Guest Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 http://www.mysailing.com.au/news/compul ... cking-ball Link to post Share on other sites
Wannabe 0 Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the front inside page of the latest boating magazine yet... where the editor, uses a slightly removed position to suggest that personal responsibility is the better option. Story time: Whilst cruising back from the bay of islands this weekend, just after passing little barrier, we came across a group of 6 people and an upturned boat (Im guessing in the 5-7m range). This is a precarious place to be 'swimming', and well beyond any realistic hope of making land... Lifejackets were worn by all in the water, and things would have been considerably more dire if they wern't. The boat went belly up pretty quickly, and I doubt time would have allowed for the removal of life jackets from storage. The story ends well with all parties safe, and eventually being transferred to a coastguard vessel that sped out from Auckland at 45+ knots! A few take homes for me... - My own attitude towards lifejackets is worth double checking. - Any boaty who doesn't financially support the NZ Coastguard should be ashamed. - Maintaining an active watch and checking out things that look 'weird' can not be under-rated - Why sailing vessels seldom have a fixed VHF at the helm station continues to baffle me - The law change in question would not have made a difference in this situation. As I see it, the current law places obligations on a skipper to ensure lifejackes are worn where the risk of a person going in the water is "high". The proposed law, changes some wording, and reduces the risk tolerance down to "medium"... oh and paves the way for some skippers to be hung. I object to being forced to put a life jacket over my bikini clad wife as I drop her on the beach to do some tanning. I'm fine with being forced to don a jacket if I take the same dinghy out of the protected bay to go fishing in the gulf. So in the interests of finding a constructive solution, how about this... "Life jackets must be worn where the risk is high, or in any vessel under 6 meters that is more than 400m away from land" I think that would work for me. Link to post Share on other sites
rigger 47 Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 No, leave it the responsibility of the skipper. Educate people. If you let them make a law that require LJs to be worn at all times then they will make another law - say one requiring all people wearing a LJ to carry a PLB as those that use to drown without lifejackets are now drowning with life jackets as rescuers cannot get to them in time as they did not tell anyone where they were going or when they would be back. Why law created to solve a problem, why not try education, target the boat ramps - have MNZ do spot checks, I'm sure if they can detain a foreign ocean going yacht they can detain a poorly maintained / equipped runabout. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 If the Govt made a law requiring all climbers to carry appropriate safety gear there would be a considerable less number of deaths than there would be if they make all yachties wear lifejackets. Yachties are only going to be collateral damage in the near pointless attempt to stop fuckwits from being fuckwits. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 How about a zero limit for blood / alcohol while driving? Link to post Share on other sites
Chewing Gum 17 Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 How about a zero limit for blood / alcohol while driving? Not sure if you are serious but the majority of accidents I have been involved in, some of them potentially very serious except for evasive action have been caused by drunk or drugged drivers. I can recall at least 5 times I have been hit by intoxicated drivers so I would be all in favour of a total ban but I can't see it happening because the liquor industry is so powerful. I am happy to get a taxi or use a nominated driver after having a beer or 3. Compared to the costs of alcohol and driving the lifejacket thing is just a joke. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 I can't see any reason not to adjust the alcohol limit to zero, but it is not my field so maybe I'm missing something. And the point i was trying to make was that if the gummint wants to save us from ourselves why not do that first? Link to post Share on other sites
Grinna 2 Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 See, there you go using logic again. Politics and logic have nothing to do with each other! Link to post Share on other sites
wheels 543 Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 I don't mind the Alcohol limit being reduced, however, I don't really think there is a problem with it at 80mg either, because the ones that have accidents due to Alcohol are usually many times over the limit. Lowering the limit to 50 or whatever it is suggested is not going to stop the idiots that go many times over the limit anyway and then drive. Link to post Share on other sites
Kwela 0 Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 Arrrgggg honestly it's not usually usual water users that end up with drownings... Usually some cousin borrowing a boat .. Stuffing full of clueless people who have no respect for the ocean .. Unqualified inexperienced people taking other inexperienced people out.. Cut to the bottom.. No basic skippers ticket no going out on the water. Even in lawless SA you need a day skippers ticket to take a boat out.. People must educate themselves and in doing so hopefully be able to make better judgment calls not bloody regulate every single possible things. It's a freak show .. But understandable In a way since the people have put expectation on the government to take care of them when things go wrong..they got to find ways to reduce risk.. I say educate the people don't nanny them. Link to post Share on other sites
courageous 0 Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Last summer we were out the back of Rangitoto fishing and came upon a 10' tinny with three adults and one child aboard. I was intrigued how you could fit so many large framed bodies into such a small craft, and was also concerned that as the breeze built and the tide turned they were going to be in serious trouble. The fishing was crap and we decided to head home. And while passing the tinny they appeared to have motor probs. Visible safety equipment amounted to Hi Vis jackets probably courtesy of their last employer and white gumboots. We hung off their stern and asked if they needed assistance, however they intimated they could get the motor going. At that point the open canister of fuel with the fuel line stuffed in the top fell over,and three huge males dived into the bilges to save the days catch. Surely these guys already had their names on headstones... we eventually took aboard three terrified Non English speaking Pacific islanders. One refused to leave the boat so bailed frantically all the way back to Cheltenham where Coastguard relieved us of our charge. To this day I'm convinced that they were only minutes from a watery death.. Would life jackets have saved these guys or simply have delayed the inevitable.? Two days later a group perished off Kawakawa Bay... probably their mates.. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted November 4, 2013 Share Posted November 4, 2013 I just got this flyer across my work email and I think its awesome. These organisers seem to be doing a good thing here....education and free life jackets Link to post Share on other sites
banaari 27 Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Ferrrrrrrrrk http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=11166210 Auckland councillors have passed the first stage of a new bylaw to make the wearing of lifejackets compulsory in small boats. Link to post Share on other sites
grant 40 Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Under the proposed bylaw, lifejackets must be worn on boats less than 6m, with some exceptions. might be worth checking the details and not just the headline..... just a tought Link to post Share on other sites
banaari 27 Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Under the proposed bylaw, lifejackets must be worn on boats less than 6m, with some exceptions.might be worth checking the details and not just the headline..... just a tought Arrrrrghh.... I just threw the damned link up... and pasted in the first paragraph as an afterthought to give it some context... not as an attempt to willfully mislead. Will be very interested to see _WHAT_ exceptions. The Herald hasn't seen fit to tell us. If it's "skipper discretion" a la Northland - then it's more or less meaningless... Link to post Share on other sites
grant 40 Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Will be very interested to see _WHAT_ exceptions. The Herald hasn't seen fit to tell us. If it's "skipper discretion" a la Northland - then it's more or less meaningless... correct on the first, the paper wants a dramatic headline, which it got. on the second point, from legal viewpoint, "difficult" to enforce yes, meaningless no. These are only bylaws, part of their role is to provide a nudge in the education department. While it may not be relevant to you, it can be very useful when trying to explain it to someone that doesn't have a clue. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 I just got another press release from MNZ telling us how goosd the new compulsory lifejacket law will be. As with the others I replied with a link to this thread. Link to post Share on other sites
grant 40 Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 full text of the consultation document wont be until it goes through another step or two, expect it around 19 Dec. Some light holiday reading then you can get excited about it. Remember this is only the consultation stage, if you don't like it or have a better idea, have your say. Link to post Share on other sites
DrWatson 374 Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 I had my say during the public consultation phase. But as an educated, intelligent and experienced vessel user, my "say" will be ignored because I obviously don't know what's good for me. Link to post Share on other sites
ScottiE 174 Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Don't worry Doctor, Harrop has come out in today's paper and said the law is not for old farts like you. It's for the new immigrants who don't have a clue. Unf**king believable! If that's the case, education is the answer as has been communicated to this bunch of political losers. It should be compulsory that all new immigrants attend a water safety course where it's stressed to them the evils and perils of ol' briny. Thar be dragons thar! Would do us all a favour on so many levels! Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.