Life Jackets

[Battleship 100]

A question for the compulsory life jacket supporters, a few of the examples cite incidents on stationary vessels and wharves do you think it should apply to stationary vessels? If so when at anchor sitting down for a meal would mean have to wear a life jacket.

A compulsory at all times law would be unworkable, at the moment most councils have a by law that states it is compulsory during times of heightened risk I think this is more than adequate.

 

What about swimmers, the vast majority of drownings are in the Surf lets make them wear life jackets it would definitely save way more lives than any other group.

[Kevin McCready 83]

It's inhumane NOT to have laws to protect the ignorant from themselves. What you are saying is let them die due to their own ignorance. That is not a proposition I can stomach.

 

As to the reductio ad absurdum propositions, absurd doesn't advance your argument either.

 

And on warm days of flat calm in sheltered waters with no danger of hoons, I'd prefer discretion to be exercised by the officers charged with enforcing the law, in much the same way that police have discretion in bringing charges or levying fines in many areas of our lives. There's nothing unworkable about that.

 

Here's a brief list of laws off the top of my head which protect the ignorant: compulsory eduction, insurance law, consumer protection law, industrial standards law, unfair contracts law - the list goes on.

[Battleship 100]

Sorry Kevin you seem live on a different planet to me, agree to disagree I think.

[Fish 0]

 

Here's a brief list of laws off the top of my head which protect the ignorant: compulsory eduction, insurance law, consumer protection law, industrial standards law, unfair contracts law - the list goes on.

 

If the compulsory education law worked, surely there wouldn't be any ignorant people to save?

Surely?

 

I think you just sunk your own argument (should have had a life jacket on it)

 

And what law says I must have insurance? never heard of it (I must be ignorant!)

[180S 20]

One of the principal pleasures I get from sailing is to leave behind the laws imposed that "are for my own good", justified by any number of reasons.

On the water is one of the last places where I am master of my own fate , answerable to the wind/weather/boat state.

On no account do I want to relinquish that.

The same sort of thinking "for the common good" has been used by many tyrants to justify there right to legislate.

My 2c worth.

[Weatherbeaten 3]

Kevin, how about you worry about your friends and family and we'll worry about ours mate - you know - a bit of personal responsibility?  This law making to accommodate the lowest common denominator just doesn't work.  It erodes the liberties and enjoyment of the people who don't need the law but comply with it because they're good citizens, and does nothing to improve the safety of those reckless and irresponsible people who won't comply with the law intended to protect them from themselves anyway.

 

 

Do you honestly think there are people in NZ who don't know that they should wear lifejackets when on a boat in certain conditions?  Everyone knows, some people choose to ignore it.   You cant help people who won't help themselves, but you sure can make a draconian un-liveable society by trying to, with rampant silly lawmaking.

[Clipper 343]

Sorry Kevin you seem live on a different planet to me, agree to disagree I think.

Think that sums it up for me too.

 

The idea that life jackets should be compulsory at all times by law and then hope discretion by enforcers will be employed is quite possibly the (comment deleted by myself to save Matt the time and prevent a warning)

[B00B00 310]

Sorry Kevin I don't agree with pretty much anything you have said in this thread.

[Island Time 1,230]

I'm with you Booboo...

[SthnJeff 18]

For my 2cents worth to the discussion

 

As a skipper, I am at the less experienced end of the spectrum, and the majority of people I have on board are in that category also. This coupled with the fact that I am sailing in Wellington where, as we all know wind can come out of nowhere and get pretty nasty pretty quick means I have a rule of when we are underway, Life jackets are compulsory and if I venture out of the Harbour, a Tether is also compulsory.

 

Maybe as I gain more miles under the keel and gain more experience and confidence this will change, but for the forseeable future, this  will continue to be the case.

 

That said, like others, I would not like to see this as compulsory. If anything, the very basic Day skippers course or such like would be a better thing to make compulsory imo.

[harrytom 642]

before they even think about compulsory wearing of a lifejacket,how about the powers that be in force every skipper should have a licence to operate a vessel?

 

gee i had my jacket on but didnt know i had to give way

[Dambo 44]

That said, like others, I would not like to see this as compulsory. If anything, the very basic Day skippers course or such like would be a better thing to make compulsory imo.

 

 

before they even think about compulsory wearing of a lifejacket,how about the powers that be in force every skipper should have a licence to operate a vessel?

 

gee i had my jacket on but didnt know i had to give way

NOPE NOPE NOOOOOPE Please NO.

 

I used to think this to, and there are times I still wonder if this would be better, BUT one of the joys of living in this country IS the ability for those of limited means to jump in a dinghy and experience something special.

 

The exception I'd make is for fizz-nasties and jet-skis - those buggers can, and do, real harm.  But how do you Police this? - anything over a certain HP you need a license?  

The kids trailer-sailer has an 8hp o/b but a 12 foot tinnie with an 8hp will do a lot of damage quite fast and this size boat, in my experience, is usually owned and piloted by the least competent, most likely to break the rules person. 

[harrytom 642]

NOPE NOPE NOOOOOPE Please NO.

 

I used to think this to, and there are times I still wonder if this would be better, BUT one of the joys of living in this country IS the ability for those of limited means to jump in a dinghy and experience something special.

 

The exception I'd make is for fizz-nasties and jet-skis - those buggers can, and do, real harm.  But how do you Police this? - anything over a certain HP you need a license?  

The kids trailer-sailer has an 8hp o/b but a 12 foot tinnie with an 8hp will do a lot of damage quite fast and this size boat, in my experience, is usually owned and piloted by the least competent, most likely to break the rules person. 

life jackets onboard fine,how to wear/fit? where are they stowed? yes agree with you last of the free domains but reality is last 2/3 yrs there have been several near misses and a couple of collisions so the time is fast approaching for at least day skipper course?There is absolutely nothing(apart from money)stopping me going to a broker buying a 50ft launch or trailer boat capable of 40knts with no idea on how to handle it,untie at say bucks marina,once through break water put hammer down and create damage.when caught/stopped or hit something the excuse is quite simple i don't know just brought and no one said anything about rules,go to court and get?

[Vorpal Blade 89]

You cant legislate against stupid

Yes but unfortunately those that supposedly know more than us about these things make it their life's work to ensure there are rules to protect the dumbest - at the major inconvenience of the rest of us at the other end of the statistics curve. 

I have had the misfortune of experiencing a drowning off my boat, a very experienced yachtie just doing what we would always do in that same situation. It hasn't changed my approach to lifejackets. 

[Kevin McCready 83]

Coastguard Northern Region

1 hr ·

Lifejackets have undoubtedly saved the lives of three people on-board the vessel that capsized on the Manukau Bar earlier today.

All three have made it to shore safely, we commend the skipper for logging a Bar Crossing Report which meant Coastguard Radio was able to raise the alarm when we didn't hear from the vessel to close their report and confirm that they had safely crossed the bar.

[MarkMT 68]

Personal responsibility in action.

[Weatherbeaten 3]

Look at that eh!  No new law required!

[Island Time 1,230]

It is my understanding that there are already laws available to prosecute the stupid - operating a vessel in an unsafe manner, etc etc. However they don't seem to be used much.

IMO there are already too many laws - even the police and lawyers have to look them up. The average person has no chance.

Personal responsibility is the key. You can't regulate against stupid. You can educate as to what the risks to be managed actually are...

[Fish 0]

I think you are all misunderstanding Kevin. From the basis of that Coastguard press release, it is clear we need a law to make the logging of bar crossings mandatory. They were commended for logging the bar crossing, not for wearing life jackets...

[DrWatson 374]

I've mostly watched this one from a distance but I now feel compelled to comment.

 

If I fall off the dock between the boat and the wharf, the last thing I want is to be trapped there by my bloody life jacket. Likewise, does anyone remember the poor girl trapped under a yacht (by her life jacket?) in Whangmata after falling off her SUP?

 

Anecdotes.

 

The statistics and evidence are pretty clear that far more people drown when they are at the beach than going sailing, maybe even more people who are drunk on the waterfront falling off the wharf at midnight, and maybe even those people who drown in the cars after crashing over a bridge.  Yes some sailors die. 

 

A compulsory law for wearing of lifejackets is likely to have negative consequences which far outweigh the perceived benefits. It has happened for laws for bike helmets.

 

The the effect of the compulsory law for bike helmets introduced in Victoria has been heavily studied by independent analysis. The net effect, and I'm sorry I can't find the reference, is that adult use of bikes for little trips (popping down to the dairy for milk etc.) plummeted, the number of bike accident related head injuries decreased slightly, and the overall level of fitness amongst the adult population took a dive with a concomitant increase in deaths attributed to cardiovascular failure/diabetes/obesity related health issues. In essence, the overall effect effect was a few less head injuries and a disproportionately greater number of other other health issues through decreased population fitness. 

 

Grant and Kevin feel that wearing a life jacket is common sense (correct me if I'm wrong). Fair enough. But is there a need to legislate for common sense? I don't believe so. Moreover,  common sense is just that - common. Average. Anecdotal. Not subject to statistically significant analysis. It's the perceived value or sense of doing something in a certain way, regardless of objective evidence for or against.

 

Take my example of bicycle helmets above, and one would say "Well, that's clearly common sense and can only be good" - But is there evidence that it actually reduces deaths? Frighteningly, the actual medical evidence is pretty slim. In fact there are a number of well controlled registry studies published in high ranking journals (BMJ - I think or maybe The Lancet or Trauma?) which examine cause of death and disability in bicycle accidents, showing that head injury is a minority cause compared to massive trauma (compared before and after helmet laws). For little kids the danger is actually increased that they will suffer rotational neck injuries (including spinal cord damage) because the extra leverage created by increased radius on their tiny heads, or strangulation dangers. Other studies have examined the risk-compensation effect whereby either cyclists ride more dangerously because they "feel safer" or car drivers give helmeted cyclists less space (up to 10 cm I seem to remember). At the end of the day, have you ever wondered why in the EU (approx. 1 billion people) there are very few compulsory helmet laws? It must be because they're stupid, yeah?

 

Back to life Jackets. I'm not saying that compulsory life jackets will decrease public health. But the statistics and numbers and evidence are unlikely to really add up. I want to see actual evidence based policies which are enacted for the good of society, which retain personal freedoms as much as possible, and which help people to be responsible for the decisions they make. The current laws are completely adequate.

 

Lastly, relying on "Police discretion" to make up for inadequacies in legislative writing or abilities is a disaster waiting to happen. It's handing undemocratic and extrajudicial power to the police to determine who gets hit by a law, whether or not it's ethically or morally appropriate or in the best interests of society. Like fining a family having a picnic in a public park because mum is having a glass of chardonnay.