Do you think recreational boats should be licensed?

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by Polux

After having posted I had a look at the document and I think you can find that relation between the perceptual number of cars and the need of regulation. Remember that we are talking about many decades ago and the states with perceptually more cars as well as the demography the can be a bit different today and there are always exceptions to the general rule:

States that demanded a car licence before 1925: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia.

States that only demanded a car licence after 1930: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/summary95/dl230.pdf

Interesting sidenote but related to our licensing discussion. Vermont was last state to require a photo on a driver's license and only after being super pressured by the Feds following 9/11. They still don't require ANY document other than showing a driver's license to purchase and carry concealed weapons.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

Interesting sidenote but related to our licensing discussion. ...

It was you that posted about that but I don't think it is unrelated. It seems to me that shows the logic that leads to the need to regulate any activity (including licences) has to do with the number of users and the social repercussions, having safety as main directive. In that respect car licences (or airplane licences) are not that different from boat licences.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by Polux

It was you that posted about that but I don't think it is unrelated. It seems to me that shows the logic that leads to the need to regulate any activity (including licences) has to do with the number of users and the social repercussions, having safety as main directive. In that respect car licences (or airplane licences) are not that different from boat licences.

There are some differences though. Driving a car is an activity that causes about 4 million deaths world wide every year. Boating however is about as dangerous as playing golf. We don't require licences to play golf. Most countries don't require licences to boat either.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by Polux

Portugal is not an exception. As I have said similar graduated systems exist in Spain and Italy for many years.

One could of course say that Spain and Italy are exceptions as well...

My daughter took some years ago the first two licences. They can be taken together and the first one is really basic, just the rules of the road and some safety knowledge. The second one allows her to sail a Yacht if not very far away from shore. She had sailed with me since kid but even so the difference in confidence on her abilities increased notably after she had taken the licence. I believe now she feels the confidence to take a sailboat out alone in a responsible way.

I grew up in a country where to sail a boat at sea no licence is required. I did however learn to sail in a structured way, starting on small boats (Optimists, which we would take out to sea if the weather permitted) and then progressing, both where it comes to theory and practice. This was all voluntary, but of course self evident.

The licences are just a way to assure sailing is made in a responsible way, they assure just a minimum regarding what one should know to sail safely. With practice that knowledge will increase.

Actually the only thing the licence proves is that you are able to pass a test.
When I learned to drive we could choose to actually pay an instructor, or have a family member teach us. My father first thought me to drive, and I subsequently failed my test. Why? Because my father had never had to sit a driving test himself (Belgium only introduced driving licenses in 1967, and my dad was on his second car then already) he didn't know how to teach me how to pass the test.
So I went to an instructor and he subsequently thought me what I needed to know to pass the test. Then afterwards, after I'd passed the test I went back to learning how to drive.
The same thing happened when I needed to get a sailing licence after I moved to Switzerland. I signed up for a course to prepare me for the test, even though I am an experienced sailor. During the course I ended up partnerring with someone who was also an experienced sailor, and who had the same problem as I had: It doesn't matter how much knowledge or experience you have, you need to be able to pass the test. And in order to be able to pass the test you needed to attend a course, because there was no other way to find out how you went about passing the test...
So my experience is that licences just add a burden. They don't really tell anything about what you know. I now have the Swiss lakes permit ,so I can sail a boat on the lakes, but I am not going to bother getting the Swiss High Seas permit, as I do not intend to ever flag a boat under Swiss flag, exactly because of the onerous licensing requirements.

I believe what should be discussed is the liberty for someone to be auto proposed for examination, taking a course or not.

The problem is that the testers and the instructors collude, as to make sure you need to hire an instructor in order to obtain the knowledge you need to pass the test.

There is no need for boat licences.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

...
I grew up in a country where to sail a boat at sea no licence is required. I did however learn to sail in a structured way, starting on small boats (Optimists, which we would take out to sea if the weather permitted) and then progressing, both where it comes to theory and practice. This was all voluntary, but of course self evident.
..

Well, in what regards the subject of this thread and to dispense the need of a licence it would be necessary that, as you say, the need of learning in theory and practice starting with small boats was "off course self evident".

But you have just to read this forum where two threads are going on, one about a guy that bought a half million cat, never had sailed, and hired a boat captain for 10 days to learn how to sail the boat. No he says: "I can now sail". The other one is about a guy that did not know how to sail properly and sailed out for fishing out off Hatteras cape...being lost at sea for 66 days.

Originally Posted by K_V_B

.
The same thing happened when I needed to get a sailing licence after I moved to Switzerland. I signed up for a course to prepare me for the test, even though I am an experienced sailor. During the course I ended up partnerring with someone who was also an experienced sailor, and who had the same problem as I had: It doesn't matter how much knowledge or experience you have, you need to be able to pass the test. And in order to be able to pass the test you needed to attend a course, because there was no other way to find out how you went about passing the test...

The problem is that the testers and the instructors collude, as to make sure you need to hire an instructor in order to obtain the knowledge you need to pass the test.

I don't think it has to be that way. I have taken the first 4 graduated licences without going to any course. You have the program so you have just to prepare yourself to dominate the needed knowledge in what regards theory and in what regards sailing you can have an experienced captain to teach you, like your father has done.

I think it would be very easy not to have any conspiracy regarding the need to have a course even if you have the knowledge. All that would be needed would be to adapt the program and sailing training of ASA courses or RYA for several graduated licences. The courses and the knowledge needed for each steep of the day is already there: Minimum theory and practice.

All you need is the right to auto purpose for examination, not expensive examinations and licences based on the already existing optional courses by reputed sail schools.

I am not saying that mandatory sail licences are needed in all places. Obviously that if pleasure crafts are in small number they are dispensable, like they were dispensable for many years on cars, just saying that your arguments don't seem valid to me.

[jwing]

H V B - You claim to have been an experienced sailor, yet you still needed to hire a tutor to help you pass the licensing test. That is an excellent anecdote in support of mandatory licensing.

[K_V_B]

Originally Posted by jwing

H V B - You claim to have been an experienced sailor, yet you still needed to hire a tutor to help you pass the licensing test. That is an excellent anecdote in support of mandatory licensing.

No it's not. After the course I was not a better sailor than before. Without the course I would not have known to expect questions that are actually completely irrelevant to navigating an inland lake. I would not have known that the examinators would waive the requirement to demonstrate an anchoring manouvre. I would not have known to expect questions about the customs regime on lake Lugano, a place I never intended to sail. And there are many other examples. The class was not about teaching you to sail. It assumed you already knew that.

I was the same with my driving test. Once I got my driving license I still didn't know how to take a roundabout, or drive on a freeway, as that wasn't part of the test, so it wasn't thought in driving school.

Tests just demonstrate you ability to pass tests...

Most countries seem to do fine without mandatory licensing of pleasure craft. Even those bordering the difficult North Sea...





Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

............... The problem is that the testers and the instructors collude, as to make sure you need to hire an instructor in order to obtain the knowledge you need to pass the test. .

Where could you possibly have come up with such a ridiculous idea?

[rwidman]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

........ Driving a car is an activity that causes about 4 million deaths world wide every year. Boating however is about as dangerous as playing golf. We don't require licences to play golf.....

See above.

[jwing]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

After the course I was not a better sailor than before. The class was not about teaching you to sail. It assumed you already knew that.

I was the same with my driving test. Once I got my driving license I still didn't know how to take a roundabout, or drive on a freeway, as that wasn't part of the test, so it wasn't thought in driving school.

Tests just demonstrate you ability to pass tests...

Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

You are missing the point. Licensing is not meant to improve or test your skills. Licensing tests demonstrate that you have knowledge of the rules.

From a public resource standpoint, licensing is far more cost-effective than having Coast Guard and State LEOs arresting people who are ignorant of the rules. Believe it or not, there are responsible people working in public positions that have seen enough over the course of their professional tenure to come to well-informed decisions on how to best serve their constituency. Their recommendations are then proposed in legislature, discussed, amended, and voted upon. When considering laws, it helps to consider the big picture rather than the limitations of one's personal experience.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Where could you possibly have come up with such a ridiculous idea?

The "collusion" may not be intentional but just a logical outcome of the instructor's role in the licensing process. Since he's not responsible in the event one of his students AFTER passing the license test causes any accident or damage, his role is limited to same student only passing the test. Thus no need to teach the driving skills themselves but only test taking skills up to the passing mark. Now, it may or may not correspond with someone actually learning to drive from that instructor but that's more of a by-product of the whole set up rather than its' real goal.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by jwing

You are missing the point. Licensing is not meant to improve or test your skills. Licensing tests demonstrate that you have knowledge of the rules.

From a public resource standpoint, licensing is far more cost-effective than having Coast Guard and State LEOs arresting people who are ignorant of the rules. Believe it or not, there are responsible people working in public positions that have seen enough over the course of their professional tenure to come to well-informed decisions on how to best serve their constituency. Their recommendations are then proposed in legislature, discussed, amended, and voted upon. When considering laws, it helps to consider the big picture rather than the limitations of one's personal experience.

If that's the only reason why not then require a license for producing a child? Or a license to cross the street? After all there are many rules which pedestrians need to follow and many do not. Or a special license to purchase alcohol, cigarettes? After all any of these activities or products impact both those using/engaged in them and those who are not.

[jwing]

Originally Posted by K_V_B

...Boating however is about as dangerous as playing golf...

Not even close, as far as I can tell. One person attempted to write an article on how dangerous golf is and came up with 8 deaths between 1989 and 2010, worldwide: Death by golf ball not all that uncommon | November 29, 2010 | Bart Pfankuch | HT Golf

The annual number of boating accident deaths in the years 2008 to 2012, just in the USA, averaged over 701. That is almost 2 boating accident deaths per day.

[jwing]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

If that's the only reason why not then require a license for producing a child? Or a license to cross the street? After all there are many rules which pedestrians need to follow and many do not. Or a special license to purchase alcohol, cigarettes? After all any of these activities or products impact both those using/engaged in them and those who are not.

Sorry, your examples missed the mark:

I'm not aware of any parenting rules. I duckduckgoed "Alabama parenting laws and rules" and came up with nothing except custody laws.

As school kid, I was given some serious education on walking safety and pedestrian rules. All elementary schools should provide that.

I am also unaware of any rules concerning the consumption of alcohol and cigarettes. (There are driving laws concerning alcohol, but driving on public roads does require a license.)

[barnakiel]

But it IS a very very bad thing when licenses are granted only to those who "took preparatory courses".

Why not let people chose how and where they learn?

Is home grown learning worse than institutionalized learning?

Regulation kills true education.

b.