drink/boating petition

[denboy]

Remember the drink boating petition that was started a while ago?

Ive had a reply would somebody care to decipher it in to a language that i can understand

 

 

e

• Ask the PM
  
• …from the PM
  
• e-Petitions
  
• Petition Responses
  

Monday 22 June 2009 <h2 class="page_title_border">Ukboaters - epetition response</h2> We received a petition asking:

 

“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to intervene in the current consultation regarding the exemption to Section 80 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 and insist that option 4B should be considered instead of 4A.”

 

Details of Petition:

 

“An exemption to this act is obviously welcome. But, Section 4a) ‘An exception applying to non-professional mariners on ships less than 7 metres in length and capable of a maximum speed of not more than 7 knots.’ Will not address any of the perceived problems. And it will not in any way be police-able. There are already laws against Anti-Sociable behaviour and we believe that section 4b) ‘An exception applying to non-professional mariners on ships less than 22 metres in length and not more than a maximum speed of 17 knots.’ Should be applied instead.”

 

· Read the petition

· Petitions homepage

 

 

Read the Government’s response

Thank you for your e-petition.

 

We announced our intention to introduce similar alcohol restrictions for leisure mariners as for professional mariners in 2007.

 

The Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 sets out the offences relating to leisure mariners, firstly, of exceeding the prescribed alcohol limits and secondly, of being impaired in the act of navigation. It is important to remember that these offences apply to those leisure mariners on vessels which are under way and only to those exercising a function in connection with the navigation of the vessel.

 

The Act allows for exemptions to be made from the offence of exceeding the prescribed alcohol limits, by reference to the power of a motor, size and location of a ship. We consulted on the principle of the exemption and the parameters for such an exemption in 2004. One of the suggested examples put forward in this consultation was for an exemption for leisure mariners on ships less than 22 metres in length and not more than a maximum speed of 17 knots. There was some support for an exemption of this size but there were also a number of responses who felt that this would exempt a large number of recreational vessels and would therefore blunt the safety effects of the legislation.

 

In order to exempt those vessels whose size and speed present a lower risk in the water, Ministers decided to propose the exemption for leisure mariners on vessels less than 7 metres and a maximum speed of 7 knots or less. This also has the benefit of being an easily remembered exemption, which is similar to a category in the lighting requirements in Rule 23 of the collision regulations. The draft regulations for this exemption were the subject of a recent public consultation which ended on 6 May 2009.

[Gibbo]

I had it too.

 

(Standard) Translation.............

 

"We notice you signed a petition. We'll ignore it and do what we want anyway"

 

Gibbo

[Naughty Cal]

Had that one too.

[Machpoint005]

'22m and 17kn' would exempt too many vessels, including many which are thought to be a risk when controlled by drunks.

'7m and 7kn' exempts only very small. slow vessels, none of which would do much damage if controlled by a drunk.

 

You have to be steering the vessel or holding it on a rope, otherwise it doesn't matter if you're drunk.

 

It's perfectly clear, and as I said at the outset, signing the petition was a complete waste of time.

 

The legislation (if it is in fact introduced) is completely unenforceable, so if we continue to drink sensibly there isn't going to be a problem.

[denboy]

I had it too.

 

(Standard) Translation.............

 

"We notice you signed a petition. We'll ignore it and do what we want anyway"

 

Gibbo

Thats what i thought it said

[Machpoint005]

signing the petition was a complete waste of time

 

QED

[Teakbank12]

One reason why ive stopped participating in these petitions, they do not answer them & if they do they'll do exactly what the want

 

The only time i fell in i was "As sober as a Judge" although ive never met a non-drinking Judge!!

 

If we remain being sensible when onboard & cruising the system it'll be ok.

No laws will ever stop the genuine idiots wether on the waterways or road system.

[mayalld]

Remember the drink boating petition that was started a while ago?

Ive had a reply would somebody care to decipher it in to a language that i can understand

 

Translation.

 

"We are going to do what we want, and will brandish the fig leaf of having considered another silly option to prove that we aren't dictators"

[Sir Nibble]

Does anyone have a legal definition of "mariner"?

I can see no way that the term could sensibly apply to inland waterways.

 

Edit, Have googled and dictionary definitions I have found for "marine" are most definately particular to an ocean enviroment.

I know dictionary and legal definitions are not always the same tho'.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Sir Nibble

[WotEver]

Does anyone have a legal definition of "mariner"?

I can see no way that the term could sensibly apply to inland waterways.

 

Edit, Have googled and dictionary definitions I have found for "marine" are most definately particular to an ocean enviroment.

I know dictionary and legal definitions are not always the same tho'.

 

Interesting observation. My research shows the same.

 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Marine (Legal online dictionary albeit American) specifically states "sea".

[Dominic M]

Will the same alcohol limits apply as with motoring?

 

Or will marine terminology apply: it be only an offence if you are one over the eight, or nine sheets to the wind, or before the sun is over the yard arm?

[mattlad]

Will the same alcohol limits apply to MP's debating / voting / making "important" decisions in the Houses of Parliament?

[ditchcrawler]

Will the same alcohol limits apply to MP's debating / voting / making "important" decisions in the Houses of Parliament?

Now you have just got your silly head on.

[mattlad]

Now you have just got your silly head on.

 

I thought I was thinking more along the lines of cynical rather than silly!!!!

[Machpoint005]

Interesting observation. My research shows the same.

 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Marine (Legal online dictionary albeit American) specifically states "sea".

UK legal dictionary too .

 

Let's all keep quiet and hope they don't spot it before the Statute comes out.

[mayalld]

Will the same alcohol limits apply as with motoring?

 

Or will marine terminology apply: it be only an offence if you are one over the eight, or nine sheets to the wind, or before the sun is over the yard arm?

 

Yes, the same limits will apply as for motoring

 

Does anyone have a legal definition of "mariner"?

I can see no way that the term could sensibly apply to inland waterways.

 

Edit, Have googled and dictionary definitions I have found for "marine" are most definately particular to an ocean enviroment.

I know dictionary and legal definitions are not always the same tho'.

 

The relevant Act doesn't use the term Mariner.

 

80 Non-professionals

 

1) This section applies to a person who—

 

a) is on board a ship which is under way,

 

is exercising, or purporting or attempting to exercise, a function in connection with the navigation of the ship, and

 

c) is not a person to whom section 78 or 79 applies.

 

2) A person to whom this section applies commits an offence if his ability to exercise the function mentioned in subsection (1)( is impaired because of drink or drugs.

 

3) A person to whom this section applies commits an offence if the proportion of alcohol in his breath, blood or urine exceeds the prescribed limit.

 

4) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for subsection (3) not to apply in specified circumstances.

 

5) Regulations under subsection (4) may make provision by reference, in particular—

 

a) to the power of a motor;

 

to the size of a ship;

 

c) to location.

 

81 Prescribed limit

1) The prescribed limit of alcohol for the purposes of this Part is—

 

a) in the case of breath, 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres,

 

in the case of blood, 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres, and

 

c) in the case of urine, 107 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres.

 

2) The Secretary of State may make regulations amending subsection (1).

 

 

Oh, and to forstall the inevitable discussion about whether a narrowboat is a "ship"...

 

89 Interpretation

1) In this Part—

 

a) "ship" includes every description of vessel used in navigation, and

 

a reference to the navigation of a vessel includes a reference to the control or direction, or participation in the control or direction, of the course of a vessel.

Edited June 24, 2009 by mayalld

[Chris Pink]

a) "ship" includes every description of vessel used in navigation, and

 

So the government is quite clear of the meaning of 'navigation' in this instance?

 

or can we expect endless discussion along the lines of "i wasn't on a progressive and continuous journey so i thought it was alright to drink Special Brew, your honour" ?

Edited June 24, 2009 by Chris Pink

[Naughty Cal]

A person to whom this section applies commits an offence if his ability to exercise the function mentioned in subsection (1)( is impaired because of drink or drugs.

 

Thats an interesting statement they have made. The effects of drink and drugs vary between person to person.

[Billypownall]

I had it too.

 

(Standard) Translation.............

 

"We notice you signed a petition. We'll ignore it and do what we want anyway"

 

Gibbo

I wonder how many people are actually in favour of the proposed legislation. Surely it is not too onerous to restrain from too much to drink when you are going to be handling a boat. Maybe this only means a bit of restraint at lunchtimes and then a nod after lunch will correct the position unless someone has really overdone it. No problem when you are moored outside the pub in the evenings. I must say that over the years I have been involved in a few messy situations where I think drink played a part.

[Naughty Cal]

I wonder how many people are actually in favour of the proposed legislation. Surely it is not too onerous to restrain from too much to drink when you are going to be handling a boat. Maybe this only means a bit of restraint at lunchtimes and then a nod after lunch will correct the position unless someone has really overdone it. No problem when you are moored outside the pub in the evenings. I must say that over the years I have been involved in a few messy situations where I think drink played a part.

 

How many of us have been in a serious inland boating accident? Very few if any i suspect. Having a few drinks at lunchtime then setting off in search of a mooring for the evening is part of the boating culture, hence the amount of waterside pubs. Why change something that isnt an issue?

 

Mind you we have got ourselves out of that one now

[mayalld]

Thats an interesting statement they have made. The effects of drink and drugs vary between person to person.

 

It is indeed.

 

However, that isn't the problematic part of the Act.

 

80(2) and 80(3) create two distinct offences, and regardless of whether 80(2) applies, you could be done under 80(3) for being over the limit.

 

The way it stacks up as the law is written (and including the new regulataions);

• The ugly green/blue boat is not covered by 80(3), because regulations under 80(5) exempt it (less than 7m and less than 7kt)
  
• It is covered by 80(2)
  

This means that if you go to the pub and get tanked up, you couldn't be breathalised in the toy boat, but if you were falling down drunk, you could be charged if your ability to row was impaired.

[Guest User]

Does anyone have a legal definition of "mariner"?

I can see no way that the term could sensibly apply to inland waterways.

 

Where the word "mariner" is used in Section 4a) (if that's the complete wording that Denboy quoted) ... it provides an exception only for mariners. So, presumably, non-marine boaters are still not exempted no matter what vessel they're in charge of ?????

[Naughty Cal]

This means that if you go to the pub and get tanked up, you couldn't be breathalised in the toy boat, but if you were falling down drunk, you could be charged if your ability to row was impaired.

 

Got the electric engine to do that

[mayalld]

I wonder how many people are actually in favour of the proposed legislation. Surely it is not too onerous to restrain from too much to drink when you are going to be handling a boat. Maybe this only means a bit of restraint at lunchtimes and then a nod after lunch will correct the position unless someone has really overdone it. No problem when you are moored outside the pub in the evenings. I must say that over the years I have been involved in a few messy situations where I think drink played a part.

 

Ah, this old chestnut.

 

Clearly anybody who opposes the new rules is in favour of people navigating whilst rolling drunk.

 

Not at all!

 

There is a fundamental question as to the level of intoxication which impairs a person from safely carrying out a function. It is clear that the level will be different depending upon what activity is to be performed.

 

For driving a motor vehicle at speeds of up to 70 mph, the blood-alcohol limit is 80mg/100ml

For flying a plane at speeds in excess of that, and with movement in 3 dimensions to control, the blood-alcohol limit is 20mg/100ml

The limit for navigating a narrowboat at no more than 4mph is to be??? 80mg/100ml

There will be no limit for those who are operating locks.

 

It is clear that navigating a narrowboat at 4mph does not require the same rapidity of reaction as driving a car at 70mph, and that consequently, the appropriate limit could reasonably be set higher. Setting it at the same as driving a car imposes an unnecessary restriction on how we live our life. Yes, we could be more restrained at lunchtime, but why should how we live our lives be further constrained more than is necessary?

 

Indeed, article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights;

 

ARTICLE 8

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
   
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
   

Whether I choose to have 1, 2 or 3 pints at lunchtime is part of my private life, and the government seeks to interfere with it.

Is that interference necessary;

• In the interests of national security? Clearly not.
  
• In the interests of public safety? No, public safety could be assured with less draconian limits.
  
• In the interests of the economic well-being of the country? Hardly, given the damage to the revenue of canalside pubs
  
• For the prevention of disorder or crime? I haven't noticed any creat deal of disorder resulting from boaters lunchtime drinks
  
• For the protection of health or morals? Nope
  
• For the protection of the rights and freedoms of others? Nope
  

So, it actually appears that the legislation is incompatible with the HRA

[magpie patrick]

I wonder how many people are actually in favour of the proposed legislation. Surely it is not too onerous to restrain from too much to drink when you are going to be handling a boat. Maybe this only means a bit of restraint at lunchtimes and then a nod after lunch will correct the position unless someone has really overdone it. No problem when you are moored outside the pub in the evenings. I must say that over the years I have been involved in a few messy situations where I think drink played a part.

 

 

I think you are confusing "in favour" and "not bothered". I am against it because any law or regulation should, to my mind, have two ba sic tenets (1) It should have demonstrable need and (2) it should be enforceable. Without the first what you get is regulatory creep, whereby rules are tightened for the sake of it. Without the second the law is an ass.

 

Further, the government has given itself powers that would allow a much more specific designation and then refuses to use them. You have a position where the vast majority of narrow boats are caught up, and so is Naughty Cal because of the speed she can do. And the alternative considered allows a very substantial motor yacht at substantial speed. Yet an exemption is allowed by location. Why not put in an exemption for non-tidal waters where the speed limit is less than 8 kph (5mph)?

 

And Finally, when are they going to stop banning things? I wasn't bothered about a hunting ban: I don't hunt but I have no strong views, same with smoking. When the speed limit was imposed on windermere the last non-tidal water where a speed boat could be used was lost (there is an exemption for races and trials). What next? banning pints and making everyone drink halves to get them to drink less? We are already looking at having the national speed limit lowered to 50, will this be applied to motorways in due course? Perhaps canals will be banned outright, or restricted only to professional skippers.