mentality these days . . .

[Grumpy Bear]

The requirements to hold a Boatmaster licence can be found here: clicky

 

Para 3.2 is as clear as the murkiest of cuts. The BML is "suitable" for vessels carrying no more than 12 passengers... but is it required? Para 3.3 seems to say only if local bye-laws or legislation are in force. (It is definately required for more than 12 passengers)

 

Mike

Edited February 19, 2008 by Grumpy Bear

[Chris Pink]

I had 12 passengers on a 40 foot boat once for a kids party, I was bricking it, every time someone spotted something they'd all lurch over to one side and me and a friend on the back deck would have to lean far out like a sailing dinghy to try and balance. I was so glad when we got back without capsizing.