Compulsory life jacket wearing

[K4309 470]

45 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:

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.

Your stats report drownings by age and ethnicity.

They don't report drownings by activity...

[aardvarkash10 1,187]

11 minutes ago, K4309 said:

Your stats report drownings by age and ethnicity.

They don't report drownings by activity...

Watercraft. 

Full report is here 

https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/66f37257074e0484592591ad/6881712b676dd6f05e6a85e4_2022 National Drowning Prevention Report.pdf

[Black Panther 1,849]

I read the report. ( did you know that offshore means outside the surf line)?

Basically there were two instances in one year where 4 or 5 people drowned in one sinking. 

Overall trends  are not bad and the stats are not corrected for population growth. 

Nothing to worry about. 

[K4309 470]

22 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.

As expected, those stats are largely meaningless and don't touch on the comment I made, specifically that "it is not recreational sailors that are dieing. And not people going short distances in inflatable boats from yachts to shore."

The 10 year average for the "Powered Craft" category which includes yachts and tenders with outboards, is 12% of all drownings. As BP noted, drownings in that category is heavily influenced by one off multiple fatality events like the Enchanter sinking.

The other catagories are:

• Swimming / Wading: ~33%
• Accidental Immersion (Slips/Falls): ~22% to 32%
• Powered Boating: ~ 11% to 12%
• Land-Based Fishing: ~11%
• Non-Powered Craft: ~4%

I must say the Non-powered craft category is lower than I thought (pink swans and cheap plastic kayaks from Torpedo 7).

But when you see that land based fishing has the same proportion of drownings to all powered boating, I feel that clearly supports my statement, combined with 2/3rds of drownings coming from 'falls' and 'swimming / wading'.

There isn't Water Safety NZ data for drownings from yachts (a subset of powered craft), but google says:

In New Zealand, drownings associated with sailing yachts are remarkably rare, accounting for an average of only 1% to 2% of total preventable drownings annually

I will acknowledge that the Water Safety NZ report did state that a huge proportion of drownings from "powered craft" were not wearing a LJ (88%), however, considering that category also includes single event multiple fatalities like the Enchanter and other examples of large boats well over the new 6m limit, I'd posit this law is largely performative and isn't going to have any statistically significant impact on drownings.

Remember, 2/3rds (67%) of drownings are falls or swimming / wading, compared with 1-2% from yachts.

[motorb 61]

I cannot understand how paddleboarders are exempt but our ship to shore tenders arent

 

What even qualifies a paddleboard over a RIB? Do I just pull the air floor out of my inflatable?

 

Air mattress and an oar?

[aardvarkash10 1,187]

42 minutes ago, motorb said:

I cannot understand how paddleboarders are exempt but our ship to shore tenders arent

 

What even qualifies a paddleboard over a RIB? Do I just pull the air floor out of my inflatable?

 

Air mattress and an oar?

they are only exempt if they are attached to the board ie using a leash.

https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/members/2025/143/en/latest/#LMS1624247

I'm not sure there will be maritime inspectors in the surfline dropping in on unsuspecting leashless SUP riders, but there it is.

[aardvarkash10 1,187]

10 hours ago, K4309 said:

As expected, those stats are largely meaningless and don't touch on the comment I made, specifically that "it is not recreational sailors that are dieing. And not people going short distances in inflatable boats from yachts to shore."

The 10 year average for the "Powered Craft" category which includes yachts and tenders with outboards, is 12% of all drownings. As BP noted, drownings in that category is heavily influenced by one off multiple fatality events like the Enchanter sinking.

The other catagories are:

• Swimming / Wading: ~33%
• Accidental Immersion (Slips/Falls): ~22% to 32%
• Powered Boating: ~ 11% to 12%
• Land-Based Fishing: ~11%
• Non-Powered Craft: ~4%

I must say the Non-powered craft category is lower than I thought (pink swans and cheap plastic kayaks from Torpedo 7).

But when you see that land based fishing has the same proportion of drownings to all powered boating, I feel that clearly supports my statement, combined with 2/3rds of drownings coming from 'falls' and 'swimming / wading'.

There isn't Water Safety NZ data for drownings from yachts (a subset of powered craft), but google says:

In New Zealand, drownings associated with sailing yachts are remarkably rare, accounting for an average of only 1% to 2% of total preventable drownings annually

I will acknowledge that the Water Safety NZ report did state that a huge proportion of drownings from "powered craft" were not wearing a LJ (88%), however, considering that category also includes single event multiple fatalities like the Enchanter and other examples of large boats well over the new 6m limit, I'd posit this law is largely performative and isn't going to have any statistically significant impact on drownings.

Remember, 2/3rds (67%) of drownings are falls or swimming / wading, compared with 1-2% from yachts.

this may all be true K.  But nothing in the law says it applies to your typical cruising yacht.  The odd Hartley 16 might get caught out.  

I'm pretty sure it won't change our behaviour significantly.  Maybe it won't change yours.  I doubt either of us would end up being prosecuted either way, in large part because there is no offence yet, just a law.

I view all law as largely performative.  Its the nature of law - I think we both agree that law exists to regulate the lowest form of crustatia, not the more highly evolved mammals. Vast swathes of our legislation are observed in the breach, I don't expect this will be different. 

[Black Panther 1,849]

8 hours ago, aardvarkash10 said:

this may all be true K.  But nothing in the law says it applies to your typical cruising yacht.  The odd Hartley 16 might get caught out.  

I'm pretty sure it won't change our behaviour significantly.  Maybe it won't change yours.  I doubt either of us would end up being prosecuted either way, in large part because there is no offence yet, just a law.

I view all law as largely performative.  Its the nature of law - I think we both agree that law exists to regulate the lowest form of crustatia, not the more highly evolved mammals. Vast swathes of our legislation are observed in the breach, I don't expect this will be different. 

I  really wish I agreed with you, but .....

[Psyche 976]

18 hours ago, aardvarkash10 said:

the lowest form of crustatia

🤔

[alibaba 88]

Hmm- I  guess all the arguments above would have applied when they made helmets compulsory for cyclists. All I know is, when we lose somebody because they have fallen overboard, who probably would have survived if they had been wearing lifejackets, it just feels like what a stupid way to die. If I have to be slightly inconvenienced to wear a lifejacket on my 30ft yacht so that the idiots wear them, that's OK. Yes it's a nuisance sometimes, and I also carry an old cheap one when I row ashore. It's  not a big deal really.

[K4309 470]

2 hours ago, alibaba said:

Hmm- I  guess all the arguments above would have applied when they made helmets compulsory for cyclists. All I know is, when we lose somebody because they have fallen overboard, who probably would have survived if they had been wearing lifejackets, it just feels like what a stupid way to die. If I have to be slightly inconvenienced to wear a lifejacket on my 30ft yacht so that the idiots wear them, that's OK. Yes it's a nuisance sometimes, and I also carry an old cheap one when I row ashore. It's  not a big deal really.

Or,

You get this happening.

Three men were wearing LJ's, went out over a bar, capsized into cold water. Two dead, one taken to hospital

But the law says all you have to do is wear a life jacket, which they did. The fact the water was freezing, the guys were older and the bar rough enough to capsize there boat isn't mentioned in the law.

Never mind about assessing the risks or personal responsibility, the law doesn't say you have to do that, just wear a LJ.

Sure I'm being simplistic, but when a central govt agency asserts responsibility on you for you wellbeing, by it's very nature that reduces your own obligations to assess risks for yourself.

"I've ticked all the boxes, I'm complying with the law, why, then am I dieing?"

 

Still, as many of us understand, the LJ's did the job as stated by CG, to make it easier to find the bodies...

‘Battling for his life': Witness saw man slip from upturned boat capsized during 'rough' bar crossing | Stuff

[Zozza 377]

Well, because I was as mad as a mongoose and decided to rebuild my 3rd yacht, I again won't be sailing this summer.
But you lot that are, be sure to give us a report of how many "Water Police" are out there at the favourite cruising anchorages, dishing out tickets for ship to shore sailors not wearing their LJ's.  I bet there will be none, as there is no money nor resources to police such a vast recreational area. But, I await your reports, sailors!

[Priscilla II 504]

I’m adding a tether and paddle to my inflatable…😀