Jump to content

Another ridiculous lifejacket article


Recommended Posts

Seems to be the wealthyer you are the less likely you wll drown. Maybe we should vote Labour?

 

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/drownings/by-country/

 

Ah, facts!  So good to have some facts.  So, if we were really interested in "saving people's lives", would it not make more sense to attack the most dangerous killers first?  Why don't we run a concerted campaign to introduce laws against Colon-Rectum Cancers.  That way we can save 18.41 people per 100,000, rather than the 1.39 per 100,000 deaths that are due to drowning.  We could make some sort of crotch straps part of the package, as that always seems to be part of the solution.  I'm sure that we could come up with a comprehensive legislative package of restrictions that would really clamp down on anything likely to cause cancers of the colorectal area.  Although these laws would of course prevent anyone eating anything other than sawdust, the benefits will outweigh the costs.  I'm starting to get the hang of this, what's next?  We could probably cut out all deaths that occur during sleep (a no-brainer, gone by lunchtime), "Natural Causes" (easily dealt with by a shift in classification).  

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with that is that they do not take the Seasons into consideration. Sure there will be a decline. We head into Winter, so boating and other water activities decline. The issue will be that they will likely link the time of introduction of Lifejackets to that point of going into Winter and statistically it will show Lifejackets made compulsory declined Drownings. Which is of course, not the real facts.

 

The watersafe link does take season into account in the info I copied. The stats were January to June 2016, and when they talk about drownings being down on last half year, they mean the same period of last year, Jan to June. If I had to pick half the year as the busiest it would be that half. I don't disagree that they will try to make themselves look right with timing etc if they do bring any new laws in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, facts! So good to have some facts. So, if we were really interested in "saving people's lives", would it not make more sense to attack the most dangerous killers first? Why don't we run a concerted campaign to introduce laws against Colon-Rectum Cancers. That way we can save 18.41 people per 100,000, rather than the 1.39 per 100,000 deaths that are due to drowning. We could make some sort of crotch straps part of the package, as that always seems to be part of the solution. I'm sure that we could come up with a comprehensive legislative package of restrictions that would really clamp down on anything likely to cause cancers of the colorectal area. Although these laws would of course prevent anyone eating anything other than sawdust, the benefits will outweigh the costs. I'm starting to get the hang of this, what's next? We could probably cut out all deaths that occur during sleep (a no-brainer, gone by lunchtime), "Natural Causes" (easily dealt with by a shift in classification).

 

Just don't mention suicide.

No one ever dies of suicide.

 

 

There is a law banning suicide.

There is even a law banning talking about suicide.

 

I get mixed up, is suicide two times the road toll, or is it three times?

Link to post
Share on other sites

NZ stats here

http://www.drownbase.org.nz/annual-statistics/

do not know if they include the Kaipara Bar accident.

If you can wade thru all the charts in the 2015 report, the key numbers Page 14, are

swimming           16

powered boats    9

sail                       1

non powered        1

diving                    9

land based fishing 4

other recreation      5

 

the 2016 numbers to date show a similar trend. Yet the hysteria being generated by the media and other organisations eg Maritime NZ and Coastguard is in my view going way over the top.

 

NZ suicides last year were >500 yet this is never mentioned

 

An interesting view about the road toll here

http://karldufresne.blogspot.co.nz/2016/12/the-road-toll-statistics-they-tried-to.html

and how the rule of unintended consequences kicks in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Kaipara tradgedy, is not wearing a life jacket on a bar crossing already the default law?

I doubt life jackets would have made a jot of difference to that outcome.

Not correct. No such law exists.

There is a code of practice for crossing a bar  established by Maritime NZ.

The link: http://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/commercial/safety/crossing-the-bar/

 

 

Nor does the code require life jackets top be worn. Here's the relevant section of the code in respect to the specific type of PFD: 

Ensure lifesaving equipment is easily accessible and ready for immediate use. Every person should wear a lifejacket or personal flotation device (PFD) of an appropriate size, particularly children. There are many approved inflatable lifejackets that are easy and comfortable to wear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That karldufresne blog summarises the State Control factor well.It's all about State control of the population.This LJ thing will be the same as the lower breatho legislation. The effect is to punish and penalise middle NZ with an added benefit of lots of revenue from fines. Amazing that only 12% drug /alcohol road fatalities.You would think they would focus on the bigger factors.....like slow drivers who never have a crash but cause heaps and incompetence but it's too difficult to prosecute obviously. Breathe into this and you've got no argument ! Likewise LJ's .You've either got it on or you haven't. No argument. Rush your $200 to your nearest LJ tax collector.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From: http://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/recreational/safety/lifejackets/

 

"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."

 

Seems pretty clear to me.

For commercial operators there's no such law, but there is for recreational.

In respect to the recent tragedy that this post has followed, was the charter commercial or recreational?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You sure about that legal responsibility being applicable for recreational boaties only? That strikes me as "odd" at best.

 

Kaipara was a commercial vessel on a paying charter.

I simply put up the relevant sections from Maritime NZ's web site. 

 

In respect to a fishing charter being commercial, if that were the case then a fishing charter operator would need fishing quota.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a commercial fishing vessel but a commercial vessel in the sense that it's being operated for hire or reward. 

As such it must be operated under a MOSS system (in old language we'd say it's "in survey") with the master holding a commercial qualification such as a SRL or ILM / LLO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it does not specify charter/commercial fishing/recrecreational

 

 

http://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/commercial/safety/crossing-the-bar/#national_code

 

 

Loud and clear to me Skippers responsibility,Had he survived I think he would of been charged as new  as to holding a charter operators ticket.Failed to ensure safety of passengers/vessel etc,

Did he make communication with harbour master or equivalent about crossing the bar??

Link to post
Share on other sites

but but . . . . what about suicide by drowning?  Surely we all need LJ's at all times and not just when near the sea, in bath, brushing teeth, standing near water cooler, walking in the rain . . .

 

I've got a better idea - let's ban water.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you intentionally drove your car off a huge cliff into the ocean without a seatbelt or life jacket on, would the statistics say it was a fatality caused by lack of seat belt, no life jacket or suicide?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you intentionally drove your car off a huge cliff into the ocean without a seatbelt or life jacket on, would the statistics say it was a fatality caused by lack of seat belt, no life jacket or suicide?

 

If my mother-in-law was in the car as well, it'd be suicide by provocation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why there's an increased death and injury rate from people not wearing seatbelts in the last couple of years? Judging by the witty comments here I think I'm getting the picture.

really - and just what logical explanation, exactly, do you have for this?

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...