Almost certainly YES. The stupidity of this lot beggars belief, unfortunately there appears to be no regulation whatsoever for small craft in busy shipping areas and they are difficult to police. No doubt if the daft buggers had drowned then someone else would have been at fault :threaten:
This comes back to another thread where SAR flights have been discussed. They should be able to claim the full cost of the rscue (caused by these morons being totally incompetent) from their insurance company
Its a shame that having the resources to buy, hire or borrow a boat does not automatically infer the ability to operate it in a safe manner. A similar situation is extant ashore with cars and motorcycles, despite drivers and riders being put through the neccesary training, and being subject to a range of complex and wide ranging law enforcement measures.
I suspect that any attempt to legislate the maritime leisure sector in the same way fashion would be equally as ineffective, and hideously expensive.
When viewed against the huge numbers of Britons who enjoy boating on a regular basis, the comparative rarity of incidents such as the one reported in the incident above would suggest that our current system of voluntary training, headed by a proactive national body, would seem to be actually quite effective.
Any legislation making the wearing of bouyancy devices compulsory would only benefit the makers and retailers of such devices.
Even if there was legislation, who would enforce it and how, and what would be the penalty? Lets face it in reality the maximum penalty if you dont get caught/saved is death and that doesn't deter.
As a non seagoing type there is no way that even I would set sail without LJs, radio and flares, the cost of such items is miniscule compared to the cost of a boat.
there is legislation on the carraige of adequate SOLAS equipment onboard for the passengers and it's not clear from the article whether the boat did, or did not, have that available. Clearly it was non-compliant with the absence of distress flares and VHF.
OTOH I do tend towards the view that there should be a level of licensing for boat use. Anyone using a pussers yacht is required to have at least two qualified people onboard; dayskipper and competent crew up to offshore yachtmaster and coastal skipper, and I think that's reasonable, although needs to reflect the ease with which a yacht can be single handed.
I believe that it is now a requirement here in Ireland to wear life jackets on lakes and off shore. The coast guard/Life boats/water authorities enforce it. I guess this was down to too many grand father/father/son groups drowing in boat accidents.
VHF radios are cheap, but you are required to hold an operators licence to operate one. I took my VHF operators course a couple of years ago, it was difficult to find somewhere to do the course and the subsequent exams.
It's suprising how many peoplw will spend thousands on a boat, but then won't spend a few hundred on life jackets, flares, VHF, EPRIB etc.! I guess the only thing that would change attitudes on this is if you had to pay the actual cost of a rescue (SAR helicopter and lifeboats etc.)
The legislation of which you speak only applies to the commercial sector. there is absolutely nothing to stop a chap putting an OBM onto a bathtub, and proceeding onto the water with no more SOLAS equipment than a spare plug. It is only when said chap attempts to hire, lease or charter his bathtub that his legal responsibilities begin.
Most of the existing regulations already imposed on boaters(speed limits, restricted areas etc), are in fact only local by-laws, for which the only legal sanction is a private prosecution brought by the local Harbour Master/Commissioner. It is unlikely that these bodies would have the time or rsources to bring that many private prosecutions.Therefore, in order to impose a mandatory lifejacket rule, a complete new legal framework would have to be devised, together with the creation of a suitably trained and equipped enforcement agency.
Given the comparative rarity of the sort of incident reported above, I'm in favour of the current systm of voluntary training remaining unchanged.
I lost a boat in the Moray Firth did mayday and got the total support.
Even a Nimrod !!
The only thing is when you do have an accident at sea in a 'pleasure boat' is that if there is any loss of life then the skipper can be tried for manslaughter if its found that the vessel was not equipped with all safety
gear--ie Flares ,Radio ,life jackets and a life raft .
Mayday is the skippers decision to transmit.
Boat insurance is not mandatory .Accidents at sea are usually investigated by the MSA and regarding the Solent incident they may bring charges under the shipping act due to the no lifebelts for all the crew and lack of safety equipment
A lot of Ports now insist on insurance as part of the agreement of having a mooring, I don't believe that they do to much checking though.
Latest thing buzzing around is breathalizers for boat drivers, that opens a whole new can of worms if they use the same rules as car drivers. The one that would be really interesting is drunk in charge, so no drinking when you are sleeping onboard overnight tied up alongside then
Since I joined I've only ever sailed and managed pussers yachts or rented overseas, so used the legislation all the time. Also a long time since I did my yachtmaster course where it was pushed quite hard.
Still, I rather agree with others about it not being that sensible not to.
I'm actually needing to get my DSC certificate, just to formalise using one. I did the straight VHF and HF tickets about 16 years ago, so should renew them both.