Jump to content

Drinking and boating


dogless

Featured Posts

Agreed - no tongue in cheek smiley available for my post above .

 

BTW to award a greenie with a mobile device tap "full version" at bottom of screen and it will bring up the desktop layout which allows greenies to be awarded

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a perspective:

The 'probably/ probably not' approach to this is a smoke screen hiding the personal reality of events. Whatever catastrophe it is, when it happens to you or a loved one, it is 100% disaster. Is it right to chance that, say with you, or your dad, or your dog? Who cares about statistics at a time like that?

I seem to have met many victims of catastrophic events. They need empathy, not statistics.

(-and I'm a mathematician!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a perspective:

The 'probably/ probably not' approach to this is a smoke screen hiding the personal reality of events. Whatever catastrophe it is, when it happens to you or a loved one, it is 100% disaster. Is it right to chance that, say with you, or your dad, or your dog? Who cares about statistics at a time like that?

I seem to have met many victims of catastrophic events. They need empathy, not statistics.

(-and I'm a mathematician!)

If you've met many victims of catastrophic events can you post your whereabouts when boating so I don't become one of them.... Edited by gazza
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always fancy one on the go but missus always says no I shouldnt , I do argue sometimes but usually obey the boss .. You know what , It does taste better after a days cruising than during and having been in the vincinidty of this latest sinking I think she is right .. though I dont think it hurts in moderation personally its the bottles of scotch while cruising that are very scarey .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a perspective:

The 'probably/ probably not' approach to this is a smoke screen hiding the personal reality of events. Whatever catastrophe it is, when it happens to you or a loved one, it is 100% disaster. Is it right to chance that, say with you, or your dad, or your dog? Who cares about statistics at a time like that?

I seem to have met many victims of catastrophic events. They need empathy, not statistics.

(-and I'm a mathematician!)

But probablity is at the core of managing risk. It's about understanding the likelihood of an event occurring and the likely consequence should it happen. It's all grey areas because that's the reality. If you avoided any activity because it carries a possible tragic consequence then you couldn't live a sensible life.

 

You are quite right that is no consolation to the unfortunate folk who find themselves at the wrong end of the scale but it doesn't change the basic equation.

 

JP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect this topic has been done to death. :)

 

There are arguments on both sides all I am sure justified and reasonable.

 

One thing that did come up was the idea of a similar test to the continent. My immediate reaction was no, but thinking about it I wonder. Done properly, whatever that is, could it not do away with some of the problems that we read so often on the pages of this and other forums?

 

It could include a practical including say the best way to pass an oncoming boat, how to moor a boat securely in various circumstances, how to spring off a bank on a windy day, how to break the bank suction when departing an online mooring, best way to operate locks etc. I am sure others could add many other things. It could make navigating the waterways just that bit nicer for all. So maybe it might be an idea. I know it hits at the freedom, but surely we need new fresh boaters to help keep the waterways viable and enjoyable.

 

Oh it could also include some of the real history of the canal.

 

Bottoms up all, good cruising :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one always sticks in my memory.

 

https://www.gov.uk/maib-reports/capsize-of-hire-day-boat-breakaway-5-on-the-river-bure-norfolk-england-with-loss-of-1-life

 

Our first hire boat holiday was a week on one of Breakaway 5's sister craft Breakaway 1 shortly after this incident had occured.

My friend and his wife were following that boat at the time and pulled survivors from the water, they had been rocking the boat so sadly self inflicted

Phil

..

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure others could add many other things. It could make navigating the waterways just that bit nicer for all. So maybe it might be an idea. I know it hits at the freedom, but surely we need new fresh boaters to help keep the waterways viable and enjoyable.

I am not sure it would help to bring in new boaters. Many boaters begin by hiring find they like it and progress through shares to ownership. I can't see that many taking a test before they are able to have a holiday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say huge numbers of people have died on the English canal system in recent years as a direct result of alcohol consumption.

 

I could probably get to double figures based on incidents I recall no more than 20 or 30 miles from where I live.

 

However hardly any relate to attempts to navigate a boat.

 

I probably couldn't think of one single example that is no more than 20 or 30 miles from where I live.

 

Just about anything that sticks in my head relates to something that happened when boats are tied up. It may be attempts to cross locks whilst intoxicated, it may be attempts to jump narrow locks whilst intoxicated, it may we as a result of failure to manage a solid fuel stove while intoxicated. It is very, very rarely an attempt to go boating whilst intoxicated.

 

Even if we introduced mandatory training, and certification of steerers, and breathalyser testing of them, my view is that the number of people who die as a result of alcohol consumption on the English canal system would remain largely unchanged.

 

I think some of the debate above, whilst interesting, really has lost all track of what the real risks actually are, and what most of those who have died were actually doing when they did.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Err, what does this mean? I think the forum software or your phone has garbled it.

It means what it says. Which is that Alan can't think of a single example (of a death caused by navigating a boat while intoxicated) within 20 or 30 miles of where he lives. ?

 

JP

Edited by Captain Pegg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It means what it says. Which is that Alan can't think of a single example (of a death caused by navigating a boat while intoxicated) within 20 or 30 miles of where he lives.

 

JP

Yes, the grammar may not have been perfect, but I can't blame the forum software, I can only blame any poor use of English by myself.

 

That's exactly what I mean,and I still cant think of any one such example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But probablity is at the core of managing risk. It's about understanding the likelihood of an event occurring and the likely consequence should it happen. It's all grey areas because that's the reality. If you avoided any activity because it carries a possible tragic consequence then you couldn't live a sensible life.

 

You are quite right that is no consolation to the unfortunate folk who find themselves at the wrong end of the scale but it doesn't change the basic equation.

 

JP

 

Exactly. Knowing the risk was 'managed' is no consolation. I reckon your 'basic equation' is not the same as mine and is , perhaps, not even basic.

 

I do, of course recognise the need to use statistics in regulation and law making. But these things are not life. Nor can they restore lost life or limb or loved ones.

 

I do thank you for your response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Exactly. Knowing the risk was 'managed' is no consolation. I reckon your 'basic equation' is not the same as mine and is , perhaps, not even basic.

 

I do, of course recognise the need to use statistics in regulation and law making. But these things are not life. Nor can they restore lost life or limb or loved ones.

 

I do thank you for your response.

As was said earlier, you can't avoid all risks, and people are injured or die from all sorts of causes which you can't avoid if you want to have a life. You certainly shouldn't go into a kitchen or bathroom, climb stairs, cook anything, cross the road, ride a bike, eat peanuts, do DIY of any description -- all these kill and injure far more people than steering a narrowboat under the influence.

 

It doesn't mean we shouldn't feel sorry for people when they do have rare but unfortunate accidents, but this doesn't mean legislation is needed to prevent them happening again, otherwise almost all human activities would have to be banned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.