Compulsory life jacket wearing

[Vivaldi 66]

So everyone has to wear a life jacket when going ashore in the dinghy now?

https://www.1news.co.nz/2026/09/04/who-needs-to-wear-a-lifejacket-under-new-rules-this-summer/ 

[aardvarkash10 1,187]

Yes 

[Psyche 976]

Look this obviously does not go far enough we are going to stop all drowning by introducing legislation that all swimmers must be equipped with emergency floatation devices and only licensed beachgoers who have completed a level 1 water awareness course be allowed access to the coastline. 

[aardvarkash10 1,187]

Let's not get too upset.

You technically have to use you to seatbelt when moving your car one carpark forward on the street.

Not aware of a huge number of people being dragged into court for breaching this Draconian law.

You break the law taking the kids out of school on a glorious February Friday so you can beat the tide as you head out to the gulf 

No one I'm aware of being charged over this.

This is a law that will be used post-hoc, excluding checks at the Kawakawa bay boat ramp.

[Bad Kitty 356]

I disagree, we should get upset. I think the country has some more pressing issues that could do with attention than this.

[Psyche 976]

As I keep saying politics is performance art....

The solution to all problems is to make a law- job done, problem solved and the minister can score points.  The real work which is much harder is boating education, I agree with the termite muncher- its not going to be a big deal until they decide to make a point of it. However this is a catch all law that treats all people as fundamentally stupid! Do we really  need instructions from Wellington? lifejacket on a sunny day 100m to beach - not going to happen while I can swim.

[Vivaldi 66]

And if you stand up you can say that you’re stand up paddle boarding anyway 😁

[Vivaldi 66]

I actually wouldn’t mind except when you’re going for a walk to the shops or something you either have to lug your jackets with you or run the risk of having them nicked out of your dinghy 

[Panache 7]

Stupid people make stupid laws, those that are likely to drown won't even be aware of this new regulation let alone how to be safe in a boat or near the water.

[aardvarkash10 1,187]

5 hours ago, Panache said:

Stupid people make stupid laws, those that are likely to drown won't even be aware of this new regulation let alone how to be safe in a boat or near the water.

Following this to its logical conclusion, property crime is generally carried out by poorly educated people so we should not have the crimes act.

Law almost by it's very definition is aimed at the lowest common denominator.  This one is no different.

[darkside 73]

Some pictures form the Mokes the last time this topic came up. Pretty sure the boys are only breaking the law in one of these pictures   

 

[Bad Kitty 356]

17 hours ago, aardvarkash10 said:

Following this to its logical conclusion, property crime is generally carried out by poorly educated people so we should not have the crimes act.

Law almost by it's very definition is aimed at the lowest common denominator.  This one is no different.

If there’s a parallel between property crime & not wearing a lifejacket I’m not smart enough to see it?

 

[K4309 470]

On 5/09/2026 at 9:43 AM, Psyche said:

As I keep saying politics is performance art....

The solution to all problems is to make a law- job done, problem solved and the minister can score points.  The real work which is much harder is boating education, I agree with the termite muncher- its not going to be a big deal until they decide to make a point of it. However this is a catch all law that treats all people as fundamentally stupid! Do we really  need instructions from Wellington? lifejacket on a sunny day 100m to beach - not going to happen while I can swim.

My understanding from the stats is, it is not recreational sailors that are dieing. And not people going short distances in inflatable boats from yachts to shore.

Its the muppets that got an inflatable beach toy / paddle board / pink swan thing from Mighty Ape or K Mart that do drown while trying to use it 100m from the beach.

The other major demographic is rock fishermen. Which this law doesn't cover.

The only other significant demographic is fizz boat that suddenly capsize. That is either on bar crossings (loads of education there) or random events. Often sudden waves / getting caught out in a weather change, or forgetting to put the bung in cause you were too busy smoking weed.

There is also the subset of people that take the shittiest boat they can, overload it with their huge mates and target as much illegal fishing as they can. Poachers. Don't think they will bother with this rule either.

In terms of national good, this law is not going to shift the dial.

Meanwhile, how many kids (and adults) are getting traumatic brain injuries on these electric scooters and electric motorbikes without wearing helmets. They can easily do 50km plus, yet there is no law for helmets there. In terms of benefits, looking at stuff like that is going to have a far greater impact on health costs, and social costs of serious injuries and death.

And of course we won't mention the suicide stats. Far easier to pass what is a performative and largely pointless law that makes the pollies look like they actually care.

[Psyche 976]

15 minutes ago, K4309 said:

Meanwhile, how many kids (and adults) are getting traumatic brain injuries on these electric scooters and electric motorbikes without wearing helmets. They can easily do 50km plus, yet there is no law for helmets there. In terms of benefits, looking at stuff like that is going to have a far greater impact on health costs, and social costs of serious injuries and death.

Performance art ignores actual problems  that would benefit from a well thought out policy solution but instead plays to an audience.

Drownings involving a boat = 8 out of 10 in the news cycle, two drownings 10/10 add in a child and the dial goes to 11.

Ultimately if you take this type of law to the logical conclusion there must eventually be a law prohibiting life since it results in certain death! 

[aardvarkash10 1,187]

1 hour ago, Bad Kitty said:

If there’s a parallel between property crime & not wearing a lifejacket I’m not smart enough to see it?

 

It would seem so 🤣

Alternatively, I'm overthinking.

These things are not mutually exclusive.

[aardvarkash10 1,187]

3 hours ago, K4309 said:

My understanding from the stats is, it is not recreational sailors that are dieing. And not people going short distances in inflatable boats from yachts to shore.

Its the muppets that got an inflatable beach toy / paddle board / pink swan thing from Mighty Ape or K Mart that do drown while trying to use it 100m from the beach.

The other major demographic is rock fishermen. Which this law doesn't cover.

The only other significant demographic is fizz boat that suddenly capsize. That is either on bar crossings (loads of education there) or random events. Often sudden waves / getting caught out in a weather change, or forgetting to put the bung in cause you were too busy smoking weed.

There is also the subset of people that take the shittiest boat they can, overload it with their huge mates and target as much illegal fishing as they can. Poachers. Don't think they will bother with this rule either.

In terms of national good, this law is not going to shift the dial.

Meanwhile, how many kids (and adults) are getting traumatic brain injuries on these electric scooters and electric motorbikes without wearing helmets. They can easily do 50km plus, yet there is no law for helmets there. In terms of benefits, looking at stuff like that is going to have a far greater impact on health costs, and social costs of serious injuries and death.

And of course we won't mention the suicide stats. Far easier to pass what is a performative and largely pointless law that makes the pollies look like they actually care.

The actual data does not agree with you.

The Water Safety Council produced a report in 2023 in response to a very high rate of drowning in 2022.

24 people drowned in incidents related to watercraft in 2022.

The majority were middle aged white men.

The majority were in coastal or beach settings north of the Bombay hills.

Your prejudices aside, the people drowning look like us, and are doing stuff we do.  They just had all the holes in the cheese line up.

A reminder that our ACC system pays 5 years income to the dependents of a person who dies in an accident. So, leaving aside any other financial and economic loss, each preventable death costs about $350,000 in ACC death coverage alone.  Probably more given the demographic.

The reality is this law will be enforced in a hyper targeted way simply because there is no capacity to enforce it widely.  I expect boat ramp checks at known problem locations, and on water checks of obviously problematic situations.  The only other use of the law will probably be in courts after the fact of a death where a life jacket may have prevented it.

This makes it no different to the law around vehicle warrants of fitness.  Except that, there is currently no ability to impose a penalty if you are in breach of the law.  That will come in later regulatory changes.

[Elenya 67]

Cant say it is really much of a change for many regions where it s already compulsory under local bylaws.

we just have a couple of older manky pfd's we wear when we want to leave then locked in the dinghy. 
Its now one single rule for all of NZ.  Great to see a single easy to understand rule hat is based on risk (being an older pakeha male i sit rright in the risk group)

[Zozza 377]

[K4309 470]

4 hours ago, aardvarkash10 said:

The actual data does not agree with you.

The Water Safety Council produced a report in 2023 in response to a very high rate of drowning in 2022.

24 people drowned in incidents related to watercraft in 2022.

The majority were middle aged white men.

The majority were in coastal or beach settings north of the Bombay hills.

Your prejudices aside, the people drowning look like us, and are doing stuff we do.  They just had all the holes in the cheese line up.

A reminder that our ACC system pays 5 years income to the dependents of a person who dies in an accident. So, leaving aside any other financial and economic loss, each preventable death costs about $350,000 in ACC death coverage alone.  Probably more given the demographic.

The reality is this law will be enforced in a hyper targeted way simply because there is no capacity to enforce it widely.  I expect boat ramp checks at known problem locations, and on water checks of obviously problematic situations.  The only other use of the law will probably be in courts after the fact of a death where a life jacket may have prevented it.

This makes it no different to the law around vehicle warrants of fitness.  Except that, there is currently no ability to impose a penalty if you are in breach of the law.  That will come in later regulatory changes.

Those stats don't even mention what I was commenting on.

C'mon.

At best, the reflect general societal demographics, with a skew towards who actually goes boating.

All your stats cover is drowning fatalities. Not what the activity was immediately prior to the drowning, which was what I was commenting on.

And, to be honest, it really sounds like you are clutching at straws to justify yet another law if the best reason you can point towards is ACC costs.

[aardvarkash10 1,187]

35 minutes ago, K4309 said:

Those stats don't even mention what I was commenting on.

C'mon.

At best, the reflect general societal demographics, with a skew towards who actually goes boating.

All your stats cover is drowning fatalities. Not what the activity was immediately prior to the drowning, which was what I was commenting on.

And, to be honest, it really sounds like you are clutching at straws to justify yet another law if the best reason you can point towards is ACC costs.

nope, the stats are from the Water Safety Coucil.  They output the data every year.  The interpretation is theirs, not mine, which is why I linked the screenshot of the graph from their report.

But they certainly don't support a view that its weed smoking, overweight poachers and the edge dwellers of society that are drowning for lack of a lift jacket.  Although they are there too.

It s not clutching at straws to point out the real financial cost of a drowning.  In a society where we have reduced everything to a balance sheet and cashflow statement, its probably the only thing that matters.  Drownings are expensive.  Law is relatively cheap.