Drinking and Sailing

[The jiffle king]

I sail on a friends 32ft Oceanis for a couple of weeks a year, and we have always been sensible when crossing the channel or doing a difficult passage and not had a drink.

Some of the crew may at times in the past have had a couple of beers when doing a short trip, but I'm confused about the rules around this and how this is changing.

Can anyone shed any light on the legals of this?

T-J-K

The boat used to be in South Dock, but is now in Neptune in Ipswich

[bga]

All I've seen about is the 80mg/100ml blood alcohol level in a vessel that's over 7m/capable of over 7 knots.

I know that a few local authorities have their own by-laws too, not sure if this will supercede them.

[ALawson]

The jiffle king said:

Can anyone shed any light on the legals of this?

I have found this, but will have more of a search.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6749253.stm

Its going to be the same as the DD limits for cars.

[tank slapper]

Who does it apply to though - It doesn't appear to be very clear so far.

Is it the skipper? What if there are other crew aboard who have not been drinking?

It needs clarifying, as being aboard a boat is rather different to driving a car.

It also isn't going to apply to jet skis which is stupid, as they are a bloody menace without drinking.

Personally, I tend not to drink at all if I am not tied alongside or at anchor. It is too easy for things to go wrong. Falling overboard while intoxicated would be very bad news.

Edited by tank slapper on Thursday 28th June 23:20

[MOTORVATOR]

tank slapper said:

Who does it apply to though - It doesn't appear to be very clear so far.

Is it the skipper? What if there are other crew aboard who have not been drinking?

It needs clarifying, as being aboard a boat is rather different to driving a car.

It also isn't going to apply to jet skis which is stupid, as they are a bloody menace without drinking.

Personally, I tend not to drink at all if I am not tied alongside or at anchor. It is too easy for things to go wrong. Falling overboard while intoxicated would be very bad news.

Edited by tank slapper on Thursday 28th June 23:20

Bit more info here.

http://www.ibinews.com/ibinews/newsdesk/2007051316...

Can only apply to the pilot i.e. the person navigating the vessel. The fact that the crew are steamed I can't see them being able to make stick as they are effectively passengers.

Seems they can't enforce with jetskiis as there was a case recently where it was given that they were incapable of navigation in real terms as they did not constitute a ship. I guess that's why they set the lower limit at 7m as well. Bit daft really as the only accidents that have occurred that resulted in loss of life with drink involved happened to be in this class of vessel.

RYA have been fighting it for years but they seem to have had an arm put up their backs as well. All quite ridiculous really as any research has never shown a link between accidents and drinking causing a major problem but then that seems tobe what his government is about. Find something people enjoy and tax the arse out of it first (See the derogation of fuel) then regulate it for the fun of it!

I can't quite see how they're going to enforce as no agency has the capabilities of carrying out stop and tests at the moment in any great quantity. More to the point I will just get a faster boat

[XJSJohn]

also if waterBib "pull" over a boat on the solent and there are 6 or 7 people on board ... who is the "pilot" ??

Its not as if only the "legal owner is the only insured driver" or some such, like in a car.

[Fittster]

Is there any evidence this is actually a problem that needs government intervention?

Or have they just heard the sea shanty 'Drunken Sailor' and decided on the normal knee jerk reaction of ban and tax?

[ALawson]

Its normally the case of a few ruining it for the majority, I am guessing by % less than DD in cars.

[MOTORVATOR]

Fittster said:

Is there any evidence this is actually a problem that needs government intervention?

Or have they just heard the sea shanty 'Drunken Sailor' and decided on the normal knee jerk reaction of ban and tax?

No evidence at all with pleasure craft of the type they are talking about legislating against from what I've read on MCA and RYA incidents.

There have been a few high profile ones with commercial craft such as the pissed up captain who stuck his coaster through southend pier and also a couple of fishermen who hit each other crossing the river in opposite directions at highspeed. And yet again a couple of commercial guys who run up rocks in a loch again in the dark and at high speed.

In other words proffesional guys who were licenced etc. This is why the government haven't been able to make mandatory licensing of pleasure craft stick. The muppetts having the accidents were already licenced.

Also a couple of incidents involving personal watercraft or pwcs as they are known. These things it has to be said are the devils own. For some reason it appears that when someone buys one, ( A high percentage of pikeys due to their low cost ) they lend it out to all their mates and the red mist comes down. They all congregate in the same area and it's like tunnel vision kicks in.

There is already enough legislation to charge these idiots with using the colregs and harbour byelaws etc., But as I said earlier ther was a case recently where the appeal court gave that a jetski cannot be classed as a navigating vessel and therefore made it legal to mow a swimmer down with one or use them for demolition derbys. That's the legislation that needs sorting but as usual some muppet at government level knows better.

[tank slapper]

I have some more thoughts on this, but don't have time to post them now. this article discusses the relavent case about PWCs.

[tank slapper]

MOTORVATOR said:

Can only apply to the pilot i.e. the person navigating the vessel. The fact that the crew are steamed I can't see them being able to make stick as they are effectively passengers.

They say anyone involved in the navigation of a vessel though. Does this mean the helmsman, the skipper, someone doing chart work? What about a sailing vessel large enough to need more than one person to crew it? The crew are then involved in the navigation of the vessel. What if the vessel is on autopilot or self steering?

I guess it all depends on what they are saying constitutes "navigating". It really needs to be well defined enough that it is obvious as to what is and isn't permitted. In a car, it is easy - there is only one person behind the wheel.

I think the whole thing is a massive non issue that has been latched on to by some bureaucrat who has seen a theoretical problem rather than a real one.

[MOTORVATOR]

tank slapper said:

MOTORVATOR said:

Can only apply to the pilot i.e. the person navigating the vessel. The fact that the crew are steamed I can't see them being able to make stick as they are effectively passengers.

They say anyone involved in the navigation of a vessel though. Does this mean the helmsman, the skipper, someone doing chart work? What about a sailing vessel large enough to need more than one person to crew it? The crew are then involved in the navigation of the vessel. What if the vessel is on autopilot or self steering?

I guess it all depends on what they are saying constitutes "navigating". It really needs to be well defined enough that it is obvious as to what is and isn't permitted. In a car, it is easy - there is only one person behind the wheel.

I think the whole thing is a massive non issue that has been latched on to by some bureaucrat who has seen a theoretical problem rather than a real one.

As I understand 'Navigating' in this scenario we are talking about the master in control of the vessel whilst underway not the man on the charts.

I'm with you on the bureaucrat bollox

[Graham]

Good job they didnt have this in effect when we had a holiday on the shannon.. thoroughly Pimmed all the time. Mind you the chances of anyone in authority we met being sober enough to work a breathalyser were probably negative.... we made the mistake of turning up to one lock 5 mins before lunchtime... Lock keeper had already left for lunch. and hour later he's not back. another hour later a party set off to look for him.. find him in a pub. 30 mins later he walks back, bottle in hand and starts to operate the lock... apparently that was situation normal !!!!!

[MuZzY TVR]

quite simply, there is no legal requirement to have a license to operate most kinds of boat (obviously excluding commercial craft and some of the larger boats) so how can they penalise you if you are over the limit? they can't take your license, you don't have one. still, anyone who does get pissed and drive (or sail) a boat round is a moron and should be larched frankly. in mine humble opinion it is more dangerous than driving a car pissed. at least in a car you don't have to watch out for swimmers and as a general rule of thumb, other traffic can only be going either with you or against you.

[martinmac]

And carrying on that argument logically, if you interfere with the safe navigation of another vessel you will be prosecuted under local authority byelawes. At the moment under the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 the Police Marine Support unit will be conducting an operation whereby the Master or member of crew of any commercial can be required to take a breath test under certain circumstances ( very closely based on the laws for driving cars) if a vessel is involved in an accident within the port areawhich has resulted in injury or damage.
The penaties are in line with those for drink driving, fines or imprisonment.
Additionally, on conviction the MCA can revoke certification.
Whilst this stipulates commercial at the moment the MCA and local authorities are very keen to apply offences to non commercial craft and would not need to remove tickets but could fine or imprison.