Another ridiculous lifejacket article

[armchairadmiral 411]

Yeah....its as old as time. Just invoke the legislation little by little. As noted earlier, witness what they've done with swim pools,dogs,guns,et al. They can fail 100 times but only have to succeed once.Following advice on this forum I've acquired mouldy old kapok LJ's to carry on the tender.It's my anti $300 mechanism. Absolute nonsense legislation but you can bet your boots the LJ Nazis will be hitting us because they can identify us in the marinas and most can / will probably pay up. And the dickheads will still drown,LJ or no

[Black Panther 1,765]

If you go down the cheap as LJ to avoid a fine route - what exactly is legal?

[armchairadmiral 411]

That doesn't appear to be defined !

[Black Panther 1,765]

i would almost rather take the hit and go to court just to say how bloody stupid this is.

[armchairadmiral 411]

Tempting but expensive statement @ $300 + $135 court costs plus anything else they will dream up. The LJ Nazis will win evertime. Plus the Council coffers ! It's anarchy

[Clipper 371]

i would almost rather take the hit and go to court just to say how bloody stupid this is.

Thats my plan too

[harrytom 697]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11771673

 

even more ridiculous,Just how are they going to police this??At this stage there is no need to carry or produce any form of identification unless stopped at drink/drive breathe test,only because the law requires you to carry a licence,otherwise nil.

[shedman 10]

So if you're paddling a super unstable 450mm wide but 6.2M long multisport kayak out in the middle of a large harbour you don't need to wear a PFD, but if you're going 150M in a sheltered bay, from a keelboat to the shore in an inflatable  dinghy, you do need to wear PFDs.   But this could all change depending on which region you are in 'cos the rules are regional, not national.  Knowing where the boundaries are  between regional councils is now an important part of safe navigation!  And the way the authorities will paper over the absurdities of their inconsistent "standards" is to just put the boot into peoples wallets.   Brilliant.  I spent 40 years in the aviation industry, and never once did I hear anyone advising that the way to achieve safety in an environment of complex decision making was to inconsistently apply badly written laws, in a punitive way.   But clearly the regional council staff know better.

[mattm 106]

I wonder if a business feasibility study would be a more accurate name for it?

Yip.

 

Plus I reckon it's like that Chrisco crowd who 'make next Christmas easier' by taking money from you now. 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.

[wheels 544]

 

It seems bizarre that they are having a one week trial.

 

I wonder if a business feasibility study would be a more accurate name for it?

The trial part is MNZ funding the various Port Harbour Masters to get out on the water. Which is just pathetic really, that the Councils cannot fund their Harbour Masters to go out on the water and police activities. And correct me if I am wrong, but is MNZ funded by us the tax payer? which means that a Council, that takes both Rates and profits from Marinas and Port operations are being funded via our taxes to Police and fine us, which I assume will then be put into their own pot.

[erice 732]

we'll see

 

how earnest they are

 

when they tackle the bull by the horns

 

and dish out $1000s in fines to waka ama paddlers at mangere bridge + okahu bay

 

 

nahh...

 

too hard

 

easier to ping the gin palaces + sailors

 

at bon accord

[ScottiE 174]

Yup - so you need to precisely understand what the bylaw is in your body of water before you even put you toes in.

 

If you listen to the interview you'd have to have to conclude that they are just a bunch of revenue gathering beaurcrats!

[Kevin McCready 83]

"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.

[Black Panther 1,765]

Is anyone on here opposed to safety on the water??? I just don't see how compulsory LJ laws add to that.

[wheels 544]

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

[B00B00 329]

"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.

 

Kevin, please give us a detailed view of what you think the life jacket laws should be. 

[DrWatson 382]

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

 

omg what about a bucket full of water? Or a depression in your lawn that fills up when it rains? 

[Dtwo 157]

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

[Clipper 371]

Just to be clear Kevin, Im a big supporter of idiots drowning.

[shedman 10]

"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.

 

Wow Kevin, that's a bit of an OTT reply.  Step back and look at what is being discussed here.  Safety at sea is a process of making good decisions and updating those decisions in response to changes in your environment.  No one here is opposing safety on the water.   What we are discussing here is the proposed punitive enforcement of laws that are inconsistent region to region.  In other words the very bureaucrats that now seek to punitively enforce these laws could not agree on what the law should be!   So they want to gloss over that failure by going straight to a regime of financially harming those who don't meekly comply with whatever rules apply in each region.  

 

No one is condemning anyone to death.  This is a discussion about how you achieve safety.  It might be useful for you to remind yourself of how blanket fines work.  They are primarily a punishment for being poor.   I would say that if you find someone out in their boat and not wearing PFDs in a situation when wearing PFDs would materially increase safety then some education is in order.  Perhaps something like the old defensive driving course.  You on the other hand think that the best option is to financially harm the person.  A minor annoyance for the wealthy, and a damaging blow to the poor.  If the law that these fines are based on was well written, consistent with what we know about safety, and encouraged instead of discouraged thinking, then it might be OK.   But this is bad law, inconsistent with its objectives, and soon to be badly applied and enforced.  That is what is under discussion.