Recreational Craft Directive - EC Legislation

[Mike]

We have been doing some research on the European Union's Recreational Craft Directive ("RCD"). Exploring and probing for information proved a little problematic at first, especially when we went at first to the RYA website to see what we could learn there.

Without wishing to sound too harsh, we began very quickly to form the impression that it is a major rip-off, driven primarily by small craft manufacturers who can defray the costs of certified compliance by mass production of a particular boat design.

Even accessing the relevant legislation can be a rip-off in itself. The RYA provides a link to where you can apply for downloads. The application fee on the form available online is simply staggering. They want an up front payment for new users (for just the first 12 months of access) of £464.13. Thereafter, you become an 'Existing Subscriber' and must then pay an annually renewable fee of a further £141.00. Fine if you can defray the cost as a business but exorbitantly expensive for a home boat builder simply wishing to know how he should build his boat to satisfy the safety requirements embodied in the compliance regulations.

We intend to go a lot further with our research on this. It seems to us that this Directive, as it presently stands, is little more than a wholly unfair taxation intended to prevent the likes of you and I from being able to sell our boats on to others. The usual 'gravy train' is now firmly in place as many in the so-called professional boatbuilding field are already snuffling around with their noses in the proverbial 'trough'.

The alternative to Directive compliance is that we can ignore it completely and wait for five long years from 'first use' before being able to realise the investment we have made in our time and build costs.

We have found a (free) source for the legislation itself and have gone through a compliance process to obtain it as an organisation. We are, of course, the British Backyard Boatbuilding Organisation and therefore meet the requirements for registration with the EC body (the SRG) dealing with the Directive.

We intend to make all information available to our members. Perhaps we should consider forming a pressure group to lobby for a sensible change to these prohibitively expensive rules. More on this issue later.

In the meantime, we are gradually putting together a full list of the current Directive's many elements. Once complete, we will upload them to here for our members to access and download as they wish.

Best wishes

Mike

[strathkanchris]

I couldn't agree more. I have had my SF Highlander 14 sat on her trailer outside for four and a half years since completion. In that time she has been on the water 5 times. This mainly because I chose the wrong boat - an absence of slipways makes it very difficult to launch by myself. Ideally it takes at least four pairs of hand to heave her over the rocks down to the beach - two pairs would be difficult, four only happened once. So having got it wrong I can't pass her on to anybody else till the five years is up. Worse, I had a serious internal bleed three years ago where I was very lucky that St Peter wasn't ready for me - by dint of some sterling work by the medics in Inverness and a lot of donated blood I pulled through. If I hadn't the executors of my estate would have had to destroy the boat, transfer of title is the key and a terminal event results automatically in transfer of title and it's just not allowed. You can't even give the damn things away.
So I suppose the moral is build up to 8ft LOA, or canoes, or traditional designs (pre 1950) built in the traditional way. You could always make sure that the boat is really the one you want - but in my experience that doesn't seem to happen - grass is always greener etc.
It makes life particularily difficult for somebody like me who is primarily a builder and views the water with great suspicion and is approached by friends who would like to help by allowing me to build them a boat - it has to be a joint build with demonstrably shared workload! If I were to take advantage of my friends by building a boat for them, even at my normal labour charge of nowt, I become liable for 3 months free holiday at a resort of HM's choice or a £5,000 contruibution to the exchequer or both.
Now that doesn't feel fair.
The stated reason that it is safety issue is, I think, demonstrably untrue by the fact that my Pram Dinghies and canoes are all outside the RCD and I can dispose of them at will - IMHO they are ten times more dangerous than the Highlander - I know which ones really scare me.

I fear that where the EU is concerned sense is overidden by vested interests.

Chris

[Mike]

Good grief, Chris, what a dreadful story. This is totally inequitable and unjust. I guess there's only a small light at the end of your particular tunnel - six months to go? And what will she be worth then after being used only five times in that many years?

I've heard stories of home builders cheating by insuring their build even before they start it so as to falsely claim the completion date early. This kind of bizarre legislation drives desperate people toward largely unwarranted criminality. It is, I think, unjust criminalisation of a potentially very large number of dedicated and highly skilled amateur boatbuilders.

I feel this is something worth a fight (I have some rather interesting - and successful - experience in fighting good causes in English courts). I have no idea how many others out there might support me were I to start some kind of action but it seems to me worth a try. Perhaps we could start with an online petition to test the water? What are your thoughts? My health ain't what it used to be and I'm 61 now. But I did read law at the University of Bristol and know people who could offer the right kind of expert advice without wanting to charge exorbitant fees.

I think it might be appropriate to test the water, so to speak, with a petition to the DTI, our PM, or perhaps to Parliament. And it would be a decent measure of the potential for support out there.

Our little island nation has been renowned for centuries as 'seafaring'. Our shipyards were the birthplace of the vast majority of the most famous historical ships. We have been forced to watch many of those shipyards being closed down, some forever, and our boatbuilding and shipbuilding skills gradually disappear in favour of 'service industries' for tourism. This EC legislation, as it applies to the dedicated amateur boatbuilder, is surely law gone mad - and clearly a matter of vested business interest over the little man. That could work in our favour in one sense. And there can be no better reason to take matters before a court of law than on an issue of sound principle.

I have already identified some potential loopholes in the law as enacted here in the UK. I would love to hear the views of those better qualified than I on several of the issues we might challenge. It occurs to me that perhaps the wisest, and most logical approach, is to seek an amendment substantially reducing that five year period before you can sell on a boat built for 'own use'. Another interesting point is that the legislation expressly applies to craft built for the purposes of sport and/or leisure. How might this apply to a boat built specifically as a live aboard, i.e. a home - albeit a waterborne and highly mobile home? Hardly falling within the definition of 'for the purposes of sport and leisure', I would have thought. Another issue is that of the qualifications of the designer. Surely a highly qualified and demonstrably experienced naval architect should be recognised as knowing his onions to the extent that demonstrated compliance with his specific build instructions ought to be more than enough to satisfy the Directive from a safety point of view?

There is, of course, a very sound argument in favour of this regulation: public safety. We would not seek to challenge that in any way for it is extremely important, though quite how it shapes up when compared to motor vehicle legislation and the inordinate number of annual deaths and maiming on our roads I simply cannot fathom. However, it does seem to me that the rights of the little man, as usual, are here being flagrantly disregarded and dismissed in an entirely illogical and discriminatory manner. And enforcement provisions are, to say the least, rather bizarre, relying, to a very large extent it seems, upon 'complaints'. Once again, our government departments seem to choose to rely upon 'dobbing in' by those of perhaps dubious motive, the tattletales if you like. Wasn't Nazi Germany and revolutionary France, and Russia, reliant for information on its citizenry upon a precisely similar thing?

I will look at building a petition form for installation here - and perhaps on other relevant sites for ultimate collation before submission.

Best wishes

Mike

[Jeannette]

I agree, this is stupid. I will back my husband 100% in trying to get the law changed.

It seems to me that there is something very wrong with a system that says you can build a boat but can't sell it for five years. What is the difference between the safety of the boat when it is built and the safety of it five years on if it never makes it to the water?

If I was building a kit car I could very easily get it checked out for compliance and safety standards, so why is it so difficult for a boat?

Please start the petition and lets try and make a change for the betterment of all British Backyard Boatbuilders out there.

Jeannette

[Mike]

Although we have strong feelings about the unfairness of this legislation where home boatbuilders are concerned, we have considerable experience in taking action in such matters. In order to succeed, you need to have both a plausible, and entirely cogent, argument to put forward AND a determined group of supporters of and for the cause.

It is one thing to have a moan about perceived unfairness and entirely another to get behind a struggle for change. Inherent in the nature of so many Brits is an unending capacity to complain and gripe about perceived unfairness but a notable lack of the requisite courage and determination to actually commit to fighting for change. Our politicians rely on this weakness in us - and we are now beginning to see what flows from many years of selfishness, greed, and, worse still, public complacency.

It is important to either put up or shut up. We are more than happy to campaign for a change to the rules laid down by the European Commission's RCD. But we will not put our shoulders to the wheel without active support from others. So, it's down to others to now make their feelings on this thorny issue known and to genuinely offer their wholehearted support in a struggle for change.

I have posted a poll for members to respond to if they wish. It should appear above this post. Please let us know your thoughts.

Best wishes

Mike

[Mike]

For those who may be interested in reading the legislation, we have obtained the full text of the EC Directive.

It is in two parts in that there is the original legislation from 1994 and the amendments, mainly with regard to engine exhausts, emissions, and noise, of 2003.

We've uploaded them to the site so that members can download and copy for their own edification. Please bear in mind that these are documents detailing the original legislation as published by the EC's RSG and, as such, they are full of legal terms and phrases.

There is a Guide available too, which we will copy to the site later. It is not very helpful in that it is almost as difficult to read as the legislation it seeks to provide guidance upon. Nothing unusual in that, of course. It is one of those things drawn up by the 'jobsworths' of this world! And very much the same might be said of the Directive itself. As I heard a High Court judge say in court about our so-called Data Protection Act "I think whoever drafted this law must have had a mind like a corkscrew!". I think perhaps the same team was used to draft this Directive. :shark:

Click here (http://www.backyardboatbuilding.org.uk/RCD Directive_94-25-EC.pdf) to read or download the 1994 legislation.

Click here to read or download the 2003 amendments.

Best wishes

Mike

[Duncan]

There is a page on George Buehlers website on this subject that may be of interest.

Incidentally, George's book Buehlers Backyard Boatbuilding is great fun and full of useful stuff.

Duncan

[Clip]

This is a very interesting thread. Legislation such as this, tends to be a trend that may catch the attention of a politician or the media here in Canada who are looking to create an issue. All it will take is for someone to drown while out in a backyard boat.

In the USA they have similar concerns when selling a backyard boat, they call it liability. When building a boat for someone else, some of the advice is to not fasten the seats down and sell the boat incomplete. This is supposed to transfer the liability to the new owner when he finishes it.

To deal with this issue in Canada, I have a marine surveyor come by periodically to witness my work. This will help with insurance, and registration (especially for foreign travel), and I hope in value, if it is sold.

Wonder if your legislation in Europe would give an allowance for this?

[Mike]

Hiya Clip

I totally agree with you about the legislation developing, snowballing, to trend status and spreading. That is how it came about in the EU, of course, in that it seems one member's paranoia became the European Commission's wonderful little love child. The next thing we knew was we were all having to dance to the same 'harmonisation' tune. They even have the gall to use the term 'harmonisation' in their Directive. Pah!

The US way of getting around liability would not stand up here, except if someone was injured or killed by the seats in question. :rofl:

Your way of having a marine surveyor involved sounds perfectly sensible and very wise indeed if you care about your safety. In a way, the Directive does implement a similar system in that marine surveyors are involved. The problem seems to be one of appointed (perhaps 'anointed' would be a more apt description) individuals being given powers they didn't have before and allowing them to charge whatever they wish. As usual, because it is a 'marine' product, they get stuck in and the price becomes prohibitive, which is, I feel, precisely what the 'industry' wanted. To have a production boat certified is a piece of cake to a manufacturer. He pays for one certification for the type and then makes a production run that costs very little more to have the precious 'CE' plate affixed to each boat. This clobbers the backyardies very hard indeed. Every boat they build is a one off.

Anyway, Clip, a good post raising some interesting issues. I've given you some more rep. Thanks. :)

Best wishes

Mike

[Boatmik]

To have a production boat certified is a piece of cake to a manufacturer. He pays for one certification for the type and then makes a production run that costs very little more to have the precious 'CE' plate affixed to each boat. This clobbers the backyardies very hard indeed. Every boat they build is a one off.

Mike

This is a great point on the basis of equity.

Excellent!

And considering that exclusions are given to boats with similar use patterns ... please define "exclusively for racing"

or a kayak ... But not a home built rowboat.

Michael

[Mike]

Thank you, Mik, I'm all for equity of course, and that is, of itself, an important issue.

You are right on the button in asking for the definition of 'solely for racing'. It is not, of course, defined within the legislation. And the really silly thing about this is that the legislation reads something like 'intended solely for the purposes of racing', or words to that effect.

This brings 'intent' into the issue. And establishing intent is notoriously problematic for it is in the mind of the party concerned. How, then, does the local Trading Standards officer determine the builder's intent with regard to racing - or anything else for that matter? With great difficulty is the only possible answer. And whatever the intent, how is said officer to police the subsequent use? There is nothing at all in this legislation to prevent a builder from self-certification as to RCD compliance, say in Cat D, then sailing his boat thereafter across the Atlantic to the Americas. Weird, is it not? And it is simply impossible to police, in any event.

So, what is this all about really? Thus far, I have been able to establish just a few rather interesting facts that bear upon some of the issues we are raising here. As I now understand things, it was we, the British, who actually started the ball rolling on this. I am told that the BMIF was getting very miffed about the fact that other EU member states were placing obstacles in the way of our boatbuilders, preventing them selling their products into Europe, mainly into France and Italy. The BMIF apparently began demanding 'a level playing field'. OK, that seems reasonable, I would have thought. However, once the ball got rolling, as is so often the case in situations like this, the bureaucrats rushed through the original Directive after a period of rather convoluted consultation in which the rights of the British backyard boatbuilder became trampled underfoot in the dash to secure a fair shake for our larger boatbuilders.

Look through the legislation in detail, look up who heads up the 'anointed' bodies, and you will certainly discover that the luxury boat manufacturers are just about running the show. It has become a 'gravy train', as I have suggested before, and the big boys now have their snouts so deeply in the trough that they will never wish to remove them.

The more I research this topic, the more convinced I become that there is only one sensible way forward for us backyard boatbuilders - not forgetting that the UK has by far the greatest number of such individual backyard endeavour in the entire EU. Moreover, we have among our number some very highly skilled amateurs whose boats are often far superior, in fact, to those produced by industry. This flows in part from their dedication and skill and also from the fact that they have as much time to build their boat/s as they wish to commit to the task. No production run, no bottom line profit to be made, no workers to pay by the hour - these are factors with which industry cannot possibly compete. And they know it.

I take the following view at this point in time. Legislation to ensure safe boats are built is both necessary and desirable, whether we are talking about super yachts or the humble tender. Therefore we should welcome any attempt to ensure high safety standards and harmonisation. The main problem, as I see it, is that the present legislation actually runs counter to that admirable principle and intent in that it drives the 'own use' home builder away from compliance with the promulgated standards and towards the non-compliance, 'own use', rule of 'wait five years from first use'.

Therefore, I would favour a petition which addresses that issue alone. It should perhaps be drafted to state that we backyardies seek the right to comply with the standards applicable to industry without being asked to fork out a disproportionate sum - a very high percentage of our build costs - in order to do so. I suggest we ask for a change to the regulations that allows us to build to a reputable designer's basic design and that inspectors be invited to attend upon the build in much the same way as our Council building inspectors will visit a building site to ensure compliance with building standards. Provided the cost of such inspection is held down for the home boatbuilder, this process, or something like it could work towards all of us having certification - and safe boats.

The alternative is to seek to have the five year rule reduced. However, that argument would be weakened by the simple fact that this means we will all be taking the non-compliance route - just for a shorter time interval to expire before we can realise our investment.

Personally, I like the former argument most: that for compliance and high safety standards at reasonable cost for the amateur boatbuilder. The key, I feel, is to have reputable designers' boats approved and to have inspections to ensure each boat is built either strictly in accordance with the specification or modified only with the designer's approval - and assistance where needed.

What do the rest of you guys and gals think of my position at this stage? Let me know please (by posting a reply here, or by PM or email is fine too).

Finally, Mik, I would add some more questions to yours: for example, what is a canoe (exempted, as you know)? And when is a canoe not a canoe? What about those dugout big 'uns that have loads of sail area and daggerboards or outriggers and go like the clappers? Are they canoes or sailboats, or are they in fact just boats 'intended solely for the purposes of racing'?

And is a live aboard yacht actually a recreational or leisure craft? An Englishman's home is said to be his castle. Is a live aboard boat a home, a castle, or a recreational and leisure craft?

I could go on - but I won't for now. ;)

Best wishes

Mike

[Boatmik]

Howdy,

I see "reputable designer" as being just as problematic. I have no qualification or proof that I can use to differentiate me from someone who is not any good.

I think the safety issue is not the point here.... does a boat become safer after it is 5 years old?

Wonder what the original argument was for that to be included?

Michael

[Mike]

I see "reputable designer" as being just as problematic. I have no qualification or proof that I can use to differentiate me from someone who is not any good.If you were designing your very first boat for sale within the EEA, then it might be that you would have to comply for your first in each design by going through the RCD requirements by inspection and certification. Once the type certificate was issued, that process would effectively rubber stamp every boat of that design thereafter built. However, there should still be an inspection of each boat to ensure it has been built to your specification. At least that is what I had in mind in what I wrote.

I'm not a designer, of course, but your Goat Island Skiff seems to me to be a good boat. Much the same applies, surely, to your Eureka canoe. Don't forget that dinghies, canoes, kayaks, and the like are all known to give their owners a wetting. They are not quite the same thing, are they, as boats that are supposed to be difficult to knock down and should self right? And that is where the real categories ought to lay, I suggest, rather than in some artificial, ill considered, 'construct' that separates them as in the present RCD.

I think the safety issue is not the point here.... does a boat become safer after it is 5 years old?No, I agree that it certainly does not. The whole idea of waiting five years seems to me to have been an ill considered cop out. A boat is safe - within certain operating parameters - or it is not. Again, it is the 'operating parameters' that ought to differentiate between categories and this should not simply be in the weather conditions for sailing. It should, in my view, be skewed around to reflect the type of use. Perhaps weather conditions should play a part too, but it seems to me daft to certify a boat as fit for certain tight weather parameters when we all know that forecasting is a guessing game much of the time and the weather frequently can get much worse than forecast without sufficient warning to enable a boat to find shelter.

Wonder what the original argument was for that to be included?It seems to me it was a bone thrown to the dog who was whining about us backyard boaties being ripped off - and little more than that. Oh, and it justifies the term 'own use' in the mind of the lawyers who drafted the darned thing, of course. An afterthought, if ever I saw one. The real problem with the term 'own use', as I see it, is that once again it is an artificial construct. There is no such thing as a boat built for own use. Invariably it becomes available for another's use. Strathkanchris raised an interesting point on that particular issue. What if one dies and one's spouse inherits a boat built for 'own use' and this all happens within that notorious five years? It seems, as strathkanchris said, it must be seized by the local Trading Standards man and destroyed to prevent its use by another. Bloody ridiculous. How is this to be policed? How can it be right to destroy what may be a perfectly seaworthy - and possibly very valuable - boat just because of this silly rule?

Shall I take it, then, Mik, that you would like to see this RCD changed? Hehe.:rofl: If so, then good. Yet another designer who thinks the RCD is poorly drafted and extremely problematic for the backyard boatbuilder.

Best wishes

Mike

[Mike]

One important point I would wish to make, and emphasise, at this point is that it doesn't do to get angry, or to rant and rave, about this matter. I realise it is something which hurts us British backyard boatbuilders and home builders everywhere within the European Economic Area ("the EEA") but the way to deal with its inequity is to apply reason and sound, logical, argument as is thus far happening here, I feel, and to make our protest and demand for change heard where it matters.

This legislation is certainly inequitable and illogical. That is good, in a way, in that such legislation is always vulnerable to protest and appeal on the basis of plain old common sense.

I do like the way our membership has so far responded to what is undoubtedly a very thorny issue. Keep up the good work everyone. When our daughter, Jodie, gets out of hospital and I can make some more free time, I intend to cobble together a draft petition to get the ball rolling. It will then be important to widely circulate the news of what we plan to do here and to get as many others as possible to join in with the effort.

I have a feeling there will be many more out there who will lend us a helping hand. But they can't do that unless they are aware of our cunning plan. So, spread the word on other sites please and let's see if we can get some co-ordinated push and shove under way.

Best wishes

Mike

[Duncan]

I am working with a friend of mine to put my home build through Cat. C – RCD He works professionally with CE marking and other EU standards for all sorts of businesses as diverse as Quarries to insulation manufactures. This is going to take a few weeks yet. He has only briefly read the directive but spoke very positively saying it was very simple compared to most he deals with. I will report back when I have something more concrete to say.

A few general points.

It is necessary to understand the spirit of this directive which is similar to many others relating to a whole variety of things. First off there is no Eurocrat is sitting in Brussels thinking I am going to make things hard for homebuilders. It is a genuine attempt to regulate this area and protect it from non- conforming cowboy designers, builders and importers. This is good for us all. We live in a fast changing world particularly when it comes to design and new materials the old style British Standards (BS) were too rigid i.e. All keels must be 12 * 9 Oak this approach stifles good design! Therefore the directive is written in a form that is more open. All it is asking is the designer and builder to stand up and declare my design is good to take 6 persons to sea in a force 5 (for example). And the builder to decare I have the knowledge and have built this boat to a standard to take said 6 persons in a force 5. (again) Nobody is going to police these declarations but if a design or build fail the respective parties who made the declaration may end up in court. This approach is being used increcingly in lots of areas. Obviously the directive is not without fault it is written in language that is often misintrptated because it has to cover a vast field of craft and geographical area using several languages. We should try to work with it not fight it. A few home builders complaining is not going to change a directive years in the making and covering a vast population.

Final rant is I don’t think The 5 year rule is to bad if you lovingly build your own boat for pleasure surly you should enjoy it for 5 years?

[Boatmik]

I am working with a friend of mine to put my home build through Cat. C – RCD He works professionally with CE marking and other EU standards for all sorts of businesses as diverse as Quarries to insulation manufactures. This is going to take a few weeks yet. He has only briefly read the directive but spoke very positively saying it was very simple compared to most he deals with. I will report back when I have something more concrete to say.

Good luck with that Duncan.


It is a genuine attempt to regulate this area and protect it from non- conforming cowboy designers, builders and importers.Sure ... but all legislation is open to modification as problems become perceived. Because it is a genuine effort doesn't mean that there a reason not to challenge it.


All it is asking is the designer and builder to stand up and declare my design is good to take 6 persons to sea in a force 5 (for example). And the builder to decare I have the knowledge and have built this boat to a standard to take said 6 persons in a force 5. Can't see how anyone can guarantee that ... even when scaled for the use of smaller boats. Traditionally this has been handled in the opposite way ... that there is a requirement for certain safety gear to be carried.

This makes more sense because there are people who can jump in a boat in a dead calm and get into strife. And this is the exact situation with smaller boats too ... there will always be a number of learners and those who don't think they are learners who will get into problems in force 1, 2, 3 etc ... whatever the declaration says.

It might work with a house ... or maybe a car (maybe that is why not many people home build them ... actually what is the inspection regime there Mike, there might be a useful precedent).... but the water is an unpredictable place.

I really don't know what the solution is ... but looking here with interest for people with some fresh ideas.


(again) Nobody is going to police these declarations but if a design or build fail the respective parties who made the declaration may end up in court. This is an interesting point ... I would say ... that the previous situation would mean this result too. So nothing has materially changed.


We should try to work with it not fight it. A few home builders complaining is not going to change a directive years in the making and covering a vast population. Why? and Why not? Respectively.


The 5 year rule is to bad if you lovingly build your own boat for pleasure surly you should enjoy it for 5 years?I know plenty of people who build a boat every year or every couple of years (even "lovingly" - patronising). And there is an even larger number that would like to sell after 2 or 3 years. Why does a boat suddenly become safe to sell without certification after 5 years? (we talked about this above)

The problem that is demonstrated is the Directive is internally inconsistent.

This makes it more open to change than many people expect. Also on the basis of equity ... there are other laws that ensure equity and at the top end of the legal system it is the sole guiding principle.

It is not necessarily "a FEW home builders" (as Mike said you are unnecessarily antagonistic) but a few with support can use the law to beat the law.

In any case there is no harm in trying! The only thing for sure ... is if you don't try ... then there is no possibilty of change.

Best wishes
Michael Storer

[Boatmik]

Hi Mike,

From Duncan's reply ...

Wonder how the home build car crowd met with this problem. The number of very established makers of kits etc in the UK compared to the few in the EEC might have had a bit more push than the poor old home boatbuilder!?

There might be an opportunity to bring the RCD more into line with the car rules if they are more advantageous than ours? Aircraft?

Might be some chance of extending the lobbying groups if everyone is being put in a similar position.

MIK

[Mike]

It might work with a house ... or maybe a car (maybe that is why not many people home build them ... actually what is the inspection regime there Mike, there might be a useful precedent).... but the water is an unpredictable place.Mik, I have not read the motor vehicle licensing legislation. However, I do know from past experience in rebuilding classic cars that the legislation is tight (as in tight as the proverbial fish's fundamental orifice).

Since there are vehicle inspectorates all over the land and a vast road traffic arm of the police force out there ensuring compliance, I feel it would not be easy to build a car in your backyard and get it licensed to drive on our roads - unless you were building, say, a kit car that already has a type approval.

As I've said before here, what I like about this legislation is that there are areas of it through which it seems possible to drive a coach and horses. Although Duncan is right in saying it is written in relatively simple language - compared to other, similar, legislation - it is nonetheless poorly drafted.

As to the rest of your post, I think you have made your points very well. Thanks for responding politely to Duncan's (originally) somewhat provocative post. I think maybe he had been enjoying the 'craic' at his local pub before posting. And you have to participate in the merriment in an Irish local to understand that. Never have I seen people so capable of downing more than just a few pints of Guiness without falling over as they lurch towards the door to go home.

In my brief time over there, I learned on the very first occasion not to even try to keep up, drink for drink. I love Guiness, especially that brewed in Ireland for the Irish (it is vastly superior to what we get here) but one pint is a meal of itself to me and has me teetering on the edge of intoxication. They are a hardy race, the Irish, with a razor sharp sense of humour that takes a little getting used to.

Best wishes

Mike

[Boatmik]

They are a hardy race, the Irish, with a razor sharp sense of humour that takes a little getting used to.

Best wishes

Mike

Though I am sure there are exceptions, I have always been impressed by the way they use words. If the Welsh are like a solo oboe ... the Irish are like a whole orchestra.

Great culture for the spoken word!

MIK

[Mike]

Hi Mad As A Fish!

Oh yes, what you have posted helps a great deal. Thank you.

This is a really important subject and I hope we can keep it friendly and work together, we will learn so much that way. I hope you stay on board Duncan, putting your boat through RCD will be a great learning exercise that I hope you will share with us. Lets keep it cool, chill as my son would say!Hear hear. I hope Duncan stays on board too. I really don't want to ban anybody. It's a most unpleasant thing to do, though it is a vital editing function when things become legally problematic.

Mike, you have been so helpful and I now have in place a route to avoiding RCD problems that I am really grateful for. I almost fear changing the law might loose the loophole which I can so easily slip through at the moment. Just what might be dreamed up next time?I would suggest that particular loophole is unlikely to be changed unless it brings racing craft under the RCD in a much more easily met and affordable route.

There was a mention of kit car rules. I have owned kit cars since about 1983 on and off. The early days were just an MOT test. Infrastructure in place to check the car. When SVA (single vehicle approval) was mooted there was a lot of talk. It came in and what is the result. Hugely improved kit cars and a much bigger market. The SVA test is very thorough, very detailed and very tough. Well designed cars can fail on 24 issues. Put these right and you have a valuable tested and approved vehicle. Prices for second hand kit cars are far higher now and the market has prospered.This is what Duncan was driving at, I think, and I agree that it can have very positive results, provided the rules are fair and can be met by all. From that point of view, I agree with him that we need to work WITH the legislature and not against as a tiny pressure group. Too much of that nonsense goes on already and can be very damaging to society as a whole.

Back to sailing. A local friend achieved his ambition of building his own boat. A 26' lift keel racing boat in GRP ( he runs his own moulding company) designed by David Thomas. In order to insure the boat he had to have a full survey carried out by a qualified marine surveyor. How are builders insuring their boats at the moment? Just third party? This could be a route forward but an expensive one.Interesting. I have looked at insuring Saving Grace and, to my surprise, found that some insurers seem to create a distinction between boats under and over 23 feet. Those under are called sailboats and much cheaper to insure, those over are 'yachts' and must have certificates from surveyors and are much more expensive to insure. Again, I don't quite know how this arbitrary difference was arrived at. It would be interesting to hear from someone who knows more about that.

Many designs available for in-experienced sailors to construct have no proper buoyancy included in the design. I still find it shocking that a professional builder can show a boat and sell it at a major show with no buoyancy what ever in the hull. People don't drown all the time because on the whole, people take care.Again, this is perhaps what Duncan was driving at. As in just about any human endeavour, there are good and bad boat builders at the professional level. I agree absolutely that some of the things one sees verge on the downright criminal. Thus, legislation to ensure safer boats is necessary, as was pointed out at the beginning of this thread. But it needs to be drafted well and supported by all. Wherever it is amenable to appeal on the basis of sound argument on a common sense basis then amendments can be made to correct it. I'm all for a level playing field, provided it accommodates us all equitably.

The situation regarding sailing canoes has changed this last year. They were as "canoes" exempt. However that has now changed and sailing canoes are now included in RCD. This has led to Solway Dory decking over two of their main selling designs. These are now far safer boats, easily recovered from a capsize. The open boats even with buoyancy bags were very hard work to recover.I didn't know that, and it's a glaring example of what I suggest we should try to do. If such a change has taken place, it must have been done through Statutory Instrument at a local level rather than in the Directive itself. The Directive, as you know, does not speak to such a change. This is encouraging, as it tends to suggest that the Ministry, the DTI in our case, is prepared to listen to argument and will act where it sees good reason to do so. And look what a positive result can flow from such change. Very encouraging indeed to learn this. Thank you.

Not sure if any of this helps, just some back ground info.Well, as I've said above, I found this an extremely helpful post and I am grateful to you for taking the time and trouble - especially when I know you are busy - to post it for us. Thanks again. :approval:

Regards

Mike

[Mike]

For those of you who are interested in examining the RCD in detail, I am uploading more documents that we have obtained from the RSG (Recreational Craft Sectoral Group) website. We here acknowledge the RSG copyright, which permits reproduction provided their copyright is so acknowledged. Job done.

We are loading these documents as PDF attachments. For those using a dial-up internet system, please be advised that some of these documents are rather large, so it is wise to look at the information we provide with each before deciding whether or not to upload them to read, or indeed to download them. They can slow things down considerably. Those with high speed connections should have no problems.

The following document is the second, and most recent, Guide to the Directive as issued by the RSG. There are more than 100 pages. They are intended to assist with the proper interpretation of the Directive. Please note that, for security reasons, only registered members are able to access our attachments. If you want to read these and have not yet registered, it only takes a minute to become a member and we guarantee complete confidentiality. We will never deluge you with email or sell your details to Bill Gates! Registration Page (http://backyardboatbuilding.org.uk/forums/register.php).


143
Recreational Craft Directive & Comments to The Directive Combined
(PDF document: size 1.70 MBs)


It is quite heavy reading, but you should use the index provided to fast forward to the sections you are most interested in seeing.


Best wishes


Mike

[Mike]

Having located a source for the UK legislation, I have now downloaded all I could find with respect to the EC Directive.

Most of this is freely available on the HMSO website (now called OPSI (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/): Office of Public Sector Information), though you have to search for the relevant texts in the UK legislation (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/uk) section. Note that this section only searches legislation from 1987 to the present day. Prior enactments and S.I.s can be purchased elsewhere or can be found in books available free in your local library or at retail prices in your local bookshop. On the OPSI websites linked here, just type in the S.I. number - always a year and Instrument Number - as reproduced here and the full text should come up in a fairly short results list. Alternatively, you can just search for 'Recreational Craft' and, theoretically at least, you should find a results list with all the relevant UK legislation, including one or two pieces of legislation you don't know about. Researching law is laborious but interesting. At least, it is for me as a law student. And it is quite empowering to know exactly where you stand on any matter of interest to you.

To make things a little easier, I will upload these S.I.s in parts, beginning with S.I. 1996/1353 which was the first I could find that implements the EC's Directive, bringing that primary legislation into English law.

It is required that I print the following words here so as to fulfil my obligations with respect to reproduction of Crown copyright documents:


Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland

Again, please note that, for copyright and security reasons, only registered members are able to access our attachments. If you want to read these and have not yet registered, it only takes a minute to become a member (http://backyardboatbuilding.org.uk/forums/register.php) and we do guarantee complete confidentiality. We will never deluge you with email or sell on your details to Bill Gates - or anyone else!

And now to the S.I. that began it all here in England - 1996/1353:


144
Recreational Craft Regulations 1996
(53 pages, .doc file: size 351.5 KB)


Another 3 or 4 such documents to be loaded into this post later ... this first is the largest, of course, as it brings the 1994 EC Directive into force under UK law. Note that this S.I. is important as it contains the founding Regulations, which are subsequently referred to as "the principal Regulations".


The next relevant S.I. was 1998/116:


145
The Recreational Craft (Amendment) Regulations 1998
(2 pages, .doc file: size 38 KB)

So far as I can see, there was then a period of some six years before the legislators' pens were scribbling again, as they do perhaps far too frequently for my liking, to produce S.I. 2004/1464:


146
The Recreational Craft Regulations 2004
(67 pages, .doc file: size 228.5 KB)

What is interesting about this document is that it appears rather typical of the way in which lawyers draft legislation which revokes a predecessor draft (in the main here) and then confuses the issue by inserting references all over the place to clauses (rules) above and below what the reader is focussed upon, thus making the whole thing into a rather convoluted and extremely muddled mess. Just my own opinion, of course.

Please note that there are considerably more pages in the new Regulations, this to accommodate a whole raft of new rules pertaining to engines, exhaust emissions, noise pollution levels, and so forth. Note also that the words "Consumer Protection" appear for the first time in the title page of this Instrument and there is specific reference to the Consumer Protection Act 1987, or simply "the 1987 Act". Interesting how things develop, isn't it?

In the same year, yet another S.I. was promulgated to make alterations, corrections and additions to the 2004 Regulations. This is the way that drafting lawyers say: "Oops! Silly me, I forgot this or that - they NEVER apologise." This was S.I. 2004/3201:


147
Recreational Craft (Amendment) Regulations 2004
(5 pages, .doc file: size: 42 KB)

And now, because there is reference to the Consumer Protection Act 1987, I will provide that here as well so you guys and gals can refer to it as you find references in the RCD and Regs.


148
Consumer Protection Act 1987
(60 pages, .pdf file: size 2.95 MB)

The 1987 Act is, of course, an Act of Parliament, thus primary, rather than subordinate, legislation. This Act, I think, and at first glance, is mainly relevant here with respect to the means of enforcing the RCD and punishing offenders. The clauses on liability make interesting reading. So, that's how the old Trades Description Act became repealed. I wondered where that had gone! ;) I trust these documents are helpful to those 'bookworms' among you - including yours truly - who like to get down to the sub-atomic level. :approval:

Best wishes

Mike :captain:

[Duncan]

To any of you who found my language and comments offensive - my sincere apologies. I have lived in UK for many years and am extremely fond of the country and its people. I deplore racism and the (not to be repeated) comment was meant as a back-handed compliment not a slur.

As for the directive it is my opinion that a small group such as this would achieve much more of benefit by exchanging experiences in dealing with getting their craft through the existing directive rather than trying to fight for change. Over a period of years a good knowledge base could be built up with the aim of and publishing a guide how to get your boat through RCD at minimum cost.

For this reason I have voted no in the pole. (Sorry Mike but having a forum is to share thoughts with others with similar interests even if they differ is it not?)

Duncan

[Mike]

To any of you who found my language and comments offensive - my sincere apologies. I have lived in UK for many years and am extremely fond of the country and its people. I deplore racism and the (not to be repeated) comment was meant as a back-handed compliment not a slur.Takes a big man to apologise. Well done, Duncan, and thank you. :appl:


As for the directive it is my opinion that a small group such as this would achieve much more of benefit by exchanging experiences in dealing with getting their craft through the existing directive rather than trying to fight for change. Over a period of years a good knowledge base could be built up with the aim of publishing a guide how to get your boat through RCD at minimum cost.The thread is not so much about 'fighting' for a change as it is about appealing from some of the less logical aspects of the RCD as they inequitably affect 'own use' boatbuilders, many of whom are capable of producing boats superior in many aspects to their professional counterparts.

We should never lose sight of the fact that the 'own use' boatbuilder invariably builds a boat in which he/she is prepared to sail, thus placing not only his/her life but, frequently, the lives of their family upon the soundness and safety of his/her construction.

There are some truly outstanding examples 'out there' of the most wonderful backyard built craft and it is simply unfair to exclude them from certification, and thus saleability (no pun intended), at a reasonable cost - and I do mean a reasonable cost rather than being asked to spend disproportionate sums of money to achieve so little in return. I would much rather spend that money on building a better and safer boat.

Jeannette and I are about to start building Saving Grace. We plan to live aboard her while sailing through the beautiful rivers and canals of 'La Belle France' and into the Med. After a couple of years of cruising the places we've only ever flown over, we would like to sell her on to someone else for a fair market price, thereby realising our investment both in time and cash, so that we can build another, larger and roomier boat on which to permanently live. I would very much like to build her to the highest possible standards but I have already had quotes just for survey that will represent some 10% of her build cost. Add all the other costs of having her in an RCD Category (B or C) and the overall cost is likely to approach 20% of her build cost. I do not believe that is either fair or justifiable. Just my own view.


For this reason I have voted no in the pole. (Sorry Mike but having a forum is to share thoughts with others with similar interests even if they differ is it not?)Duncan, you are perfectly entitled to your point of view and totally free to express it here. I, for one, would fight for your right to do that; your right to freedom of expression. It matters not whether you are in agreement with others. I am happy you decided to vote. I feel that shows you have a genuine interest. Good on you. It would be a very boring world if we all agreed on everything, would it not? :approval:
Again, well done - and :thanks:.

Sincerely


Mike

[Mike]

In case anyone is wondering, I have removed the poll from this thread for the time being. The reason is that I am working on a first draft petition which I will eventually invite people to respond to with comments on its content before eventually putting it 'out there' for people to sign.

There seems very little point, then, to actually polling opinion at this stage. I sincerely thank those who voted, or considered voting, in the poll. Please bear with me on drafting the petition as it will take me a great deal of time in thoroughly reading the many documents associated with the legislation before I can put together an appropriate proposal for the petition. No point at all in petitioning unless the proposed amendment action will be something workable and acceptable to the powers that be.

Best wishes

Mike

[Mike]

I've heard from Geoff Waddington (http://www.marine-surveying.co.uk/). Or rather I have heard from Lee Warltier, one of his associates who deals with new builds. Very helpful chap, is Lee, and rather pleasant to deal with too. :)

What they propose is that they will make some studied comparisons between Cat 'B' and Cat 'C' certification costs and get back to me. I have told them I would like their involvement with my build from the outset, with their guidance and inspection as appropriate.

Lee mentioned that Geoff would be interested in becoming a 'notified body' with a view to helping us home build types to comply. That sounds a very good idea to me and I hope they will look further into it. Wouldn't it be great to have an experienced marine survey company like Geoff's become fully RCD knowledgeable and able to help us to become RCD compliant with our home builds - without it costing us the earth? :approval:

If Geoff can be helped to achieve this with some support from our membership and others, I think we should get behind him. What say you others out there?

Best wishes

Mike

[Mike]

Having now ploughed through about half of the documentation, I am persuaded that it may be best to support a more accessible, less costly, compliance process than to seek amendments to the RCD. The more I read, the more I am convinced that the intention of this legislation was primarily to achieve harmonised safety standards. I cannot see any real evidence of an intention to favour one boatbuilding group over another, only an intention to ensure that boats placed on the EEA market (for whatever reason) should be deemed to be as safe as possible within what seem to me, as a retired pilot, rather sensible safety rules.

As I think Mik has already said, you can't build a boat that is totally safe (remember Titanic! :)). Nor can you legislate to prevent morons from owning or using a boat in a foolish or reckless manner. There is inherent in the use of any boat a degree of risk that is largely known, and mostly understood, by anyone with a modicum of common sense and some suitable and relevant training. The same surely applies to ships, aircraft, trains, cars, motorcycles, pushbikes, roller skates, and every other means of transport that springs to mind. The logical objective has to be to ensure a harmonised standard relevant to the plethora of designs and build methods available - and that is where there seem to be some rather large loopholes, some of which one could drive the proverbial 'coach and horses' through. As with all law, there are improvements that can be made. But the spirit of the RCD seems to me to be sound enough.

I suggest we wait and see what develops from Lee's investigations and research. I know they have downloaded some legislation from this thread that they did not have before. So, we are, I think, moving in the right direction already. Here's to a successful outcome that can satisfy all!

Cheers :toast:

Mike

[Andrew E]

Hi, all. As a new one here I have read this with much interest. I also scratch built a car before the current regs. (72/4) And have been involved in homebuilt aircraft, the certification of which could be a guide to boats.
Here in France I have built a 4.7 mt. Ply epoxy Oughtred design and am currently working on a Dudley Dix Cape Henry 21.
The smaller boat was self certified as being under 6mt. I had it surveyed as a requirement for insurance ( €180) The registration was free and took 30min. Over 6mt. it is different and I have not got the outline yet. When I do, I will put it up. The alternative is to reg. in another country like Belgium, where the rules are much lighter.
The 5 yr. rule applies here as well. And I must keep all plans and relevent paperwork for 10yrs.
As a Cat. C, my current boat is limited to 6 NM from a safe haven. My new boat would also be limited if I did not carry all the specified kit,including a lifraft.

On homebuilt aircraft, the Popular Flying Ass. administers on behalf of the CAA. They have a list of approved designs which can be built under an inspection regime. Any others must have the design verified and static tests ( such as loading the wing to designed limits) I assume one is charged fees for this. My experience was in the 70s, but I understand it is stil much tnhe same. There are also perfomance and engine limitations.
The micro lights originally operated under an exemption, until the accident rate forced the CAA to institute a design approval system.

I am not sure that any gains you guys manage will help me much, unless I register in UK. Living here excludes me from the S.S.R. ( plenty ignore this) But is of much interest.
Andrew

[Mike]

Over 6mt. it is different and I have not got the outline yet. When I do, I will put it up. The alternative is to reg. in another country like Belgium, where the rules are much lighter.Welcome to our friendly little site, Andrew. For the record, you are our first member registering from 'La Belle France'. Again, bienvenue, mon ami.

Yes please, Andrew. Do let us know the rules applicable in France. I, for one, would be most grateful. And I must say I find it not the least bit surprising that the rules in Belgium are 'lighter', despite the fact that they were drafted there in the first instance. Grrrrr .... .


As a Cat. C, my current boat is limited to 6 NM from a safe haven. My new boat would also be limited if I did not carry all the specified kit, including a liferaft.Interesting. How on earth do they hope to police that? As I have it from those in the know over here, one is not actually limited by the category of certification. That is to say that, once certified, one is perfectly free in law to sail anywhere, and in any conditions, one chooses. I've been told to certify in Cat 'C' (because it's likely to be cheaper) and then sail wherever I wish. The only limiting factor would be the insurance cover, of course. Go beyond the category conditions and you are not insured (serious matter, of course, if you happen to hit someone else's boat, or suffer total hull loss). But it wouldn't risk too much if liferaft equipped to sail across the Channel and then stick to the coast for venturing farther afield. Alternatively, one could tow one's boat and launch somewhere across the Channel and remain fully covered by sticking relatively close to shelter. Bit of a pain in the butt, though. Sometimes, riding out a storm by staying well offshore is much less risky than trying for shelter in bad conditions.


On homebuilt aircraft, the Popular Flying Ass. administers on behalf of the CAA. They have a list of approved designs which can be built under an inspection regime. Any others must have the design verified and static tests ( such as loading the wing to designed limits) I assume one is charged fees for this. My experience was in the 70s, but I understand it is stil much tnhe same. There are also perfomance and engine limitations.
The micro lights originally operated under an exemption, until the accident rate forced the CAA to institute a design approval system.Yes, I agree with what you are getting at here. In light of the spirit rather than the letter of the RCD (primarily as consumer safety rules), it would be intelligent to look at the way light aircraft are approved - in classes - and seek something similar with boats.

Thanks for your input, Andrew. Very interesting first post - for which I am clicking on some well deserved 'rep'. :approval:

Best wishes

Mike

[Andrew E]

Re. the policing. I planned the route to Brittany and found unless I went up the Loire estuary some way I would breach the 6NM limit. If one of the police boats caught me out doing the direct route I would be in expensive trouble. And if they saw a small boat it is very likely they would come looking.
My previous post on certification does not imply that my boat conforms to the RCD. Just that is is registered and considered as Cat.C. Below 6mt they don´t care (apparently). Still can´t sell it or give it away. I could `permanently loan´ it, I suppose. But that comes under collusion.
One must have a plate with the number and port of registry and that the boat is amateur designed and built. I suppose to warn the passengers....
My experience so far with officialdom here is very positive, cheerful, helpful people who facilitate rather than obstruct.
Andrew

[Andrew E]

One last post on French rules, mainly as it is not really relevent to this thread. I looked at the new (08) diktat. Amateur builds up to 24mt(!) are self certified for registration. Same 5 yr no sale rule. If you want A or B cat, you must supply design verification by a recognised body. ( a naval arquitect?) Otherwise no prob. If going beyond 6NM, one must carry the safety kit. But it no longer specs. an inflatable lifraft. A `lifeboat tender´ is ok. Also, if you have a DSC VHF one does not have to carry the para flares and orange smoke stuff. There is also a new set of scantlings to conform to. But I doubt that is a prob for any well thought out boat. There is a small difference at 7mt. but it may be for tax. ( I pay no yearly fees) Looking carefully at the legalalese I might have been wrong about my previous comments about 6 mt. and limits. Just what I was lead to believe.
This still doesn´t help re. RCD. In the UK one can reg under S.S.R. Which is equivalent to all the above. Just here you HAVE to. Interesting, boats whose prime motive power is sail do not have to display their reg. no. in big letters. Just their name and port of registary ( two letters) And no licence is required to use them if the engine is less than 5hp.
Andrew

[Mike]

This still doesn´t help re. RCD. In the UK one can reg under S.S.R. Which is equivalent to all the above. Just here you HAVE to. Interesting, boats whose prime motive power is sail do not have to display their reg. no. in big letters. Just their name and port of registary ( two letters) And no licence is required to use them if the engine is less than 5hp.
AndrewVery interesting, Andrew. I agree that French rules are not directly relevant here. However, how they go about conforming to the RCD is perhaps relevant.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think registration on the UK Small Ships Register, in particular Part III thereof, is something of mere formality and a tiny fee payment (£25.00). It seems to be about sailing under a national flag and has little or nothing to do with RCD compliance or safety. And even Part I is more about registering ownership and builder details than any compliance with safety rules. Part I is, of course, desirable for acceptance in overseas ports proving ownership of the vessel, nationality and port of registry. Thus SSR certification seems akin to carrying 'ship's papers' in aircraft.

That said, I can only recall having my 'ship's papers' checked while overseas .... by a UK CAA Inspector! :) Not once in 20 years did any foreign official even ask to see them.

Thanks for this useful info, nonetheless.

Best wishes

Mike

[Andrew E]

The SSR was created to give overseas officials (particulaly the French) something to look at for ownership. It proves Zilch, for as you said, any one can get it. But many boats cannot get Part 1 for a variety of reasons so it serves. Without a compulsery registration system the UK is unique in the EU (I think) As for selling boats, whos to know when it was built? Here the reg. defines it. But if I unscrewed the plate and towed it to UK for sale, I doubt anybody would ask questions if I said it was 5yrs old.(just well looked after:-) )
Andrew

[Mike]

Without a compulsery registration system the UK is unique in the EU (I think).So I am told, Andrew. Some might say this is a good thing, of course, in that it meant we were indeed free to build backyard boats and, when the time came, to sell them on to others on an 'as seen' basis. Not so anymore as, you rightly say.

As for selling boats, whos to know when it was built? Here the reg. defines it. But if I unscrewed the plate and towed it to UK for sale, I doubt anybody would ask questions if I said it was 5yrs old.(just well looked after:-) )Yup, and that is a serious defect in the system, as I see it. In addition to what you suggest here, about which I am sure you are absolutely correct again, I have heard that some backyard boatbuilders are establishing a fraudulent date of first use by insuring their boat even before they build it, then offering the insurance certificate/s as false evidence of having served out the 5 year 'jail term' of the RCD.

These methods for evading the rules are, I feel, almost inevitable in circumstances where the rules in question impose arbitrary restrictions on people's ability to realise significant investment in their time, labour, and funds. Defiance, or avoidance, of law is often an indicator as to the law being unjust or unfair - at least to some part of our society - and therefore needs some amendment. Otherwise, what follows is the unjust criminalisation of people who would otherwise act lawfully.

You point to some very interesting issues here, Andrew, for which I am grateful. Thank you. :approval:

Best wishes

Mike

[Andrew E]

Indeed, the law was formed to protect special interests. Then we are told it for safety. When was the last person killed in an unsafe small boat? Accidents are almost invariably the result of a combination of errors ( think aircraft ones) And I doubt that a bad design in a boat is much of a factor. Most boat related ones are with people who should not have been out there in the conditions(and not yotties). You can´t legislate for idiots.
On reading posts on other forae, there seems to be a move to legislate all UK boating activites, with, of course, charges and licences. I hope not, but am not holding my breath.
The system here seems to work, but I suspect a UK one would be about revenue generation and lots of `Job creation´ like so many other schemes.You can probably tell I am not a supporter of the current UK gov.
A

[Mike]

Yep, can't disagree with a single comment you've made there, Andrew. Right on the nail, methinks. Nonetheless, I am hoping that an intelligent way can be found by which to jump through the necessary hoops here in the UK without being asked to part with ridiculous sums of moolah.

I would perhaps be more inclined to mount some form of protest were it not for the kind of experience I've had over the last few days on this site. Reminds me of my flying days when I would, on rare occasion, refuse to fly an aircraft decidedly unfit for flight, only to watch as a colleague came along and, perhaps thinking first of paying his mortgage, or indeed feeding his family, would accept the aircraft and take it into the air - with passengers. It can get real lonely 'fighting the good fight' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/2163300.stm). I'm all for fighting on points of principle (http://www.btinternet.com/~akme/austen01.html). There can be no other good reason for being in a court of law, for example. But I'm a little weary of wielding the sword and will never do so again without staunch and unyielding support from like-minded individuals.

Ha ha. I'm no supporter of the present incumbents either, my friend. I was once the only card-carrying member of the (un)said Party on our company flight decks but pulled the pin in disgust many moons ago, around the time friend Blair was sidling up alongside that man with a name like 'Shrub' with markedly imperialistic tendency. The problem now is what is there to replace 'em with? Another sad story, I'm afraid.

I digress. At the moment, I feel I will seek to comply and obtain Cat 'B' or 'C' certification. I will be happy to post on how I go about that and the resulting costs. But I really don't think I will now be at the forefront of any campaign for amendment to the legislation. Things might change, though. We'll see.

This has been a really interesting topic and I am most grateful to those who have participated in it (and left their contribution in place rather than spitting the proverbial dummy ;)). I am waiting for a marine surveyor to come back to me. If and when he does that, I will know more.

Best wishes

Mike

[Isla]

Count me in as regards signing the petition etc.

I know this is probably naive, I haven't read the directive yet, but if I advertised a boat for sale in the local paper as e.g. '18ft Tosher, epoxy/cedar strip, excellent condition..yah de da, built 2003' who if anybody investigates the sale in terms of this legislation? Do you have to make some kind of formal application to offer a boat for sale? How does it work?

[Isla]

Final rant is I don’t think The 5 year rule is to bad if you lovingly build your own boat for pleasure surly you should enjoy it for 5 years?



I have to disagree with that point. One of the reasons that I oppose this legislation is because it restricts personal freedom to expand one's horizons as time and finances permit. Typical scenario..a man with no previous sailing experience builds his first boat, say a 12ft plywood sailing dinghy. Halfway through his first sailing season he thinks 'I really like this sailing business, but I'm already bored with sailing in sheltered waters, I want to do some serious coastal cruising'. So can he sell his wee boat and use the money to buy/build a bigger one? It seems not. Or maybe the guy will find he hates sailing and wants to sell the boat quickly to recover some of his outlay. Just my two pence worth.

[Mike]

Ha ha ha! Well said that man! I had to laugh when I read Isla's excellent first post above. :rofl:

Your question is very far from being naive, Isla. It goes directly to what is perhaps the most absurd, and in my view somewhat sinister, part of this rather convoluted piece of legislation.

I have some legal training and have read most of the Directive and its enacting, subordinate, legislation which brings it under the jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts. As I understand it at present, the rules set down by the EC in Brussels are enforced here by your local Trading Standards Officers (at the local Council). This may well not be the case in Scotland, where you live, as Scottish law stands apart from (and is often much fairer and more just, if I may say so, than) the laws of England and Wales.

The means of enforcement seems to rely upon the seller being 'dobbed in' by a complainant, for I can see no other way in which a Trading Standards officer would, or could, come to know of said offer for sale (unless they read and investigate every single advertisement which pops up in any and all media here). Hence, my earlier reference to the 'sinister' side of this law. And the mere thought of 'dobbers in' makes my blood boil, though our present government relies heavily upon such cowardly and anonymous individuals for enforcement of so much of its over-proliferation of absurd legislation (the present incumbents, I am told, have brought more law into force in their 11 years in office than was enacted in the entire preceding period since WWII).

As I have remarked elsewhere, this is the stuff of Hitler's Nazi Party, the Stalin era in Soviet Russia, and so on and so forth. It is, in my view, deeply sinister and is completely unfair to its many victims for our government to encourage such a system while offering the cloak of absolute anonymity and protection to the 'dobber in'. And it flies unfairly in the face of the laws of natural justice, in that it denies the accused of the right to know the precise nature of the allegation/s laid against him/her and the identity - and thereby perhaps the intent - of his/her accuser. It also deprives the accused of the right to pursue the accuser in a court of law (for defamation, for example). I digress. Rant over.

The absurdity of this law, in my view, rests in the simple fact that, whether or not you know about this law in all its intricacy - and why would you necessarily know about it when you are a humble backyard boatbuilder? - you commit an offence from the very moment you place on the market (offer for sale) a boat that was 'first used' after the commencement of the legislation and which is not certified under one of the RCD 'categories' UNLESS you can prove that five years has passed by since the boat was first used.

That, it seems, is how this law works. And no, there is no requirement that I can find that you must make formal application to offer your boat for sale. Silly, then, is it not?

Thank you, Isla, for providing me with a suitable opportunity to point to these matters. I see them as extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to enforce and quite arbitrary and absurd. There is, as I see it, a clear danger of unjust criminalisation of people who have, until now, lived entirely within both the letter and the spirit of the law.

Best wishes

Mike :captain:

[Mike]

I have to disagree with that point. One of the reasons that I oppose this legislation is because it restricts personal freedom to expand one's horizons as time and finances permit. Typical scenario..a man with no previous sailing experience builds his first boat, say a 12ft plywood sailing dinghy. Halfway through his first sailing season he thinks 'I really like this sailing business, but I'm already bored with sailing in sheltered waters, I want to do some serious coastal cruising'. So can he sell his wee boat and use the money to buy/build a bigger one? It seems not. Or maybe the guy will find he hates sailing and wants to sell the boat quickly to recover some of his outlay. Just my two pence worth.Absolutely, Isla. Again, you are right on the mark. It is a restriction upon the right you have to realise your considerable investment (of both time and money) in a sport or hobby of your choice. I am looking into this aspect of it. There are laws that just might apply to counter this particular issue.

Isla, my friend, I really must say I am thoroughly enjoying your 'two pence worth'. How about tossing in a few of your verbal 'pound coins' as well as your pennies? Watch out all those in the Palace of Westminster when Isla gets his verbal 'wallet' out. Great stuff. And a breath of fresh air where this particular thread is concerned. Well done, sir. :appl:

Best wishes

Mike

[Isla]

Just in case anybody thinks that our friends on the other side of the pond are not subjected to this kind of daft legislation (land of the free etc.) I thought you might like to have a look at this article (http://www.duckworksmagazine.com/08/howto/small/index.htm).

The relevant bits are about halfway down the page. A different kind of emphasis, but it looks like they still have to jump through hoops to sell a backyard boat.

[Charlie Morgan]

It seems rather ludicrous that someone without knowledge or training could set up shop and build submarines with total impunity! I seem to recall also that the RCD package is free in several EU countries.
I agree that the whole thing is very unfair. Technically the IOM is outside the EU. I wonder what would happen if I sold a boat of my own design to someone in a member country, after building it here.

[Mike]

It seems rather ludicrous that someone without knowledge or training could set up shop and build submarines with total impunity! I seem to recall also that the RCD package is free in several EU countries.Hi Charlie - welcome to BBB and a Happy New Year to you. :kiss2: I didn't know other EU countries had a free RCD package - but it sounds a good idea to me.

I agree that the whole thing is very unfair. Technically the IOM is outside the EU. I wonder what would happen if I sold a boat of my own design to someone in a member country, after building it here.The answer to that is already writ large in the legislation: anyone importing a boat from outside the EEA is bringing it under the rules applicable as to the RCD. Since you are not the importer, Charlie, there is no liability where you, as the builder, are concerned. The obligations fall upon the purchaser because he would be the importer of your boat.

My view is that the buyer might declare it an 'own use' boat for five years before they could sell it on (put it on the market here) or they might seek to have it certified as compliant with any one of the categories - the lower the category, the lower the cost of compliance - at least theoretically. Remember, one can have it certified in, say, Cat 'C' but there is nothing stopping one thereafter from sailing the boat wherever, or in whatever sea state, one wishes to.

An opposing, and strictly legal, view would be that the buyer did not build it but bought it. Thus, they did not self build for own use and would immediately be obliged to have it certified. This would be a fairly expensive exercise.

My own view as stated above is predicated upon various factors. How can anyone know where the buyer got the boat from unless the buyer tells 'em (or someone 'dobs' 'em in)? How does any regulatory authority know who built the boat and when? There is no obligation to place a boat on the UK register, so your buyer could perhaps leave it registered, say, in the Isle of Man. Since, as you rightly say, the IOM is NOT a part of the EEA, then the RCD cannot apply there.

Daft, innit? But hope that helps.

Regards

Mike

P.S. Good grief! I actually find myself suggesting someone might avoid UK legislation. Never thought I'd see the day. :rofl:

[Charlie Morgan]

Thanks for that! It's all quite crazy, but is probably all quite sane from the point of view of the nice chap who collects the money! Anyway - a happy new year to you too and a warm thanks for my welcome.

[Mike]

It's all quite crazy, but is probably all quite sane from the point of view of the nice chap who collects the money!Funny you should mention that, Charlie. It is quite unclear who actually collects the money. The policing is supposedly done by the local Trading Standards chappie. But I don't think he collects any money. And surveying is done under the supervision of a regulatory authority, though precisely who that is and how they collect any dues is also quite unclear.

Having not heard back from keyhavenpotterer's friendly neighbourhood surveyor since I chucked keyhaven off the website for his petulant and destructive nature (no doubt he made a few quick phone calls to his chums in that regard), I intend to approach my local Trading Standards office to see what they can tell me. Marine surveyors are plentiful, of course, and there will no doubt be very many available to take the dough if that is their role.

I'm not in a hurry, though. And nobody should be in light of the present situation. Stay tuned for more - as and when it comes to light.

You're right though, Charlie. It is quite crazy stuff, though perhaps typical of our present government's headlong rush into legislating without first thinking things out. And I say that as no fan at all of any potential replacements either. In the words of an old song (Sam Hall), "They're a bunch of muggers all!" as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway, onwards and upwards. :lam:

Best wishes

Mike

[Beachbum]

I dont have a lot to add on this subject that hasnt already been highlighted, apart from after a six hour talk from the very nice man from the RCD all he managed to do was convince a load of budding boatbuilders that the legislation is even dafter than we already believed! I'm going to leave it there before i go off on a rant.

Cheers

BB

[Mike]

Hey BB

Let her rip, mate. I enjoy reading people's rants, especially when they are right on the nail.

I am beginning to think it's best to let sleeping dogs lie on this RCD thing. The more I get into it the more I think the way to go is to avoid RCD compliance altogether. The legislation is so business orientated and reeking of the old 'gravy train' that it will undoubtedly be good business for the vultures in wigs and gowns one day.

The order of the day, then, seems to be to build boats under 2.5 metres or, if going bigger, to keep the head below the parapet and wait a goodly time if you want to sell on. If someone can show me how to keep RCD compliance within, say, 10% of build cost then I may take the plunge. Otherwise, I think it's just not worth the trouble.

I do feel sorry for anyone wanting to establish a boatbuilding business in the near future, as most of the guys and gals on courses like yours may well be. You'll either need 'loadsamoney' or a good friend or two in those high places.

Best wishes

Mike

[Isla]

The order of the day, then, seems to be to build boats under 2.5 metres or, if going bigger, to keep the head below the parapet and wait a goodly time if you want to sell on. If someone can show me how to keep RCD compliance within, say, 10% of build cost then I may take the plunge. Otherwise, I think it's just not worth the trouble.


Here's a possible solution, although it won't suit everybody...the regulations seem to suggest that it is OK to build pre-1950s designs (as many as you want) using modern strip-plank or glued plywood techniques (but not GRP). I have read it a few times and I am now convinced that the strip-planked Whitehall (they go back to the 1860s) that I am building would be exempt. Here is the extract, see what you think. This is on page 11 of the document I have linked to (numbered 11 in the document but shows as page 13 in Acrobat Reader):

"(e) original, and individual replicas of, historical craft designed before 1950, built predominantly with the original materials and labelled as such by the manufacturer;

The exclusion in (e) is intended to exclude from the scope of the directive craft designed before 1950.
In addition, this exclusion is also intended to exclude craft and/or types or classes of craft which were designed or developed before 1950 and which are individually constructed predominantly but not exclusively using the original materials. Builders of historical craft are able to build the same authentic bygone design, one boat after another. These boats are still unique and individual, when built using methods and materials consistent with the original design, and retain their aesthetic charm and characteristics.
In this respect, ‘predominantly with the original materials’ means using the original materials for both the hull and the deck, but allowing contemporary use of materials, for example plywood instead of solid timber, laminated frames, modern adhesives, paints, sealant and fastenings."
Enjoy!

[Yup, you are once again spot on, Isla. This is one of the reasons I have been looking to bring Will & Sara Stirling's boatyard 'into the fold', so to speak. The boats they are building and/or restoring/refitting certainly fall within the exclusion to which you point here. Keep an eye on the site this evening as Will is going to put up a load of photos for us all to enjoy - and learn from. Great stuff, I can tell you - coz I've already seen 'em! ;) Incidentally, there's no need to link to the Regulations as they are all available in full detail right here on our little site. In fact, they are on our server and linked at posts #21 and #22 of this very thread!]

[Andrew E]

While these types of boat may be exempt from the need to comply with the RCD while built by a yard. I doubt it helps the amateur on the 5 yr sale part. Any views on this ?
Andrew

[Mike]

The RCD is very clear on this particular issue, Andrew, in that 'these types of boat', which is to say replicas of boats designed before 1950, are entirely exempt from the RCD.

This applies to all within the EEA and not just to professionals. Thus, if you have in mind to build a pre-1950s boat then, provided only that you follow the requirements as to construction and materials as explained in the notes addended to the exemption as detailed by our good friend Isla above, you are free to place that boat on the market at any time of your choosing.

To me, this is one element of the RCD with which there can surely be no complaint. After all, it provides for the continuance of venerable and well proven boat designs for the enjoyment and edification of us all. It also permits judicious use of more modern materials and building techniques, which cannot be a bad thing, wouldn't you agree?

Hope that helps.

Mike :captain:

[Andrew E]

Hum, not sure you would get that past the registration guys here, but would be nice.
A

[Mike]

As I said, Andrew, these regulations are embodied with the RCD and apply throughout the EEA. Therefore, there can be no justifiable reason for 'registration guys' anywhere within the EU to challenge your right to build a boat and sell it within the EEA under this perfectly valid exemption.

Naturally, it is encumbent upon you, if challenged, to demonstrate the authenticity of the design and that your build is in accordance with the requirements as set out in the explanatory notes. I see no problem with doing that, provided you have been careful to ensure the design is indeed pre-1950 and your build is either completely authentic in replication or is a judicious use of modern materials and techniques in keeping with the fundamental design concept.

Mike

[Andrew E]

Mike, next time I am in La Rochelle I will run this past the maritime guys, but I doubt that they will agree. Long history of the French being selective on what they apply. And that rule was specificly to stop `amateurs´ competing with yards.
A

[Mike]

Okay, Andrew. That would be interesting.

May I ask what makes you think this rule was to stop amateurs from competing with pros? I can find absolutely nothing either in the founding legislation nor in any subsequent enacting instruments to suggest this was the intent. That is not to say there was no hidden agenda. But if that is the case, then it would be a relatively simple matter to challenge in the courts - and win!

On the 'French' issue, I have heard stories like yours before but nothing concrete to back 'em up. My own experience with the French was that they can be entirely reasonable and helpful - provided one approaches them in the proper manner. I lost count of the number of times a snotty-nosed co-pilot of public school background so enraged French ATC or refuellers on the ground that they imposed some prejudice against our 'ship' by way of perfectly understandable retaliation.

On most occasions, I was able to remedy the situation with a few, carefully chosen words (in French, though admittedly with an Australian accent!). Only once did I have to agree to require the co-pilot to climb up the ladder and help the refueller to pump the load into our tanks. Served the lad right, too. He he.

Mike

[Mike]

I have now heard back from GWSurvey with some rather interesting news on having Saving Grace certified as compliant with the RCD. Rather than seeking to explain the said good news myself, it would perhaps be helpful to you all if I put up a copy on the site of a document produced by the BMF which provides guidance for boatbuilders - in general.

In that document, I draw your attention to section '6, Conformity Assessment'. I recommend you carefully examine the requirements for Category C conformity as applicable to boats from 2.5 to 12 metres 'hull length' and the 'Options' available to the builder, in particular Option A as opposed to Option Aa.

It occurs to my advisors, and now to me on reading this section, that Category C compliance for those building boats up to 12 metres hull length can be relatively easy to achieve without enormous expenditure, though it does require builder self-certification, which can only be done legally by ensuring you have in fact complied with all the relevant harmonised standards. And therein lies the catch, in that obtaining access to the 'nitty gritty' of said harmonised standards can cost you £4,200.00 or thereabouts. It is very simple to find the codes for the standards in question but not the content, which is, of course, necessary in order to ensure compliance.

However, there are no doubt ways to gain such access without spending a ridiculous amount of your hard-earned cash. More on that later.

Personally, I am still thinking of having Saving Grace certified as compliant with Cat B. And GWSurvey seem to be just the right chaps to help me achieve that. So far, they have been most helpful and diligent, for which I am truly very grateful indeed. Unfortunately, it seems that becoming a notified body is problematic for relatively small organisations (prohibitively expensive, would be my guess), so GWSurvey has apparently canned its plans for seeking to become same. Nonetheless, they are an extremely knowledgeable and helpful organisation. I would certainly recommend them to anyone looking for expert opinion and guidance.

I must say I do enjoy feeling my way through, and where possible around, this type of legislation. Such rules and regulations are invariably a challenge worth rising to, in my humble opinion. Taking on such challenge can save you from unnecessarily spending bucket-loads of money.

Best wishes

Mike :captain:

[Origami]

This legislation was one of the reasons I went for a sub 2.4 metre dinghy. Should my abilities be sufficient then the only way forward as I can see with my absolute beginners viewpoint is to build very small dinghies. Later I doubt I'll be able to go bigger due to this legislation.

[Mike]

Hi Origami

Welcome to the site. Interesting first post, thank you. :approval:

Presumably, you build dinghies with a view to their eventual sale? What design do you build to?

Jeannette and I are just about to build a few ourselves while we wait awhile before building Saving Grace. Our first choice was 'Sherpa', a John Welsford design. However, she's a little over 2.5 metres (the RCD applies from 2.5 metres to 25 metres). We thought 'Tender Behind' (Sherpa's little sister) perfect but we wanted to push her size up to just below the limit. No problem at all. We contacted John and he okayed a 10% stretch.

Apparently, and this is confirmed by Paul Fisher in his assisting us with our 'Rona Yawl' stretch to build Saving Grace, most designers have no problem with a 10% stretch. In fact, it seems you can often achieve a better hull speed in doing so. However, it apparently doesn't work the other way in that reducing length can cause serious problems.

As to your going bigger later on, keep an eye on this thread. We think it is likely you will be able to do so without too much expense, particularly if you intend to go bigger with just one design. It is in building one-offs where the greatest expense in RCD compliance occurs. More on that later.

When you get a chance, please post a few photos of your builds for the rest of us to enjoy.

Best wishes

Mike :captain:

[Origami]

Hi Mike.
http://www.woodenwidget.com/ is where I bought the plans for the Origami folding dinghy. This is my first foray into boat building and I would have to get the quality a lot better before I started selling. This may be something for the future. The Origami does allow me to actually fit it INSIDE my Nissan Almera as well as carry 2 passengers, so I can go at 70 MPH up to the Lake District. I still need to fit the LeeBoard and finish the test sail rig. I also have to make the oars, but all in good time. I could perhaps build to order as long as I was certain the quality was good enough. The Origami can be stretched very easily, as well as using different materials. Most people issue with it is the rubber bottom, this is made from Tautliner lorry material and is readily available. I enjoyed building it immensely and will build something later this year after the summer. I will keep an eye on the forums and blogs for as much help as possible. I have been most impressed with some of the galery pictures I have seen today.

Thanks

Gary.

[Origami]

I have had a quick look at the RCD from 94 and noticed that chapter 1 article 1 3d states that "Personal Watercraft" are exempt from this legislation, I don't however see a definition of "Personal Watercraft".Is this a potential loophole?

[Mike]

Hi Mike.
http://www.woodenwidget.com/ is where I bought the plans for the Origami folding dinghy.Hi Gary. A very interesting link to a fascinating website, thanks.

This is my first foray into boat building and I would have to get the quality a lot better before I started selling. This may be something for the future.We all have to start somewhere and the Origami is as good a place to start as any. Honing your skills is important, though it is perhaps less important with the use of modern materials of course. Many people recommend just diving in and building the boat you want first time. Personally, I disagree somewhat and feel it is well worth playing around with some simple designs before reaching for the more complex plans.

The Origami does allow me to actually fit it INSIDE my Nissan Almera as well as carry 2 passengers, so I can go at 70 MPH up to the Lake District.Yup, I can appreciate the portability of this little tender, though I don't think I'd want to be in her if there's too much chop around. She would make a good little tender - but only when mooring in relatively calm and sheltered water, in my opinion. I note she has no flotation built in, which is a bit of a worry if she swamps.

I still need to fit the LeeBoard and finish the test sail rig. I also have to make the oars, but all in good time. I could perhaps build to order as long as I was certain the quality was good enough. The Origami can be stretched very easily, as well as using different materials. Most people issue with it is the rubber bottom, this is made from Tautliner lorry material and is readily available. I enjoyed building it immensely and will build something later this year after the summer.A PVC bottom would worry me a little too but how else would you achieve a folder? I note she has skegs, presumably wood. They might offer some protection for the PVC, I guess. Most boats are a compromise to some extent. In a way, this design is rather like the folding kayaks. They too are a compromise - but they work very well in some cases.

I will keep an eye on the forums and blogs for as much help as possible. I have been most impressed with some of the gallery pictures I have seen today.Thanks for those kind words, Gary. Much appreciated. You are most welcome - and we look forward to hearing more from you in due course. I'll respond to your RCD question tomorrow, if I may. I've had a late night and need some shuteye.

Best wishes

Mike :captain:

[Mike]

I have had a quick look at the RCD from 94 and noticed that chapter 1 article 1 3d states that "Personal Watercraft" are exempt from this legislation, I don't however see a definition of "Personal Watercraft".Is this a potential loophole?

Hello again, Origami

Sorry for the delay in responding to your question above. It takes some time to plough through all the legislation.

The term 'personal watercraft' seems to be rather confusing. It was, in fact, defined in both European and English law as follows:

"personal watercraft" means a vessel less than 4 metres in length which uses an internal combustion engine having a water jet pump as its primary source of propulsion and designed to be operated by a person or persons sitting, standing or kneeling on, rather than within the confines of, a hull;
Thus, it was directed at what might loosely be called 'jet-skis' and not to personal watercraft as you and I would perhaps interpret those common use, everyday, words. One could very easily be forgiven for taking these words to mean 'a boat or watercraft for personal use' but that would confuse it with one of the exemptions to the Directive, would it not? ;)

I hope this helps with your enquiry, Origami, in that it is not a loophole, though it is certainly a confusing term.

I proceed with another confusing issue. Again, in the original Directive of 1994, it seemed clear that the following definition was that for vessels covered by the Directive:

'Recreational craft' shall mean any boat of any type, regardless of the means of propulsion, from 2,5 to 24 m hull length, measured according to the appropriate harmonized standards intended for sports and leisure purposes. The fact that the same boat could be used for charter or for recreational boating training shall not prevent it being covered by this Directive when it is placed on the market for recreational purposes.
Note a key term here: 'intended for sports and leisure purposes'. I find that one rather interesting, particularly since the 'and' was replaced in the UK legislation by 'or'. For example, does a boat built solely for the purposes of live aboard (and mobile) accommodation, viz. as one's home, fall within this definition? Is living in one's home interpreted as 'sports and (or) leisure purposes'? I would argue that living in a self-built home in particular is opting for viable accommodation at an affordable price and certainly not a 'sports and leisure', or even a 'sports or leisure' activity. How, then, is such a boat deemed to be a 'recreational craft'?

Nonetheless, these words live on in all the legislation despite the confusion to the ordinary man and woman or, to use a time honoured phrase well known among the legal fraternity, 'the man on the Clapham omnibus' (this said by a famous English judge to be 'the reasonable man or woman'). Quite frankly, I wonder if anyone among our esteemed legal fraternity has ever actually climbed aboard a bus of any description, Clapham or otherwise, except perhaps in their childhood days.

That said, I think it is clear that there are some arguments, potential loopholes if you like, that would perhaps be heard by a court but may well fall on deaf ears when it comes to the powers that be at present.

I shall now duck back down below the parapet again, at least until a need arises for me to leap back up and fight a cause. For now, I am happy to seek certification in Cat 'B' for Saving Grace. If it looks like costing me an arm and a leg, I will revert to the '5 year route' and perhaps seek a more equitable amendment by petitioning for a reduction in that number of years and make the exemption less restrictive in the event of the builder's untimely demise (leaving his/her spouse or heirs with a decidedly unfortunate and inequitable matter to deal with).

Best wishes

Mike

[Mike]

Here's an update on developments. Those of you interested in this subject will no doubt find the following information rather disappointing.

It seems there is an obstacle placed in the way of the British Backyard Boatbuilder in the form of obtaining access to the text of all the various ISO standards applicable to demonstrating compliance with the requirements of the RCD.

It goes like this: you have the option available to self-certify your build. In order to do that, you must be able to state that you have complied with all the harmonized standards that apply to your boat in the category of certification sought. Before you can truthfully state this, you must, of course, know what is required in each of the applicable harmonized standards. And there's the bind. How do you know what's in these standards? Answer: you must, it seems, BUY the ISO standards applicable from somewhere. Now, without going into too much detail just yet (I will do that later), there are various sites offering such access. Access to all applicable standards costs, I am told, about £8,000. If you know which particular standards must be bought - for a boat like Saving Grace for example - you may, perhaps, only need to spend about £1,000. There are other ways possible, which I am checking out, but the best I have found so far would cost over £500. More on this later.

It must be borne firmly in mind that knowing the ISO requirements is only the first step in the process. You must then ensure your boat meets them and then submit your application together with a payment for all the fees that apply. Every step along that path costs you - big time.

I have been offered access to those ISOs that apply to my boat for a very reasonable sum - less than £200. However, I was advised by that source that I must undertake to keep the information thus provided as strictly for my own use. In other words, I would not be free to disseminate that information to our members.

Frankly, I find this business extremely distasteful. First, I cannot see how it is right and proper for 'notified bodies' to sell access to ISO standards that are given the weight of law with which we home builders must comply in order to meet the requirements of RCD certification. And second, and perhaps most importantly, I see no valid reason as to why a regulatory enforcement regime should be imposed upon an amateur seeking to do no more than voluntarily comply with what are purported to be 'safety standards' allegedly imposed in the public interest.

I have not yet made up my mind on this issue. There is a little voice telling me to forget it and just go the route of total non-compliance, taking advantage of that mean-spirited exemption applicable to 'own use' builds. On the other shoulder sits a little devil who urges me to get off my backside and fight the inequity and inequality involved.

What do others among you think of this?

Mike :captain:

[Clip]

The initial purpose for these was to ensure a safe vessel was built by meeting a certain standard. By not making the standards public would mean that intent of the standard is not for public safety.

When dealing with a mentality such as this, logic and what is right is not going to work, unless you know someone, or if the voting public cares. Too bad puppies and kittens aren't involved.

Having a good time in Florida-Clip

[Mike]

Well, almost correct, Clip. In fact, it seems the 'initial purpose' was in fact to remedy a situation in which UK professional boatbuilders were complaining vigorously about restricted access to European markets, in particular to Italy and, I think, Spain. Hence, the purported initial purpose was supposedly to create that very strange and mythical beast known as 'a level playing field'.

As with almost all legislation, of course, imposing rights for one particular pressure group invariably results in the loss of rights for some other, always less well represented, group. In this case it seems very clear indeed to me that the group missing out is the home builder or, more relevantly to this forum, the British Backyard Boatbuilder. Perversely, this is no small group because it is here in England where European home boatbuilding is most prolific. So much, then, for that level playing field.

It seems our government cares less about our home boatbuilding industry than it does about the professionals. No doubt it would take a very different view were a situation similar to the wartime evacuation of our troops from Dunkirk to arise. Nonetheless, I find it quite perverse that regulation by way of Standards is being done by the appointed regulatory authorities by selling access to the text of those Standards. This smacks of the old British 'gravy train' but it may well be that it is unlawful too. It perhaps needs looking into and the possible mounting of a legal challenge.

I think it is worth my while putting this matter to my local MP before doing anything else. I could begin by asking him why I must pay for access to British Standards (albeit those imposed by way of the RCD) imposed on us by law. It is, of course, impossible to comply with laws that are only viewable by those with the means to pay for access to them. I would submit that it is also grotesquely disproportionate and inequitable.

You are right in one important respect, Clip: if people's pets were the issue here, there would certainly be a public outcry and some very prompt action taken at the highest level. Where boats are concerned, it has been shown already that a Labour government, once a party championing the rights of the ordinary working people of this green and pleasant land, is not the least bit interested in providing, for example, public access to British waterways - even for the most humble and inoffensive canoeists and paddlers.

Like I have said, we live in very strange times. Lack of foresight is not restricted simply to our most senior bankers - and that old 'gravy train' is still chugging along at full speed carrying the most privileged among us towards even greater wealth and well being while the rest of us sink into poverty at the same time as we're bailing out big bankers, car makers, and goodness knows who else yet to come to light. And when we do that, largely without complaint, the beneficiaries of our generosity go right ahead and pay themselves the kind of bonuses (for abject failure!) that the majority of us only dream about as we buy our Lottery tickets every week. Good grief! :(

Mike :captain:

P.S. I refuse to rise to your jibe about Florida, Clip. I hope you get sunburnt! ;) Think about that Hudson Bay trip coming up next - and suffer. Ha ha.

[Origami]

I have been having something of a hack about for the RCD's and came across the following site
http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/sectors/sustainability/regulations/ecdirect/page12637.html

one link within is :-
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/maritime/maritime_regulatory/doc/guide_v2_94_25_en.pdf

This pdf is a guide to the RCD.
From reading this it seems to contain enough detail to allow a boat meeting the RCD to be confidently constructed.

I could be way off mark but please let me know what you think.

[Mike]

Hi Origami

These documents have, in fact, been linked to in earlier posts within this thread.

Although the Guide to which you refer seems at first glance to explain what one must do in order to comply with the Regulations and then sign a Declaration of Conformity, it falls very far short of doing this in fact.

I have some news to post shortly on my own intentions with regard to these regulations - and it is not, I am sorry to say, good news.

If you don't mind, I will leave my explanations with regard to your post until then.

In the meantime, no you are not very wide of the mark - except that you have possibly not yet quite grasped what hoops one must jump through before getting to the point where one signs and submits that Declaration of Conformity. And the costs involved are, in my view, disproportionate and run counter to the objectives of the Directive as stated in that they certainly do not encourage compliance with what are purported to be, in essence, safety standards. Those costs also far exceed what is a reasonable expense for the vast majority of backyard boatbuilders.

More on this soon ...

Mike :captain:

[Mike]

I earlier advised I would have some news on our own intentions regarding compliance with the RCD. In short, we have decided we will not bother with it.

After taking the best advice we could find, it became clear that, at the very least, if looking to certify under Cat 'C' we would spend more than £500 - and this to achieve a certification category which, in our opinion, was well below the capability of the boat.

The alternative, namely to certify under Cat 'B', consistent with the true capability of the boat, the cost would leap to well over £1500 and perhaps considerably more than that.

After careful consideration, Jeannette and I have agreed that it simply is not worth all the fuss and bother. And we really don't want to begin another crusade on principle. So, we are taking the easy way out and building to our own standard. We are happy to comply with the requirement that we cannot place the boat on the EEA market for five years. That compliance will cost us absolutely nothing.

I point to the fact that even £500 buys quite a few sheets of marine plywood, or some very nice hardwood, or other nice fittings to make ourselves comfortable instead of those money grubbers with their noses in the trough who are running the RYA or some other 'notified body'.

From now on, the acronym 'RCD' will have a very special meaning for us which is unprintable here!

Best wishes

[George Waite]

mike
This problem of "certification" is not restricted to the homebuilder. A couple of years ago Edwin Hannaford of Salcombe, a man who has been building Salcombe Yawls for over 50 years was told that he was required to submit one of his completed craft for stability tests etc in order to comply with BS/EU rules. As the cost of all this bull**** was to exceed the cost of one boat Edwin decided that enough was enough and promptly retired. As for acess to british standards publications etc well you can forget that, the ones that I need for everyday work come to in excess of £1000 and were it not for my employers library facilities I would not be able to afford them. They are of course also frequently updated and the updates are chargable. This license to print money has kept a British standards committee in a cosy job for a long time and a visit to British Standards House in chiswick, London will show you where all the money goes. I still can't forgive them for printing standards on red paper so that students could not photo copy the necessary sections.

[Mike]

Hi George, and a hearty welcome to our little group. :D

I guess it is self evident, when one thinks about it, that legislation of this kind was inevitably going to be detrimental to many relatively small, though highly skilled and experienced, boatbuilding businesses. It is clear after reading through all the various legislative texts that the Directive was originally founded upon a plea from big boatbuilding business interests here in England for what is laughably called 'a level playing field' throughout Europe. I understand our big players were finding it impossible to sell their boats into some of the more lucrative EU markets due to barriers put up with a nod and a wink by their governments.

It is difficult to establish how things progressed from what seemed a justifiable protest to what is now firmly entrenched in this rather bizarre legislation imposed on us all. It purports to impose a safety regime in the public interest. In fact, it does nothing of the sort. As has been asked, I think, elsewhere in this thread, when was the last time someone died in a boat here through its poor and unsafe construction rather than the foolhardiness or utter stupidity of the boat's owner/skipper?

I have read there was 'consultation' but nobody asked me. Were you asked? Was Edwin Hannaford asked? It seems to me a classic case of wealthy, and thus influential, lobby groups manipulating our pollies to look to the interests of their small, and rich, big boatbuilding minority rather than to those of the wider, less well off, majority. Nothing new in that, though. As you suggest, setting up legislative 'gravy trains' is a field of expertise in which we Brits are perhaps most adept and successful (?).

I find the whole thing quite preposterous. It borders on corruption in my book. And, were I a much younger man, I would perhaps direct my energies towards bringing about a change. For a start, and again as you say yourself, access to the rules and requirements ought not to be chargeable. If our government wishes to have us comply with some legislative requirements then the precise detail of those requirements should be made freely available to all interested parties. Some of these 'notified bodies' seek to charge people as much as £8000.00 for a service providing nothing more than access to the relevant British Standards - with an update service. Rip-off Britain at play!:bur2:

There are parallels with the RCD when compared with the aviation and automobiile industries. In the case of aviation, which is of course inherently dangerous in the extreme, it is imposition of a strict regulatory environment very much in the wider public interest. I can accept that without question. Even a little home built craft can cause massive death and destruction, not only to its occupant/s but to those beneath its flightpath. Cars, too, need similar legislation but, despite our best efforts over many years, we accept almost unthinkingly the heavy toll in deaths and maiming on our roads.

But where is the similar carnage on our seas? It is one thing to impose this legislation upon the big players in boat and ship manufacturing but entirely another in applying it to a cottage industry which has a reputation of having built safe and sound small craft for centuries. And many an amateur built boat can far exceed the production standards of those boats produced by large and wealthy companies in a factory process.

This is a piece of legislation perhaps best described as excessively punitive with respect to the ordinary man and/or woman. Only the big players can afford to access the relevant standards and pay for demonstrating compliance with those standards. It would be okay with me if, when I finish my build, the regulatory body took charge of my boat to assess its safety for certification. I could even accept being charged an equivalent cost of an MOT on my car. But to be asked to pay a couple of thousand pounds for same is totally unacceptable.

Finally, the 'fob off' in the 'own use' exception that makes it illegal for me to sell my boat within the EEA for five long years should I not demonstrate compliance from the outset is far more than punitive. It effectively destroys my ability to access my investment in time and money in that boat and makes it worthless before I can actually sell it in order to, for example, build another or to allow my family to inherit something valuable from me in the event of my untimely demise.

This is bollocks (please pardon my French!), is it not? And I simply refuse to go along with it. There are ways and means to get around these things, none legal I might add. But all unjust and unfair legislation deserves to be resisted by defiance of the laws imposed. And that is what I will do if needs be. There may be some advantages in our being a part of the EU. But I can see not a shred of evidence that being subjected to the whims of the pen-pushers in Brussels who impose this kind of nonsense upon us is in any way beneficial to me or to the public at large. Quite the opposite, in fact. I see the RCD as harmful to our society in the same way that I see so much that spews forth from Brussels as likewise harmful.

Rant over. Apologies. George, please pass on my sincere commiserations to Edwin Hannaford if you bump into him at your local. I am almost as angry for him as I am about being placed in the position of open defiance of the law.

Best wishes

[Mike]

For those interested in jumping the hurdles of the Recreational Craft Directive, here is the latest update from the Recreational Craft Sectoral Group ("RSG") that purports to be a Guide.


365
The RSG's RCD Guide 2009 (1.54 Mbs)

Make of this huge document what you will. It refers throughout to standards that are not available to the likes of you and I unless we pay through the nose for access to each and every one that applies to the particular design we are building and the Category in which we seek certification. Even working out what you must use and how to comply is a nightmare for the uninitiated, so what possible use this document is to anyone but boat manufacturers is beyond me. Nonetheless, it is the current guide, for all that it's worth! Grrrr! :(



Regards

[Clip]

What scares me about this document, is that what happens in England is going to be sold here in Canada in about 5 to 10 years.

I understand your Internet privacy was wiped out in 2001, when the goverment can know what you see and read on the internet without a warrant. Something similiar is being sold here now. Off course the argument is if you have done nothing wrong, what harm? My family lived in the M'Carthy period in the States. Mail opened, neighbors questioned, people following you and pulling your friends over for a talk. What may be Ok now, may not in 10 or 20 years, and computers don't forget.

This document (directive) is totally crazy, and it is the law? But they won't tell you the rules? It sounds something like something from Alice in Wonderland...

Now I've done it!!!

[Mike]

I understand your Internet privacy was wiped out in 2001, when the government can know what you see and read on the internet without a warrant. Something similar is being sold here now.Clip, I'm not too sure we have such a thing as privacy here so far as the law is concerned. The UK's only legislation that protects privacy in any way is that enacted here by the Human Rights Act 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998)(which came into force in October, 2000), a result of European law to which we signed up.

What is protected is not 'privacy' but the right to respect for one's private and family life. How that has been interpreted is another matter but thus far our government has stubbornly resisted any attempt to bring forward legislation directly protecting privacy. There was the well known case of Mr & Mrs Michael Douglas versus a certain well known celebrity magazine with respect to photos taken at their wedding and published without their permission, some of which showed Catherine Zeta-Jones in less than flattering terms. Only the very wealthy have any ability to take action on issues regarding their privacy. The rest of us are said to have a right to respect for our private life but then there is the existence of the government's GCHQ which is part of the intelligence community here. As I understand it, that facility has had the power and ability to listen in to our telephone conversations and spy on our Internet use for a very long time. A touch sinister, if you ask me.

Off course the argument is if you have done nothing wrong, what harm? My family lived in the M'Carthy period in the States. Mail opened, neighbors questioned, people following you and pulling your friends over for a talk. What may be Ok now, may not in 10 or 20 years, and computers don't forget.Yup, that is the argument put forward to justify all invasions of privacy, including our politicians' desire to have us all carry ID Cards. And a similar situation to McCarthyism has been around here for a long time in our government's preparedness to accept anonymous telephone tittle tattle that dobs in others to the police, the Department for Work & Pensions, and many other government instrumentalities.

I have myself been a victim of malicious and utterly false rumour and innuendo and I can assure you that it does cause enormous harm, even when totally unfounded. What's more, it is almost impossible to get any court in the land to challenge the government's right to accept anonymously made allegations and rumour and act on it as though it were the gospel.

This document (directive) is totally crazy, and it is the law? But they won't tell you the rules? It sounds something like something from Alice in Wonderland...Absolutely! And it does indeed sound like something from fantasy land - but it's real enough and is causing enormous damage to the backyard boatbuilding community here. No one in government has the intelligence or foresight to see that, though, so I don't anticipate it being changed. At least not until someone has the time and money to spend on mounting a proper legal challenge to it. Count me out, though. I have had enough of trying to change the world. There comes a time where one's private and family life is threatened by such things and I am now too old and poor to want to take up the cudgel again. I am now resting on my sword, having fought the good fight far too many times in my life.

Now I've done it!!!I do hope so, Clip. Nothing would please me more than to know that someone had actually stood up and fought against this kind of insanity - and won. If your comments here could prevent Canada from adopting this kind of lunatic legislation then it would be to Canada's great advantage and you would, in my eyes, be a modern-day hero! ;)

Best wishes

[George Waite]

Mike
Strange that your thread re privacy etc was concerned with canadian politics. When Canada achieved full independence the UK supplied them with a fully written-up constitution etc whilst we here still have no written constitution, no bill of rights, no proportional representation and no working freedom of information act. the only rights you have are those under the law (today) and you can have as much justice as you can afford.
george

[Paul M]

Hi
I can not believe you guys have to put up with this BS. not to make you jealous, but...

I have built 4 boats, 2 of which I sold with in a year of making them. I never have to register them since they are under twenty feet and have no motor.

I would totally ignore these laws. Can they, or will they even, Enforce these laws? Has anyone actually been convicted of building a boat and selling it with in the five years?

strange,
Paul Moffitt

[Mike]

Too right, George. Couldn't agree more. And you have the legal and constitutional position spot on - so where did you read law?

You'll need to jog my memory, though, on a 'privacy' thread. What thread was that then?

[Mike]

I would totally ignore these laws. Can they, or will they even, enforce these laws? Has anyone actually been convicted of building a boat and selling it with in the five years?Hiya Paul

I agree. These are rules and regulations which fall into a category that I would describe as 'worthy of civil disobedience'. They certainly are not just or fair in my view and are financially punitive to the backyardie, who is not in it to make money like the professionals whose wont they were.

Let's face it, even if you sell your home built boat for more than the materials cost (which is unlikely), the many hours you spent building her are never recovered in any commercial sense. So why impose commercial regulations on amateurs? Answer: because the morons who wrote the rules don't give a damn about amateurs. They are all 'jobsworths' in my view - and their jobs are worth plenty to 'em, which is why they go about things with such nonchalant gusto.

As to enforcement, unfortunately I am of the view that the tattletales, or 'dobbers in', will undoubtedly cause someone to fall foul of the laws and bring about punitive action - including criminalisation of someone entirely unworthy of being criminalised. The likely scenario is that some prat will buy a boat off a backyardie and, through his own stupidity or ignorance, sink it. Then, either he or his insurer will look to find some way of blaming someone else for his stupidity and ... I leave the rest to your imagination.

That is the way of things here in the UK at present. We have become a nation of moaners who, on the whole, do little or nothing to correct perceived wrongdoing UNLESS it affects us directly. And we dob in anyone we think has more than we do when we believe we deserve it more. The authorities here actually rely on us to enforce their moronic legislation. That's the true state of the UK at present. Sad, is it not? I ain't building an Ark for nothing. I want OUT! But I am NOT taking two termites with me.

[bowdidgemarinedesigns]

G'day Fella's, you're going to love this !
3 weeks ago at the last Naval Architect conference I went to in Brisbane (Australia) the topic was regarding bringing out a new one world standard for power and sail. At present, in the USA, the standard used is the ABYC standard which is not compulsury. In the EU, its the ISO standard. Here in Oz it can be either or the Australian Standard. Too many standards for manufacturers to follow or comply with.
So, the talk was regarding doing away with all and rewriting a whole new standard.
The problem is, the EU wants to have the standard based on the ISO and the yanks want it based on the ABYC.
Either way... it's coming

regards
Mark
www.bowdidgemarinedesigns.com (http://www.bowdidgemarinedesigns.com)

[Mike]

And just what is the alleged justification for this insanity, Mark? Presumably, it is so that Aussie boatbuilders can sell their products overseas. Frankly, I have no problem with that for so long as it's about safety. However, to impose the same rules on an amateur boatbuilder is way over the top. There is no justification for doing so, in my book.

Without labouring the subject - and repeating what's already been said here - the one point that remains is very simply that the real motivation behind this plethora of regulation is what is loosely termed 'globalisation'.

While I am not opposed to opening up markets overseas, it is a fact that legislation invariably favours a particular lobby group. With the RCD, the group were Brit professional boatbuilders trying to find a way to sell their products into formerly closed markets, particularly those in Italy and Spain. Again, if imposing regulations is the way to achieve that, fine. But why impose those commercially motivated rules on the non-commercial world in such a way that we backyardies are unable to realize our investment, both in money and time, in order to move on to new horizons?

Where safety is concerned, the sensible solution is to require either that a boat be designed by a suitably qualified individual, and then certified as built according to that designer's specifications, OR, if a home designed boat, that a suitably qualified individual inspects it to ensure it is 'safe'. We really don't need pollies or bureaucrats deciding what is best for the rest of us. This kind of legislation is being churned out willy nilly with nothing more than money-making behind it. I mean, how many people do you know of who have been killed in the past year due to an unsafe boat? Come to that, how many people have died in boating incidents aboard what were said to be safe boats? If this kind of legislation is truly about ensuring public safety, then why is it not imposed similarly with regard to road deaths? Let's make it against the law to build your own bike without ensuring it meets all the standards imposed on the commercial sector.

One other aspect is that if negligence is involved with regard to a backyard built boat then the law already provides the victim with an adequate remedy. So what would be new with regard to individual safety?

To me, these are the core issues with respect to the EU legislation - and they ought to be elsewhere too. Why? Because otherwise it is very likely to leave us with no alternative but to buy professionally made boats. The skills to self-build would thereafter be confined to just a few or in some circumstances even lost to our nation forever. That may be good for the professionals but it is certainly not good for the ordinary and reasonable man, he/she who is said to ride on the legendary Clapham omnibus. And it is not good for society as a whole, either, for it stifles a natural, and very human, instinct in us to create and to build what we want rather than merely buying it off a shelf somewhere - at a premium price so that professionals can cream off their profit.

Regards

[Ray Frechette Jr]

Nice to see other countries complain about their nanny state politicians as much as we do here in US.

Erosion of freedom and attendant personal responsibility in my lifetime is dreadful.

Next thing you know the Pollies will start mandating Lightning protection systems on small dinghies!

[Nick Watt]

Although this thread has been about the impact of the RCD on BYBBs (with the honourable exception of Mr Hannaford - fine South Hams name - of Salcombe), we need to be clear that it has also caused immense problems for the many smaller, specialist professional boat builders in the UK. The cost of compliance has be significant for them and they have had to either absorb it or risk losing custom by putting up prices. For the WBTA, this has meant many members concentrating on pre 1950 or 'traditional' (including modern, spirit of tradition) designs - the market for which is limited. Some have chosen to go down the RCD route but have found that they have had to compromise their (perfectly safe) designs to comply.

However - and to keep it balanced - let us not forget that dreadful tragedy off the Lleyn peninsular a few years ago, caused by a mix of poor small boat design and inexperienced crew.

As for a law protecting privacy - I'm not an advocate of yet more statute law (legislation). From what I can remember of a law degree completed nearly 30 years ago, Equity should - in theory - provide us with all the protection we need. The problem is, as ever, that the cost of going to court (particularly on Chancery issues) has been prohibitively high throughout history.