wheels 543 Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 B00B00, on 21 Dec 2016 - 3:05 PM, said: If you intentionally drove your car off a huge cliff into the ocean without a seatbelt or life jacket on, would the statistics say it was a fatality caused by lack of seat belt, no life jacket or suicide? If my mother-in-law was in the car as well, it'd be suicide by provocation. And if you suffer schizophrenia and have two personalities, would it be called Murder Suicide. And if there were multiple personalities, would it be considered Mass Murder. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ScottiE 174 Posted December 21, 2016 Author Share Posted December 21, 2016 I'm sorry - as un PC as it sounds - my invisible friend told me to tell you all - that is f&^#(n funny! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dtwo 157 Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 If you intentionally drove your car off a huge cliff into the ocean without a seatbelt or life jacket on, would the statistics say it was a fatality caused by lack of seat belt, no life jacket or suicide? I'm not sure I understand the gravity of the situation. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DrWatson 375 Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 I wonder why there's an increased death and injury rate from people not wearing seatbelts in the last couple of years? Judging by the witty comments here I think I'm getting the picture. Many excellent and well designed studies show that Seat belts have been statistically proven to reduce injury in car accidents and rarely, if ever, increase the risk of having an accident. Driving and traveling in vehicles is a very dangerous thing to do. Evidence also proves that wearing a helmet in your car greatly reduces head injury, and would have a very large impact upon public health in NZ - but I see no brigade of do gooders pushing for compulsory helmets in cars. Why is that? Lifejackets are proven to increase your chances of staying near the surface of the water, but have not been statistically proven to reduce injury, accidents, or increase life expectancy. There are many cases of people drowning with and without lifejackets. One has robust evidence to support it's use. The other has cases. There is a very large difference. Bar crossing is heightened risk and there is already a rule, already mentioned here, which covers this. Of more use than a compulsory lifejacket rule would be one that sets maximum occupancy for vessels under 6m, the number being determined by analysis of the design and intended use of each vessel. For example, short trips in very sheltered water (e.g. ship to shore) would have less requirement for freeboard than heading to the barrier in a 12ft tinny. But to be honest we do not need greater regulation of an already under enforced area of public activity. Doubling enforcement of current laws, i.e. skippers responsibility etc. would already have a far greater effect than adding yet another law. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dagwood 57 Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 But to be honest we do not need greater regulation of an already under enforced area of public activity. Doubling enforcement of current laws, i.e. skippers responsibility etc. would already have a far greater effect than adding yet another law. That I personally whole heartedly agree with. One point, doubling nothing is still nothing! However Maritime NZ are stepping up their enforcement this summer: http://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/public/news/media-releases-2016/20161222a.asp Let's hope some common sense is applied. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mattm 98 Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 If you intentionally drove your car off a huge cliff into the ocean without a seatbelt or life jacket on, would the statistics say it was a fatality caused by lack of seat belt, no life jacket or suicide? The drowning stats include those who die by drowning in a car crash or suicide. I think it comes down to the cause of death as determined by the autopsy - which in your example is likely to be drowning. Deaths by car crash, suicide and homocide are separated as 'non-preventable deaths' from all other ways you can drown, which are classed as preventable. When you read 'x number of preventable deaths this year' it does not mean a life jacket would have prevented those deaths. Maybe that it was during an activity that could be legislated against / banned, and that would stop further drownings? I imagine that if the coroner decided that due to not wearing a seat belt, you hit your head and got knocked out, and were therefore not able to get out of the sinking car and you drowned, it would go down both in stats - seat belt and drowning. Kind of like 'alcohol was a factor' means you had been drinking, may not even be over the limit. Stats are great, they will show almost what ever the person using them wants them too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
waikiore 399 Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 Oh no, Keith Manch the Wellington pin stripe suit wearing ex Policeman who is the face of Maritime NZ calling for tougher Govt backed lifejacket laws and penalties, also targetting specifically us regular long term boaties.... on National radio this morning. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DrWatson 375 Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 Stats are great, they will show almost what ever the person using them wants them too. Actually I think it's more that because a lot of people don't really 'get' stats, it's easy to mislead people with dodgy stats, and make it look like something it isn't. e.g. median income vs mean income. Most people don't know to ask if the difference between two values is actually significant. Or if the data were checked for confounding influence etc. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
DrWatson 375 Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 Oh no, Keith Manch the Wellington pin stripe suit wearing ex Policeman who is the face of Maritime NZ calling for tougher Govt backed lifejacket laws and penalties, also targetting specifically us regular long term boaties.... on National radio this morning. Nothing new. Since when has government policy ever been evidence based? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Black Panther 1,591 Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 Where is YNZ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin McCready 83 Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 I bet those experienced witty sailors with years of experience aren' t the ones I know with mouldy old kapok "life jackets" which are hidden under piles of rubbish and weighted down by the spare anchor in the forepeak in case they float away. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
waikiore 399 Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 Yep got them, but are stopping the storm anchor scratching my polished Kauri hull, rely on spinlock for my bouyancy Quote Link to post Share on other sites
philstar 61 Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 Oh no, Keith Manch the Wellington pin stripe suit wearing ex Policeman who is the face of Maritime NZ calling for tougher Govt backed lifejacket laws and penalties, also targetting specifically us regular long term boaties.... on National radio this morning. I heard the same interview and was agahast. unfortunately they interviewed the commodore of waikawa bay as well on the boaties side. he didn't come across very well. The daughter of one of the chaps killed in bar accident a few weeks ago was all for making LJ compulsory on all boats. I can see LJ laws coming on fast !!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
harrytom 646 Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 compulsory lj then boat reog followed by a fishing licence,then give up yachting Quote Link to post Share on other sites
wheels 543 Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 Kiwis not wearing lifejackets or speeding in their recreational boats will face immediate $300 fines under a new trial. Called the "no excuses" policy and funded by Maritime NZ, eight councils will trial the instant fines programme for five days over the summer season. The trial will then be reviewed and a decision made about whether to extend it, says Maritime NZ director Keith Manch. "We are focusing on boaties who do not carry or wear lifejackets.... and also unsafe speed because they are two of the biggest risks of death and injury," he says. He said up to two-thirds of recreational boaties who died on the water might have been saved if they wore lifejackets. Hawke's Bay harbourmaster Martin Moore says an incident off the coast this month highlighted the need for the "no excuses" trial. A person fell off an inflatable 'biscuit' while being towed behind a power boat. The boat's skipper - who was not wearing a lifejacket - dived in to help the panicking victim, but the remaining passenger did not know how to drive the boat. High winds pushed the boat away from the struggling pair and they were lucky two cray fishermen were able to rescue them, Mr Moore says. The regional councils taking part in the trial are Northland, Bay of Plenty, Waikato, Hawke's Bay and Canterbury, as well as Tasman and Marlborough district councils and Nelson City Council. Twas on Newshub. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ScottiE 174 Posted December 21, 2016 Author Share Posted December 21, 2016 Bugger - wanted to listen to that as well. Hopefully they put it up on demand Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Clipper 343 Posted December 21, 2016 Share Posted December 21, 2016 Whats this 'not wearing' bit? We have to carry them, and i agree with that (not in dinghys though) But if i (skipper) say we dont have to wear them, thats still legit i assume? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tuffyluffy 76 Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 Whats this 'not wearing' bit? We have to carry them, and i agree with that (not in dinghys though) But if i (skipper) say we dont have to wear them, thats still legit i assume? That's my understanding. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Black Panther 1,591 Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 For now Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Zozza 293 Posted December 22, 2016 Share Posted December 22, 2016 Twas on Newshub. I Head something about "in those areas where a 'bylaw' has been passed that they are compulsory" is only where the instant fines will apply - did I hear that right? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.