Sunmissions on Akl Lifejacket bylaw

[sailinghigh 0]

If you'd like a real informed discussion Sailinghigh then please go away and inform yourself then come back and we'll try again. Until you do that there isn't any point.

 

 

Middle-aged men and females are over-represented on boating drowning statistics. More importantly, research shows 30% approx. on people, who view adverts about the importance on wearing life jackets , start wearing a lifejacket but with on a very short period the percentage reverts to previous figures like most advertising unless continuously repeated or policed heavily.

 

Example Cell phone use whilst driving.

 

 

http://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/news/medi ... 40505a.asp

[Dusty 0]

Regarding compulsory Licensing verses Registration I do believe that the authorities will move towards registration before making licensing compulsory. Why you may ask? Well it is because their is a lot more money to be made by local authorities from it for little effort. It has already started with Jet Ski's.

I want to see my kids and their kids enjoy the same freedoms that I did when I was young.

Will registration work? easy answer is, well it hasn't worked on the roads there are still lots of idiots out there inspite of loads of rules and regulations . We all know that in Auckland the Harbour Masters department is badly under funded for the large area that they cover. What the harbour really needs is 24 hour policing and not just minor issues like Joe blogs not wearing a lifejacket rowing out to his yacht but some of the more serious issues Like people running around at night with no nav lights or anchoring in the Rangitoto channel and expecting large vessels to go around them.

3:00 am in the morning just before last Christmas and halfway between Takapuna and Rangi light we got an intermittent blip showing up on the radar and went over to investigate. We found a guy on a stand up paddle board wearing a black wetsuit with no light. That is what I mean by idiots on the water.

After work I often venture out fishing in my rib, everyone onboard has a lifejacket close at hand and I will put it on anyone that is not confident and instruct others if I feel they should be wearing one. We carry all the usual safety equipment vhf cellphone and a workable LED all round light. We probably have more safety gear than the boat is required to carry but often you see boats that are obviously not quite as well equipped. Sure at times life jackets may be an issue but there are other potential problems that rate very highly too.

[Guest]

No idea where to go with that response sorry SH. I wasn't expecting that random.

 

+1 Dusty.

[grant 40]

Regarding compulsory Licensing verses Registration I do believe that the authorities will move towards registration before making licensing compulsory. Why you may ask? Well it is because their is a lot more money to be made by local authorities from it for little effort.

 

as one who would be involved closely if this happened I disagree with the lots of money for little hassle, I think it would be a major headache to receive comparatively bugger all. Personally I would support licensing before registration (and at the moment I can't see either happening ), and if registration is to be done it must be done nationally not regionally.

[Black Panther 1,581]

I am just thankful that at the moment those in charge seem to have a sensible approach and licensing/registration is not on the radar. Long may it last.

[sailinghigh 0]

Regarding compulsory Licensing verses Registration I do believe that the authorities will move towards registration before making licensing compulsory. Why you may ask? Well it is because their is a lot more money to be made by local authorities from it for little effort.

 

as one who would be involved closely if this happened I disagree with the lots of money for little hassle, I think it would be a major headache to receive comparatively bugger all. Personally I would support licensing before registration (and at the moment I can't see either happening ), and if registration is to be done it must be done nationally not regionally.

 

Agree if you mean boat masters licence, restricted radio licence, and compulsory life jackets by MSA nationally and all fees and fines expanded to fund the harbours masters policing numbers, with substantial expanded fine amounts. The maximum a harbour master can impose for a major breach is a joke.

 

Had an experience with reporting a Auckland charter vessel registered, had a charter licence with the name visible on the vessel different to the name on the certificate licence issued under the self regulated regulations. Done deliberately. Tested the system told no such vessel operated on the Auckland harbour by the name disclosed on the vessel although I gave the name on the operator a detailed description about the vessel. I gave the correct spelling and they found same.

 

You would think the inspector would check the name on the vessel to see if the name match the documents he was executing each inspection.

 

I wonder how many other reports where treated the same way? Does that qualify as a idiot classification. They did not even fine him or suspend his operation. The hand bilge pump did not have a hose connected to the bilges or a handle. The safety officer gave a tick as ok. I complained and the owner reached for a screw driver and placed it on the pump and said that will do, with the safety officer laughing and did not enforce a proper handle with lanyard . A toilet skin fitting corroded and stuff with a tea towel to prevent water entering. The life raft 18 months over due for servicing. False ship registration declaration That's registration for you.

 

SH

[Black Panther 1,581]

I'm beginning to understand this political process. They ask for submissions, then ignore them and do what they want anyway.

[wheels 543]

Did they? I had thought they originally had other ideas and the feedback basically made them drop their ideas. Or am I wrong on that?

So they have come up with, "The Skipper is in charge and responsible for his passengers and needs to ensure everyone has a lifejacket and wears it, unless the skipper deems it safe not to wear one".

I thought "the Skipper is responsible" is pretty much normal Maritime Law already isn't it?

[grant 40]

at the risk of dampening your skepticism BP, Wheels is correct, a proposal was put forward, options considered (submissions weighing heavily into that) and a different result came out the other end, sometimes the system does work

 

unfortunately though, only sometimes.....be happy this was one of those times

[Chloe 7]

at the risk of dampening your skepticism BP, Wheels is correct, a proposal was put forward, options considered (submissions weighing heavily into that) and a different result came out the other end, sometimes the system does work

 

unfortunately though, only sometimes.....be happy this was one of those times

 

Your right, the dumb media have been trumpeting that there is big changers, so big that the rest off NZ will have to follow. Jssssssssssssssssss

[Guest]

Did they? I had thought they originally had other ideas and the feedback basically made them drop their ideas. Or am I wrong on that?

So they have come up with, "The Skipper is in charge and responsible for his passengers and needs to ensure everyone has a lifejacket and wears it, unless the skipper deems it safe not to wear one".

I thought "the Skipper is responsible" is pretty much normal Maritime Law already isn't it?

 

Complete waste on energy time and resources.

 

Saving face I suppose.

 

That wording does not over ride maritime New Zealand law.

 

Skipper responsibility

 

Maritime rules provide that it is the skipper's legal responsibility to ensure that lifejackets are worn in situations of heightened risk, such as when crossing a bar, in rough water, during an emergency, and by non-swimmers. Lifejackets must be stored so that they are immediately available in case of a sudden emergency or capsize. Children should wear lifejackets at all times in boats under 6 metres.

 

Lifejackets – a legal requirement

You must carry a correctly sized, serviceable lifejacket (also known as a personal flotation device or PFD) for each person on board a pleasure boat in New Zealand. This is a legal requirement, and this rule applies to all boats, including tenders and larger craft.

 

Regional council bylaws

 

Check your local regional council bylaws for the requirements that apply in the waters in your part of New Zealand. Some bylaws go further than maritime rules, making the wearing of lifejackets compulsory for all on board small craft.

 

 

You might not have to wear them but they must be available when you go ashore is my interpretation with the inflatable tender.

 

 

[should have made this compulsory for all coastal and ocean cruising racing.

 

The trend of wider AIS acceptance continues with a personal AIS transponder that puts a man overboard onto the

electronic charts of nearby AIS-equipped vessels. A personal AIS device. Instead of being associated with a vessel, the task is

to give an individual who has fallen overboard, for example, the status of a vessel and put them into the AIS system so the person

can be found and rescued. Works with iPhone and I pad Computers as well. ]

 

OC

[Guest]

Well said Dusty.

 

I don't think it's a reaction to 'idiots' as such more than it is to people who just don't have the required knowledge due to assorted reasons, some (many??) being geographical and historical. If that's the case then laws won't change bugger all and the only thing that will is education.

 

I have the odd thing to do in the aftermaths (there are quite intense investigations and reenactments) and and most of the victims aren't dumbarses more than they are in the wrong place at the wrong time but they just didn't have the knowledge to see that.

 

And Fines

 

Singapore for example. Litter instant fines.

 

The thing you notice is absolutely no litter, graffiti or chewing gum on the footpaths.

 

Plain clothes wardens I guess and sufficiently numbers to ping every body.

 

Do I detect a bit on racism with your post.

[wheels 543]

If anything, they have actually opened a loophole or at the least, watered the law down. Giving the out with "unless the skipper deems it safe enough not to wear one". So now instead of the Auckland Harbor bylaw being compulsory, you now do not have to wear one if the skipper say's it's ok not to. The entire issue with these small boat skippers that have got into trouble, is that they have not understood the severity of the situation they were in. So now they are allowing those skippers that can't judge the situation to be able to make a choice.

[Guest]

Do I detect a bit on racism with your post.

The comment was made after living in the Pacific Island for many years and boating Island style with them a lot. A style which if replicated in NZ could kill you faster than it currently often does now in the more gentle climates of the Pacific Islands. The very style that has, without a shadow of a doubt, lead to boating deaths in NZ.

 

So no, any racism you see is 100% of your own making.

[grant 40]

If anything, they have actually opened a loophole or at the least, watered the law down. Giving the out with "unless the skipper deems it safe enough not to wear one". So now instead of the Auckland Harbor bylaw being compulsory, you now do not have to wear one if the skipper say's it's ok not to. The entire issue with these small boat skippers that have got into trouble, is that they have not understood the severity of the situation they were in. So now they are allowing those skippers that can't judge the situation to be able to make a choice.

 

not really, the old bylaws said "lifejackets should be worn in times of increased risk" or something similar, now it has just turned that around and said should wear unless skipper perceives no, or very little danger. Skipper is still responsible and if it is turning to sh*t they should be worn, but the new rule reminds the skipper that its his head in the noose if he screws up... more a change in emphasis really

[Guest]

If anything, they have actually opened a loophole or at the least, watered the law down. Giving the out with "unless the skipper deems it safe enough not to wear one". So now instead of the Auckland Harbor bylaw being compulsory, you now do not have to wear one if the skipper say's it's ok not to. The entire issue with these small boat skippers that have got into trouble, is that they have not understood the severity of the situation they were in. So now they are allowing those skippers that can't judge the situation to be able to make a choice.

 

not really, the old bylaws said "lifejackets should be worn in times of increased risk" or something similar, now it has just turned that around and said should wear unless skipper perceives no, or very little danger. Skipper is still responsible and if it is turning to sh*t they should be worn, but the new rule reminds the skipper that its his head in the noose if he screws up... more a change in emphasis really

 

Disagree the law still applies unless local bylaws go further . PLEASE READ AGAIN.- meaning more stringent. But I get the impression a lot here think also that if the skipper decides when going ashore you don't have to wear life support floatation gear then it's OK not to take life jackets when transiting with the inflatable to shore and return.

 

The law states - interpretation _ skipper can decide that not wearing ......... during certain weather, sea conditions, then it is OK but still responsible and that they must still be available on all small craft under 6 meters. The wording also mentions currents.

 

OC

[wheels 543]

But you are assuming that the Skipper will have a clue. I just had a quick search but could not find the story, but just this weekend, some Paua divers in a small Boat in Wellington had to be rescued. The Weather was horrific. The Winds were 60 to 70kts and these Idiots went out in it in a small boat to get Paua. If you look at all the incidences of people drowning in small boat accidents, it has always been due to some similar stupid incident. So give an idiot a Law with wording like that and I bet you they will go out there with no LJ's. So really I think it has been a case of a whole lot of hooharr and absolutely no step forward.

[Guest]

The new wording is what most boaters with any sound level of seamanship would and have been doing for decades anyway. The only difference is the council can now make examples of people if there is a public outrage about a incident so they can make themselves look good in the eyes of people who have no idea.

 

So bugger all will change on the water. People who know will continue to do what they always have and dumbarses will continue to be dumbarses.

 

They can get stuffed if they think I'll be carrying around or leaving in the ding a $1000 worth of techo safety equipment just to row ashore. That's stupid.... unless the conditions warrant wearing them of curse.

[Bad Kitty 252]

But you are assuming that the Skipper will have a clue. I just had a quick search but could not find the story, but just this weekend, some Paua divers in a small Boat in Wellington had to be rescued. The Weather was horrific. The Winds were 60 to 70kts and these Idiots went out in it in a small boat to get Paua. If you look at all the incidences of people drowning in small boat accidents, it has always been due to some similar stupid incident. So give an idiot a Law with wording like that and I bet you they will go out there with no LJ's. So really I think it has been a case of a whole lot of hooharr and absolutely no step forward.

 

Yep pretty much sums it up Wheels, no real change.

However I may be a bit more cynical than you, even if it was a change to compulsory wearing of lifejackets do you thing it would save morons like in the example you quoted?

These people are a great example of evolution at work, more rules won't save them sorry.

[wheels 543]

Sorry, I let my Cynical drop slightly. Let me readjust it. There that's better. Yep you're 100% right on that one.