Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 53

Thread: Brother-in-law fined by waterways

  1. #16

    Re: Brother-in-law fined by waterways

    A month or so ago QLD DPI were doing their thing at Scarborough Ramp as we were going out.

    The advice from them was that if you are required to wear a jacket (currently crossing a bar or under the age/boat size limit) it had to comply with all relevant requirements. If it was not mandatory to wear it, it was sufficient to have a complying jacket for each person in the boat.

    I asked because I don't want to wear my PFD1 in 600mm of water up the creek chasing lizards, and am also not too keen to pay the annual fee and several week's wait to have an inflatable jacket tested.

  2. #17

    Re: Brother-in-law fined by waterways

    IMHO, just coppers being coppers and having "a go" with a youngster.

    I wonder if the result would have been different if an older person was in the boat.

    PDF are either "in order" or "out of order". There was only one person on board.

    I'd write a strongly worded letter to the water police objecting to the fine.

    Luc

  3. #18

    Re: Brother-in-law fined by waterways

    Thanks for all replies,

    Will get him to write letter to nsw maritime.

    I can follow the logic now, only one per person reqd, but if more than that onboard, all must be serviceable as a bad one may be grabbed in emergency.

    Rgds

    Ron

  4. #19

    Re: Brother-in-law fined by waterways

    Just to throw a spanner in the works. Lets say some one takes four people to tangalooma and has 4 PFD1's onboard that fit all the occupants and then he has a pfd 2 suitable for the person to wear as he is towed on a ring or tube behind the boat in that same vacinity. This would seem to contravene the NSW ruling but not contravene any rulings here in QLD.

    Maybe this would be a tactfully worded letter to the authority as to the reason there were these differing styles of PFD on the boat and maybe common sense would prevail.

    It would not be comfortable to wear the PFD1 on the tube or ring

    Chris

    Just my 2c worth

  5. #20

    Re: Brother-in-law fined by waterways

    Angla

    not only would it be uncomfortable to wear a PFD1 on a tube or ring, it would be downright dangerous. PFD1's are not recommended for water sports like skiing or tobogganing, they can cause serious neck injuries if the wearer comes off at speed.

    cheers
    Steve

  6. #21

    Re: Brother-in-law fined by waterways

    Well let's compare boats with cars just for a moment. If a car is maufactured to carry 5 passengers it must by safety standards have 5 seat belts for that occasion where it may well have five people in it for their own saftey in the event of an accident. My vehicle can carry 7 people in it but rarely has that many passengers but it still has to by law have 7 seatbelts. I'd think that he was fined because the boat was ill equipped to cater for the safety of the maximum amount of people being 4. Let's say for arguments sakes that he decided to take three mates out and they struck a bit of trouble and overturned? I'd put the fine down to experience and learn from it. They probably did him a favour by making him aware that he needs to have better life jackets on board. The penalty is harsh I know but we all cop a fine every now and again.

    Poodroo
    Last edited by Poodroo; 07-03-2007 at 08:11 PM.

  7. #22

    Re: Brother-in-law fined by waterways

    Quote Originally Posted by Poodroo View Post
    Well let's compare boats with cars just for a moment. If a car is maufactured to carry 5 passengers it must by safety standards have 5 seat belts for that occasion where it may well have five people in it for their own saftey in the event of an accident. My vehicle can carry 7 people in it but rarely has that many passengers but it still has to by law have 7 seatbelts. I'd think that he was fined because the boat was ill equipped to cater for the safety of the maximum amount of people being 4. Let's say for arguments sakes that he decided to take three mates out and they struck a bit of trouble and overturned? I'd put the fine down to experience and learn from it. They probably did him a favour by making him aware that he needs to have better life jackets on board. The penalty is harsh I know but we all cop a fine every now and again.

    Poodroo
    You only need an appropriate jacket per person that are actually on board not a jacket per person for max. number of people allowed/permited on vessel.

    Beside you can't really compare cars to boats as cars sink in water and boats usually don't and it'll be difficult for a boat to travel up the SE freeway under it's own power.
    I'd love to see Brian going prawning on the roof of the Pajero though
    Last edited by finga; 07-03-2007 at 08:17 PM.

  8. #23

    Re: Brother-in-law fined by waterways

    I have a theoretical question here....
    What would happen if the boys in blue come to visit you and it's the top or bottom of the tide and the anchor isn't out or you have the boat pulled up on the sand (this isn't classed as moored as the vessel is not made fast) and you have the kids swimming in the water with no jacket on??
    Do you get booked for not having kids without jackets or are they classed on not on board the vessel??
    Last edited by finga; 07-03-2007 at 08:35 PM.

  9. #24

    Re: Brother-in-law fined by waterways

    Even if the boat was an "open boat under 4.8m" it wouldn't matter as the kids aren't in it.
    pulled up on the sand is aground, and so not classed as underway either.

    I'm not a cop, but I would say you couldn't be fined, providing nothing untoward was too happen. Assuming in the scenario it's happy days, of course. They may have some advise to offer, but it would be pulling a long bow to issue an infringement in that scenario.

  10. #25

    Re: Brother-in-law fined by waterways

    Quote Originally Posted by finga View Post
    I have a theoretical question here....
    What would happen if the boys in blue come to visit you and it's the top or bottom of the tide and the anchor isn't out or you have the boat pulled up on the sand (this isn't classed as moored as the vessel is not made fast) and you have the kids swimming in the water with no jacket on??
    Do you get booked for not having kids without jackets or are they classed on not on board the vessel??

    What a tantalising question! Perhaps their minds would act like a computer and go into a permanent 'feed back" loop and self destruct

  11. #26

    Re: Brother-in-law fined by waterways

    Quote Originally Posted by gelsec View Post
    Even if the boat was an "open boat under 4.8m" it wouldn't matter as the kids aren't in it.
    pulled up on the sand is aground, and so not classed as underway either.
    Yep, aground but not moored. According to somebody that was on the other end of the phone oneday a mechanical means of fixing is to be used to be classed as moored ie anchor line, mooring line, trailer etc.
    There's so many grey areas of the rules it's a wonder a lot of us are confused.
    The 4.8m rule is another one. How many of us would assume the length of the boat is what's on the rego?? Well according to the definition on the MSQ site the length is stem to stern as the boat would fit in a box (without motor, bow rails etc) not along the gunnel or along the keel line as some manufacturers measure their boats.


    Another hypothetical question is...
    What is classed as a boat?? Is a blow up 2 kid toy rubber ducky or canoe a vessel according to the rules?? How about a surf ski or air bed or boogy board??
    Or is a 3m poly boat a vessel or a toy??
    When does something become a vessel and not a toy??

    Where's Kerry when you need him???

    Getting more confused
    Scott
    Last edited by finga; 08-03-2007 at 06:45 AM.

  12. #27

    Re: Brother-in-law fined by waterways

    1 person in the boat 1 pdf1..... 4 ppl 4 pdf1 .......10 ppl 10 pdf1....etc......very harsh getting fined awhile back i still had an old "life jacket" and was given a warning ....problem was they said was the words life jacket manufacturers were getting sued when it didnt save a life....

  13. #28

    Re: Brother-in-law fined by waterways

    Finga,

    The definition of "Underway"

    means not at anchor, made fast to the shore or aground.

    For the number of seats/capacity etc (in part)

    The ship is taken not to be equipped with the required safety equipment unless -
    There is an appropriate life jacket or personal flotation device for each person on board;

    What is classed as a boat/vessel etc? Jet ski isn't from memory and has something to do with the (non) requirement regarding flares/Epirb etc ????
    Last edited by Kerry; 09-03-2007 at 08:53 AM.

  14. #29

    Re: Brother-in-law fined by waterways

    Quote Originally Posted by finga View Post
    Bit harsh in my opinion but we also get fined if we have out of date flares on-board even if we have in-date flares.
    Good point about grabbing the wrong one though Murf. Which one would you pick if there was no time to think??


    Who's the authority fining for out-of-date flares???????

  15. #30

    Re: Brother-in-law fined by waterways

    Quote Originally Posted by Kerry View Post
    Finga,

    The definition of "Underway"

    means not at anchor, made fast to the shore or aground.
    According to the happy chappy I was talking to on the other end of the phone a rope or mechanical means is to used to make fast.
    His theory was if a boat is just pulled up onto the sand it can still easily drift away.
    In the definition it also states "a boat does not have to be moving to be underway"
    But if you throw an anchor out with a rope on it then it's made fast and/or anchored.
    Who am I to argue??
    Last edited by finga; 09-03-2007 at 09:36 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •