There’s still time to fix the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act

by Ned Levi on June 21, 2010

Celebrity Millenium by Razvan Marescu, http://www.flickr.com/photos/rmarescu/

Last week, the U.S. Senate voted unanimously to require the cruise industry make their ships and cruises safer. The International Cruise Victims Association (ICV), a champion of cruise safety, has hailed the legislation and declared “Victory!”

I’m more reserved about the legislation. Most of the new rules are born out of common sense, and are excellent, but I see two major lingering problems with the legislation, which I believe are easy to fix.

The Senate version of Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2009, is slightly different from that passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, so it will be going to a conference committee, to iron out the details. It’s expected to reach and be signed by the President, soon.

Once law, cruise lines will be required to equip all stateroom doors with peep holes and safety latches. Hotels have been using these devices for a long time. “Time sensitive” technology stateroom keys, used even by the least expensive hotels for years, will also be required.

Ships will have to use the latest technology to detect passengers falling overboard, including capturing images of the incidents, and they would be required to be up-to-date with US Coast Guard fire safety regulations.

A difference between the two bills is the guard rail requirement. The House version calls for rails at a height of 42” above the deck (essentially standard on most ships today), while the Senate version is 54”. Groups including the ICV pushed for the higher railings. The House version is based on OHSA’s 1926.502(b)(1) 42” requirement.

In my July, 2008 article, Is Congress doing enough make cruise passengers safe? I wrote about the guard rail requirement. I continue to believe the 42” requirement is correct. The Senate railing height would block passengers’ view of the sea while sitting on deck, and make it difficult for many to stand and scan the sea, or take photographs.

More important, I believe the extra foot of the Senate requirement will encourage risky behavior, such as passengers dangerously standing on chairs and tables, at the railing, to get a better look. I’ve already seen that behavior on ships which have higher railings in some areas.

I think the unintended consequences of the Senate requirement will more than outweigh its positive attributes, and I call on the Senate to accept the House requirement.

I also call on Congress to add missing railing requirements to require ships include enough addition railings, and or barriers between the top railing and the deck to preclude children from going overboard under the railings.

Cruise lines will be required to create and implement procedures and restrictions for crew member access to passengers’ staterooms, and when access is permitted. They must develop a plan to ensure the rules are followed.

To combat crime, ships will be required to maintain video surveillance, almost ship-wide, (not in staterooms, and other private areas) to assist in crime documentation, and prosecution. Requirements for the retention of the video will be determined by the Coast Guard.

Cruise lines will have to provide a Criminal Activity Prevention and Response Guide to each passenger, describing the ship’s medical and security personnel on board to prevent and respond to criminal and medical situations, describing the procedures and rights for passengers with regard to crime, and explaining what law enforcement is available to them, for the most serious crimes, and other offenses. To date, many crime victims have reported it was impossible for them to find out what their rights were, and to get outside help.

The legislation takes cases of sexual assault seriously. Ships will be required to have supplies of anti-retroviral and other medications designed to prevent sexually transmitted diseases after a sexual assault. They will be required to employ and have on board medical personnel trained to deal with such assaults. They will be required to carry “rape kits” on board to aid in the apprehension and conviction of the perpetrators of such crimes.

Cruise lines will finally be required to record and disclose all passenger complaints of all crimes, to law enforcement officers, specifically including crimes of violence, and thefts valued in excess of $1,000. Hopefully other countries will pass similar legislation, as this only applies to ships on voyages which embark or disembark passengers in the US.

The law will require ships’ personnel to preserve crime scenes for appropriate law enforcement officers. The cruise lines will be required to train ships’ security in crime scene preservation. This is critical to help to bring criminals to justice.

Reviewing the stories of ICV victims, and others in the news, it would appear that many ship board incidents involve excessive drinking, and other risky behaviors, which many believe were in part driven by drinking alcoholic beverages.

In Pennsylvania it’s illegal to sell alcoholic beverages to a person who is visibly or obviously intoxicated. Those who serve the intoxicated are held responsible for their actions while drunk. I have seen cruise ship personnel serve obviously drunk people often. I have seen cruise passengers stagger down ships’ halls and decks.

If we really want to make cruise ships safer, the cruise lines must be held accountable for continuing to serve intoxicated people more liquor.

I call for Congress to include a “dram shop” regulation similar to the one in Pennsylvania. I believe this is the one essential requirement which could make passengers considerably safer, notably missing from the current legislation.

Print Friendly

Tagged as: crime, cruise ship, Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2009, Dram Shop Law, house of representatives, ICV, International Cruise Victims Association, legislation, OHSA, pennsylvania, safety, senate, sexual assault

  • John Baker

    Ned … I think these are great ideas. My only concern is that most cruise ships porting out of the US are foriegn flagged vessels. As soon as you step on board, you are in a foriegn country especially once the ship is beyond the 12 mi limit. I’m not sure if I’m comfortable with our government dictating what occurs while underway and outside the 12 mi limit just like I wouldn’t be comfortable with Italy dictating what a US flagged ship needed to do while at sea after leave Italian waters.

  • http://www.tripso.com/author/ned/ Ned Levi

    John, I understand your point, but three things come to my mind immediately.

    First, most cruise ships are flagged outside the US and European countries because of finances and rules. The ships cost less to build and run that way, and are cheaper to run because the rules are simpler and easier. If countries such as the US were to not intervene in the rules the foreign flagged ships ran under, in my opinion, the ships wouldn’t be nearly as safe as they already are.

    Second, it is well established under maritime law that if you sail in the territorial waters of a particular country, that country has the right to set rules and regulations for the ship, and collect fees from the ship. So if you want to “play” in a country’s “sandbox” you’re going to have to abide by their rules since they get to make them, and the rules can apply to sailing outside their waters, because if you don’t play by the rules there too, they won’t let you play in their sandbox, so to speak.

    Third, we do this with foreign owned airplanes all the time and no one objects. If you come into the US with your plane, you have to abide by our safety rules. Planes have been considered a bit more dangerous, so there has been better cooperation over the years and much tighter control, but not everywhere. For example the EU has a 19 page list of airlines with a full or partial ban of the planes from operating in EU airspace, and none banned for political reasons. We have a huge banned list here in the US too.

    By the way, when you step on board a foreign flagged ship in US waters, you’re still in the US. Recently we’ve seen a harsh example of this for cruise passengers going to Brazil. In January, 2009, for example, 106 passengers were denied boarding on Carnival Cruise Lines’ Carnival Splendor heading for South America because they did not have required Brazilian visas. Many of these passenger thought because they weren’t getting off the ship in Brazil, but instead staying aboard, they didn’t need a Brazilian visa ($160 per person). They were wrong, as once you’re in the territorial waters of a country, you’re in that country, whether you’re on a ship or on land.

    Personally, I have no problem with the rules for 2 major reasons.

    First, we don’t require any ship to work in US territorial waters or dock here and load/unload passengers here. It’s up to the cruise lines. If they don’t want to abide by our rules, and regulations, and laws, they just need to stay away. Clearly cruise lines have decided the cost of doing business in the US is worth it.

    Second, in part because of the way international maritime law operates, and in part because the US has a far larger stake in cruise ship safety and security compared to other countries because of the number of US citizens sailing, compared to other countries, no other country has stepped forward to push the cruise lines into carrying out reasonable safety measures.

    Seriously, I can’t think of any government rules which have forced hotels into using safety latches and peep holes, on hotel room doors as standard equipment, very low cost, but extremely effective in giving guest safety and security. They did it because it made sense and was desired by their guests, and knowing it would cost next to nothing in the grand scheme of things, but the cruise lines have generally refused to make this small expenditure until now, to retrofit ships. The cruise lines have been extremely slow to adopt these measures, to my mind, because they could. Now they are embracing the rules, because, to my mind, they must. Some cruise lines have been better about this than others.

    We need to make the cruise ships safer to protect our citizens. It seems clear to me that the cruise lines are only going to do the things which will now be required, by requiring them to be done. Had the cruise lines voluntarily agreed to comply with the majority of the law now being passed, it would never have come to the point that we will have this law on the books.

    It’s unfortunate but true that most cruise passengers are unaware of the dangers of cruising until they become victims, generally because it’s harder to see the dangers on a big gleaming ship compared to a small (compared to the ships) airplane which can fall out of the sky killing all. If people understood the dangers they would keep themselves safer, in general, and would have pushed for strong regulation long ago.

    Thanks for your comment and your readership.

  • John Baker

    Ned … I guess I see a difference bewteen safety equipment required to be on board or actions taken while in US waters(ie all cruise ships sailing in US waters must have a railing height of ____ or while underway in US waters cruise lines must establish procedures to ____) and requirements on the cruise ships while on the high seas or in the territorial waters of other countries. I’m all for added safety on cruise ships in general and all of these changes meet the common sense test.

    My only concern is our government imposing our laws on ships flagged outside the US while the ship is outside US waters.

    BTW … The big difference between hotels and cruise ships comes back to the foreign flag. Hotels adopted safety devices (latches/peep hole) because not doing it could get them sued. The cruise lines have hid behind their foreign flags for years.

  • Howard Rogovitz

    The point of the ships being foreign flagged is fine, but most of the cruise ships sailing to and from US ports are owned by companies based in the US. These companies still must follow US laws.

    Also, if they feel that the restrictions are too harsh, they can choose to not sail from a US port. We all know that this will not happen. Most of their income comes from US citizens.

Previous post:

Next post: