Dear Editor,
The authorities appear to be requiring commercial passenger boats plying the rivers to be covered. I assume this is being done to make the passengers more comfortable by protecting them from the wind-driven splashing water spray as the boat navigates the peaks and valleys of the rivers’ wave action. This is commendable. But that’s where the accolades end. What has emerged is a closed wooden box where passengers are packed like sardines, where their heat-induced perspiration is worse than the water spray of the open boats, and which, because there is no egress in the case of an accident, poses risk of loss of life.
With open top boats, one can access row seating by climbing from the landing into a designated row of seats when the boat is parked parallel to the landing.
The design of covered boats which appears to be prevalent, is that of a wooden top which is about five feet in height from the floor, with a small closable entrance slit in the front from which passengers embark and disembark. Passengers who occupy seats at the back, are required to climb over a middle seat in each row of seats from which a replaceable backboard has been removed to facilitate the obstacle course, while the sides of the boat are covered with a canvas-type material held down by a wooden rod running through the bottom. To compensate for the loss of income from a decrease in fuel economy because of the heavier weight of the wooden structure, boat operators cram more people into the boat, despite the cover having a restricting effect on available space. Boats that were “licensed” to carry 19 persons (P19) now cram as many as 22 persons into the boat.
Although I don’t expect the authorities to impose a specific design for covered boats lest they stifle innovation, I do expect that minimum standards and requirements would be established to protect the safety and ensure the comfort of the travelling public.
For example, regulations should prohibit the middle of the boat from being encumbered by seating, thereby allowing easier egress and ingress (similar to the middle aisle in a bus); a minimum seating space per passenger should be established; adequate ventilation in the cabin should be required; there should be a prohibition on women of child-bearing age and small children from occupying the front seats due to the risk of injury; padded back-rests should be provided to protect against back injury from hard-wave-induced landings; non-slip material should be placed on all sloping areas such as the bow, from which passengers access the boat; body flotation devices for each passenger should be required and not just head flotation ones, as these can be overwhelmed by wave action; there should be designated areas for luggage such as under seats or at the front/back of boat; and most importantly, there must be easy egress in the case of an accident. Boats that do not meet these requirements, and others that might be deemed appropriate, should not be licensed.
One expected reaction by the boat owners would be an increase in fares. There is no need for this. For example, the current fare to cross the Essequibo from Parika to Supenaam is $1,300. If a 19-seater boat makes 2 return trips per day, the daily revenue collected is $98,800. Daily costs to operate and maintain the boat amount to $40,000 (gasoline – $20,000; captain and boatman‘s wages – $15,000; and maintenance – $5,000) leaving the owner with a sizable daily return of $58,800.
Even if the removal of middle seating reduces the passenger load to 14 persons, the daily return of $32,800 is still significant.
Until the authorities act and make passenger boats safe for travel, I urge passengers to avoid using covered boats. Your life is much more valuable.
Yours faithfully,
Louis Holder
