--- In [email protected], Bruce Napier <br...@...> wrote: > > > > > I don't see that you can easily legally distinguish between the > canals and rivers and the Broads, where drink boating is much more of > a problem. The evidence behind the decision to include "non- > professional mariners" came from the MAIB. It does seem likely that > the commonest form of drink boating on the cut, the stag/hen party on > a day hire boat, will escape as a lot of those are under 7 meters/23 > feet, and not capable of more than 7 knots. > > As I read the cover letter for the consultation, the jet ski problem > is recognised, it's just going to require its own bit of regulation > to sweep it into the net, rather than get it entangled with this one. > It is _only_ jet skis, because they are not "used for navigation". > Ordinary speed boats are ships within the meaning of the Act, and > will be caught by it if capable of >7 knots. To escape, the vessel > must be *both* less than 7 meters long *and* not capable of exceeding > 7 knots. > > The choice of 7 metres and 7 knots is down to an existing definition > in the COLREGS apparently; it's the exemption from having to carry > nav lights
> "It does seem likely that the commonest form of drink boating on the cut, the stag/hen party on a day hire boat, will escape as a lot of those are under 7 meters/23 feet, and not capable of more than 7 knots." wrote Bruce I tried to argue this 7 knots incapability for narrowboats and got shot down a day or so back. So perhaps these drinking party boats will covered regardsless of their length. Pete Confused at the canalshop.
