Would mandatory licensing change things?

[Singularity]

-The auto market is going towards per vehicle monitoring. I don't think people in boats want to receive emails that they tend to drag anchor twice as much as the next guy with an included .pdf on "how to anchor to avoid premium hikes." I don't think anyone should want this carrot, but if insurance costs keep going up, people will be forced to bite, creating a sucky norm.

-The plane market of course does require, on the high-end, ASA-type refresher courses every X-XX months, more strenuous than the govt proficiency requirements. Redundant for some, inadequate for others.

The subject matter here is all about proficiency. Short of per-vehicle monitoring or mandatory routine refresher courses, I don't know how anyone could keep any tabs on proficiency.

[Simi 60]

In qld Australia a simple written test covering the absolute basics followed by a few minutes in a dinghy gives you all the skills required to run an 80 ft sunseeker predator at 40 knots in a confined channel and terrorize the locals.

Gold chains around neck, fake tan and ability to breathe through your mouth is an added advantage.

[Island Time O25]

The scariest thing about the Florida yahus in cigarette boats zipping around 40kts in a no wake zone is that they spend 99% of their behind the wheel time in their cars. And Florida crash statistics reflect that fact. Did their driver licenses help much?

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by dkenny64

instead of Gov't regulations what about working through insurance companies to provide good discounts to boaters with licenses.. this would leave the gov't red tape out -dkenny64

And better discounts again for those with actual skills and documented ocean miles.

[Captndave1]

What dkenny64 said plus a severe sneed for “enforcement”. Exactly the same issue as our roads, there is no enforcement, so everyone ignores the laws and does what the want. In Trumps word, “sad”.

[hellosailor]

Mandatory licensing...Well, that's ensured all the car drivers out there know how to drive, hasn't it? (Rhetorical question.)

[Pete17C]

Originally Posted by Simi 60

And better discounts again for those with actual skills and documented ocean miles.

in the realm of statistics, more miles on a particular boat = more likely to have a claim (more use increases likelihood of claim and why they ask how many miles/yr with auto insurance)

I don't know if experience/training is enough to counter that. Just ask a couple Navy captains.

[CSY Man]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

I'm a flight instructor. And I believe the point is: you can't teach judgement. But it's still better that a fool has the skills to get out of some of the messes he gets himself into.

I am also a flight instructor: Agree..

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Boating safety courses are mandatory in many states in the US. Texas has such a law.

BoatUS offers online safety classes acceptable to many states:

https://www.boatus.org/free/#state

So in regards mandatory training this is already quite common.

Those online courses are inadequate. I believe the Power Squadron 11 week (one night a week) class should be a minimum mandatory.

There will always be those who will argue against mandatory education and unfortunately those seem to be the people who need it most.

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by Singularity

-The auto market is going towards per vehicle monitoring. I don't think people in boats want to receive emails that they tend to drag anchor twice as much as the next guy with an included .pdf on "how to anchor to avoid premium hikes." I don't think anyone should want this carrot, but if insurance costs keep going up, people will be forced to bite, creating a sucky norm.

-The plane market of course does require, on the high-end, ASA-type refresher courses every X-XX months, more strenuous than the govt proficiency requirements. Redundant for some, inadequate for others.

The subject matter here is all about proficiency. Short of per-vehicle monitoring or mandatory routine refresher courses, I don't know how anyone could keep any tabs on proficiency.

Certifications with written and practical tests, physical exams, required biennial retraining, background checks, government perusal of medical/psychiatric histories, automatic suspension in case of driving DUI convictions, requirements for current experience before carrying passengers, mandatory disclosure of actual physical residence address, required certifications for specialized skills, and careful monitoring for any violations: we pilots at all levels from student to airline transport pilot have been subject to all those requirements for decades. Even when flying a diminutive 85 horsepower Cessna 150. Still, pilots are quite proud of their certifications (the lawyers won't let us call them "licenses") because they represent hard work toward proficiency.

I guess, in a way, it's a matter of pride.

Pride and knowledge were my only reasons for getting a Master's Near Coastal license. A "six pack" would've been enough for most of what I do.

Sometimes I wonder if the resistance toward licensing isn't a rationalization to avoid training and skills scrutiny. Practicing new skills under the observation of an instructor can at times be a bit humiliating (if it isn't - you aren't learning). Some folks seem to regard themselves as being Neptune himself - and you can't add anything to a full cup. In aviation, we call those folks "sky gods" and they are avoided because they are a hazard to everyone in the sky. Real "experts" tend to be humble. There's a name for that: it's called the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

[Bean Counter]

As an extreme example, assume governments no longer required airline pilots to be licensed (with the appropriate training to get the license). After the first fatal crash the cries of anguish from grieving relatives, the finger pointing and blame, the media blaring "what is the government going to do about this terrible accident ?" - it is community expectation and lobbying that gets politicians to pass legislation. If there were enough cruising sailboat fatalities to have a media impact then they would address it more vigorously, but a cruising sailboat can not explode and kill 200 passengers. Now a cruise ship can and so they need licenses for the senior crew - no surprises there - but they still manage to kill people, but at a lower rate than the old days. The act of licensing is about reducing the fatality rate with a target of zero of course, but practically not possible with humans in control.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

then the motorboat was the stand-on vessel (had the "right of way"). They're both at fault, of course, based on only the evidence in the photo.

Absolutely not. The Colregs very clearly define what is a "fishing boat" and this isn't one.

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

Absolutely not. The Colregs very clearly define what is a "fishing boat" and this isn't one.

You have misquoted me here. I said "If" --- "if the motorboat was actively engaged in fishing..."

From the photo, neither of us can see what they were doing with the motorboat during the collision. There isn't a special type of boat that qualifies it as a fishing vessel. What matters is what the boat was doing. A dingy dragging a net is actively engaged in fishing.

If the sailboat was motoring ("being propelled by machinery") it was a motor vessel at the time of collision. Being on the port side of the intersecting courses, it was the give-way vessel. In any case, both vessels were at fault, unless the sailboat was anchored or moored (with a sail up?). Give-way versus stand-on doesn't assign blame, it only defines the expected actions of each vessel. Liability in boating collisions aren't handled like car accidents - where the driver-at-fault pays the whole bill (in most states). Both owners will probably have to pay for the damages to their own boat.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

A dingy dragging a net is actively engaged in fishing.

Not acccording to the ColRegs.

(d) The term vessel engaged in fishing means any vessel
fishing with nets, lines, trawls or other fishing apparatus which restrict manoeuvrability, but does not include a vessel fishing with trolling lines or other fishing apparatus which do not restrict manoeuvrability.

This only one of 47 references to fishing boats in ColRegs.

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Cpt Pat

From the photo, neither of us can see what they were doing with the motorboat during the collision. There isn't a special type of boat that qualifies it as a fishing vessel. What matters is what the boat was doing. A dingy dragging a net is actively engaged in fishing. .

You're mistaken. From Cockcroft Ed6 >