Are there any laws restrictions against drink boating?

[KirraMisha]

Whether it's illegal or not, it invalidates your insurance if you navigate 'under the influence' of drink and / or drugs, or allow anyone else to do so!

This for me is where the problem lays.

How can a dayboater who is drunk and crashes into a boat causing very serious damage be held responsible via insurance if the hire base claims they knew nothing of drinking and did not see the crates of beer under tshirts!

[KirraMisha]

Sounds like a massive over reaction to me.

So you think drinking while in charge of a boat weighing tons is perfectly reasonable behaviour?

Personally I have been on the canals a couple of months and sick of seeing it already as the people doing it certainly dont give a toss about the canals.

There is a big difference between a crate of beer and spending a tenner each to hire out a day boat and spending over 30 grand on a narrow boat thats your home only to have Mr Wahey and its pissed mates laugh their backsides off when they bounce off your boat or anything else that gets in their way!

I would like to see the hire firms slammed with heavy fines for starters as crates of beer and bottles of vodka have nothing to do with boating unless its a restaurant boat sailed by a sober skipper.

Edited May 8, 2012 by KirraMisha

[magpie patrick]

This for me is where the problem lays.

How can a dayboater who is drunk and crashes into a boat causing very serious damage be held responsible via insurance if the hire base claims they knew nothing of drinking and did not see the crates of beer under tshirts!

 

Moving away from the more flippant posts: my boat insurance is not invalidated by being under the influence of drink or drugs, a judgement has to be made that I and crew are fit to navigate.

 

As I understand it, the only way that third party vehicle insurance is invalidated is if the driver at the time was not insured to drive the vehicle in question, and didn't hold insurance of their own, and as boat insurance is effectively any driver I guess this doesn't arise. The insurance company may refuse to pay for your own losses, but the whole point of compulsory insurance is that a third party isn't left with massive losses through no fault of their own.

 

Of course, there is nothing to stop the insurance company going after the insured person to recover their losses.

[Leni]

Moving away from the more flippant posts: my boat insurance is not invalidated by being under the influence of drink or drugs, a judgement has to be made that I and crew are fit to navigate.

 

My insurance policy says under General Exclusions, "This policy does not cover the following: Any loss arising as a result of You or anyone in control of the craft being under the influence of alcohol or drugs."

[KirraMisha]

Moving away from the more flippant posts: my boat insurance is not invalidated by being under the influence of drink or drugs, a judgement has to be made that I and crew are fit to navigate.

 

As I understand it, the only way that third party vehicle insurance is invalidated is if the driver at the time was not insured to drive the vehicle in question, and didn't hold insurance of their own, and as boat insurance is effectively any driver I guess this doesn't arise. The insurance company may refuse to pay for your own losses, but the whole point of compulsory insurance is that a third party isn't left with massive losses through no fault of their own.

 

Of course, there is nothing to stop the insurance company going after the insured person to recover their losses.

 

Would it not therefore be reasonable Patrick for the insurance company to say you/someone are not fit to make such decisions under the influence.

Edited May 8, 2012 by KirraMisha

[magpie patrick]

Would it not therefore be reasonable Patrick for the insurance company to say you/someone are not fit to make such decisions under the influence.

 

That's a reasonable suggestion, and is of course the grey area. Half of shandy? a bottle of Vodka?

 

However in response to Leni, I have just checked my insurance and it doesn't have the condition that is quoted. I wonder if, because I'm insured to go 12 miles offshore, and have 30 consecutive days in Europe they rely on the law to enforce the relevant rule where it applies.

 

It is a bit fierce in general exclusions though, that is tantamount to withdrawing third party cover. My general exclusions are act of war and terrorism (in other words, if a bunch of terrorists blow up my boat and third party losses are incurred, the insurance company won't pay). There are specific exclusions (including the crew being fit and capable) which affect my own loss.

 

Edited to add, in the case of a hire boat, it is up to the operator to ascertain fitness, and they certainly shouldn't be three sheets to the wind.

 

If your boat is getting damaged, go to your insurance company, tell them the hire company responsible

Edited May 8, 2012 by magpie patrick

[mayalld]

Is it a foregone conclusion that this new law will be enacted?

 

The law has already been enacted.

 

At the risk of being berated for getting all technical about legal stuff...

 

The way that law making tends to operate these days is that Acts are passed and receive Royal Assent, but do not always come into force immediately upon Assent.

 

It isn't always convenient to HMG to have laws coming into force on dates that are at the whim of the passage of Bills, so the usual method is that a Bill is enacted (becoming an Act), and then sits waiting for one or more commencement orders to bring it into force.

 

In addition to the administrative convenience, this process is also sometimes bemoaned as a method of getting Parliament to agree to wide ranging powers with the promise of consultation after enactment and before commencement to "iron out" the problem areas (which may or may not actually happen).

 

So, the relevant bit isn't in force, and may in fact never be commenced (I suspect that until there is a 3rd party loss of life caused by a drunken pleasure boater, it may stay in limbo).

 

There is precedent for a long delay, as in the case of the Easter Act 1928, which makes Easter Sunday the Sunday between 9th and 15th April, and which is still waiting for a commencement order.

[mayalld]

So you think drinking while in charge of a boat weighing tons is perfectly reasonable behaviour?

Personally I have been on the canals a couple of months and sick of seeing it already as the people doing it certainly dont give a toss about the canals.

There is a big difference between a crate of beer and spending a tenner each to hire out a day boat and spending over 30 grand on a narrow boat thats your home only to have Mr Wahey and its pissed mates laugh their backsides off when they bounce off your boat or anything else that gets in their way!

I would like to see the hire firms slammed with heavy fines for starters as crates of beer and bottles of vodka have nothing to do with boating unless its a restaurant boat sailed by a sober skipper.

 

The problem is that you are seeing the world in black and white here.

 

Now, given where I think you are, I have a very shrewd idea which particular day boats are involved, and I would have to agree that the operators of those boats take an utterly couldn't-give-a-toss attitude to what their hirers do.

 

My view is that it is unacceptable to be intoxicated so as to be incapable of being in proper control of the boat.

 

My question is "where do we draw that line".

 

The new law proposes that the line be drawn at the same point as the line for driving a car. That to my mind is too draconian. What relevance does a measure of intoxication that determines whether I am fit to drive a motor vehicle and to respond sufficiently quickly when travelling at 70mph have to navigating at 3-4 mph, where the reaction time is increased?

 

What purpose is served by criminalising people who are over the limit (and rightly so) for driving a car because they had 3 pints at lunchtime, but are perfectly capable of maintaining control of a boat at 3mph.

 

The new law is a bad law, because it will deal severely with those who have a moderate amount to drink whilst at the helm of their own boat, and ignore those who drink vast amounts on a day boat.

 

Crates of beer are an important part of our provisioning for a holiday, yet you will never find me crashing into other boats in the manner that you mention,

[Morat]

So you think drinking while in charge of a boat weighing tons is perfectly reasonable behaviour?

 

It can be yes.

Personally I have been on the canals a couple of months and sick of seeing it already as the people doing it certainly dont give a toss about the canals.

 

That is a very subjective view, and not one that is useful when trying to frame a law that will affect everyone on the canals

 

There is a big difference between a crate of beer and spending a tenner each to hire out a day boat and spending over 30 grand on a narrow boat thats your home only to have Mr Wahey and its pissed mates laugh their backsides off when they bounce off your boat or anything else that gets in their way!

 

If you suggest that spending money buys you rights under the law then you're on a very slippery slope

 

I would like to see the hire firms slammed with heavy fines for starters as crates of beer and bottles of vodka have nothing to do with boating unless its a restaurant boat sailed by a sober skipper.

 

It sounds very unreasonable to me to blame a hire firm for the behaviour of the hirers. Should a hire firm representative accompany every shopping trip to ensure that booze isn't "smuggled" aboard hire boats?

 

No, you're barking entirely up the wrong tree.

 

Bad behaviour is the responsibility of the people behaving badly. Also, you don't need to be sober to control a "narrow boat weighing tons" especially as it only moves at 4mph. Should you be totally pissed? NO, of course not - but your blanket ban is a bad way to go about things. You'd be much better served by documenting damage and claiming for it using the existing channels.

 

I would be interested to hear how many lives would be saved, and how much damage prevented (in cost terms) by this proposed law.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Morat

[Morat]

This for me is where the problem lays.

How can a dayboater who is drunk and crashes into a boat causing very serious damage be held responsible via insurance if the hire base claims they knew nothing of drinking and did not see the crates of beer under tshirts!

 

The drinking isn't relevant! The damage has been caused, and should be paid for - whether the guilty party is drunk or not.

[KirraMisha]

The problem is that you are seeing the world in black and white here.

 

Now, given where I think you are, I have a very shrewd idea which particular day boats are involved, and I would have to agree that the operators of those boats take an utterly couldn't-give-a-toss attitude to what their hirers do.

 

My view is that it is unacceptable to be intoxicated so as to be incapable of being in proper control of the boat.

 

My question is "where do we draw that line".

 

The new law proposes that the line be drawn at the same point as the line for driving a car. That to my mind is too draconian. What relevance does a measure of intoxication that determines whether I am fit to drive a motor vehicle and to respond sufficiently quickly when travelling at 70mph have to navigating at 3-4 mph, where the reaction time is increased?

 

What purpose is served by criminalising people who are over the limit (and rightly so) for driving a car because they had 3 pints at lunchtime, but are perfectly capable of maintaining control of a boat at 3mph.

 

The new law is a bad law, because it will deal severely with those who have a moderate amount to drink whilst at the helm of their own boat, and ignore those who drink vast amounts on a day boat.

 

Crates of beer are an important part of our provisioning for a holiday, yet you will never find me crashing into other boats in the manner that you mention,

I take your point Dave and do agree mostly but I dont think I am seeing things in black and white entirely.

The law on drink driving applies at any speed including being behind the wheel and not even moving with the keys in the ignition I beleive but I am not a legal expert so dont quote me.

I know someone who was done for drink driving after sitting in his car after 12 pints listening to the radio outside his house.

But where should the line be drawn and after how many pints or units when in charge of a boat do you think?

We may be going slow but when drinking may take a longer than usual look at nature passing us by ect.

I dont have the answers I just have consearns thats all.

[Chertsey]

The law has already been enacted.

 

At the risk of being berated for getting all technical about legal stuff...

 

The way that law making tends to operate these days is that Acts are passed and receive Royal Assent, but do not always come into force immediately upon Assent.

 

It isn't always convenient to HMG to have laws coming into force on dates that are at the whim of the passage of Bills, so the usual method is that a Bill is enacted (becoming an Act), and then sits waiting for one or more commencement orders to bring it into force.

 

In addition to the administrative convenience, this process is also sometimes bemoaned as a method of getting Parliament to agree to wide ranging powers with the promise of consultation after enactment and before commencement to "iron out" the problem areas (which may or may not actually happen).

 

So, the relevant bit isn't in force, and may in fact never be commenced (I suspect that until there is a 3rd party loss of life caused by a drunken pleasure boater, it may stay in limbo).

 

There is precedent for a long delay, as in the case of the Easter Act 1928, which makes Easter Sunday the Sunday between 9th and 15th April, and which is still waiting for a commencement order.

Thank you.

[mayalld]

It sounds very unreasonable to me to blame a hire firm for the behaviour of the hirers. Should a hire firm representative accompany every shopping trip to ensure that booze isn't "smuggled" aboard hire boats?

 

To be fair, there is a happy medium where day hire firms take action against parties who are setting out with the obvious intent of drunken loutishness and deal with reported incidents.

 

the firm that I believe is involved has a reputation of not caring about problems,

[KirraMisha]

The drinking isn't relevant! The damage has been caused, and should be paid for - whether the guilty party is drunk or not.

Drinking is relevant if the damage was done by a drunken person as its part of their state of being at that time!

My consearn is does the hire company not also have a responsibility as the owners if they have not given guidelines for limits on drinking while in charge of a boat if they are going to allow customers to turn up with crates of beer?

 

Would you give your car keys to someone who is going to a beer festival?

Or would Hertz rent a car to someone supping on a bottle of cider and claim they did not act with neglect when said person run over someone at 20 mph as they were not breaking the speed limit in a built up area?

 

Its a bit like the old ''caution this is hot'' warning on take away coffee where someone sued a fast food firm for not warning them they may burn themselves.

 

My thinking has only come about through what I have seen going on.

As Dave said he may have a few beers but I think its safe to say hes spent more than a tenner to get on the water and his boat like many is his pride and joy so is going to be a bit more responsible than someone who is renting a dayboat who has not been told by the owner some rules on drinking.

Im not daft Ive seen them turn up with crates of beer with nowt said by the hire firm.

[KirraMisha]

It can be yes.

 

 

That is a very subjective view, and not one that is useful when trying to frame a law that will affect everyone on the canals

 

 

 

If you suggest that spending money buys you rights under the law then you're on a very slippery slope

I did not say spending money buys you rights I think you missed the point!

 

 

 

It sounds very unreasonable to me to blame a hire firm for the behaviour of the hirers. Should a hire firm representative accompany every shopping trip to ensure that booze isn't "smuggled" aboard hire boats?

I think a hire company should be seen to be taking reasonable measures excuse the pun to ensure drinkning guidelines are in place as they are running a business in a public place that carries liability and responsibilities.

Lets remember we are talking mostly about day boats here

 

No, you're barking entirely up the wrong tree.

 

Ever heard of aiding and a betting?

Neither had I until my mate got pulled on a stolen bike that I was on the back of after being told it was his new bike!

 

Bad behaviour is the responsibility of the people behaving badly. Also, you don't need to be sober to control a "narrow boat weighing tons" especially as it only moves at 4mph. Should you be totally pissed? NO, of course not - but your blanket ban is a bad way to go about things. You'd be much better served by documenting damage and claiming for it using the existing channels.

 

I would be interested to hear how many lives would be saved, and how much damage prevented (in cost terms) by this proposed law.

I would prefer no lives need be saved in order for things to change

[Morat]

OK, I hadn't taken in that you were specifically talking about day hire firms. I would be very annoyed if I was banned from taking a crate of two of beer on board a boat I'd hired for a week or more!

 

Anyway, boating isn't driving so I don't think the parallels you draw are relevant. The consequences of drink driving are horrendous to third parties, where the likelihood of causing death and destruction in a canal boat is very much lower.

 

Drinking is relevant if the damage was done by a drunken person as its part of their state of being at that time!

 

I don't understand this. If I ram your boat and cause £1500 of damage when sober, you claim for £1500 of repairs from me or my insurance company. If I cause £1500 of damage to your boat when drunk, you claim for £1500 of repairs from me or my insurance company.

 

You might be able to use my drunken state to back up your claims that I was at fault in a contested claim, but otherwise... I can't see the relevance.

 

 

It seems to me that you're annoyed by drunken yahoos taking out day hire boats and being obnoxious. I can understand that - but it doesn't mean that drinking should be banned on all boats on the canals, be they £10 hire boats or expensive shiny marina queens.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Morat

[KirraMisha]

OK, I hadn't taken in that you were specifically talking about day hire firms. I would be very annoyed if I was banned from taking a crate of two of beer on board a boat I'd hired for a week or more!

 

Anyway, boating isn't driving so I don't think the parallels you draw are relevant. The consequences of drink driving are horrendous to third parties, where the likelihood of causing death and destruction in a canal boat is very much lower.

 

 

 

I don't understand this. If I ram your boat and cause £1500 of damage when sober, you claim for £1500 of repairs from me or my insurance company. If I cause £1500 of damage to your boat when drunk, you claim for £1500 of repairs from me or my insurance company.

 

You might be able to use my drunken state to back up your claims that I was at fault in a contested claim, but otherwise... I can't see the relevance.

 

 

It seems to me that you're annoyed by drunken yahoos taking out day hire boats and being obnoxious. I can understand that - but it doesn't mean that drinking should be banned on all boats on the canals, be they £10 hire boats or expensive shiny marina queens.

I see it as relevant Morat as it happened when you were drunk if you get my meaning and thats why it happened!

Of course you dont have to be drunk to crash a boat either.

Thanks.

[nicknorman]

I did think there was a legal limit deriving from the Railway and Transport act 2003, however it seems no - see quote below from BMF website. Although it is dated 2009 that is the last update so presumably nothing has changed yet.

 

23rd June, 2009

 

Howard Pridding, Executive Director of the British Marine Federation and Gus Lewis, RYA Legal and Government Affairs Manager continue to work hard on behalf of boaters and the businesses that support them on this issue

 

Blood-alcohol limits for non-professional (recreational) boaters were introduced by Section 80 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, although at present this Section is not in force. The DfT has confirmed that it now wishes to bring Section 80 in to force, subject to certain exemptions, and is in the process of producing draft Regulations to effect this.

 

The BMF has recently submitted its response to the DfT's consultation on the matter. In it is a robust argument for better consideration of the economic impact such regulation will have on the industry and calls on the Government to use proportionality when implementing its new regulatory obligations.

 

Going Forward, both Howard and Gus are pursuing a meeting with the new Minister for Shipping in the next few weeks to discuss the issues raised in the consultation. This section will be updated with any outcomes from that meeting.

[cereal tiller]

The problem is that you are seeing the world in black and white here.

 

Now, given where I think you are, I have a very shrewd idea which particular day boats are involved, and I would have to agree that the operators of those boats take an utterly couldn't-give-a-toss attitude to what their hirers do.

 

My view is that it is unacceptable to be intoxicated so as to be incapable of being in proper control of the boat.

 

My question is "where do we draw that line".

 

The new law proposes that the line be drawn at the same point as the line for driving a car. That to my mind is too draconian. What relevance does a measure of intoxication that determines whether I am fit to drive a motor vehicle and to respond sufficiently quickly when travelling at 70mph have to navigating at 3-4 mph, where the reaction time is increased?

 

What purpose is served by criminalising people who are over the limit (and rightly so) for driving a car because they had 3 pints at lunchtime, but are perfectly capable of maintaining control of a boat at 3mph.

 

The new law is a bad law, because it will deal severely with those who have a moderate amount to drink whilst at the helm of their own boat, and ignore those who drink vast amounts on a day boat.

 

Crates of beer are an important part of our provisioning for a holiday, yet you will never find me crashing into other boats in the manner that you mention,

 

 

Booze and boating do seem to be inextricably linked,my personal view is that i will not drink alcohol until the boat is moored(or at least till the last lock of the day has been completed).

 

Passenger boat skippering experience brought me to the conclusion that intoxicated boat crews are a risk when working locks late at night.

 

If a party boat crew operates a thames lock at night using an EA key to switch on the hydraulics,the passenger boat skipper is legally responsible for the safe operation of the lock.

 

many times i have witnessed 'merry' private craft owners finding themselves unable to tie up sensibly in the lock,often falling in and generally causing chaos and delay.

 

i was told that the law regarding drink driving was brought into force in 2007.

[Morat]

But did it happen BECAUSE you were drunk or WHILE you were drunk? there's a huge gap between the two extremes.

[Guest]

Whether it's illegal or not, it invalidates your insurance if you navigate 'under the influence' of drink and / or drugs, or allow anyone else to do so!

Certainly true with my insurance.

[carlt]

Certainly true with my insurance.

With my insurance there's a spliff and a can of Stella in the welcome pack.

[gazza]

reading this confirms my suspicion, the river is the place to be

 

happy boating and stay sober boys and girls

[David Mack]

There is a revised law on the statute books that isn't yet in force (s80 Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003), which would make the road DD limit apply to the canals for boats over 7m long (i.e. excluding many day boats), and would come with a maximum of £5,000 fine and 2 years in chokey.

 

Government periodically makes moves to bring this into force, but has yet to do so. Latest (brief) update from RYA here..

 

What purpose is served by criminalising people who are over the limit (and rightly so) for driving a car because they had 3 pints at lunchtime, but are perfectly capable of maintaining control of a boat at 3mph.

 

The new law is a bad law, because it will deal severely with those who have a moderate amount to drink whilst at the helm of their own boat, and ignore those who drink vast amounts on a day boat.

 

Or on a jet ski travelling at goodness knows what speed.

 

I seem to recall that a fatality caused by a drunken jetskier was one of the factors which led to the legislation. Yet a jetski is not legally defined as a boat, and therefore would not come under the legislation (even without the 7m minimum length criterion). I think this may be one reason why the legislation has yet to be implemented.

Edited May 8, 2012 by David Mack

[Leni]

With my insurance there's a spliff and a can of Stella in the welcome pack.

Crazy, man! Do tell! Who are you insured with?