Jet Skis Are Ships

dave w
22nd August 2005, 21:55
I found this Headline in this months Sea Breezes Maritime Log.

A report in the DailyMail in july said that a judge at Sailsbury Crown Court
in Wiltshire has ruled that a jet ski is a ship.
The ruling came after a jet skier was prosecuted under 1995 MERCHANT
SHIPING ACT" while being Master of a ship he commited an act which
caused serious injury by breaking or neglecting any duty".
The defendant claimed that a jet ski is not a ship so he could not be
Marster of it . The judge ruled it was.Police and Coastguards welcolmed
the rulling and say it will improve safety and they will prosecute law
breakers.I presume that will also mean that at last they have to
have more regard for COLREGS! (The International Regulations for
Preventing Collisions at Sea) If anybody read the incident in the
the Daily Mail i would like to know the story . The judge must be well
read up in Maritime Law .

Regards Dave

Santos
22nd August 2005, 22:34
Dave M,

I have to take issue with you here ( friendly of course ).

On the Mersey we have terrible trouble with jet skis. In the hands of mindless yobs, they have terrorised local yatchsmen and small pleasure boats. They have even driven between the twin hulls of the IOM fast cats as they travelled up the Mersey at low speed and full of passengers. Unfortunately there have been deaths here as well mainly as a result of people buying these things and not knowing how to drive them, resulting in fatal collisions and rammings. They have even tried to ram the lifeboat. We have been unable to do a thing about it.

I and a very large number of people here at New Brighton on the Wirral welcome with open arms the Judges decision. There is now a means of stopping this senseless marine disorder and vandalism and protecting the local and visiting pleasure boatmen / women and maritime traffic, allowing them to take up their pastime and business in peace and safety.

A great decision. (Applause)


Chris.

PS I voted YES.

John Rogers
22nd August 2005, 23:14
I will have to think awhile on this one. The problem is who is going to do the enforcing,those things are like flies and not enough police or coastguard around to the enforcing.
John

Santos
22nd August 2005, 23:27
Dave M,

Words fail me. You have obviously never been at the mercy of a jet ski in the hands of a senseless yob. I have, and been very scared.

You can stick your appeal where the monkey sticks its nuts.

Kind regards.

ian jackson
22nd August 2005, 23:48
I agree with Santos. I've cleared up the problems that the small minority of jet skiers have left behind them after they have had their fun, including fatalities. Big hammer to crack a small nut (or nutters) maybe but at least there is now some legal way of stopping the bad element before they injure or create mayhem.
Regards
Ian

Santos
22nd August 2005, 23:53
Thanks Ian,

I thought I was on my own there.

We need something to stop the minority, and thats what it is, the minority. Its just like using a car to terrorise people with and there are laws to stop that, so why the fuss when a judgement is made to stop this type of behaviour.

Political correctness gone mad.

Chris.

Santos
23rd August 2005, 00:02
Dave M,

I thank you, but when you have seen the results of the behaviour I have seen and also been on the receiving end, anything that will curb or stop it is very welcome indeed.

Even if it provokes a new law against that type of behaviour, then something good has come out of it.

Chris.

John Rogers
23rd August 2005, 00:25
The way they are killing themselves there wont be many around,we have about two deaths a month in the summer time with the nutters on the lake crashing into each other. And thats just in the local area.
John

thunderd
23rd August 2005, 00:42
Having been a recreational "boatie" for years I can assure you that if you put a reasonably sane and responsible person on a jet ski they turn into irresponsible, intellectual midgets and become a real danger to themselves, their families and every other person on the water.

It seems to me that when they buy a jet ski they also are eligible for a taxpayer funded brain bypass.

I once considered installing a torpedo tube on my boat to deal with the morons.

michael james
23rd August 2005, 01:36
In the first instance I think the Judge was right, these craft are to all intents and purposes "power boats" that one sits astride!
In idiotic hands they are lethal weapons, just like a fast car.
If the current legislation does not cover the use of these craft adequately then ammendments should be added and now.

Anti-social and inconsiderate behaviour is rife in our society at present (we have two village idiots with ASBO`s in my, relatively small, village) but ASBO`s take time impliment, warning notices etc etc, immediate steps need to be taken against idiots on jet-skis and if the Judges decision sets a precedent in the interim, it was the right decision in my opinion.

fred henderson
23rd August 2005, 11:46
In the first instance I think the Judge was right, these craft are to all intents and purposes "power boats" that one sits astride!
In idiotic hands they are lethal weapons, just like a fast car.
If the current legislation does not cover the use of these craft adequately then ammendments should be added and now.

Anti-social and inconsiderate behaviour is rife in our society at present (we have two village idiots with ASBO`s in my, relatively small, village) but ASBO`s take time impliment, warning notices etc etc, immediate steps need to be taken against idiots on jet-skis and if the Judges decision sets a precedent in the interim, it was the right decision in my opinion.

Sitting astride makes them maritime motor bikes and a huge number of bikers completely ignore the Highway Code and all speed limits. They seem to get away with it because of the difficulty police have in safely stopping them. I am afraid that enforcing rules for jet-skis will have the same problems.

Fred

moaf
23rd August 2005, 11:52
In Poole, Dorset, jet skies have to have a registration number on them. I fthe jet ski then disobeys harbour bylaw or law outside the harbour, the number is reported to the harbour commisioner who then bans them if ehe sees fit.

Alan Hill
23rd August 2005, 13:24
On initial inspection of the background I find the definition of a ship in relation to a jet ski to be a bit of a stretch on the part of the judge. Isn't there some kind of a "Coast Guard" type of regulation that would suffice instead? Alan Hill Bridgeport, Pa. USA

R58484956
23rd August 2005, 13:40
Any shipping news about today.

richardm
23rd August 2005, 14:44
On initial inspection of the background I find the definition of a ship in relation to a jet ski to be a bit of a stretch on the part of the judge. Isn't there some kind of a "Coast Guard" type of regulation that would suffice instead? Alan Hill Bridgeport, Pa. USA

I also would look something "smaller" than the steam hammer in use here as the next thing that will be required is a current Masters Certificate to get on the water. This opens up all sorts of abuses - much better to bring in local measues that can be properly policed rather than the MERCHANT Shipping Act - a jet ski can't carry cargo can it??

Seems very thin end of the wedge here.

Tony Crompton
23rd August 2005, 15:31
Are water skiers any better. I remember swinging a large supertanker and a boat towing a water skier went under the towlines between the stern of the ship and the after tugs.

I reckon most pilots also have many horror stories about sailboarders.I had to go astern once on a tanker to miss one trying to cross close ahead who obviously had no clue that once he got in the lee of the ship he would loose the wind and stop.
----------------
Tony C

Tmac1720
23rd August 2005, 17:08
We should not confuse the law with justice, they are two separate things. Having said that and considering this legal "opinion" perhaps Charles Dickens was right and the law is an ass.

Marcus Cardew
23rd August 2005, 18:41
I'm with Chris. Now that we have a 10MPH (whatever MPH's are) speed limit on all the lakes up here, the petrol heads have moved down to Morecambe Bay / Walney Channel...About 3 weeks ago, both our ILB and AWLB were called out to investigate a stationary (as stationary as you can get in a 3-4 knot current) JetSki, with the operator moving his arms up and down.... Just before the ILB got to the location, it then started up and zoomed off... Our lad's were not hyper amused, as they then got turned back to investigate another JetSki, but as they approached they were then stood down.... That's a good dozen volunteer guy's giving up their time to answer a shout, never mind the cost of fuel, etc.... If they think that they are outside the law of the sea, then use our signals, and obligations, to provide assistance, I reckon that brings them within all the laws and obligations of other seafarer's....

We also had an incident in the channel last year where, whilst slaloming between the yacht's on their mooring's, the operator fell off his JetSki, and naturally the motor cut out, but the residual motion of the craft caused it to crash into a dinghy, which flipped the youngster rowing it into the oggin....

(I remain guilty as charged for sailing a Topper dinghy between the legs of the Brent Bravo platform in 1978)

R58484956
23rd August 2005, 18:52
If there is one word that catches seamen out it seems to be the word Yacht,why it cannot be spelt yot, perhaps we could remember to spell it.

Marcus Cardew
23rd August 2005, 19:28
If there is one word that catches seamen out it seems to be the word Yacht,why it cannot be spelt yot, perhaps we could remember to spell it.
Again, guilty as charged! (pore triping)

Santos
23rd August 2005, 20:04
For the interest of interested members, I reproduce below two MCA News releases, and leave you to make up your own minds. :-

PERSONAL WATERCRAFT RIDER PROSECUTED FOR COLLISION WITH ANOTHER PERSONAL WATERCRAFT

At a hearing yesterday at Salisbury Crown Court, Mr Mark Goodwin, a twenty five year old Weymouth man pleaded guilty to riding his Yamaha Wave Runner in contravention of Section 58 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Prior to this the judge had been asked to rule on whether the Personal Watercraft was a ship in terms of the Merchant Shipping Act. In his ruling Mr Recorder A Davies QC concluded that it was indeed a ship and that the legislation applied.

This prosecution followed a joint investigation by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and Dorset Police Marine Section into a collision on Saturday 15 May 2004 off of Bowleaze Cove in Weymouth during which the rider of another Personal Watercraft, Mr Paul Facer, also from Weymouth sustained serious head injuries.

Sentencing will be dealt with at Dorchester Crown Court on 5th August 2005.

Mr Mark Rodaway, Coastguard Area Operations Manager said ”We welcome this ruling as it enables the MCA, in conjunction with police authorities and other agencies to be more pro-active in promoting the safe operation of these craft. It also clarifies the position for the users of Personal Watercraft and ensures that disregard for the proper operation of them will be brought to the attention of the courts.”

Sergeant Andy Hack of Dorset Police's marine section said: "Following yesterday's ruling it's important that all those using personal watercraft recognise that they have the same responsibilities as all other water users in respect of Collision Regulations and The Merchant Shipping Act. We encourage all users to undertake training under the Royal Yachting Association's syllabus.


PERSONAL WATERCRAFT RIDER SENTENCED FOR COLLISION WITH ANOTHER PERSONAL WATERCRAFT
At a hearing at Bournemouth Crown Court,5th August 2005, Mr Mark Goodwin of Osmington,near Weymouth was sentenced to a 6 month custodial sentence after he pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to riding his Yamaha Wave Runner in contravention of Section 58 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995.

This prosecution followed a joint investigation by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and Dorset Police Marine Section into a collision on Saturday 15 May 2004 off of Bowleaze Cove in Weymouth during which the rider of another Personal Watercraft, Mr Paul Facer, sustained serious head injuries.

On Saturday 15 May 2004, Mark Goodwin was riding his 3 seater Yamaha Wave Runner personal watercraft at Bowleaze cove. There were several other similar craft in the area including the one being ridden by Mr Paul Facer. At approximately 1710, Mr Facer had stopped his vessel on the western side of the designated area and was watching some of the others craft. Mark Goodwin was in a similar area and accelerated his craft without clearly looking where he was going. He collided at speed with the starboard bow of Mr Facer’s craft and rode upwards hitting Mr Facer in the head. Mr Facer suffered severe head injuries and was hospitalised for several days. He still suffers from the long term effects of his injuries and has no intention of going on these types of craft ever again.

Mr Goodwin pleaded guilty to the offence of operating his vessel in a manner which caused or was likely to cause serious injury to Paul Alan Facer.

In sentencing, His Honour Judge Beashel said,

“Mr Goodwin was not taking proper care, he was responsible and the collision could have been avoided. Jet skiers should be aware that jet skis are a potential lethal weapon and should keep a good look out at all times.”

And went on to comment that,

“It was important to set a sentence to act as a deterrent to deter others that may be driving in an irresponsible manner.”

Mr Mark Rodaway, Coastguard Area Operations Manager said “This punishment should act as a timely warning to all Personal Watercraft users that, irresponsible and dangerous behaviour will be investigated by the authorities and the perpetrators may well find themselves standing in front of a judge.”

Pat McCardle
23rd August 2005, 21:11
I have not read everyones reply to this thread but if you have a copy of the International regs for preventing collisions at sea, then look at Rule 1! Exemptions made if you are a Dame & sail around the world solo!!

Ngaio 62
24th August 2005, 06:03
I say No as it is under a certain tonnage. The judge is wrong. However over here the rider would still be held resposible for consequences arising from misuse.

As to the problem in the Mersey I recommend a brace of Orelikons fore and aft should solve the problem of these idiots endangering other users of the seaway.

Pat McCardle
24th August 2005, 12:16
What certain tonnage? There are some very small sea planes out there too!

Pompeyfan
24th August 2005, 12:52
I can't comment on legal matters because I am not a legal expert. I only comment on matters I am 100% certain about from medical matters to the true meaning of liner or ship etc. But I am pleased this judge has ruled as he did ruling that a jet ski is a ship because there is a far bigger picture here. Every year until retirement I personally performed autopsies on people every British summer who put to sea with no knowledge of the sea at all be it jet ski's, inflatables, dingey's, rowing boats, yachts or whatever. One bloke chopped his head right off crossing on a water ski between a tug towing a vessel. You would not believe the stupid things some people do. These are the kind of people I refer to in my posts who know nothing about nautical matters and why terminology in general is dying out because they are basically taking their shore knowledge to sea with drastic results. These idiots, and there are thousands country wide put to sea each summer not only endangering their own lives, but those who have to rescue them or try to rescue them. That is why I have always maintained that all those who put to sea be it a small rowing boat, jet ski or large yacht or whatver should have some sort of licence like you have to drive a car. In other words, if they know nothing about the rules of the sea, they are not allowed on it. That will anger responsible boat owners if they have to licence their vessel saying they are qualified to take it to sea, but it will stop thousands of innocent deaths because these people not only kill themselves but others. I alone took part in 80 plus needless deaths in this manner every summer in my own little patch with simlar figures when I used to do locums in Jersey. If people saw these bodies on my autopsy table or the grief of relatives in my chapel, they would not disagree that something must be done to stop these summer time iddiots taking to the water. So this judge has my full backing whether Dave M thinks he is barking mad or not. If one life is saved by a judges rulling, it has to be good? David

R58484956
24th August 2005, 14:38
Glad to see you are in a better mood today David , must be last nights 1-1.

Bruce Carson
24th August 2005, 15:41
Many States in the US, including Michigan, have enacted personal watercraft statutes.
While it does not entirely resolve the problem, when every machine must be registered and the owners know that they are subject to specific rules and regulations, these facts in itself appear to alleviate the problem somewhat.
Local sherriffs' departments, usually with patrol boats, do enforce the rules and it has cut down the injuries, deaths and has helped return a peace of mind to users of sail and power boats.
They are not going to go away and, like all other forms of transportation, must be regulated for the greater good of the general public.

http://www.sellingkalamazoo.com/pwc.html

Bruce C.

Pompeyfan
24th August 2005, 20:06
Glad to see you are in a better mood today David , must be last nights 1-1.


We should have won, can't even beat 10 men?!. But I was not in a good mood when reading the comment of cboots in the Shipping Terminology thread I started. Have a look. I think it way over the top.

Santos
24th August 2005, 23:11
Dave,

I dont understand your problem about your alleged misuse of the legal system in this case.

Why you consider this particular ruling is out of order confuses me. OK the word ship envisages a large sea going vessel and a jet ski is a dot on the water compared with a ship. But you can say the same about a Smart Car and a Jugganaut Lorry, however the same Road Traffic Rules apply to the Smart Car as applies to the lorry. All this judgement is saying is that the same Marine Rules and Regulations that apply to a sea going ship apply to a jet ski. Size does not come into it, nor should it. Both are controlled by humans and both are very capable of causing death or injury if controlled recklessly as with the car and the lorry.

Just as the car and the lorry both use the same road, the jet ski and the ship both use the same bit of water. What is the difference between the two cases. ? None whatsoever. So whats the problem ?.

If the present legislation can cover the case as it has, why go inventing more. There is enough legislation about to sink a battleship, we dont want any more.

Chris.

Pompeyfan
25th August 2005, 00:11
Dave M this has nothing to do with the inappropriate use of nautical terminology in this case, I was just using that to make my point that when you go to sea, whether it be a jet ski or whatever, you need to know what you are doing and have a certain amount of nautical knowledge. This is not really about the legal system but about people putting other lives at risk by being totally incompetent. I can't see how anybody can defend that whether the law is an ass or not. David

thunderd
25th August 2005, 00:36
Surely the bottom line here is the behaviour of some jet ski users. Anyone who has done any recreational boating or coast guard duties will have seen these people darting between boats at anchor and setting them rocking wildly, I've personally seen them running along parallel to beaches, at full throttle, within just a few metres of swimmers

They just love cutting through the wake of other boats and darting between moving vessels endangering other water users. Generally speaking some of them seem to act as if they'd just had a full frontal lobotomy and show no consideration for anyone.

Putting aside the legalities of their actions, they are endangering the lives of themselves and other people, so as far as I am concerned any legislation that makes them behave in a responsible manner is good legislation.

Pompeyfan
25th August 2005, 00:39
Well put Deryk

thunderd
25th August 2005, 00:51
I suspect David (Pompeyfan) that you and I share a passionate dislike of the irresponsible element amongst jet ski users, me as a "boatie" and you because you see the consequences of their stupidity

thunderd
25th August 2005, 01:04
Oh DaveM, you old devil you do love a good arguement don't you? LOL

And don't you dare come back and say "No I don't".

Steve
25th August 2005, 10:07
Erm moving on...................

Santos
25th August 2005, 20:25
Dave, you believe what you want to believe and I will believe what I want to believe.

You state you have no interest in jet skis or small boats, I therefore suggest that you have no comprehension whatsoever of what people have suffered at the hands of irresponsible jet skiers.

For your information, I have no concern about how the law was interpreted in this case. The fact that the judgement was made to improve safety and prevent accidents and damage is good enough for me, I dont care who the judgement upsets.

If you want to go on castigating and insulting the judiciary, please carry on, sticks and stones etc comes to mind. I just hope that you or anyone you love are never aboard any vessel which gets into trouble as a result of irresponsible jet skiers or in fact any irresponsible person on the water.

With a bit of luck, this judgement might just curb that type of behaviour.

Oh and before I go, the use of singled out quotes, out of context, dont enhance any case, the whole quote gives the true picture, not chosen sentences.

These are my last words on the subject. I will leave the Forum to decide whether the Judge was right or wrong, everyone knows my views.

Chris.

Pompeyfan
25th August 2005, 21:59
Just quote me one line where I have approved of or defended these people.

If you can't, you might like to climb down off that high horse and withdraw the assertion that I have.

Once again you seem to have got hold of the wrong end of the stick Dave M. I never did say or indeed mean that you approved or defended these people. This entire argument is about the judges ruling. In no way am I getting on a high horse. But you can think what you like and argue against anything that the rest of us say because at the end of the day it was me, not you with a scapel in my hand cutting up some persons son or daughter having been hit by some irresponsible prat at sea with the parents besides themselves with grief waiting in my chapel for me to finish the autopsy, put their loved one back together to present to them to view. So if this judges rule prevents all that then am happy to be on my high horse. David

PeterG
26th August 2005, 17:01
We have to remember that it is a small minority of people who go crazy and become dangerous on jet skis.
A few weeks ago, I was travelling on the CONDOR VITESSE fastferry out of Poole. As you would expect all of the jet skiers in the area began thrashing around in the wake while we were travelling slowly out of the harbour. But they NEVER got dangerously close to the CONDOR VITESSE, and as soon as the accelerator was slammed down the skiers moved away. The problem is that 95% of jet skiers are not dangerous.

R58484956
26th August 2005, 17:28
Hope I do not come across the other 5%

cboots
27th August 2005, 08:10
Jet skis are a menace here and I agree that you could put the bishop of Melbourne on one and he would turn into a total oker immediately. However, the point that Dave M makes is a valid one; if people are offending on these vessels then appropriate laws ought to be enacted, as we have in Victoria. Allowing the authorities the licence to dust off any old law in order to gain a conviction is extremely dangerous, look at what is going on in Guantanomo Bay for heavens sake; look at the missuse of the conspiracy charge in British and Australian courts. Give away a bit of your freedom and it will take a revolution to get it back.
CBoots

thunderd
27th August 2005, 14:20
That's my last word

That'll be the day

Gulpers
16th September 2005, 07:03
I agree that there are many Personal Watercraft (Jetski) incidents which are due entirely to irresponsible riders and, believe me, I have dealt with the aftermath from these. However, I am also pleased to report that I have received valuable SAR assistance on a number of occasions from more responsible riders. They are in the minority though!

Gulpers

Pompeyfan
16th September 2005, 11:47
Strange that Gulpers should renew this thread because only yesterday the Portsmouth News covered a story called: JET SKIER GETS AN ASBO. It is a story of a jet skier terrorising swimmers and told to behave or face five years in jail. The editor of the paper saw fit to cover this story in his comment. Although admitting that jet skis can be annoying and dangerous, he do not agree that and anti-social behaviour should be imposed on this man. Although in true two hat style of some newspapers he goes onto say that anyone can ride these skis without a test or licence. He also rightly states that pedestrians on a road or footpath can usually hear a speeding motorcyclist or car and have a better chance of getting out of the way, but swimmers can't move so swiftly.

It would seem that Gulpers, like me deals with the aftermath of accidents. I have always maintained that all those who take to the sea whatever size of craft should be licenced to say they are capable of doing so. That will of course cause massive protests. But those who lost loved-ones in accidents that were unavoidable would not agree. At the end of the day do we try to prolong our one and only life on this planet by making all accidents less likely with rules and regulations, or do we throw caution to the wind and hope for the best so as not to be spoil sports?.

I also take it that all members are happy with safety at sea follwing my thread on this?. David

Gulpers
16th September 2005, 12:02
Pompeyfan,

Last time I fell off my jetski ......... only kidding, I've got a yacht!

You are absolutely correct. There are some hopelessly irresponsible idiots out there who, for the sake of ‘looking flash’, terrorise other water users. We are told that education is the answer! That will work to some extent but, sadly, there will always be clowns on the water. To be fair though, the same argument about irresponsibility could, on occasions, be applied to all groups of water users from VLCCs to Airbeds.

Gulpers

Fairfield
16th September 2005, 13:08
Wonder if that applies in Scotland also.They are a menace on Loch Lomond and all that is to be done is introduce a speed limit of a few knots-can/t remember the exact offhand.
They are also appearing on the open waters of the Firth of Clyde and have seen them buzzing round the ferries at Gourock when berthing.

thunderd
16th September 2005, 13:15
Torpedo tubes on all other vessels, that's the answer.

gadgee
15th March 2006, 09:58
The Times March 14th page 14; a few lines - " an appeal court ruling that a jet ski is not a ship has been backed by the law lords. They supported the November ruling that quashed the conviction of a jet ski rider of causing an accident because he has been prosecuted under the Merchant Shipping Act"

Pompeyfan
15th March 2006, 13:35
I have read about the appeal backed by the law lords before somewhere or heard it on local radio. It is good in one way because as a person who is keen on preserving nautical terminology, saying that a jet ski is a ship is total madness and another nail in the coffin of correct terminology. However, as I said in my original post, I was pleased that the judge ruled that the jet ski was a ship because of the wider picture. That of course makes me two faced. You can't have nautical terminology when it suits you. But my argument here is not words meaning that a jet ski is litterally a ship, but a ruling that it would save lives under the Merchant Shipping act. If jet skiers or other fast craft are not regarded as ships, and therefore not coming under the Merchant Shipping Act, it means they continue as they are possibly killing more people. So rather than getting over the problem by classing them as ships, and then losing by appeal, surely there should be tighter laws for smaller craft especially jet ski's?. If not, then people in my former job will not be short of work, but some families will be short of a loved one either killed by their own recklessness or that of others. Here in the UK the summer holidays are still a long way away, but if others summers are anything to go by some children will not be going back to school in September because they would have died as the result of an accident at a seaside resort and each one will be avoidable if they had greater knowledge of the sea or local area. Yet more lives would have been ruined, but the argument will still go on in courts as to what this is and what that is. Nothing changes?!. David

gdynia
15th March 2006, 14:00
The Times March 14th page 14; a few lines - " an appeal court ruling that a jet ski is not a ship has been backed by the law lords. They supported the November ruling that quashed the conviction of a jet ski rider of causing an accident because he has been prosecuted uder the Merchant Shipping Act"

Paul

Thats good news they cannot enter for the Blue Ribband now (Thumb)

Santos
15th March 2006, 21:11
A sad, (Sad) sad day for the normal level headed small boat sailor and swimmers. The judicial system in this country never ceases to amaze me. One day making a sensible and sane decision,the next over ruling it.

OK the original Judge may have taken a very large hammer to crack a small nut but at least something was done to curb the idiots and lunatics who own, hire and ride these things.

As far as I am concerned the dam things are a dangerous menace, they should at the very least have restrictions placed on them with regard to who can use them and what qualifications they should have. How many more people must be killed or seriously maimed and injured before jet skis are brought under some sort of regulatory control.

A stupid ruling which makes me very angry (MAD)

Chris

KPC
15th March 2006, 21:57
Jet Skis have been banned our Harbour (Sydney) for some years now.......bit of whinging by the hoons at first......now a distant memory. And not missed one little bit.

zsimone
15th March 2006, 22:21
Hi All,
Jet Skis in Wellington have not been banned but they have had restrictions put on them as to where they can operate. We had a prosecution not so long ago where a jet ski was involved in a collison with a kayak and it resulted in a fatalty.
Cheers
Gary

Keltic Star
16th March 2006, 05:47
In Canada, anyone operating a pleasure craft with a motor, without professional cetification, must have passed a test and be in possession of a Pleasure Craft Operator Card issued by Transport Canada. "Sea Fleas" included. However, like a driving licence, this does not solve the reckless boating scenario. Most ports and harbours have speed limits but only the major ones have harbour police with interception ability so the problem has not gone away and in fact accidents rise every year with the increase in popularity and affordability of these pests.

Having just derided one of Canada's most profitable inventions, I must say that high powered runabouts are just as lethal in the wrong hands.