A Sensible Move From the Broads Authority

[Naughty Cal]

7 minutes ago, sirweste said:

Yes, and it's up to that boat if they want to take the precaution of having a detector....which is exactly the same as them choosing to wear life jackets or not. 

 

Not the same at all.

3 minutes ago, ditchcrawler said:

It doesn't matter how easy it is to comply with the recommendations, the problem is if examiner "A" thinks they should be elsewhere and then 4 years later "B" has a different view.

Then pick it up and move it.

[Momac]

2 hours ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Why? 

 

Is the principle not exactly the same?

 

Please explain why CO alarms should be mandatory but not life jackets, as this seems highly relevant. 

 

Thanks.

 

 

I thought lifejackets should be a different topic. 

I do think they should be worn by skipper and all crew actively involved with boat handling and lock operation. 

[sirweste]

8 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

You are jeopardising the 3rd party if you produce CO, by having your own alarm it tells you to stop / switch off the offending appliance.

Ah yer, you're right on this point.

 

Though if it's a recommendation to use one then surely the other boat would be aware that the risk of CO poisoning could come from external sources

7 minutes ago, MartynG said:

I thought lifejackets should be a different topic. 

I do think they should be worn by skipper and all crew actively involved with boat handling and lock operation. 

See, I think that it should be up to that crew to assess the risks and decide if they want to wear one or not. Which is exactly the same as assessing the risks of anything and having the freedom of choice to decide how to protect yourself

[Boater Sam]

I have no qualms about any boat owner having a CO alarm, I have one and it has set off once when a boat breasted up with mine ran a petrol generator on the back deck even though my doors and hatches were closed.

But I object to the dependence on technology that mandatory use would cause. People need always to be aware of risks to their wellbeing and life, not rely on a battery powered detector with a defined working life which can be faulty.

Since this culture of health and safety started the common sense element of peoples' lives has been eroded  to the point where it is expected that the nanny state will ensure your life and safety from all risks. This is a very dangerous premise, not healthy at all.

[Momac]

7 minutes ago, sirweste said:

I think that it should be up to that crew to assess the risks and decide if they want to wear one or not. 

 

Crash helmets on motorbike riders and seat belts worn in vehicles had to be made legal requirements because people wrongly assessed the risks.

[Momac]

4 minutes ago, Boater Sam said:

 it is expected that the nanny state will ensure your life and safety from all risks. .

Really?

Most people are really bad at risk assessments. Some mandatory  aids and laws do help.

 

[sirweste]

11 minutes ago, MartynG said:

 

Crash helmets on motorbike riders and seat belts worn in vehicles had to be made legal requirements because people wrongly assessed the risks.

I agree with this yep, wondered when it would be brought up. I'm not really sure how I feel about this to be honest. If you're not capable of assessing a risk such as helmet wearing on a 70mph motorbike then I kinda don't see the point in forcing the person to wear one...

 

As I said previously, I compete at a reasonable level in downhill and gravity enduro mtb races. I choose full face / open face helmets depending on the event / terrain. Helmet use here is mandated, which I agree with as someone who cannot see the risks involved shouldn't be part of racing in the sport. 

What's not mandated is body armour, as the risk here is less clear. There's a lot of variation in what people use. I would not agree with dictating the amour choice, grown adults should be able to choose for themselves what protection based on risks.

 

Educate, don't dictate.

Edited September 5, 2018 by sirweste

[Boater Sam]

Agreement, popped you a greeny there. Cotton wool smothers common sense.

[Naughty Cal]

34 minutes ago, sirweste said:

Ah yer, you're right on this point.

 

Though if it's a recommendation to use one then surely the other boat would be aware that the risk of CO poisoning could come from external sources

See, I think that it should be up to that crew to assess the risks and decide if they want to wear one or not. Which is exactly the same as assessing the risks of anything and having the freedom of choice to decide how to protect yourself

But what about protecting others around you?

 

This is where the BSS comes in. It is not about protecting you but protecting third parties. 

11 minutes ago, Boater Sam said:

Agreement, popped you a greeny there. Cotton wool smothers common sense.

Cotton wool also protects you and those around you.

[sirweste]

13 minutes ago, Naughty Cal said:

But what about protecting others around you?

 

This is where the BSS comes in. It is not about protecting you but protecting third parties. 

Is it!? If so it’s utterly going about it the wrong way. Surely they’d be wanting to do engine & genny exhaust tests then. 

[Alan de Enfield]

28 minutes ago, sirweste said:

Is it!? If so it’s utterly going about it the wrong way. Surely they’d be wanting to do engine & genny exhaust tests then. 

Be careful what you 'wish for' - MOT tests never used to cover emissions - they do now, they never used to cover seat belts - they do now.

[cuthound]

46 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Be careful what you 'wish for' - MOT tests never used to cover emissions - they do now, they never used to cover seat belts - they do now.

 

And since May 2018 your car will fail it's MoT if it has an oil leak.

 

https://www.rac.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?24631-New-Standards-on-MOT-From-May-2018

[sirweste]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Be careful what you 'wish for' - MOT tests never used to cover emissions - they do now, they never used to cover seat belts - they do now.

I wasn't really wishing for it, I was pointing out that having them installed inside your boat won't really protect others, as Cal stated the new reg was for

 

1 hour ago, Naughty Cal said:

But what about protecting others around you?

 

This is where the BSS comes in. It is not about protecting you but protecting third parties. 

Cotton wool also protects you and those around you.

 

[MtB]

1 hour ago, cuthound said:

And since May 2018 your car will fail it's MoT if it has an oil leak.

 

Oh, I predict that will be a slippery slope....