Jump to content

Another ridiculous lifejacket article


Recommended Posts

Yea true, there are buoyancy aids and there are life jackets, and they meet different standards and are for different purposes. Buoyancy aids are used for dinghy sailing, kayaking and water skiing to name a few. Is part of the compulsory life jacket discussion doing away with buoyancy aids? I sure hope not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

erice has hit the nail on the head.

Yes he has.

As a kid at Primary School, we would swim every day during the summer.

 

 

the first half of this year has seen significant decreases across many of the drowning environments and activities, particularly boatingwhich has decreased almost 70% on the half year average

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.

 

Yea true, there are buoyancy aids and there are life jackets, and they meet different standards and are for different purposes.

 

Did you all note this on th News the other night where they showed all the PI's in the Pool wearing the yellow Bouyancy aids? I immediately said to my wife, "technically they are not lifejackets and they will not give the same floatation as a lifjacket is meant to do".

For instance, lets just say the Kaipara incident was a case of them all wearing those Bouyancy aids. They wouldn't have stood a chance in Surf over a Bar wearing those things, yet these things are being accepted as Lifejackets.

(Please note: I imagine being a commercial vessel, the operator would have had to have proper Lifejackets as part of having his license to operate.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

(Please note: I imagine being a commercial vessel, the operator would have had to have proper Lifejackets as part of having his license to operate.)

Yes but the ones most would have wouldn't be much chop in rough weather. You can very easily drown while wearing a life jacket, they aren't a panacea for squat diddly bar shutting up a few happy clappies who lack sound boating knowledge. The very good all water life jackets cost too much and require to much maintenance for the commercial dudes. There are SOLAS ones, like the ones they often use that only cost $18-20 each, a good all water one is $300 plus.

 

Don't forget all the happy clappies and bureaucracy want is the ability to say to the media scrum - 'we made them wear life jackets and they were, go blame someone else'. So as long as the news shot shows a body with something life jacket looking on it, in their eyes they have done their job. 

 

Watersafe is a interesting mob. Never seen nothing from them yet they have a fleet of new heavily branded cars that would rival the number in yard of a nice size car dealer. Also they use lots of flowery la-de-do-da graphics rather then clean simple numbers, that's usually a sign someone is trying to divert your attention from something important.

  • Upvote 2
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

Just heard an interesting soundbite on Newstalk ZB news. Someone from water safe NZ talking about rock fishers being swept off and drowning, along the lines of "The only way to guarantee survival is to wear a life jacket while rock fishing".

 

That's a pretty big call to guarantee someones life....

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

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...