Jump to content

Sunmissions on Akl Lifejacket bylaw


Guest

Recommended Posts

I can feel some people on the forum are getting upset by the Auckland proposal. My suggestion is to think of the times you have been boating this summer and which of those times you would have had to do something different. Once you have identified those times ask yourself honestly if that change of your behaviour will make you safer or not?(
That's possibly as some of the forum know lifejackets can and have been the sole reason some people are now dead. Sure, more exceptions than the rule but a reality all the same.

 

I just struggle to see how this by-law will stop idiots from being idiots and all I see it is making perfectly safe boaters criminals for no good or justifiable reason.

 

Also with the Safety Standards jackets are supposed to meet not enforced means people will now go boating thinking they are perfectly safe yet when they fall in the piss they will die. Will any of the councils who bring in these by-laws also ensure all the standards are meet or will they just leave people to find out the hard way after giving them a false sense of security? I suspect knot.

 

I can see why the call is going out and I have no doubt at all the people calling have the best intention but most know squat so we'll end up with another poorly thought out penalty system for perfectly safe people. In other news, idiots will continue to be idiots.

 

But knowing Elanya and the vast real world experience behind that moniker I do appreciate the response and sound reasoning ............. even if there are hints maybe it's time for another long trip, maybe south again?, to shake out a little of the bureaucratic like thinking ;) Besides it's about time for another adventure isn't it E? You know you want too :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Idiots will always be idiots, I'm with you 100% there, nothing will stop idiots being idiots but it may indicate to people that in small boats a lifejacket should be worn.

 

Competence at sea will always beat rules, unfortunately not everyone is competent and the ability to buy a boat and head out to sea is too much for some peoples skill level. As I'm sure many have seen you can see all the small mistakes some people make that sometimes add up to the incident, and sometimes not. I'm fortunate to have been guided by some very competent people during my career at sea and life sailing but I still stuff up (a lot according to my good lady).

 

We are still keeping up the trips away even while working. I have managed a sail down to the Subantarctics while I have been here and my good lady has been back and forth about nine times now, she also got a Fiji trip in too (the scummy toad!).

 

By my reckoning it's 6 weeks from here back to Guam to carry on the trip should the need arrive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the new rules go ahead as proposed, then my kids will need to sleep in lifejackets, when at anchor in the trailer yacht up some secluded river, which could even dry out at low water? :roll: Or if I add a prod and/or tilt the outboard up fully maybe we'll be exempt at just over 6m.

 

Good to see the "experts" were involved in formulating this document then! :lol:

 

Similarly, when a few mates get together with our lasers for a training sail, usually without any "safety cover" we all need to carry a waterproof VHF and/or watertight phone bag thingy. After all, the VHF won't help much because not many people ashore have them switched on, and I doubt they would reach the Papakura Coastguard from water level. Brilliant. Especially considering we're pretty much land locked anyway.

 

Now to formulate a decent response. :clap:

Link to post
Share on other sites
If the new rules go ahead as proposed, then my kids will need to sleep in lifejackets, when at anchor in the trailer yacht up some secluded river, which could even dry out at low water? :roll: Or if I add a prod and/or tilt the outboard up fully maybe we'll be exempt at just over 6m.

 

Good to see the "experts" were involved in formulating this document then! :lol:

 

Similarly, when a few mates get together with our lasers for a training sail, usually without any "safety cover" we all need to carry a waterproof VHF and/or watertight phone bag thingy. After all, the VHF won't help much because not many people ashore have them switched on, and I doubt they would reach the Papakura Coastguard from water level. Brilliant. Especially considering we're pretty much land locked anyway.

 

Now to formulate a decent response. :clap:

 

Well I hear what you say but disagree with your reading of the proposed bylaw. Here is the requirement to wear your lifejacket on a small vessel.

9 Wearing of personal flotation devices on small vessels

(1) Every person on board a small vessel must wear a properly secured personal flotation device of an appropriate size for that person at all times.

 

And here is the exemption that clearly agrees with your comment that in the circumstances you describe wearing a lifejacket is not required.

 

10 (2) Clause 9 does not apply to any person that is below the weather deck on a small vessel anchored in sheltered waters or that is securely moored alongside a wharf, quay, jetty or pontoon.

 

Adding a prod or tilting the outboard makes no difference as the definitions state:

 

Length overall has the same meaning as in Maritime Rule 40A.

 

which is

 

length overall means the length of the ship measured from the foreside of the head of

the stem to the aftermost part of the transom or stern of the ship; and for the purposes

of this Part—

(a) does not include fittings (such as beltings, bowsprits, platforms, gantries, trim tabs,

jet and outboard drive units) that project beyond these terminal points; and

(B) includes structures (such as bulbous bows, deckhouses, free flooding bait tanks

and buoyancy tubing) that project beyond these terminal points:

 

And communications:

 

33 Means of communication

(1) A person in charge of a vessel must carry on board the vessel at least one means of communication that:

(a) has the ability to communicate with a land based person from any area where the vessel is intended to be operated;

(B) has sufficient coverage and power to operate for the actual duration of the voyage; and

© if the vessel is 6 metres or less in length, is either waterproof or is carried in a waterproof bag or container.

 

Well what is wrong with carrying your cellphone or a VHF? The coastal VHF station that monitors VHF 16 throughout NZ (Maritime Radio) has a receiving ariel mounted rather high quite close to you, so your radio call is very likely to be heard. That is why their ariel is so high. We give away waterproof phone bags down here with our safety packs, and Burnsco sell them for $39.99. Perhaps the carriage of a communication device is not for you, maybe it is for someone else? the person you find clinging to an upturned dinghy who is hypothermic, the person who get knocked out in a gybe, all possible and foreseeable and all have happened before....

 

So it would appear all the scenarios you foresee in the post, and very sensible they are, have actually been incorporated in the proposed bylaw. Maybe the bylaw team actually came a spoke to people just like you, and listened to what they had to say, and now everyone can have a say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Motorbike. Not sure if your post was a reply to me, or not? I didn't mention dinghies to or from the beach, but never wanting to miss out

 

If you look at the lifejacket bylaw it clearly agrees with your thoughts about going out a short distance past people swimming (or stood up even if you have a trailer sailer or similar shallow vessel in close to shore). The Lifejacket bylaw has an exemption for your scenario.

 

3) Clause 9 does not apply to any person above the age of 15 years on board a small vessel used to transit in sheltered waters tendering between vessels or between vessels and the shore between sunrise and sunset. For the avoidance of doubt, except as provided for under clause 10(1) and (2), a person on board a small vessel aged fifteen years or below must wear a properly secured personal flotation device of an appropriate size for that person at all times.

 

When on you board (as in board sport) you don't need to carry a means of communication as the proposed bylaw states

33 Means of communication

 

(2) This clause does not apply to:

(a) a person participating in a board sport;

(B) a vessel being used in any sporting event or training activity, if there is a support vessel in attendance that is carrying a means of communication in accordance with this clause.

 

and board sport is defined as

 

Board sports means any board sport, including windsurfing, sailboarding, kiteboarding, stand up paddle boarding, knee boarding, body boarding and surfing where the means of propulsion is by wind, waves or other natural forces, or where no mechanical means of propulsion is used.

 

As for the tender I would suggest my voice is a suitable means of communication over that distance, it is waterproof, and it has sufficient power. This is not defined or explained so a submission may confirm this or demonstrate that no, actually, a VHF or cellphone is proposed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you serious about communications? Carrying a cellphone or vhf in the tender every trip, on the SUP on your surfboard? Get real!
Don't panic fella I've been BBQing with some legal mates and this palava came up. Apart from some of the other councils lifejacket by-laws now allowing you to do some things other laws specifically say you can't, they do allow us a very easy way to comply and at the same time have a huge pile of fun, if we so desire. But I'll tell you off forum as the ACC still has time to think the law through properly so lets knot give them a reason to do that and in doing so spoil our fun.

 

Apparently that's very common to have laws contradicting each other. Seems a waste but no surprise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the new Bylaw relates to improved Mooring Management. I've had a ready through and there mostly looks like good news, in that the Harbour Master will have improved powers to deal with people not maintaining their moorings.

 

One thing I did notice was that you'll have to tell the Harbourmaster if you're vacating your mooring for more than 6 months, and they can remove it if they want too.

 

Any other thoughts on that area?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Part of the new Bylaw relates to improved Mooring Management. I've had a ready through and there mostly looks like good news, in that the Harbour Master will have improved powers to deal with people not maintaining their moorings.

 

One thing I did notice was that you'll have to tell the Harbourmaster if you're vacating your mooring for more than 6 months, and they can remove it if they want too.

 

Any other thoughts on that area?

 

Hi That provision has been in the Bylaw for at least 10 years. What is does is to prevent a person buying a mooring as a "nice to have if I need one one day" and then never use it. This type of mooring space hogging just makes it difficult for those who want a mooring to get one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Part of the new Bylaw relates to improved Mooring Management. I've had a ready through and there mostly looks like good news, in that the Harbour Master will have improved powers to deal with people not maintaining their moorings.

 

One thing I did notice was that you'll have to tell the Harbourmaster if you're vacating your mooring for more than 6 months, and they can remove it if they want too.

 

Any other thoughts on that area?

 

Hi That provision has been in the Bylaw for at least 10 years. What is does is to prevent a person buying a mooring as a "nice to have if I need one one day" and then never use it. This type of mooring space hogging just makes it difficult for those who want a mooring to get one.

 

 

they don,t seem to make any attempt to enforce it though, if you enquire about a pole mooring in the Tamaki river you will often be told there is none available and be put on a waiting list, even though there seems to be heaps of empty poles that have not been occupied for ages? Then a few may come up after september when the next years fees are due.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While that is good news, it needs to be noted to all Skippers of pleasure Crafts that the responsibility of a decision to allow their passengers to remove their lifejacket and then have something happen that causes someone to drown, will result in the Skipper carrying the can and being prosecuted. I know we all know that, but many others won't understand that importance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed Wheels, but that is really how it should be I guess. What do others think?

 

What if some crew go out in the tender and drown - skipper of the mothership (who may not even know) or the "skipper" of the tender?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, the process is a complete waste of ratepayers money and the muppets that introduced this should stump up a refund. The compromise simply defaults to the current legal requirements of a rec. skipper under the Maritime rules. This 'double legislative' process that we have on stuff drives me up the f**ken wall

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh - and while I'm at it - typical f'ing useless bottom feeding journalism in this country on this sort of stuff. Most of these people are too lazy to look past the direct feed in their haste to 'get the story out'.

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...