Jump to content

It's not about lifejackets


Recommended Posts

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9634783 ... s-big-boys

It's about dickheads who go out into the worst of conditions and then get into trouble. In this case they even had jackets aboard, they were worried about the situation they were in and yet they chose not to wear the lifejackets. Idiots.

1: Going out further than you can swim safely home again...wear a jacket

2: over loaded boat....wear an LJ.

3: bad weather....wear an LJ

4: Worried about the situation you are in...wear an LJ

5: Boat has a problem...wear an LJ

Link to post
Share on other sites

That article gives me the shivering heebie-jeebies.

What kind of a moron* puts themselves in that situation?

 

*Anyone want to suggest a collective noun for "group of morons in a boat"?

e.g. "A clusterfuck of boaties (...)"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wheels, I think that part of the problem is that often ( not this case ) people don't even realize the danger that they have placed themselves in. If they are able to comprehend what the situation actually is, they then get panicky and forget to put on the life jackets.

 

The second part of the problem is that many people consider boats to just be a car for water. They can manage a car ( sort of ) so why would a boat be any different?

Link to post
Share on other sites
wheels the article says nothing about lifejacket... although I agree with your point.
Raglan Coastguard spokesman Kevin Dreaver said while the men had lifejackets on board, they could have kept drifting through the night and been blown out to sea

 

I agree with all the sentiments stated thus far.

 

I'll confess that I'm not a strong, confident or particularly good swimmer but I'll not wear a LJ even when I'm struggling to pull a dropped spinnaker back on the foredeck :oops:

 

On the other hand, a harbour race is very different situation from a flock of idiots in a tinnie, miles away from anyone and anything...

Link to post
Share on other sites

As an ex dinghy racer I always where my PFD, have done since I was about 12 (eeek that was a long time ago)

 

So many people out there have no idea what they are doing, I think making them compulsory is a must.

 

Yes you can still drown with one on, but in most cases it will buy time.

 

From my time in Search & Rescue work, time can be the difference between life and death.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think making them compulsory is a must (...)

You're missing the point. The clusterfuck of morons in question here put to sea in a tinnie, off the west coast in Monday's weather.

*_I_* don't want to be regulated for the sake of such brain-dead tossers, who will IGNORE any such regulations anyway.

 

Put differently: Those of us with an IQ are already wearing the things where appropriate. Those without will continue on their merrily suicidal ways, regardless.

Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9634783/Fisherman-rescues-big-boys

It's about dickheads who go out into the worst of conditions and then get into trouble. In this case they even had jackets aboard, they were worried about the situation they were in and yet they chose not to wear the lifejackets. Idiots.

1: Going out further than you can swim safely home again...wear a jacket

2: over loaded boat....wear an LJ.

3: bad weather....wear an LJ

4: Worried about the situation you are in...wear an LJ

5: Boat has a problem...wear an LJ

 

:crazy: umm....contrary to popular belief....."common sense" is just not "common" I reckon :roll: :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

*_I_* don't want to be regulated for the sake of such brain-dead tossers, who will IGNORE any such regulations anyway.

 

Do you drive at the speed limit? That is only there for the people who are unable to decide correctly what is a safe speed for their abilities, vehicle and all other variables. Its a very similar concept.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you drive at the speed limit? That is only there for the people who are unable to decide correctly what is a safe speed for their abilities, vehicle and all other variables. Its a very similar concept.

Yeah, but to use your analogy, the speed limit is not a target and you should drive to the conditions which means using your judgement (which as a sensible driver you would do). But then there will always be some idiot who will do 100kph in pouring rain and aquaplane into oncoming traffic and kill himself, but without breaking the speed limit.

 

Whether a life jacket is required or not should similarly be a matter of judgement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*_I_* don't want to be regulated for the sake of such brain-dead tossers, who will IGNORE any such regulations anyway.

Do you drive at the speed limit? That is only there for the people who are unable to decide correctly what is a safe speed for their abilities, vehicle and all other variables. Its a very similar concept.

There are significant differences:

a) It it reasonably cost-effective to police the speed limit

B) The road toll is measured in HUNDREDS of deaths per year, not the single-digit figures that MIGHT be attributable to not wearing a life jacket

c) An idiot exceeding the speed limit and crashing stands a good chance of injuring someone else in the process.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You're missing the point. The clusterfuck of morons in question here put to sea in a tinnie, off the west coast in Monday's weather.

*_I_* don't want to be regulated for the sake of such brain-dead tossers, who will IGNORE any such regulations anyway.

 

Put differently: Those of us with an IQ are already wearing the things where appropriate. Those without will continue on their merrily suicidal ways, regardless.

Pretty much puts into a nutshell where I was coming at with my post.

The thing is and as MB said, even if they wore an LJ, in those conditions I doubt anyone would survive anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

aah yes - but at what point does one say enough is enough when said 'suicidal idiots' put at risk others rescuing them and costing the general populace more through direct government intervention (Rescue centre, navy etc) or other expensive to run NGO's such as Coastguard?

Link to post
Share on other sites
aah yes - but at what point does one say enough is enough

And how precisely is your saying "enough is enough" going to produce the desired result?

The knuckle-dragging boneheads you're trying to save (why for chrissake?!) with legislation, simply won't care any more than they do now about such arcana as say, weather forecasts, safe loading, basic seaworthiness.

UNLESS - you want to impose some kind of draconian enforcement regime at every ramp, and out at sea too?

Who's going to fund it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

banaari - I'm not advocating for that approach at all, see other thread simply stating if education, compulsion lifejackets doesn't work then the aforementioned will simply occur- which I stress will lead to constantly increasing registration and associated cost- the old 90/10 rule where 90 percent of the community pays for the 10% who are complete #$$%^&*(.

Link to post
Share on other sites
banaari - I'm not advocating for that approach at all, see other thread simply stating if education, compulsion lifejackets doesn't work then the aforementioned will simply occur- which I stress will lead to constantly increasing registration and associated cost- the old 90/10 rule where 90 percent of the community pays for the 10% who are complete #$$%^&*(.

OK, I see where you're coming from. And if the media beat-ups continue we're in for some unfortunate consequences... it would be a brave and enlightened politician indeed that came out and stated the obvious; namely that it's simply too expensive and unwieldy to try to stop the determined few from drowning themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you drive at the speed limit? That is only there for the people who are unable to decide correctly what is a safe speed for their abilities, vehicle and all other variables. Its a very similar concept.

Yeah, but to use your analogy, the speed limit is not a target and you should drive to the conditions which means using your judgement (which as a sensible driver you would do). But then there will always be some idiot who will do 100kph in pouring rain and aquaplane into oncoming traffic and kill himself, but without breaking the speed limit.

 

Whether a life jacket is required or not should similarly be a matter of judgement.

 

That was my point. However, it is clear that many have no ability to make a good judgement. Which sucks for those of us who have that ability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...