Booze underway

[Cwens]

Originally Posted by Jammer

In boating as with cars, the vast majority of the alcohol-fueled accidents involve an operator who is a) thoroughly inebriated e.g. BAC > 0.15 and b) operates while thoroughly inebriated with stunning regularity.

This is an important point, and one that gets lost in policymaking. Lowering the legal definition of intoxicated from BAC from .08 to .05 makes it look like you're "getting tough on drunk drivers" but in fact doesn't deal at all with the core problem, which is those people who habitually drive very drunk. MADD, for example, morphed from an organization focused on getting habitual drunk drivers off the road, into basically a temperance organization, losing its way so badly at one point that the original founder parted company with the organization

[Mike OReilly]

Thanks Jammer. Lots of good info. The data does not (to my reading) give a rate based on per hour of operation. I appreciate your extrapolation, but my own experience is that paddling sessions would usually be measured in many hours, to many days. So, as you appreciate, we have to be careful about generalizing from our own experience.

But there's no doubt that that canoe/kayak mortality numbers are very significant in the data. Seems like they may be second to "open motorboat." So surprisingly high, so thanks for the info .

Linking things back to this thread, the 2021 Recreational Boating stats ranks alcohol as the 6th most common contributing factor in total boating accidents (Number one and two being operator inattention and inexperience.)

But when it comes to fatalities, alcohol ranks as the #1 primary contributing factor.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by ChrisOwens

This is an important point, and one that gets lost in policymaking. Lowering the legal definition of intoxicated from BAC from .08 to .05 makes it look like you're "getting tough on drunk drivers" but in fact doesn't deal at all with the core problem, which is those people who habitually drive very drunk. MADD, for example, morphed from an organization focused on getting habitual drunk drivers off the road, into basically a temperance organization, losing its way so badly at one point that the original founder parted company with the organization

That is my observation about MADD, and the general anti "drunk driving" push here in Canada as well.

[Enfant Du Vent]

Ahoy:

In the poll I placed myself in the "Every day, but a strictly limited amount".
To me, drinking while underway should be looked at as a matter of personality, not whether sailing or anchored. I would guess that drunks will be drunks no matter where they are.
Fortunately my physiology allows me to drink a moderate amount without becoming drunk.

As for the "strictly limited amount" one particular trip comes to mind. I was single-handing from Bermuda to my home port of Halifax, NS, Canada (about 800 nautical miles). In Bermuda I had purchased 2 40 oz bottles of Black Seal rum--the amount I could legally declare on arrival. And 1 26 oz bottle for the passage itself. The wind was very favorable and I soon realized that 1 oz "sun downer" would result in still having an excess of the legal limit for customs. So I solved the problem by dividing the distance to Halifax by the number of ounces left in the bottle. Things got a bit out of kilter when I would wake in the morning, check my distance sailed and realize it was already time for another oz right after breakfast. Does this qualify as a "strictly limited--by distance--amount"?
PS: Not sure if my 20,000 miles offshore qualifies as "not insignificant experience".
PPS: I was once the navigator--only paid crew--on a passage from the U.S. Virgin Islands to Key West, FL. (1100 nautical miles) The daily "ritual" was for the owner and friends to come on deck around 8 am, discuss the day's chores, and then say, "Good now let's put them off until we have a beer." At around 2-3 pm they would switch to hard liquor. MY "strictly limited amount" was to only drink about every third round. No one was ever drunk--just quite relaxed. <grin> And we found Key West without any difficulty.

[Enfant Du Vent]

"I was shocked to discover recently that some sailors of not insignificant experience have a habit of drinking while on passage, even in snotty weather and shorthanded."


Of course NOT in snotty weather. Didn't want to risk dropping--and breaking--the glass, which happened to be Waterford crystal.

[IslandHopper]

The puritans would be aghast at the trolly loads of booze passing through the marina today, going to be a jolly old Easter by the looks of it

[Benz]

Originally Posted by Enfant Du Vent

Ahoy:

In the poll I placed myself in the "Every day, but a strictly limited amount".
To me, drinking while underway should be looked at as a matter of personality, not whether sailing or anchored. I would guess that drunks will be drunks no matter where they are.
Fortunately my physiology allows me to drink a moderate amount without becoming drunk.

As for the "strictly limited amount" one particular trip comes to mind. I was single-handing from Bermuda to my home port of Halifax, NS, Canada (about 800 nautical miles). In Bermuda I had purchased 2 40 oz bottles of Black Seal rum--the amount I could legally declare on arrival. And 1 26 oz bottle for the passage itself. The wind was very favorable and I soon realized that 1 oz "sun downer" would result in still having an excess of the legal limit for customs. So I solved the problem by dividing the distance to Halifax by the number of ounces left in the bottle. Things got a bit out of kilter when I would wake in the morning, check my distance sailed and realize it was already time for another oz right after breakfast. Does this qualify as a "strictly limited--by distance--amount"?
PS: Not sure if my 20,000 miles offshore qualifies as "not insignificant experience".
PPS: I was once the navigator--only paid crew--on a passage from the U.S. Virgin Islands to Key West, FL. (1100 nautical miles) The daily "ritual" was for the owner and friends to come on deck around 8 am, discuss the day's chores, and then say, "Good now let's put them off until we have a beer." At around 2-3 pm they would switch to hard liquor. MY "strictly limited amount" was to only drink about every third round. No one was ever drunk--just quite relaxed. <grin> And we found Key West without any difficulty.

I'd say it qualifies as strictly limited, with the qualification you gave.
This is a helpful data point, since I want to take into account not only whether or not to go dry, but people's relationship and attitude toward booze.
Last thing I want to do is put unnecessary strictures on a harmless and relaxing pleasure, and I know some people who are far better to hang out with when they're NOT jonesing for a drink. I've also come below from a watch to find a crew passed out with a now-empty bottle from a secret stash.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SY Harmony

You could write a masters thesis on sociology just out of this thread!

It all comes down to risk tolerance and risk management.

In this thread... there's a lot of ego. Those with hard lines, and perhaps sounding prescriptive about it, and those who are more casual about alcohol underway, but still needing to paint the "nevers" as some sort of uptight spoilsports.

If by "risk tolerance", you're implying that alcohol underway is a risk... that's kind of an own goal, no? What other avoidable risks do these skippers accept?

I know some 'just one' drinkers aboard who actually mean just that, and it hasn't been a problem. They can usually agree to not drink underway if the skipper requests it. It's the 'just one' folks who in reality are often 'just one at a time' drinkers that often make prohibitions advisable.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

You'd win that bet. The stats are pretty clear. The most dangerous boat -- by far -- is the smaller open zippy (motor) boat.

So my question is: If we were to take all of the powerboat accidents involving alcohol (which let's face it, is almost all of the boating accidents) out of the equation, are we still having this discussion?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Enfant Du Vent

As for the "strictly limited amount" one particular trip comes to mind. I was single-handing from Bermuda to my home port of Halifax, NS, Canada (about 800 nautical miles). In Bermuda I had purchased 2 40 oz bottles of Black Seal rum--the amount I could legally declare on arrival. And 1 26 oz bottle for the passage itself. The wind was very favorable and I soon realized that 1 oz "sun downer" would result in still having an excess of the legal limit for customs. So I solved the problem by dividing the distance to Halifax by the number of ounces left in the bottle. Things got a bit out of kilter when I would wake in the morning, check my distance sailed and realize it was already time for another oz right after breakfast. Does this qualify as a "strictly limited--by distance--amount"?

If rum in this story was replaced by weed, or crack, or oxy... we'd all be aghast. But it's booze, so hey... all good. (and many of us have similar anecdotes, I'm sure. I certainly do.)

I'm no teetotaler. I take a drink, or a few - to enjoy it, to relax, to share it in the company of others. But steady solitary drinking just to empty a bottle.... Doesn't seem like a healthy relationship with booze. Just my opinion.

[s/v Jedi]

For too many, drinking equals to drunkenness and even irresponsible behavior. For some, a glass of wine or beer is the drink with every dinner.

We have found that many who claim not to drink while underway are drunk at anchor, often from early morning on.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Linking things back to this thread, the 2021 Recreational Boating stats ranks alcohol as the 6th most common contributing factor in total boating accidents (Number one and two being operator inattention and inexperience.)

But when it comes to fatalities, alcohol ranks as the #1 primary contributing factor.

The thing to keep in mind is that the underlying data isn't objective.


The data is collected by law enforcement and at some point, someone in law enforcement is checking one or more of a limited number of boxes as to the contributing factors. In many cases, the causation chain is clear, but in many if not most this is a subjective determination that leaves out important facts. So we get a subjective determination made by someone who works for an agency that already has drawn conclusions about boating safety and that has budget and programs to protect that have become part of their core thinking.


We therefore do not have a category for people deliberately entering the water for a recreational swim who do not do so in a safe manner, and as a result we do not have a campaign to encourage people to put out a swim line. We have three pages in the MN boating guide on CO detectors but not a single word about what a swim line is or why you should use one when people swim from your boat. (I'm talking about a typically 50' floating line trailed from the stern of the boat before swimmers get into the water, that they can use to pull themselves to the boat if they are tired or overwhelmed by wind or current. Mine has a monkey's fist at the end. Some people add floats). We also don't have anything about the effects of swimming in waves or fresh vs. salt water. Many competitive swimmers who are used to swimming pools have serious problems swimming in waves. Many people accustomed to swimming in the ocean are unprepared for the reduced buoyancy they have when swimming in fresh water.


I talked once to a friend who had a near miss with his daughter swimming from his boat, and I explained to him about swim lines. He thought that was a great idea and wondered why he'd never heard of it.



We also do not have the unaesthetic category of, "Men who fell overboard while urinating at the rail, possibly after a few beers" despite the fact that this is a common accident pattern. Easier to lump it in with the other alcohol-related accidents and generic MOBs right? But then we miss out on the opportunity to warn people that this is a thing.


We also have underreporting of the role of weather. The USCG stats list weather as a contributing cause in 5% of fatalities, a figure that is equally at odds with common sense and a reading of accident narratives. Bad weather is part of a common accident pattern for smaller boats where emerging poor conditions lead to fatigue, seasickness, poor judgment, navigation problems, boarding waves, and capsize. I think the problem is that, if you are in law enforcement, you are likely to see these sorts of accidents through the lens of experience, and fill out the form based on your believe that you would have been safe in those conditions so the problem is not weather but the fact that the boater wasn't as experienced and skilled as you are. Or that they'd had two beers.


So the statistics are an aggregation of those subjective analysis performed by people who are part of an institution who already sees boating safety as being able to be neatly addressed through proper equipment, training, sobriety, and enforcement.


Caveat lector.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by ChrisOwens

This is an important point, and one that gets lost in policymaking. Lowering the legal definition of intoxicated from BAC from .08 to .05 makes it look like you're "getting tough on drunk drivers" but in fact doesn't deal at all with the core problem, which is those people who habitually drive very drunk.

Here's the thing: going by the charts, it would take two drinks to raise my BAC to approaching 0.08. I know that after two drinks - I'm not "drunk", but I can definitely feel it. I AM slightly impaired at that point, and really have no business driving. So, obviously, 0.08 is over the line for impairment. I suspect that this is true for any person who's not a habitual abuser of alcohol.

0.05 is tougher, but just having one drink with a meal won't cross it, so I'd argue it's a reasonable limit. Drunks won't respect any BAC limit. But a low limit should help keep the rest of us from driving while mildly impaired, and from normalizing that behaviour.

[SY Harmony]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If by "risk tolerance", you're implying that alcohol underway is a risk... that's kind of an own goal, no? What other avoidable risks do these skippers accept?
.

Haven’t we learned in the last 3y that EVERYTHING is a risk?
The drink is a link in the chain of risks on or off shore. It’s up to each skipper to decide what his tolerance is.

[rslifkin]

I absolutely agree with the swim line thing. We keep a 60 foot floating line attached to a life ring. Nobody gets in the water without that deployed.