Do you think recreational boats should be licensed?

[goboatingnow]

as a former instructor. I blow hot and cold on this subject. in favour of it, is an attempt to get some basic education across. against it , is that it tends to be lowest common demoninator stuff. I dont see what the issue is about the " gubbermint".

at this point in my life Im against compulsory licensing/basic training, but every time I meet an idiot on the water, my view can change !


dave

[Robin3]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

as a former instructor. I blow hot and cold on this subject. in favour of it, is an attempt to get some basic education across. against it , is that it tends to be lowest common demoninator stuff. I dont see what the issue is about the " gubbermint".

at this point in my life Im against compulsory licensing/basic training, but every time I meet an idiot on the water, my view can change !


dave

That about sums it up for me too!

[Mike OReilly]

I asked this earlier: Is there any evidence that mandatory boating training improves accident rates, morbidity or mortality? There are enough of these mandatory licensing regimes around the world such that you'd think it would be easy to answer this question. I've looked with some detail at the Canadian experience, and found no clear improvement.

I'm all for effective government programs that address actual (as opposed to made up) collective problems. I'm happy to pay my taxes or fees to support these programs. I think mandatory boating licensing could fall into this category, but my problem is that I can't find evidence that they are effective -- at least the ones that are currently offered.

This may not be a problem that is solvable by mandatory broad-based licensing. In fact, if you look at the USCG accident statistics, two things jump out:

#1. Boating in general is very safe. Accident rates are very low compared to many other activities in life.
#2. Of the accidents that do occur, the vast vast majority involve open motorboats, personal watercraft, and cabin motorboats.

We should stop pretending that sailors or canoeists are as dangerous as those zipping around in motor boats. Perhaps a licensing regime which targets these zippy boats is more likely to produce real improvement.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I asked this earlier: Is there any evidence that mandatory boating training improves accident rates, morbidity or mortality? ...

If training needed by a licence would not diminish the accident rate insurance companies would not reduce the premium to those that have licences.

Off course it all depends what you have to learn to get a licence, that could just be a piece of paper without no training associated and not a warranty that somebody has some level of knowledge, practical and theoretical about seamanship.

More important that having a licence or not is to know how it is taken and what level of knowledge it warrants. I don't see the point of having a licence that does not warrant a significant level of knowledge, one adapted to the type of sailing on does.

In Europe on most countries that demand a licence there is not just one. Like on the commercial boating and shipping, there are several, that qualify a sailor for different types of boats and most of all for different types of navigation.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Polux

If training needed by a licence would not diminish the accident rate insurance companies would not reduce the premium to those that have licences.

I assume you're referring to optional boating training. Insurance companies wouldn't reduce a premium for an individual if they have a mandatory license -- it's already mandatory . If the licensing scheme lowered the risk profile of boating in general, then in theory, all the premiums should be lower. Although I have no faith that this would actually happen.

Some insurance companies do reduce premiums for those who have undertaken optional recognized training programs. In fact, I just took part in a SSCA webinar on boat insurance. I think the presenter (from IMIS) said the discount is in the 2% to 5% range. So something, but not much.

Originally Posted by Polux

More important that having a licence or not is to know how it is taken and what level of knowledge it warrants. I don't see the point of having a licence that does not warrant a significant level of knowledge, one adapted to the type of sailing on does.

I agree. My observation is that most of these mandatory licensing regimes set a pretty low bar. I think this is why the evidence for their efficacy is hard to find (or simply doesn't exist). If we're going to have a mandatory licensing scheme, then it should demand a significant level of knowledge achievement-- otherwise, it appears to be a waste of time and money.

For example, many (most?) driver-licensing schemes have now moved to a graduated system with much higher testing benchmarks. There is plenty of evidence to show this kind of system has reduced accident rates, especially around young drivers. But this kind of system is expensive, cumbersome and requires a large infrastructure to operate. Balanced against the fairly low rate of boating incidents, perhaps it's simply not worth the resources.

[silentwings39]

Someone once told me that "locks only keep honest people out" (security locks that is not water level change ones). How true that is!
The same would apply here, "Rules are only obeyed by law abiding citizens".

The idiots still do what they want, rules don't apply to them do they?

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by Polux

If training needed by a licence would not diminish the accident rate insurance companies would not reduce the premium to those that have licences.

most discounts offered are so low, they are merely seen as an insurance company being " supportive" of training in general , rather then regarding training as a useful reducer of accidents. I have all the leisure tickets a body can get in this part of the world. my premium is more a reflection of my experience then organised learning.

Off course it all depends what you have to learn to get a licence, that could just be a piece of paper without no training associated and not a warranty that somebody has some level of knowledge, practical and theoretical about seamanship.

More important that having a licence or not is to know how it is taken and what level of knowledge it warrants. I don't see the point of having a licence that does not warrant a significant level of knowledge, one adapted to the type of sailing on does.

You can have graduated learning, but in practice most compulsory licensing is merely to ensure " basic" training. I see NO value in higher level compulsory training.

In Europe on most countries that demand a licence there is not just one. Like on the commercial boating and shipping, there are several, that qualify a sailor for different types of boats and most of all for different types of navigation.

yet some of the most prolific sailing countries like the UK, France , etc do not require a license to sail and some that have ridiculous training schemes like Portugal have a population that hardly sails at all.

I dont think you can make any conclusions in this regard. what I do know is that restricting peoples access to sea areas on the back of paperwork is quite ridiculous as a leisure sailor.

Dave

[rwidman]

If you are thinking that requiring education and licensing is "restricting peoples access to sea", you are looking at this wrong. It's about safety. Safety for all of us.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I asked this earlier: Is there any evidence that mandatory boating training improves accident rates, morbidity or mortality? There are enough of these mandatory licensing regimes around the world such that you'd think it would be easy to answer this question. I've looked with some detail at the Canadian experience, and found no clear improvement.

I'm all for effective government programs that address actual (as opposed to made up) collective problems. I'm happy to pay my taxes or fees to support these programs. I think mandatory boating licensing could fall into this category, but my problem is that I can't find evidence that they are effective -- at least the ones that are currently offered.

This may not be a problem that is solvable by mandatory broad-based licensing. In fact, if you look at the USCG accident statistics, two things jump out:

#1. Boating in general is very safe. Accident rates are very low compared to many other activities in life.
#2. Of the accidents that do occur, the vast vast majority involve open motorboats, personal watercraft, and cabin motorboats.

We should stop pretending that sailors or canoeists are as dangerous as those zipping around in motor boats. Perhaps a licensing regime which targets these zippy boats is more likely to produce real improvement.

I tend to agree.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

...
yet some of the most prolific sailing countries like the UK, France , etc do not require a license to sail and some that have ridiculous training schemes like Portugal have a population that hardly sails at all....

You can have graduated learning, but in practice most compulsory licensing is merely to ensure " basic" training. I see NO value in higher level compulsory training.
..
Dave

On Portugal licences are needed for any kind of boat or ship being it used for recreational purposes, fishing or commercial purposes. Regarding recreational boats and ships they exist for more then 30 years. The type of licences for recreational boating that exist in Portugal is similar to the ones that exist in Spain and Italy. The licences, as on any other area (fishing or commercial), are gradual and differentiated, appropriated to different sizes of boats and different areas of navigation

Calling them ridiculous training schemes is an opinion that shows an arrogant view that in other posts you attribute to others and contradict what you say: first you "complain" that " in practice most compulsory licensing is merely to ensure " basic" training" and then you say "I see NO value in higher level compulsory training"

About the social importance and positive effects of having compulsory training and a licence that warranties that training we can have different opinions but calling ridiculous to a progressive compulsive set of licences that ensure the considered basic skills for different types of sailing makes as sense as calling ridiculous to not having licences at all.

By the way the French government is considering implementing sail licences for recreational boaters and Portugal has almost for sure a bigger percentage of sailors then the US, considering population.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

..
I agree. My observation is that most of these mandatory licensing regimes set a pretty low bar. I think this is why the evidence for their efficacy is hard to find (or simply doesn't exist). If we're going to have a mandatory licensing scheme, then it should demand a significant level of knowledge achievement-- otherwise, it appears to be a waste of time and money.

For example, many (most?) driver-licensing schemes have now moved to a graduated system with much higher testing benchmarks. There is plenty of evidence to show this kind of system has reduced accident rates, especially around young drivers.

Yes I agree. It is obvious that having compulsory licences and an adequate type of training, like on other areas, can only increase safety. The ones that know already enough will not be harmed for passing a licence and the ones that are starting will benefit from the learned knowledge and skills.

I also agree that having a licence that is just a piece of paper and that does not warranty a given successful training and assured skills serves for nothing. I agree also that the needs of boaters, regarding the types of sailing they do is very different and therefore, if mandatory licences are to be considered, it only makes sense to have them differentiated and appropriated for any type of sailing. For instance a user of a dinghy or small boat only needs to know the transit rules and some safety stuff, while an offshore sailor needs to know a lot more. Not different of what is done on the several non compulsory graduated sail licences for different type of sailing (fishing, commercial).

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

..
But this kind of system is expensive, cumbersome and requires a large infrastructure to operate. Balanced against the fairly low rate of boating incidents, perhaps it's simply not worth the resources.

And this is really the basic point. Yes it will increase safety but it will be worth, regarding the relative low number of accidents?

Let me tell you first that I am not and adept of compulsory training but from compulsory licences. That means that if you know the stuff (as I am sure you do) you have just to show up on the theoretical and practical examination, successfully pass testing and that's it. What you would have to pay are examination costs that certainly will be very reduced compared with the expenses of any kind of sailing.

Before stating the impracticability of this let me tell you that I had "taken" the 4 first licences just like that, asking for examination and passing testing. Only for the last and higher one I considered that, face to the required knowledge, I would gain in having some formal education with deep sea captains.

Regarding being "expensive and cumbersome" it seems you consider that this would be a government based operation. Well, it would be if you lived on Russia, but on the US I bet it would be very similar to what happens on western countries that have that kind of system:

The learning and courses with be done by private schools, the ones that exists already and more that would appear, increasing the creation of jobs on the sailing area and developing economy on that sector. As a by product, given the bigger number and bigger competitiveness, sailing non mandatory courses would become less expensive. The content of the courses would be practically the ones that exist already on those and other well stablished schools for the different grades (ASA, RYA).

The only thing state would have to provide is control, meaning independent tests and examinations for the licences. This is no big deal, specially because there are already a system of testing for other areas of sailing, like fishing or commercial boating and testers for those areas. Again, a bigger number of testers related with sailing would increase the creation of jobs on the sail area developing economy.

Regarding advantages and disadvantages, I see an increase in safety I see the development of the sailing industry by the creation of many privates jobs (instructors) related with sailing and I don't see the waste of government resources. Probably on that area the resources the waste would be more then compensated by the growing of economic activity related with sailing.

I think that most of the resistance comes from the ones that sail, have sailing knowledge but are afraid to subject themselves to testing to prove they have the required needed skills.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Polux

And this is really the basic point. Yes it will increase safety but it will be worth, regarding the relative low number of accidents?

I think we're more or less agreeing on things. IF the training is sufficiently detailed and of high quality, then it certainly can make people better boaters. IOW, I believe education works. However, the fact is that despite the hype, boating is a very safe activity. You might not guess this from the fear displayed in insurance threads here, but your real risk of becoming a statistic while boating is exceedingly small. And it approaches zero unless you're using one of the zippy boats I mentioned before.

These are USCG stats (with some Canadian). Perhaps Portugal or Europe is different. If so, then effective licensing might make greater sense there.

Originally Posted by Polux

Let me tell you first that I am not and adept of compulsory training but from compulsory licences. That means that if you know the stuff (as I am sure you do) you have just to show up on the theoretical and practical examination, successfully pass testing and that's it. What you would have to pay are examination costs that certainly will be very reduced compared with the expenses of any kind of sailing.

Agreed. I've taken Canada's equivalent of RYA cruising courses (Canadian Yachting Ass.). I challenged the "Intermediate" course and only had to write the exam. Passed with flying colours .

Originally Posted by Polux

Regarding being "expensive and cumbersome" it seems you consider that this would be a government based operation. Well, it would be if you lived on Russia, but on the US I bet it would be very similar to what happens on western countries that have that kind of system:

Ah... I did not say it had to be government-run. In fact, in Canada the licensing system has mostly been outsourced to private corporations. This doesn't make it less expensive or cumbersome. It just shifts the burden (the costs, and the profits) to private enterprise. It still costs society in added bureaocracy and expended resources. In fact, I bet it costs us more b/c now there is a demand for corporate profits ... but that's another discussion .

As I say, I'm not spiritually opposed to licensing schemes. And I absolutely agree it is possible for effective education programs to make improvements in peoples' skills (see car licenses as evidence). I just question whether there is real need or societal value to be gained here.

To be effective. it will cost significant resources (whether it is done publicly or privately ... doesn't matter). Since boating is already very safe, will the costs be worth the benefits? I don't know. I am sceptical, but perhaps Portugal's experience can answer the question. If they operate an effective licensing program, then the data should show how much of a benefit it has been. Can we find such data, or better yet actual studies that examine this question? It would seem an obvious question to probe.

[dwedeking2]

This is personal opinion: Before I willingly give up personal freedom (and that is what licensing is - this is not opinion) I want to see concrete proof that doing so will have desired positive results (in this case improved safety on the water) and a methodology that this process will impact a person's life to the least amount. So far all I've seen in this thread is "it's for safety" and general anecdotal evidence that if they were educated more they would act more responsible. I really don't care about being socially responsible. I'm responsible for myself and my action. What you do I don't really care, except that physical provable damage you inflict is rectified.

Luckily for those who love their rules, regulations and pieces of paper we live in a society that allows you to get a majority either through a vote or purchasing the services of those that vote and force your ideals on the rest of society. Democracy cares neither for social issues, small government, your imagined rights (there not rights if someone can vote to take them away), or personal freedom. Government cares about control and democracy gives the majority (whether they are involved or knowledgeable of area of life they wish to control). The fact that someone equates a form of government as focused on personal freedom is unbelievable as it's the opposite (the only deference between forms of government is the degree and whether you have to ask permission in triplicate or only duplicate forms).

One of the amazing things I've realized living in a country that has fewer rules and regulations is how liberating it is. I don't have a form to fill out for every action, a permit to buy, a landscape of signs saying "do this, don't do that", or someone looking over my shoulder judging everything I do. Sure there are downsides but so far the upsides provide more value.

Mike - California outsources their driver education as well, for DUI after-action education, traffic school, and training. I know someone personally that runs one of these schools. They care little for long term education (retaining knowledge after you walk out the door) and teach for the day's test. The advantage these businesses have is they know how to work the government bid system, provide the appearance of service (get all the boxes check and the forms filled) to satisfy burearucratic programs (which again are devised by someone with no to little knowledge of the area they are controlling). It's a farce (starts off as a well intentioned idea but the system converts it quickly to just a monetary benefit for those in the know).

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I think we're more or less agreeing on things. IF the training is sufficiently detailed and of high quality, then it certainly can make people better boaters. IOW, I believe education works. However, the fact is that despite the hype, boating is a very safe activity. You might not guess this from the fear displayed in insurance threads here, but your real risk of becoming a statistic while boating is exceedingly small. And it approaches zero unless you're using one of the zippy boats I mentioned before.

These are USCG stats (with some Canadian). Perhaps Portugal or Europe is different. If so, then effective licensing might make greater sense there.



Agreed. I've taken Canada's equivalent of RYA cruising courses (Canadian Yachting Ass.). I challenged the "Intermediate" course and only had to write the exam. Passed with flying colours .



Ah... I did not say it had to be government-run. In fact, in Canada the licensing system has mostly been outsourced to private corporations. This doesn't make it less expensive or cumbersome. It just shifts the burden (the costs, and the profits) to private enterprise. It still costs society in added bureaocracy and expended resources. In fact, I bet it costs us more b/c now there is a demand for corporate profits ... but that's another discussion .

As I say, I'm not spiritually opposed to licensing schemes. And I absolutely agree it is possible for effective education programs to make improvements in peoples' skills (see car licenses as evidence). I just question whether there is real need or societal value to be gained here.

To be effective. it will cost significant resources (whether it is done publicly or privately ... doesn't matter). Since boating is already very safe, will the costs be worth the benefits? I don't know. I am sceptical, but perhaps Portugal's experience can answer the question. If they operate an effective licensing program, then the data should show how much of a benefit it has been. Can we find such data, or better yet actual studies that examine this question? It would seem an obvious question to probe.

Yes, It seems we agree on the essentials. I believe that is not by accident that the countries that demand licences are the ones with more recreational boats sailing in their waters (Portugal and med countries). The need increases with the quantity of pleasure boats around. I do know that Croatia and Greece also demands a compulsory licence, I know that for foreigners (like in Portugal, Spain and Italy) they accept almost anything but I do not know what they demand to their own citizens, I suspect that, like one the other mentioned countries, a lot more than to foreigners.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by dwedeking2

This is personal opinion: Before I willingly give up personal freedom (and that is what licensing is - this is not opinion) I want to see concrete proof that doing so will have desired positive results (in this case improved safety on the water) and a methodology that this process will impact a person's life to the least amount. So far all I've seen in this thread is "it's for safety" and general anecdotal evidence that if they were educated more they would act more responsible. I really don't care about being socially responsible. I'm responsible for myself and my action. What you do I don't really care, except that physical provable damage you inflict is rectified.
...

I don't see any problem seeing that adequate training for every type of sailing will have positive results and would improve safety on the water. That's why sailors that want to learn faster take non compulsory sailing courses on sailing schools, it is why on this forum everybody recommends them to inexperienced sailors that want to learn faster. It is obvious that if the courses are serious after taking them a sailor would be a better, more experienced and safer sailor.

I think Mike put it on the right perspective: It is worth it, regarding a safety and social responsibility point of view?

I guess that the answers to that has to do with the particular situation of each country regarding the number of recreational boats around their waters, their particular vision regarding politics on that area. In the end anybody can have an opinion regarding the need or not without making it a right or wrong one, just a different assessment of reality.

What happens with the need of private boat licences is not different in essence in what regards the need of licences for boating or shipping on any other sector and regards the social need to warranty that the captains of those boats have the skills and knowledge to operate them without putting in risk their lives, crews and passengers and other boats or ships in risk.

There was a time that commercial captains didn't need or have any licence and the same (more recently) with fishermen. The need to regulate that was just much bigger due to the much bigger number of those vessels around. The need regarding private yachts will arise with their increasing number and size. Some consider that the need is already a reality, others not.