|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 19, 2016 21:02:23 GMT -8
I haven't seen a BCF news release on this, but a Global story reports two impending rule changes for BCF ships in 2017: 1) No smoking at all, on the ships. 2) No passengers allowed to remain on enclosed lower vehicle decks. Source HEREItem #2 will impact truck drivers on Route-30 on those early morning sailings, and RV passengers doing a sleep-in.
|
|
WettCoast
Voyager
Posts: 7,479
Member is Online
|
Post by WettCoast on Dec 19, 2016 21:19:08 GMT -8
About time for both, though I doubt that smoking will be banned on the Northern routes, & what about crew smoking? I am thinking about those crew only smokers' 'cubby-holes' on the Spirits ... I have long thought that allowing people to remain in their vehicles on the lower decks was risky if they ever needed to do a rapid evacuation of a vessel. I wonder if Transport Canada is pushing? We had a discussion about this on this forum a few years ago. Here is a link to that old thread: ferriesbc.proboards.com/thread/8038/passengers-who-remain-cars
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Dec 19, 2016 22:18:21 GMT -8
I have to admit that I'm very cynical about the car deck issue.
Coming back on a chilly evening tonight from Duke Point, I noticed all the people who were apparently content to stay in their vehicles engrossed in their phone features. Reading this news item, I'm wondering if this is as much about getting people up to the revenue producing areas of the ships as it is about safety. If someone could produce an edict from Transport Canada that is actually forcing BC Ferries to make this change, I would be more trusting.
Fifty six years of travel on BC Ferries, and there has been one incident where being on a car deck proved to be dangerous, due to an accident. (Queen of Victoria 1970.)
As for smoking... I agree. Ban it completely. I was on the sun deck of the Bowen Queen one occasion this last summer, with two people smoking, and wind conditions meant everyone behind them on a beautiful summer day had their air spoiled. There's just no place on a ferry where smoking doesn't impact people who don't want to breathe that crap.
|
|
John H
Voyager
Admin Emeritus
Posts: 2,919
|
Post by John H on Dec 19, 2016 22:34:02 GMT -8
Do you think the rule about people remaining on the enclosed lower car decks would apply to the C-class vessels? Just wondering what "enclosed" really means. If everyone was forced out of their cars on the COASTAL RENNAISSANCE, there's quite a lot of room upstairs for everyone to find a seat if all the lounges are open. If the same thing happened on the QUEEN OF COWICHAN or the QUEEN OF ALBERNI, it would be a much different experience... it's already hard enough trying to find a seat or a table in the cafeteria on a semi-busy sailing with a lot of people staying down below in their cars.
Does the upcoming introduction of these new Intermediate vessels into service have anything to do with these "new rules" being floated about? Are the lower car decks on these vessels completely enclosed? From what I remember, they have a unique (to us) lower car deck.
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 19, 2016 22:46:23 GMT -8
Do you think the rule about people remaining on the enclosed lower car decks would apply to the C-class vessels? Just wondering what "enclosed" really means. If everyone was forced out of their cars on the COASTAL RENNAISSANCE, there's quite a lot of room upstairs for everyone to find a seat if all the lounges are open. If the same thing happened on the QUEEN OF COWICHAN or the QUEEN OF ALBERNI, it would be a much different experience... it's already hard enough trying to find a seat or a table in the cafeteria on a semi-busy sailing with a lot of people staying down below in their cars. Does the upcoming introduction of these new Intermediate vessels into service have anything to do with these "new rules" being floated about? Are the lower car decks on these vessels completely enclosed? From what I remember, they have a unique (to us) lower car deck. For C-Class, the issue is just the lower vehicle deck. This issue is very likely driven by the impending arrival of Salish Orca, with her fully enclosed garage deck.
|
|
John H
Voyager
Admin Emeritus
Posts: 2,919
|
Post by John H on Dec 19, 2016 22:57:57 GMT -8
I'm just hoping there's an exception for the C-class vessels, especially since they still have a fair number of windows on the lower decks (especially the gallery decks) and because they don't really have the passenger amenities to deal with the extra people on the passenger decks, especially on a bad weather day.
|
|
|
Post by Ferryman on Dec 19, 2016 23:44:45 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Curtis on Dec 20, 2016 3:08:32 GMT -8
Certainly some surprising news. I'm not sure if this is how BC Ferries wanted this to be introduced, but both of these changes in the long term will be for the best.
I'll start with the no smoking policy. This is definitely long overdue considering you haven't been able to smoke in and around public venues almost as long as there have been designated smoking areas on BCF vessels. I'm sure the majority will welcome this change, the question of whether crew will be allowed to smoke on shift is questionable though. I imagine this will vary route by route and what the work hours for each of watches are. Also, I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't find it a coincidence that this policy is coming into effect around the same time marijuana is set to be legalized. I imagine BC Ferries wants to set the record straight about marijuana use (be it medicinal or recreational) and avoid any more confrontations like the one that made the rounds on social media earlier this year.
As for the coming enclosed car deck ban, I'm a bit on the fence about it. I've seen lots of negative reactions to this already and I can't say I don't agree with some of these arguments and it's probably going to cause a few problems early on. Up until now, the northern vessels were the only ships this regulation was regularly enforced on. The only vessel to my knowledge that did this on the southern routes was the Queen of Chilliwack. My guess is that the regulation up until now only applied to ferries with fully enclosed car decks sealed by watertight and/or flood control doors. The Salish Class vessels would have likely fallen into this category too due to their lower car deck being accessed by watertight doors, so I wouldn't doubt that's part of the reason they'll have to enforce it going forward. Whatever the case, I don't imagine a lot of us tend to stay in our vehicles on the longer ferry crossings... aside from a few vessels with more 'cramped' passenger spaces of course. Otherwise, this likely won't be that big of a deal. I will miss walking down on the car deck mid-crossing though. This will also mess up any future walkthroughs I do on these vessels having to film the main car deck separately.
|
|
|
Post by roeco on Dec 20, 2016 14:17:37 GMT -8
I had always thought the Rule applied to All Vehicle decks including the upper car deck. The one way maybe to control it would be to sweep the car deck 15 min after cars have fully loaded and make sure everyone is out of vehichles. And lock the car deck doors until 30 min before docking, if that's even possible or u will get people who will refuse to leave their vehicles especially if they have animals...eg Motorhomes or travel trailers.
|
|
WettCoast
Voyager
Posts: 7,479
Member is Online
|
Post by WettCoast on Dec 20, 2016 18:01:33 GMT -8
I have to admit that I'm very cynical about the car deck issue.
Fifty six years of travel on BC Ferries, and there has been one incident where being on a car deck proved to be dangerous, due to an accident. (Queen of Victoria 1970.) It is just possible that the two lost on the Queen of the North were some how on the car deck in spite of it being against the rules. The crew did not sweep the car deck looking for people, right? As I have said before, if a rapid evacuation of a vessel had to be done, under the current lax rules (or lack of rules) I believe that there very easily could be major loss of life. I can only imagine the finger pointing that would happen after such an event. Low probability yes, but a risk worth taking considering to potential severity - I think not. Is it reasonable to go with a rule that allows passengers to remain on upper car decks but not lower ones? That would be hard to manage, I think. A more reasonable rule might be based on the length of a crossing, or vessel type, and applied to all car decks.
Ironically, it could very well be the new Salish class vessels that are forcing this. Many of us have expressed concern about the amount of passenger space on the upper decks of those vessels & feared that busy sailings might get uncomfortably crowded. Enforcing a ban on people remaining on the car deck would only make this more of an issue.
|
|
John H
Voyager
Admin Emeritus
Posts: 2,919
|
Post by John H on Dec 20, 2016 21:42:50 GMT -8
I had always thought the Rule applied to All Vehicle decks including the upper car deck. The one way maybe to control it would be to sweep the car deck 15 min after cars have fully loaded and make sure everyone is out of vehichles. And lock the car deck doors until 30 min before docking, if that's even possible or u will get people who will refuse to leave their vehicles especially if they have animals...eg Motorhomes or travel trailers. There's no way they can enforce people getting out of their cars and going up to the passenger deck. They're going to have to assume that there will be a few that will get away with it, despite the rules. People in motorhomes or truck cabs could easily stay out of view of any sweep by crew members. And if you lock the car deck doors, how will they get out in the event of an emergency?
|
|
WettCoast
Voyager
Posts: 7,479
Member is Online
|
Post by WettCoast on Dec 20, 2016 22:07:03 GMT -8
I had always thought the Rule applied to All Vehicle decks including the upper car deck. The one way maybe to control it would be to sweep the car deck 15 min after cars have fully loaded and make sure everyone is out of vehichles. And lock the car deck doors until 30 min before docking, if that's even possible or u will get people who will refuse to leave their vehicles especially if they have animals...eg Motorhomes or travel trailers. There's no way they can enforce people getting out of their cars and going up to the passenger deck. They're going to have to assume that there will be a few that will get away with it, despite the rules. People in motorhomes or truck cabs could easily stay out of view of any sweep by crew members. And if you lock the car deck doors, how will they get out in the event of an emergency? There are no issues that I am aware of managing this on the northern routes. Why should it be a big deal on the southern routes? They do it on the Coho, too.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Dec 20, 2016 22:46:08 GMT -8
This makes me think of a couple of things... one, the massive increase in cost for infrastructure due to the myriad safety regulations that have changed how we get around by boat. I look at the dock structures for the Hornby ferry, and think how overbuilt they are for a 180' self-propelled barge, particularly when the Savoies used to slide their little Lorraine S up onto a concrete ramp, and the Kwuna still does the same up north. I know... things change, and usually for the better, with the wisdom gained from maritime mishaps world wide.
The other thing is my memory of taking a bus to work that often hurtled along Highway 99 with many people standing. I wonder if they still do that. There's the principle of 'acceptable risk', which we live by in many aspects of our lives, and that was the basis of my reference to the decades of safe sailing on the southern ferry routes with people staying in their cars, doing whatever.
In the end, people will adjust to this new regulation. Not much choice.
|
|
Neil
Voyager
Posts: 7,175
|
Post by Neil on Dec 21, 2016 21:56:08 GMT -8
Not going to delete my earlier post, because I think that would be dishonest, but upon reflection I'm going to retract my suspicion that this has anything to do with conning people into spending more time and money in revenue areas of the ship. WettCoast is right. This is justifiable in the event of the unthinkable... and it's pretty much in line with international standards. It will be inconvenient and there will have to be some procedures put in place for care of pets, but we'll adjust.
|
|
WettCoast
Voyager
Posts: 7,479
Member is Online
|
Post by WettCoast on Dec 21, 2016 22:07:35 GMT -8
Not going to delete my earlier post, because I think that would be dishonest, but upon reflection I'm going to retract my suspicion that this has anything to do with conning people into spending more time and money in revenue areas of the ship. WettCoast is right. This is justifiable in the event of the unthinkable... and it's pretty much in line with international standards. It will be inconvenient and there will have to be some procedures put in place for care of pets, but we'll adjust. Neil, I do appreciate your point about 'standees' on public transit. That too should not be happening in this day & age. In fact, the use of seat belts should be implemented & enforced on public transit, as it is in private vehicles & air craft. But I think it unlikely that anything will be done about that anytime soon. That would mean that Vancouver, for example, would have half as much transit capacity as they currently do now (with standees). Restoring capacity would involve buying a whole lot of new buses, and hundreds of additional drivers (or maybe driverless buses?). In short, the costs would 'trump' safety.
|
|
KE7JFF
Chief Steward
Posts: 106
|
Post by KE7JFF on Dec 21, 2016 22:47:35 GMT -8
It's been a long time that I looked at the regulation but I know in the US under USCG regulations there is a similar requirement that has been in place since the 50s that came about due to fires on Great Lakes vessels that were made worse from gasoline.
|
|
|
Post by roeco on Dec 22, 2016 11:43:08 GMT -8
I had always thought the Rule applied to All Vehicle decks including the upper car deck. The one way maybe to control it would be to sweep the car deck 15 min after cars have fully loaded and make sure everyone is out of vehichles. And lock the car deck doors until 30 min before docking, if that's even possible or u will get people who will refuse to leave their vehicles especially if they have animals...eg Motorhomes or travel trailers. There's no way they can enforce people getting out of their cars and going up to the passenger deck. They're going to have to assume that there will be a few that will get away with it, despite the rules. People in motorhomes or truck cabs could easily stay out of view of any sweep by crew members. And if you lock the car deck doors, how will they get out in the event of an emergency? If the doors are locked so u can came from the car deck up, but not be able to return after u have entered the passenger space is the best way to solve that problem, I was always on the understanding its a Transport Canada issue with people being on car deck at any time during the sailing.
|
|
|
Post by YoursTruly on Jan 12, 2017 0:32:10 GMT -8
I'm very interested in how this will play out particularly as an employee. I agree with it despite how inconvenient it will be with truckers trying to take a mandatory nap in their sleeper cab. I'm annoyed with the fleet wide ban on smoking that was announced as a blanket way of creating the mandatory safe zone when bunkering natural gas at terminals and for extra safety on natural gas fueled vessels. Really, there will be more people hiding in corners and smoking rather than in a controlled environment. oh well, such is the human condition. Back to the passengers above the fully enclosed vehicle deck, The V class have magnetic locks on the stairs doors, but have been disconnected yet remained in place. We used them on the QPR and unlocked them for passengers at certain points in the voyage. I remember a passenger climbing into the boat that he was towing, and he thought he was going to be able to spend the trip sleeping in there. If I hadn't caught him, imagine if there was an emergency onboard and he couldn't open a door, or crew conducting a passenger sweep on her car deck didn't check the boat. A sweep has to be done efficiently and fairly quickly. imagine a long weekend where the S class have a full deck of mostly under heights, trying to do an effective sweep of all those vehicles, and getting all the sleeping or physically disabled passengers up to the evacuation deck.... That's a hell of a task especially if there is a vehicle fire down there or heaven forbid a collision, grounding etc. It may be inconvenient for passengers and crew, but it is well worth the inconvenience for the safety factor. They implemented this on the Fast Cats, as aluminium vessels have 10 minutes less in their evacuation time requirement due to the horrific nature of aluminium in fires. Really they should have taken it to all the vessels in the fleet with enclosed vehicle decks at that time to create a fleet wide standard. I'm pleased to see our fleet has finally come to terms with the fact that fleet wide standards are a massive benefit to maintenance, building, replacement, training, customer care etc etc. (bit of a wall of text, sorry, I tend to do that. )
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jan 12, 2017 7:41:14 GMT -8
I'm very interested in how this will play out particularly as an employee. I agree with it despite how inconvenient it will be with truckers trying to take a mandatory nap in their sleeper cab. I'm annoyed with the fleet wide ban on smoking that was announced as a blanket way of creating the mandatory safe zone when bunkering natural gas at terminals and for extra safety on natural gas fueled vessels. Really, there will be more people hiding in corners and smoking rather than in a controlled environment. oh well, such is the human condition. That's a hell of a task especially if there is a vehicle fire down there or heaven forbid a collision, grounding etc. It may be inconvenient for passengers and crew, but it is well worth the inconvenience for the safety factor. Thanks for that insight. I hadn't made the connection between the smoking ban and the arrival of the LNG ships. That makes sense. Regarding passenger evacuation and the car deck issue, it hopefully makes people realize that a ferry trip is a "trip on a ship on the ocean", and by nature that brings some risks. So that's why it's important to be in a safe spot in the event of an emergency. Sea travel has some inherent danger to it, and passengers need to keep safety in mind. 57 years of BC Ferry travel has lulled some into seeing it as routine, which it usually is. But it's still a trip on a ship in the ocean...
|
|
John H
Voyager
Admin Emeritus
Posts: 2,919
|
Post by John H on Jun 1, 2017 19:11:49 GMT -8
We're getting close to the halfway point of 2017 and I haven't heard anything more of these issues since they made a splash in the news late last year.
Since the SALISH ORCA is now in service some of you will probably know the answer to this question: Are they forcing people out of the "enclosed" car deck during the sailing? I noticed in Curtis' video (in the SALISH ORCA thread) that there are large portholes that were open (and could be closed) - is that enough to make it a non-enclosed deck?
Just wondering if we'll be hearing more about this or was it just a slow news day when it came out?
|
|
|
Post by ragingpotatoyt on Jul 10, 2017 10:56:55 GMT -8
About time for both, though I doubt that smoking will be banned on the Northern routes, & what about crew smoking? I am thinking about those crew only smokers' 'cubby-holes' on the Spirits ... I have long thought that allowing people to remain in their vehicles on the lower decks was risky if they ever needed to do a rapid evacuation of a vessel. I wonder if Transport Canada is pushing? We had a discussion about this on this forum a few years ago. Here is a link to that old thread: ferriesbc.proboards.com/thread/8038/passengers-who-remain-carsDoes this include deck 5 on major vessels and when does it take affect
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Jul 10, 2017 11:34:28 GMT -8
About time for both, though I doubt that smoking will be banned on the Northern routes, & what about crew smoking? I am thinking about those crew only smokers' 'cubby-holes' on the Spirits ... I have long thought that allowing people to remain in their vehicles on the lower decks was risky if they ever needed to do a rapid evacuation of a vessel. I wonder if Transport Canada is pushing? We had a discussion about this on this forum a few years ago. Here is a link to that old thread: ferriesbc.proboards.com/thread/8038/passengers-who-remain-carsDoes this include deck 5 on major vessels and when does it take affect For the smoking issue, no one knows when it might take effect.
|
|
|
Post by yak on Jul 11, 2017 13:04:43 GMT -8
Does this include deck 5 on major vessels and when does it take affect For the smoking issue, no one knows when it might take effect. I saw a memo that indicated they'll be going forward with the smoking ban in January 2018. It will include crew as well as passengers. I'm a non-smoker but I can just imagine how this is going to go over...
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 22, 2017 12:49:33 GMT -8
No-Smoking news update: January 2018
|
|
|
Post by Low Light Mike on Aug 22, 2017 12:56:32 GMT -8
Car Deck rules update - October 11, 2017 date
|
|