Jump to content

Another ridiculous lifejacket article


Recommended Posts

I was going to respond to Kevin's contention that by not having compulsory LJ laws dickheads were condemned to death. I would have thought that they were attempting suicide with their overloading and foul weather expeditions. But Shedmans response is far more circumspect so I will endorse that instead. For the record is Kevin for real or is he a wind up ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the idiot rule makers have just said that from 1st Jan, all pools, including blow up paddling pools that can be filled to a depth of 400mm or more will have to be fenced.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/87849371/clarity-needed-on-pool-rules-that-take-effect-on-january-1

 

Nothing new there. That has been the requirement of the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987 since ...well 1987.

 

To the extent that the requirements to fence private pools have changed with the new legislation from 1 January 2017 overall the requirements have been marginally relaxed rather that increased.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the 99.99% who are sensible with pools like this now face either a big expense, a fine or deny their kids the simple pleasure of cooling down in the summer.

 

Responsible parents supervise their kids around water, whether it be the ocean, river, lake, duck pond or f**king paddling pool so shouldn't be punished for the minorities inability to use their brain.

 

I suspect most people won't pay any attention to these council twat heads so it won't make any difference other than increasing rates.

 

I can't believe so many people can't see how top heavy with beurocracy we are becoming.

While I agree that there is too much bureaucracy, and the 400mm thing is probably ridiculous for paddling pools and the like, pools and ponds are incredibly dangerous.  I know of one responsible family who were visiting a farm and let their kids run off and play, as you do, and when a little chap didn't come back with the others they eventually found him in a pond, where he was stuck in the mud trying to get out. Story ended well, but could have been different. So I immediately went an filled in the duck pond on our property to a level of 200mm, and put a solid base in. Scary thing water. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can imagine that using a paddling pool to transit from boat to beach could cause a few regulatory issues...

I'm off to the warehouse to buy me a paddling pool for beach transits! This has to be done :-D 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"dickheads will still drown" has to be the nadir of the opposition to safety on the water here. We're talking about human beings who may not be as fully aware of the risks as we'd like them to be. That's no reason to condemn them to death. Disgusting.

 

I'll take your straw man and raise you some kapok.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys are forgetting our fines are put in place to fund the Life Jacket Nazi's budget much as we fund the parking Nazi's budget on the roads. Just another Government orchestrated revenue gathering excersize. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 in a 5m boat seems to push the envelope but it depends on the boat design.However in the event it could carry 6 safely and they did end up in the lake,with or without LJ's they would probably have succumbed to hypothermia swallowed water and be recorded as drowning.The real cause of course would have been lack of education (stupidity)overloading,weather factors. Prosecuting and fining this guy probably would not help him but a practical course including on water tuition might help and be ,at least, productive application of the money rather than a fine in the Council coffers.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mattm, I don't mind a sensible discussion and I don't mind the odd joke or two. But the type of "discussion" here doesn't bode well for a dispassionate and compassionate consideration of the pros and cons of this issue. Happy to start with a real dialogue which we could perhaps begin with a revisiting of your comment: "The harbour masters Christmas party piss up fund (or tidly winks/ what ever their type do for fun) will be empty by January, this will give it a great head start for next year."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mattm, I don't mind a sensible discussion and I don't mind the odd joke or two. But the type of "discussion" here doesn't bode well for a dispassionate and compassionate consideration of the pros and cons of this issue.

That's ironic when one goes back through your own posts. You are equally guilty as anyone of not engaging in sensible discussion on this issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, well booboo asked what you think the law should be also and I can't recall him saying anything you could take offence too. Why don't you answer him rather than me if I have upset you.

 

Posting what you think a reasonable and rational law would be seems a good way to encourage constructive conversation. One reason I'm against the compulsory idea is that I can't fathom how it would work without being ridiculos. Educate me?

 

Another reason I'm against it is I have not seen any properly defined statistics on the number of deaths that would likely have been prevented by a life jacket. I have seen plenty of stats that talk preventable and non preventable - non being car crashes, suicide or homocide, preventable being ALL others. I hear people using numbers which suggest every person who drowned while not wearing a life jackey 'could' have been saved by one which, while a lifejacket MAY have saved them, I don't think is realistic to say every single one will be saved. In contrast, I'd also like to know the numbers of people who's situation may have been made worse - in the cabin of an upturned boat and had to swim down and out to safety - lifejacket would likely make that impossible. Can you provide any such detailed statistics or analysis?

Link to post
Share on other sites

matt, You haven't upset me, though it sounds to me like you've already made up your mind. FWIW it's impossible to prove the counterfactual in any individual case (as you allude to), but the probability is high that many lives would have been saved if people were wearing PFDs, is it not?. So what probability number would satisfy you? How many lives would it take to be worth the legislation? How much is a life worth?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...