Jump to content

drink/boating petition


denboy

Featured Posts

A lot of people on the "no alcohol" side claim to have seen incidents caused by excess alcohol consumption. They dont seem too forth coming with the details though.

 

Alcohol related accidents/injuries reported to MAIB 1991 - 2005

 

I have mixed feelings about this piece of legislation and am not on the "no alcohol side"of this debate. The figures speak for themselves, alcohol IS a contributory factor in SOME boating accident and/or injuries. To what extent and how much the State should intervene, is a matter of individual opinion.

 

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The figures speak for themselves, alcohol IS a contributory factor in SOME boating accident and/or injuries. To what extent and how much the State should intervene, is a matter of individual opinion.

Alcohol has been a contributory factor to Western civilisation. Not for nothing is a stiff gin and tonic a relic of the Empire coupling the use of quinine to fend off malaria with thrills and sexual spills of a quantity of juniper berry flavoured alcohol. I seem to recall that the Romans, former masters of the universe, ruled the known world on diet of lead tainted wine. Winston Churchill conducted the 2nd world war fuelled by vintage Bolly and brandy.

 

I have boated for many years. Being pleasantly sloshed is a wonderful waterways companion.

 

To anyone who thinks otherwise: get a bloody life. Oh, and could I borrow a corkscrew?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alcohol related accidents/injuries reported to MAIB 1991 - 2005

 

I have mixed feelings about this piece of legislation and am not on the "no alcohol side"of this debate. The figures speak for themselves, alcohol IS a contributory factor in SOME boating accident and/or injuries. To what extent and how much the State should intervene, is a matter of individual opinion.

 

Paul

 

So, the result is that over a 15 year period, there were 7 incidents involving non commercial pleasure craft reported to MAIB that involved alcohol.

 

How many of these involved lumpy water pleasure boat?

How many involved boats that were moored at the time?

 

I would contend that the number of incidents of serious injury or damage on the inland waterways where drink is involved is as close to zero as can be imagined.

 

Yes Dave, I realise that, I just meant that as you don't need a licence to drive a boat, your could not lose it and therefore could be back at the tiller the next day.

 

Or possibly in two years time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or possibly in two years time.

 

:lol:

Although a custodial sentence is available to judges, how many motorists who are breathalysed and found to be over the limit are actually sent to prison? I suspect that, as long as no injury to other people is involved, the answer is probably "none", but I honestly don't know and would welcome information from anyone who does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the result is that over a 15 year period, there were 7 incidents involving non commercial pleasure craft reported to MAIB that involved alcohol.

 

How many of these involved lumpy water pleasure boat?

How many involved boats that were moored at the time?

 

I would contend that the number of incidents of serious injury or damage on the inland waterways where drink is involved is as close to zero as can be imagined.

 

 

 

Or possibly in two years time.

I am sorry to say that in my experience quite a few incidents do in fact happen through excess drink. In fact recently I was so involved and although the resulting damage was not too serious it was a pretty bad experience. This matter was of course not reported to the MAIB . The matter was reported to the hire company who said that the clients would lose their deposit and were asked to return the boat immediately. No one is suggesting that drinking on boats should be stopped but that it should be reasonable. Whether the law can be upheld is another matter but the fact that the law would be broken is a very important aspect

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol:

Although a custodial sentence is available to judges, how many motorists who are breathalysed and found to be over the limit are actually sent to prison? I suspect that, as long as no injury to other people is involved, the answer is probably "none", but I honestly don't know and would welcome information from anyone who does.

Not none (I know of a couple) but certainly not enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being pleasantly sloshed is a wonderful waterways companion.

Link

 

 

I wonder if Douglas Henderson used to say the same?

 

 

To anyone who thinks otherwise: get a bloody life.

 

No doubt there are the families of 51 people who wish they had.

 

 

 

 

 

However as I said I have mixed feelings about any proposed legislation as I am a firm believer that the State should only interfere when it is clear that there is a clear risk to the public. If you choose to drink and can keep in control then fine. However if you drink more than you can handle and then go out and operate what would be classed anywhere else as 'heavy machinery', even at 4mph, the you should be expected to face the consequences.

 

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to see the police's reaction when they are told to breathalyse boaters on the Middle Levels, or even on that stretch of the Oxford where no road crosses it for six miles.

 

 

Oh! I thought it was mandatory to drink and cruise on the Middle Levels :lol:

 

Here's to alcohol: the source of, and answer to, all of life's problems.

 

Homer Simpson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link

 

 

I wonder if Douglas Henderson used to say the same?

 

No doubt there are the families of 51 people who wish they had.

 

Paul

This reference and comparison to the Marchioness tragedy on London's tidal Thanes is about as relevant as comparing marbles to extreme snow boarding. Cretinous in fact.

 

That's not going to happen on the canals. The risk is nothing. People enjoy drinking. I do. As I said before, get a life, and leave the rest of us alone with your nanny state twaddle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you could cruise the middle levels and fossedyke and down about 8 bottles of vodka over 7 days, and the only people that would die would be the deer that couldn't read the instructions how to climb out at the allotted points

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reference and comparison to the Marchioness tragedy on London's tidal Thanes is about as relevant as comparing marbles to extreme snow boarding. Cretinous in fact.

 

Evidentially more relevant to the debate than this;

 

Not for nothing is a stiff gin and tonic a relic of the Empire coupling the use of quinine to fend off malaria with thrills and sexual spills of a quantity of juniper berry flavoured alcohol. I seem to recall that the Romans, former masters of the universe, ruled the known world on diet of lead tainted wine. Winston Churchill conducted the 2nd world war fuelled by vintage Bolly and brandy.

 

 

 

As I said before, get a life, and leave the rest of us alone with your nanny state twaddle.

 

Do you have problems with comprehension? Feel free to correct me, but where in any of the previous two posts do I advocate interference from the State that could be close to being described as 'nanny state twaddle'? Or are you now reduced to just resorting to mindless, childish insults?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like drinking, I like boating. I also like driving. However I would never drink and drive, but am happy to drink and boat.

 

How does that work? Its not the fear of the penalties with boating, its the fact I know that my reactions when driving are seriously impaired, whereas on the NB 1. I never drink to excess, just a few beers as I trundle along but enough to put over the road legal limit. 2. on an average day I will see less than 2-3 other NB's or plastics on the move. Last Saturday I saw 1 other NB in 3 hours.

 

I think the limits on drink/boating have no relevance to the drink/drive limits, and to try to apply the same is idiotic. What has happened as in so many cases of legislation implementation, a pre defined set of rules are applied to a totally different situation presumably because its cheaper to go with an accepted (inappropriate) standard rather than spend money on a considered research study.

 

If I remember rightly this all started with commercial limits, which have filtered down to leisure because no one with common sense has looked at all the mitigating circumstances and the bigger picture.

 

Ho Hum I suppose we will be denied another simple pleasure because of sweeping legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would contend that the number of incidents of serious injury or damage on the inland waterways where drink is involved is as close to zero as can be imagined.

 

Dave, as you ask, below is a link to the result of a FOIA request which I believe covers this.

 

However before I post the link, because one person appears to be unable to distinguish between facts and opinions, I have to add that it's there for information only. The reader will have to choose/not choose as an individual how much weight they give to the information. I am not expressing an opinion.

 

Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

below is a link to the result of a FOIA request which I believe covers this.

 

 

Link

 

So then: Assuming the rib travelling at 20 knots and the racing dinghy were more likely to have been on lakes or reservoirs, and assuming that boats on canals would be regarded as incapable of more than 7 knots, we have, of possible relevance to canals, the 16 drunks on the 20' cabin cruiser which would be exempt from the legislation by virtue of being under 7 metres long. Never mind that those who are going to put 16 people on a small cruiser and then all get drunk are hardly likely to be prevented by concerns they may be breaking "drink-boating" laws. The dinghy capsize which again would be under 7 metres long and one person who fell overboard from a narrowboat which might also fall within the scope of this legislation, if the person concerned was not the one steering the boat.

 

As far as the government is in possession of hard evidence, they know of one collision between two narrowboats which resulted in two injuries of unknown seriousness or cause, where 'one of the skippers appeared to be drunk'

 

Clearly the case for legislation to control drinking amongst canal boaters was overwhelming.

Edited by Natalie Graham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly the case for legislation to control drinking amongst canal boaters was overwhelming.

 

It's symptomatic of this current government who unfortunately feel they have to try and exercise control over people's private lives. Even if the the evidence was conclusive, (one, at the most two accidents in 7 years involving the types user they want to regulate could hardly be considered a risk to the general public that needs controlling), there is nothing to say that the proposed legislation, as written, is suitable or even enforcable.

 

As Biggles has stated, there's no evidence that the blood/alcohol limit for the drivers of motor vehicles which travel up to speeds of 70 mph on our roads is appropriate, nor does it appear that the government has conducted any studies to look for a suitable higher level. Even if they introduce the legislation who will administer the checks; maybe they will make all BW staff PCSOs so that they can detain the individual until the police arrive? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.