drink/boating petition

[mayalld]

Ban Everything!

 

Ban Banning Things!

[Chris Pink]

So, because you choose not to drink at lunchtime, you feel that it is OK to impose that on others who make a different choice, and for no more reason than that you adopt a position of moral superiority about your ability to enjoy boating without a drink.

 

and your views on the use hashish? or skunk? or heroin? or cocaine? or ecstacy?

 

 

it is wonderful to hear the alcho-fans when they think their god-given right to take their drugs is threatened.

[Naughty Cal]

and your views on the use hashish? or skunk? or heroin? or cocaine? or ecstacy?

 

My view is if they want to ruin their lifes who am i to stand in their way. Living in one of the most deprived neighbour hoods in the country (if you believe the official figures) you learn to turn a blind eye to drug problems.

[Chris Pink]

My view is if they want to ruin their lifes who am i to stand in their way. Living in one of the most deprived neighbour hoods in the country (if you believe the official figures) you learn to turn a blind eye to drug problems.

 

and is your life ruined by your use of alcohol?

[mayalld]

and your views on the use hashish? or skunk? or heroin? or cocaine? or ecstacy?

 

 

it is wonderful to hear the alcho-fans when they think their god-given right to take their drugs is threatened.

 

An interesting question.

 

However, it is difficult to compare, as in one case we are talking about a restriction applied to the use of a substance, in the others an outright prohibition.

 

In the case of alcohol, there is no outright prohibition or general restriction, which severely limits the arguments that the authorities can put forward under Article 8.

 

I have no particularly strong views as to whether the law on other drugs is right or wrong.

[Naughty Cal]

and is your life ruined by your use of alcohol?

 

No. But then again i have the ability to hold down a job, get out and do normal things. Have you ever met a genuine heroin addict?

[Billypownall]

I reckon some of these postings reflect the fact that the sun is over the yardarm. Someone even suggests that you can have alcohol and fly a plane. Not true the limit is NIL. I love my wine and a pint but I see no need to overdo it when I have to act with some responsibility and thats what being in change of a boat amounts to. I am sure more people than me have seen situations where drink has been a factor. It's a pity to have to say it but sometimes legislation is neccessary to protect people from themselves and other pesople from them. Maybe there is a case for a higher limit of alcohol than for driving but our limit for this is already the highest in Europe and I recon that sooner or later it will come down. If at that time the limit for navigation follows suit that would be unfair.

[Naughty Cal]

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.

[Nine of Hearts]

... Isn't that the whole purpose of drinking? To drug oneself so that ones inhibitions are reduced.

 

I know I'm coming into this late, but this made me chuckle. I'm "working" away from home at the moment, and last night when I went back to my hotel, I had a bottle of beer whilst watching t'telly. I thought I did that because I like the taste, and it was cold and refreshing after a hot day. However, it appears that I was doing it to lose my inhibitions. I've booked myself in to see a shrink, to find out why I'm so self conscious in my own company.

[carlt]

I had a bottle of beer whilst watching t'telly. I thought I did that because I like the taste, and it was cold and refreshing after a hot day. However, it appears that I was doing it to lose my inhibitions. I've booked myself in to see a shrink, to find out why I'm so self conscious in my own company.

Did it lead to spending excess money on the Hotel's Pay-per-view, though, once the inhibitions were mislaid?

[Nine of Hearts]

Did it lead to spending excess money on the Hotel's Pay-per-view, though, once the inhibitions were mislaid?

 

No, but I had a very frank discussion with myself.

[mayalld]

I reckon some of these postings reflect the fact that the sun is over the yardarm. Someone even suggests that you can have alcohol and fly a plane. Not true the limit is NIL. I love my wine and a pint but I see no need to overdo it when I have to act with some responsibility and thats what being in change of a boat amounts to. I am sure more people than me have seen situations where drink has been a factor. It's a pity to have to say it but sometimes legislation is neccessary to protect people from themselves and other pesople from them. Maybe there is a case for a higher limit of alcohol than for driving but our limit for this is already the highest in Europe and I recon that sooner or later it will come down. If at that time the limit for navigation follows suit that would be unfair.

 

I suggest that you can have alcohol and fly a plane.

 

You confidently dismiss that, and state that the limit is NIL.

 

OK, I'll bite. Prove to me that the limit is nil. Show me the legislation that says the limit is nil.

 

The proposed limit in respect of navigation is arbitrary, and cannot be justified by reference to any accident statistics. You can offer all the anecdotes about people being drunk whilst boating that you like, but that completely misses the point that if somebody is visibly drunk, they are very likely to be a LONG way over the DD limit. There simply isn't the evidence to back up a claim that having a BAC of (say) twice the DD limit results in more accidents on narrowboats.

[Machpoint005]

None of this argument, albeit interesting, makes the slightest jot of difference (can you have a jot that isn't slight?) to the fact that the proposed limits are completely unenforceable on most waterways. The 'dodge' that may have worked when the breathalyser first came in (have car accident, nip into nearest hostelry, down a few stiff ones to settle your nerves, then get bagged) is no good on the roads any more because you are still in charge of the vehicle.

 

However, if you had an incident on the canal, moored up and got ligged in whilst waiting for the appropriate authorities to turn up, you couldn't be touched even if you had a skinfull in the meantime. Once you are moored, the regulations would not apply. Case dismissed. Thank you.

 

I'm not suggesting we ignore sensible drinking guidelines, such as not drinking (yet) if you have a lot of locks to work through, but the fact remains that you simply are not going to get caught. Unless you are paralytic. In which case it's entirely your decision to take the risk.

[CanalWalker]

Having spoken to some RNLI chaps this seems like a good piece of legislation, at least people can be prosecuted when the rescue services are called out because they are too drunk to operate their boat.

[Naughty Cal]

Having spoken to some RNLI chaps this seems like a good piece of legislation, at least people can be prosecuted when the rescue services are called out because they are too drunk to operate their boat.

 

But in practice how often does this happen?

[KenK]

I suggest that you can have alcohol and fly a plane.

 

You confidently dismiss that, and state that the limit is NIL.

 

OK, I'll bite. Prove to me that the limit is nil. Show me the legislation that says the limit is nil.

 

.

 

My brother in law is a commercial pilot, he is not allowed to drink for 24 hours prior to flying and is subject to random testing at the airport before being allowed to fly. Rules are I believe set by the CAA.

 

Ken

[alan_fincher]

So tee-totalers dont die in accidents?

No doubt you can point me at the bit in some post where I either said, or implied that ? :lol:

 

My brother was tea-total - he died in an accident, so I'm hardly going to say it doesn't happen, am I.

 

However, many accidents occur because people have been drinking, and would not have done so, had they not been drinking.

 

It's much harder to come up with cases of people who died when they had not been drinking who would still be alive if they had had a few pints before the event.

 

But, if you don't accept at least this much, it's not really possible to discuss it with you.

 

 

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.

 

Although the following does not explicitly say that the person who died probably did so because of the volumes of alcohol consumed, I think you would have to be pretty naive to think the outcome would have been a fatality in a "no alcohol" situation.

 

MAIB Lindy Lou Report (Acrobat document)

 

I know of at least 3 drowning incidents in Herts/Bucks/Beds in recent years, none more than 15 miles from my home, all almost certainly relating to pissed people trying to dice with canals, (e.g. crossing lock gates alone).

 

They probably didn't make the national press, (only one person died in each, nothing suspicious), and local newspaper archives often fail to yield, but I know I'm right. I even go drinking, (so I am not "anti drink"), with someone who knew one of the victims quite well, and was deeply shocked by her unnecessary death.

 

What do you imagine would happen to fatality levels on our roads if alcohol simply didn't exist ? Yes there would still be accidents and deaths, of course there would. Yes, I still would have lost a brother.

 

But you have to be daft if you don't believe there would be less accidents and deaths though, surely ?

[mayalld]

Having spoken to some RNLI chaps this seems like a good piece of legislation, at least people can be prosecuted when the rescue services are called out because they are too drunk to operate their boat.

 

Do the RNLI often get called out to the Trent and Mersey Canal then?

 

The act allows for exemptions to be framed with regard to speed, size and location.

 

I would suggest that an exemption for vessels less than 25 metres LOA, with a design speed of less than 7kts, and travelling on a British Waterways Cruising or Remainder Canal (or MCGA Category A) would not result in any additional serious accidents.

 

I am prepared to concede that whilst navigating on commercial and river waterways, there might be some justification.

 

My brother in law is a commercial pilot, he is not allowed to drink for 24 hours prior to flying and is subject to random testing at the airport before being allowed to fly. Rules are I believe set by the CAA.

 

Ken

 

It might be rules set by his employer.

 

If there is an actual law setting a zero limit, I would be glad to concede the point.

 

However, so far as I am aware, the current legislation is s75(2) Air Navigation order 2005, which states;

" (2) A person shall not, when acting as a member of the crew of any aircraft or being carried in any aircraft for the purpose of so acting, be under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent as to impair his capacity so to act."

 

No limit is stated.

 

The same act that proposes to limit our drinking will, when fully in force, lay down limits for pilots for the first time. That limit will be 20mg/100ml.

 

The "zero limit" is an urban myth that is repeatedly backed up by what friends tell each other, but which is not backed up by hard evidence.

[Naughty Cal]

People die regardless of whether they have been drinking or not. As there are relatively few boating deaths related to alcohol per year there is no basis for introducing an unenforcable law. Banning people from drinking whilst boating will have no effect on the numbers of deaths on the canals each year. The majority of deaths in canals and rivers are not even boaters. Should we ban everybody living near a watercourse from drinking?

[mayalld]

Although the following does not explicitly say that the person who died probably did so because of the volumes of alcohol consumed, I think you would have to be pretty naive to think the outcome would have been a fatality in a "no alcohol" situation.

 

MAIB Lindy Lou Report (Acrobat document)

 

I know of at least 3 drowning incidents in Herts/Bucks/Beds in recent years, none more than 15 miles from my home, all almost certainly relating to pissed people trying to dice with canals, (e.g. crossing lock gates alone).

 

They probably didn't make the national press, (only one person died in each, nothing suspicious), and local newspaper archives often fail to yield, but I know I'm right. I even go drinking, (so I am not "anti drink"), with someone who knew one of the victims quite well, and was deeply shocked by her unnecessary death.

 

How are any of these cases relevant?

 

The new law will relate to;

• People with a BAC over 80mg/100ml
  
• People actually navigating a boat
  

I am not clear how cases involving the deaths of;

• People with a BAC considerably in excess of this level
  
• People not engaged in the navigation of a boat
  

Is relevant to the question of whether an 80mg/100ml limit for people steering a boat will improve safety.

[alan_fincher]

Is relevant to the question of whether an 80mg/100ml limit for people steering a boat will improve safety.

No.

 

The discussion had gone wider than this, about relationships between accidents and alcohol consumption.

 

I'd have thought it was obvious that I was responding to that, not to the proposed legislation.

 

Particulary as I explictly say in an earlier posting in the thread.....

 

(but outside scope of any proposed legislation of course),

 

which was the clue that I knew I was talking about something different......

[matty40s]

and your views on the use hashish? or skunk? or heroin? or cocaine? or ecstacy?

 

These definitely impair ability to ster a narrowboat.

 

Two weeks ago going north past Crick Marina, I started to round the bend to bridge 13 and passed a nameless boat coming the other way. Did the usual wave and hi, and then watched in amazement as he tried to remove the three or four cannabis plants that were on top of his hatch to catch the sun, and put them inside his cabin before he went past all the moorings. He grazed the vole bank whilst distracted. It could have caused a serious incident.

 

for the voles.

[Nine of Hearts]

and your views on the use hashish? or skunk? or heroin? or cocaine? or ecstacy?

 

These definitely impair ability to ster a narrowboat.

 

Two weeks ago going north past Crick Marina, I started to round the bend to bridge 13 and passed a nameless boat coming the other way. Did the usual wave and hi, and then watched in amazement as he tried to remove the three or four cannabis plants that were on top of his hatch to catch the sun, and put them inside his cabin before he went past all the moorings. He grazed the vole bank whilst distracted. It could have caused a serious incident.

 

for the voles.

 

Actually, that's an argument for the legalisation of cannabis, shurely? The distraction was caused by him hiding his plants, not by the consumption of any intoxicating substance. If cannabis were a legal drug, he would have had no need to hide his plants and the voles would have been left unmolested.

[RLWP]

Two weeks ago going north past Crick Marina, I started to round the bend to bridge 13 and passed a nameless boat coming the other way. Did the usual wave and hi, and then watched in amazement as he tried to remove the three or four cannabis plants that were on top of his hatch to catch the sun, and put them inside his cabin before he went past all the moorings. He grazed the vole bank whilst distracted. It could have caused a serious incident.

 

for the voles.

 

He must hav ebeen very distracted to have gone grazing on the bank.

 

Ungulant, is he?

 

Richard

[Nine of Hearts]

Ungulant, is he?

 

What? You mean he doesn't hold doors open for ladies, either. The cad!