Black Panther 1,581 Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 I always think the chances of simply falling off are lower when you are working the deck in obviously bad weather. It's hard not to be aware of where you are and what is going on. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
grantmc 59 Posted November 22, 2015 Author Share Posted November 22, 2015 Have been quite fascinated in the responses. Clearly the majority of posters and their crew only ever fall in when they plan to do so and also - when close enough to swim to safety, or - when someone is close by to help pull them out. How fortunate. I (and those around me) on the other hand have always fallen in quite by accident, with no expectation or forward planning. The falls have happened just climbing off the boat into a dinghy, whilst on the dock trying to help a boat berth plus other occasions. Nor am I an especially good swimmer. I've also seen someone fall out when a spinnaker caused a broach. That was nasty. Most of the negative responses seem to have been from skippers and I can't but wonder how, as skipper, I'd feel if one of my crew drowned. And of course life jackets don't provide a 100% guarantee. Nor do toe rails, anti skid paint, life lines, flares, epirbs, life rafts, cat 1 certificates et al. And there are risks in wearing a jacket. And no it wouldn't be much fun watching your boat sail off into the distance in the water wearing a life jacket. Nor do I see anything wrong with life jackets being an aid to body recovery. As sad as a sudden death is, a body results in a much better experience for a grieving family. Both from practical (wills, probate etc) and emotional (certainty, funeral) perspectives. And that post referred to by Black Panther written by Brian Hancock. In my view an absolute crock of sh*t written by a total dick head. BP did you post it to wind people up or as a joke? But as one respondent mentioned, the safety laws are because of the morons. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Black Panther 1,581 Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Actually when I read it I agreed with a lot of what he wrote. I wonder how some people manage to fall off so readily. In over 50 years and over 100,000 miles I have never fallen off, nor been on a boat where someone has fallen off. Go figure. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ScottiE 174 Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Indeed! Eric Tabarly probably said the same thing right after he ... er... fell off (but we'll never know) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MarkMT 68 Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 Grant, I think you're either misconstruing or over-generalizing the responses. You asked two quite different questions - should there be a law change, and should clubs mandate lifejackets. Plenty of events do indeed mandate lifejackets, and since clubs are (more or less) controlled by sailors themselves, it's not unreasonable for them to make their own decision about the rules that will govern how they will compete. A law change is a completely separate thing, and has nothing at all to do with whether lifejackets are a good thing or not. It's a question of whether individuals are in the best position to make a judgment for themselves about the circumstances they are in and whether they should have the right to make a decision for themselves based on that judgment. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fish 0 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Grant, you still haven't said what benefit a law would be. If someone doesn't have the judgement to wear a life jacket when require, would they have the judgement to follow a law? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin McCready 83 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Great post from GrantMc Fish says "If someone doesn't have the judgement to wear a life jacket when require, would they have the judgement to follow a law?" Fish, what's the difference between your question and a similar question by those opposing compulsory seat belts back in the day? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fish 0 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Kevin, You and Grant are advocating the benefits of wearing lifejackets. That is admirable, but you are missing several steps in the argument. I can only assume that you are assuming that: 1) wearing lifejackets will do... what? ... save lives?, and that; 2) having a law will make more people where life jackets, therefore, saving lives? In the case of seatbelts, there was clear evidence of the initial problem, several hundred people a year were dying, dozen per weekend, in motor vehicle crashes. This has now reduced to 'just' about 300 / year, from highs of around 800 / year. Wearing seatbelts reduced the frequency of fatalities and the severity of injuries. Is there 100's of people a year falling of yachts and drowning. And of those, are they due to not wearing a life jacket (as opposed to dying of exposure, heart attack or head injury) - I think not. Then, will a law make more people wear a life jacket? In the case of seat belts, there is already established law enforcement on our roads. This law enforcement also manages other socially unacceptable acts such as running red lights and drink driving. Acts with have adverse effects on innocent other people, other than the person making the decision. In this case, a law stops red light runners or drink drivers smashing up innocent bystanders, that is the purpose of a law, for the good of a community. I can't see how me not wearing a life jacket affects you, or anyone else. We don't have established law enforcement on the water. We don't need it. So, I don't see how a law to wear lifejackets will result in more people wearing them. A law requires enforcement. A law also requires a benefit to the greater community to have a purpose, such as stopping red light runners. For your law to have any 'positive' benefit, i.e. to reduce fatalities on the water, it would require on the water law enforcement. It is very quick to see that the much more effective way to reduce on the water fatalities is to stop people going on the water. That would have a 100% success rate - zero fatalities. Surely to ban everyone from going on the water would be unreasonable? its benefit would be a 100% reduction in fatalities...... I think passing a law to make wearing of lifejackets is unreasonable. You have not demonstrated what the problem is you are trying to address, and you have not demonstrated how a law might improve that problem. And surely, if you fall off the dock trying to help a boat to berth, can't you just hop out back onto the dock? Not a good justification for a law affecting everyone. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
B00B00 310 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 What a great response Fish. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin McCready 83 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Fish A. Yes B. Yes I've met families whose loved ones would be alive today if they had worn lifejackets. Have you ever mourned with a family who has lost a 7 year old and 5 year old in one boating "accident"? You should get out more Fish. Read the papers a bit more. Put your thinking cap on. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ScottiE 174 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 so you're saying that you've met parents who let their 5yo and 7yo on the water in a boat without a life jacket. I put it to you that they're mourning (no disrespect but it needs to be said) their own ignorance as much as anything else. Are you saying that if there was a law in place requiring them to put jackets on their children, that would have been enough to make them do it? Please . . . My 6yo has been in swimming lessons since he was 6mo, is actually a pretty good swimmer, for a 6yo, but there is no way in living hell I will let him on our boat without a jacket. Till now the only time he has been allowed to take it off is when he swam with me from the boat anchored at Ocean Beach, to the beach, where I could stand for all but the first 30m of the swim. I walked back to the boat beside him on the return trip. He made both journeys, unaided, but I'll be doing the same for a good few years yet with him and his younger brother. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
hb1849 12 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 "If someone doesn't have the judgement to wear a life jacket when require, would they have the judgement to follow a law?" Following a law doesn't really require complex judgement like deciding whether to wear a lifejacket does. And unfortunately part of the population are not really capable of making complex judgements. 'Peer pressure' is another aspect -- Some may fear donning a lifejacket makes them look 'less of a man' etc. -- a law could be an excuse to wear one without looking cowardly (I'm not saying this actually makes any sense). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fish 0 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Kevin, I'm sorry that you were in that situation. Please understand that I agree in the fundamental benefits of wearing lifejackets. My 2 year old has two life jackets, and a good harness and clip line, and wears one or the other at all times. I don't want to ask about the circumstances of your situation because I'm sure it can be very emotive. The fundamental difference here, in my view, is the decision making of the person in charge, verse the blunt instrument of a law. I go back to the example of 5 guys in a 12 foot tinnie, go out in a 40 knot sou-Wester, but believe they are safe because they are wearing life jackets. The law wont improve the decision making of the person in charge. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin McCready 83 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Scott If you are saying a society shouldn't pass laws to protect the ignorant, then that's where we part company. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fish 0 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Scott If you are saying a society shouldn't pass laws to protect the ignorant, then that's where we part company. A law wont save the ignorant. That is why Coastguard focus on education so much. Education is the answer, not another law. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin McCready 83 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Fish Laws do save the ignorant. If you stop and think for a moment I'm sure you could come up with quite a few. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fish 0 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Help me out, name one. I'll tell you what is different about the law you name and a law for life jackets. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin McCready 83 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Fish. Moving the goalposts doesn't advance your argument. Or are you also saying that society shouldn't pass laws to protect the ignorant? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Clipper 343 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 I don't think we should have laws to protect the ignorant. only problem is that injuries caused by idiots (not wearing seat belts for instance) cost us money. Kevin, if you make your guests wear life jackets on calm dinghy rides, I never want to come sailing with you. I wear them when I want to. Have often thought if I go over it will be BECAUSE of the tether or lifejacket. I capsized my boat last year, only 1 of the 3 crew was wearing life jacket and it was a hindrance. I was carrying a knife, it was a useful and reassuring tool. Kevin and grant, people clearly have different opinions to you, don't make those people out to be idiots. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Fish 0 Posted November 23, 2015 Share Posted November 23, 2015 Haven't seen a goal post to move - you haven't been able to give a coherent argument as to the benefit of a life jacket law. We are at risk of getting into a circular argument. Looks like you can't give an example of a law that does protect the ignorant. I can't actually think of one. I am happy to listen though if you can. The fact of the matter is, a law for the compulsory wearing of life jackets will not prevent ignorant people from drowning. The only law that will stop ignorant people from drowning will be to stop all people from going on the water. Do you support a law that bans boating? it will save ignorant people from drowning. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
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.