Another dumb rule

[Zozza 372]

1 hour ago, Elenya said:

Good on those who have put their thoughts in words and made a submission. 
We never used to wear seat belts as kids in the 70's and now there are all sorts of rules and requirements . Society changes with time.

 

 

 

You are equating wearing a life jacket on a tender ride / row to shore to wearing a seatbelt in a car.
Seriously?

There are many aspects to this debate. But, if you’re so worried about danger on a dinghy ride to shore, maybe you should wear a helmet and elbow pads too just in case you trip over your own paranoia. Life jackets have their place, but rowing a tender isn’t one of them. They restrict arm movement, catch on oar handles, and can actually tip you in if they snag at the wrong moment. Not to mention if you do end up in the water and the jacket rolls you face-down, congratulations - you just upgraded from safe arrival to slow drowning. Let’s use some judgement instead of mandating stupidity for everyone.

[Priscilla II 459]

How many boaties have actually perished ferrying by dinghy to and from their vessels.

Next it will be mandatory to wear life jackets whilst sleeping aboard just in case the craft sinks.

[K4309 439]

9 hours ago, grant said:

so how do  you tell the difference between the guy getting into  a tender, probably a nice stable inflatable, and going to shore and the $150 tinnie of trade me with two mates (and 2 inches of freeboard)  going a out in the Manakau to get a feed? of course the first one is less likely to fall in (but not impossible) the second, all too often do end up in the water.  Both are a in small boat near to shore, that's where the accidents happen, simplifying the rules isn't the biggest imposition that every happened for the first ighy and might just save a life or two in the second one , 

You answered your question in asking it.

you clearly identified one craft is stable (Nice stable inflatable), the other with no freeboard and by your inference is overloaded. You asked "so how do  you tell the difference between..." then explained exactly how to tell the difference. QED.

There are already rules and requirements regarding safety going out to get a feed in an overloaded trademe dinghy. The irony is that those rules aren't ever applied until there is a coronial inquiry. 

The extension of this question is why are you so hell bent on protecting people from themselves?

Sure you can throw resources at it around staff hours carrying out enforcement. But if you are looking for a net benefit to society, why not use those staff hours for mental health support instead of weirdos hiding in mangroves with a camera trying to catch out otherwise safe and honest people going about their private business? People are crying out for access to therapists / crisis councillors, yet you want to spend your efforts fining people for something that is a very low risk activity. Do you not see the logic fail there?

[Psyche 879]

About the same number of people die at work as they do on the water. What does that mean IDK, but clearly we need a law against it? Obesity kills people early, so does smoking, ergo having a nice greasy chicken and chips then a smoke at lunch should be legislated against. Maybe we should tax KFC, what about charging management for being criminally negligent? Some people actually want to go down that track, the point is that there will always be these opposing forces where one group of stern but sensible types try and push their agenda on people who believe in personal responsibility. Put the money into education, the facts are pretty clear most drownings 80% are males, drowning in craft are about 30% of the total and

"The majority of craft drowning deaths occur in the older age groups, with 72% of these deaths recorded among individuals over the age of 45. The most common age group for such deaths is between 55-64 years. Over half of the total craft drowning deaths occur in offshore environments, while 24% of the deaths happened in tidal waters and 10% in rivers and streams"

What does this mean, I presume offshore is not in a bay rowing to shore, about 80 people drown a year approximately  25 die in craft, of those 12 die in inshore waters. What craft are we talking about- runabouts, paddle boards or the dreaded tin dinghy? Whatever it is, it's insignificant compared to other causes of death yet because any boating death or tragedy makes the news cycle (any yacht in trouble offshore is front page) then its easy pickings for politicians. 

[Black Panther 1,808]

Anecdotes are not evidence. 

I went out in a dinghy once and nothing bad happened 

[Clipper 382]

its yet another example of unintended consequences.

People wear their nice life jacket in dinghy when not needed. It gets wet, maybe it gets stolen ashore. Then not worn on way home or to next bay, when it otherwise might have been, or should be.

I wear a LJ a LOT when sailing and always when shorthanded. They are good. But I dont (and wont) put my nice LJ on with my AIS inside and PLB strapped on, to go 100m to beach or the boat next door. 

In simple terms its more than a dumb rule. If it were actually enforced, i posit it makes boating more unsafe for some people.

[Elenya 48]

5 hours ago, Zozza said:

You are equating wearing a life jacket on a tender ride / row to shore to wearing a seatbelt in a car.
Seriously?

There are many aspects to this debate. But, if you’re so worried about danger on a dinghy ride to shore, maybe you should wear a helmet and elbow pads too just in case you trip over your own paranoia. Life jackets have their place, but rowing a tender isn’t one of them. They restrict arm movement, catch on oar handles, and can actually tip you in if they snag at the wrong moment. Not to mention if you do end up in the water and the jacket rolls you face-down, congratulations - you just upgraded from safe arrival to slow drowning. Let’s use some judgement instead of mandating stupidity for everyone.

Oh dear, do read posts thoroughly and take time to understand what has been said prior to hitting the keyboard.

 

2 hours ago, Black Panther said:

Anecdotes are not evidence. 

I went out in a dinghy once and nothing bad happened 

and evidence should be the basis for all decisions, quite agree.

 

4 hours ago, Psyche said:

About the same number of people die at work as they do on the water. What does that mean IDK, but clearly we need a law against it? Obesity kills people early, so does smoking, ergo having a nice greasy chicken and chips then a smoke at lunch should be legislated against. Maybe we should tax KFC, what about charging management for being criminally negligent? Some people actually want to go down that track, the point is that there will always be these opposing forces where one group of stern but sensible types try and push their agenda on people who believe in personal responsibility. Put the money into education, the facts are pretty clear most drownings 80% are males, drowning in craft are about 30% of the total and

"The majority of craft drowning deaths occur in the older age groups, with 72% of these deaths recorded among individuals over the age of 45. The most common age group for such deaths is between 55-64 years. Over half of the total craft drowning deaths occur in offshore environments, while 24% of the deaths happened in tidal waters and 10% in rivers and streams"

What does this mean, I presume offshore is not in a bay rowing to shore, about 80 people drown a year approximately  25 die in craft, of those 12 die in inshore waters. What craft are we talking about- runabouts, paddle boards or the dreaded tin dinghy? Whatever it is, it's insignificant compared to other causes of death yet because any boating death or tragedy makes the news cycle (any yacht in trouble offshore is front page) then its easy pickings for politicians. 

Yes it is politicians who make the decisions and it is those politicians you should pass your thoughts to in a reasoned, clear and no aggressive submission. Good on those people who do take the time to do that.

4 hours ago, K4309 said:

You answered your question in asking it.

you clearly identified one craft is stable (Nice stable inflatable), the other with no freeboard and by your inference is overloaded. You asked "so how do  you tell the difference between..." then explained exactly how to tell the difference. QED.

There are already rules and requirements regarding safety going out to get a feed in an overloaded trademe dinghy. The irony is that those rules aren't ever applied until there is a coronial inquiry. 

The extension of this question is why are you so hell bent on protecting people from themselves?

Sure you can throw resources at it around staff hours carrying out enforcement. But if you are looking for a net benefit to society, why not use those staff hours for mental health support instead of weirdos hiding in mangroves with a camera trying to catch out otherwise safe and honest people going about their private business? People are crying out for access to therapists / crisis councillors, yet you want to spend your efforts fining people for something that is a very low risk activity. Do you not see the logic fail there?

I don't see Grant suggest spending money and effort on something that is low risk.

I hope everyone is going to put a submission in to the private members bill currently progressing through parliament. The bill is about a national rule for mandatory wearing of life jackets on vessels 6m and under. 

I can remember grumpy old men condemning early windsurfers when I was a kid. Dangerous sport, always looks like they are in trouble, inconsiderate etc. Windsuring carried on regardless. Now it seems the modern generation of grumpy old men have turned 180 degrees and don't want things banned. I wonder what the old grumpy old men would say about the new generation of grumpy old men?
Oh how society changes. 😊

[K4309 439]

1 hour ago, Clipper said:

its yet another example of unintended consequences.

People wear their nice life jacket in dinghy when not needed. It gets wet, maybe it gets stolen ashore. Then not worn on way home or to next bay, when it otherwise might have been, or should be.

I wear a LJ a LOT when sailing and always when shorthanded. They are good. But I dont (and wont) put my nice LJ on with my AIS inside and PLB strapped on, to go 100m to beach or the boat next door. 

In simple terms its more than a dumb rule. If it were actually enforced, i posit it makes boating more unsafe for some people.

Absolutely.

My LJ has over a grand worth of stuff on it (primarily PLB and HH VHF). It is not inviting to leave that lying around on a beach. Moreso in Northland where it is not uncommon for the entire dinghy to get nicked. And that isn't even my expensive offshore LJ with self inflation, hood, harness and strobe light, that is just my foam fishing LJ.

And likewise, I wear it religiously fairly much all the time. Accept going 50m in a wide stable tender in a protected mooring area.

I should also add that falling out of the dinghy is a risk I've considered. I have lines along both sides so it is very easy to hang onto when in the water. It is basically the same as all the solid liferafts that are mandated for commercial vessels...

[CarpeDiem 560]

1 hour ago, Elenya said:

I hope everyone is going to put a submission in to the private members bill currently progressing through parliament. The bill is about a national rule for mandatory wearing of life jackets on vessels 6m and under. 

The bill is for children of 15 years or under right?

[Zozza 372]

3 hours ago, Elenya said:

Oh dear, do read posts thoroughly and take time to understand what has been said prior to hitting the keyboard.

 

and evidence should be the basis for all decisions, quite agree.

 

Yes it is politicians who make the decisions and it is those politicians you should pass your thoughts to in a reasoned, clear and no aggressive submission. Good on those people who do take the time to do that.

I don't see Grant suggest spending money and effort on something that is low risk.

I hope everyone is going to put a submission in to the private members bill currently progressing through parliament. The bill is about a national rule for mandatory wearing of life jackets on vessels 6m and under. 

I can remember grumpy old men condemning early windsurfers when I was a kid. Dangerous sport, always looks like they are in trouble, inconsiderate etc. Windsuring carried on regardless. Now it seems the modern generation of grumpy old men have turned 180 degrees and don't want things banned. I wonder what the old grumpy old men would say about the new generation of grumpy old men?
Oh how society changes. 😊

Did someone say Grumpy Old Men?  
Now come and join us for a pint Elenya - always room for another grump|


 

[grant 46]

4 hours ago, CarpeDiem said:

The bill is for children of 15 years or under right?

yes

[Priscilla II 459]

One of the most embarrassing displays of authoritarianism run amok on the water I have ever witnessed was the local harbourmaster at Mahurangi imposing his will upon a couple in a dinghy not wearing life jackets, crikey if he had tried it on me he would have required urgent medical assistance.

[Psyche 879]

We've got to remember that this is a yachting forum, most people here are pretty experienced and one quality that most yachties have is pragmatism. The general feeling is that being forced to wear a lifejacket in a dinghy in benign conditions is legislative overreach.

I agree that some legislation is required to ensure that irresponsible or careless behaviour that puts other people's lives at risk does not go unpunished. But don't we already have that in place?

To some degree, we are all affected by  politicians who have no actual experience in the area they are writing rules for. Its worth mentioning, political campaigns require pressure on individuals in positions of power. This works both ways and should legislation pass that requires us to wear a lifejacket on a sunny day going 50 m to shore, it's because as a group we don't have a voice....... If only there was an yachting organisation that we paid fees to that represented our interests?

[Black Panther 1,808]

This evening I was thinking about this.

In 60 yrs plus of messing about in boats I have known personally one person fall out of a dinghy and die (hypothermia, elderly,drunk)

I have pulled two bodies from under my boat. Both drunk, one having a pee, the other drunk. Unless his wife pushed him in which case he'd be in the next category. 

Murdered by spouse while on a boat , 2 but maybe 3, see above.

Suicide while on a boat, or jumping off.2

Death from natural causes while on a boat, 1.

 

 

Seems to me being nice to your wife is better safety practice than wearing a life jacket.

 

[Black Panther 1,808]

Oops, just remembered another suicide,  so that's 3.

[aardvarkash10 1,147]

Torn.

I lean towards the pragmatic self determination side, but then I remember that death by drowning is an accident covered by ACC, and so any injury or death marginally increases the costs on everyone.

12 accidental inshore drownings means 12 times ACCs standard $7.5k funeral assistance, 12 times surviving family grants and 12 times a 5-year earnings compensation to the surviving family (for kids, that is paid until they are up to 21 years old).

So for a new dad 40 years old earning 100k, the ACC cost of drowning could be nearing the early millions.

Food for thought.

[Psyche 879]

Pretty sure that's what insurance is for but if we are going to bean count craft related deaths then we better count up sporting deaths in general but even in water world there are many activities that are far more dangerous than dinghy trips

 

 

[aardvarkash10 1,147]

28 minutes ago, Psyche said:

Pretty sure that's what insurance is for

You can't opt out of ACC, so it costs even if you are self insured as well or philosophically opposed.

Comparatives and waddabouts are an easy out.  The reality is that, in NZ, the cost of personal actions is socialised.  If we don't recognise that, we miss an important part of any safety decision input.

Again, I'm torn.  I snowboard, sail, ride a bike on the road.  None of these things is directly charged for ACC purposes, each of them has risks that I can manage if I choose to. 

On the bike I am legally obliged to wear a helmet even if I'm just going 200m down the road to pick up some milk.  I could choose not to, as many do without any real consequence legally or physically.  I still wear it, and gloves.  I've come off several times and I have learnt what's vulnerable.

I don't wear a LJ when I'm pootling around a bay, even though I'm exposed to idiots in stinkpots who are reknown for running into 50 foot ferries, let alone 2.4m dinghies.

Weird.

Choices are not always rational.

[Psyche 879]

27 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:

I snowboard

Tell us more, I thought you were aging gracefully 🤣

[aardvarkash10 1,147]

Once a snotty nosed antisocial punk, always a snotty nosed antisocial punk....