Not sure how this will play out re inland waters but if a canoe is classified as a ship at sea then the logical train of thought is its a ship on an inland waterway

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle6728335.ece

The International Regulations for Prevention of Collisions at Sea (IRPCS - sometimes known as Rule of the Road or ROR) is the driver here. Every vessel from a sailing dinghy and up is subject to IRPCS; a canoe or windsurfer can cause an accident or injury on the high seas therefore why shoud they not be subject to the same legislation?

Surfboards are a bit difficult to argue as their use is extremely localised and they do not 'navigate' waters in the same way as other vessels/craft.

With regard to inland waterways, IRPCS apply "to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by seagoing vessels". So, if an inland waterway is connected to the sea and vessels can transit between the two, then IRPCS apply, and there are specific rules dealing with inland waterways.

In theory, the rules apply to the types of vessel in question already (see definition above) and "the word vessel includes every description of water craft, including non-displacement craft, WIG craft and seaplanes, used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water". You could easily argue the inclusion of canoes and windsurfers. However, surfboards I'm not so sure.

I don't think the issue of classifying everything as ships is what is a desire here, nor is it likely to be the result, so all it would mean is some recourse against irresponsible water users, which is a good thing IMHO. The pleasure market at sea is all but unregulated and life and limb is frequently put at risk through sheer idiocy. About time something was done, though enforcement will of course be another matter....

I think that you accidentally transposed a 'p' for a 't' in the title of the thread...

__________________
GAIC Single Handed Casting Instructor

http://www.andygreyfishing.com/

It took a while for that penny to drop - nice one

http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/...nsultation.pdf

Bumps,
please give me an example of a non-displacement craft

I can think of no craft which does not displace water if it requires to float/hover.
cheers,
Roy

__________________
C & R since 1963

Roy,

The rules are driving at hovercraft with that particular phrase. I think I understand where you are coming from in the pure sense of the physics, but boats and ships displace water (ie they float in it, not on in), the mass of which is used to describe the tonnage of a ship ie its displacement. A hovercraft does not float in water, rather above/on it ie no part of its structure penetrates below the surface ergo it does not displace any water. Clearly in the act of hovering the force of air used will move water, so could be said to displace it, but in this sense it does not have a displacement, therefore is deemed to be a non-displacement craft.

Thanks Bumps.


Roy

__________________
C & R since 1963