Jump to content

Compulsory lifejackets


Guest

Recommended Posts

This just arrived in my inbox

 

 

National Pleasure Boat Safety Forum

PO Box 27006

Wellington 6141

New Zealand

 

 

17 June 2013

 

Hon Gerry Brownlee

Minister of Transport

Parliament Buildings

 

 

Dear Minister

Compulsory Wearing of Lifejackets on Pleasure Craft

Purpose

The National Pleasure Boat Safety Forum seeks your support for the introduction of a maritime rule making the wearing of lifejackets compulsory on board under 6 metre pleasure craft.

Summary

• There is a long history to the question of making the wearing of lifejackets compulsory and it continues to be a topic of considerable interest to all those involved in boating safety.

• Currently, maritime rules make it compulsory to carry lifejackets on board pleasure craft under 6 metres in length, but wearing them is at the discretion of the skipper if he/she considers that the safety risk is high.

• The majority of boating related deaths continue to occur in circumstances where it is apparent that a lifejacket could have prevented the death.

• The Forum urges you to support a requirement that wearing lifejackets is compulsory unless the skipper considers the safety risk is low.

• There are many forms of lifejacket available that are specifically designed to reduce discomfort or interference with different recreational boating activities.

• Such a change will not require people to wear lifejackets in circumstances where they are not necessary.

• No additional costs will be incurred by boat owners, as lifejackets already have to be a carried on board

• A change to compulsory wearing will reinforce all of the other initiatives that have been put in place to try and reduce the continuing tragedies associated with avoidable deaths in the recreational boating area.

Background

The National Pleasure Boat Safety Forum represents a wide cross section of national and regional agencies involved in promoting recreational boating safety in New Zealand (membership list attached). The purpose of the Forum is to work together to develop and implement a common safety strategy for New Zealand, ensuring that the best use is made of the limited resources that are available. Maritime NZ supports the Forum and helps to coordinate its activities.

In 2007, the National Pleasure Boat Safety Forum reviewed the National Pleasure Boat Safety Strategy and recommended that it be made mandatory for lifejackets to be worn on all pleasure craft under 6 metres in length, unless the skipper considers the safety risk to be low. With around 70% of all fatalities being avoidable if lifejackets were worn, the Forum believed that compulsory wearing would be an important contributor to a reduction in the annual boating toll.

The current maritime rule, introduced in 2003, makes it compulsory to only carry lifejackets on board pleasure craft, with the skipper having to ensure they are worn if the safety risk is high.

Since the introduction of the rule, Maritime NZ has led, on behalf of the Forum, a series of national safety awareness campaigns that have targeted the carriage and wearing of lifejackets. These campaigns, together with the safety programmes of Forum members, have seen both the carriage and wearing of lifejackets by recreational boaties increase markedly over the last 10 years.

With the Government having last year confirmed ongoing funding of $0.93 million a year for the safety awareness campaign programme, the Forum is confident that this achievement can be sustained.

However, despite this success, the number of drownings that are occurring where lifejackets are not being worn remains stubbornly high, and it continues to be the single most important factor contributing to the annual boating toll.

Why hasn’t a national rule been introduced?

In 2010, Maritime NZ responded to the National Forum’s recommendation to introduce compulsory lifejacket wearing legislation for under 6 metre craft by drawing up a draft maritime rule for public consultation. At around the same time, the Government provided an additional $1.93 million to Maritime NZ over two years to fund a national safety awareness campaign centred primarily on the wearing of lifejackets.

When considering the draft rule, the Minister of Transport asked that more evidence be gathered on the likely benefits of making lifejacket wearing compulsory, particularly in light of the benefits that could be expected to accrue from the new safety awareness campaign funding.

How would a national rule help?

Maritime NZ research since 2010 shows that, while safety awareness campaigns over the last 10 years have been successful in increasing the number of boaties wearing lifejackets, failure to wear lifejackets is still a significant factor in the boating toll, as noted above.

In the three year period between June 2009 and June 2012, an average of 17 people a year died in recreational boating accidents (51 in total). The majority of these drowned, and only a handful were wearing lifejackets. Had everyone been wearing a lifejacket, the toll would have been much lower.

The Forum believes that more can be done to address the problem and is firmly of the view that making lifejacket wearing compulsory on under 6 metre craft will provide the impetus that is needed.

Changing entrenched attitudes and behaviour around wearing lifejackets requires a sustained effort over a long period of time, particularly when a large section of the target audience is male, aged 40 and over, who have been boating for a number of years.

A national rule would complement the safety awareness and education programmes by working to change the perception that lifejackets need only be worn when the safety risk appears high, to an expectation that lifejackets will be worn and only taken off if the safety risk is very low.

As has been demonstrated with seatbelts and cycle helmets, a combination of legislation, enforcement and ongoing education has been very effective in changing behaviour.

And with lifejackets carriage already a mandatory requirement, no additional costs would be incurred by the boating community if wearing was to be made compulsory.

The Forum is confident that, collectively, a national lifejacket wearing rule, ongoing safety education and an effective compliance programme will build on the gains in lifejacket wearing that have been made in recent years and further reduce the number of New Zealanders who are drowning as a result of boating accidents.

How would the boating community react?

While there are some boaties who will not support making the wearing of lifejackets compulsory, the vast majority are likely to do so. This is especially the case where skippers can choose not to wear them if the safety risk is considered low. It will also ensure that enforcement agencies (such as Maritime NZ and Regional Councils) do not go overboard in the application of the rule – there would be no reason to take action where a skipper was able to explain reasonably how risks were being managed in the absence of wearing a lifejacket.

Maritime NZ and the Forum would provide boaties with guidance to support good decision making about when it might be acceptable to take a lifejacket off.

When Maritime NZ consulted on a draft maritime rule in 2010, over 70% supported making the wearing of lifejackets in small craft mandatory.

A number of regional councils have already introduced bylaws mandating the wearing of lifejackets, with very little opposition. And while the Forum supports the introduction of these bylaws, members are concerned that they only cover parts of the country and introduce regional differences in terms of when and what boaties are required to wear lifejackets. This can lead to confusion among boaties, many of whom move between regions, and make it harder to get the safety message across to them.

A maritime rule would help to provide both consistency and nation-wide coverage.

Review of the National Pleasure Boat Safety Strategy

The Forum has initiated a review of the current National Recreational Boating Safety Strategy, during which the proposal to make the wearing of lifejackets compulsory on small recreational craft will no doubt come up.

While this review is scheduled to be completed towards the end of this year, Forum members do not expect that their support for the introduction of a nation-wide maritime rule making the wearing of lifejackets on small recreational craft compulsory will change, as the failure to wear lifejackets continues to be the most significant factor contributing to the annual boating toll.

The Forum therefore asks that you consider the introduction of a maritime rule making the wearing of lifejackets on under 6 metre boats compulsory in time for the next summer boating season.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Lindsay Sturt

Chairman

National Pleasure Boat Safety Forum

 

National Pleasure Boat Safety Forum Membership

 

Maritime New Zealand (Chair)

Accident Compensation Corporation

Auckland Council Harbourmaster’s Office

Auckland Police Maritime Unit

Coastguard Boating Education

Coastguard New Zealand

Kiwi Association of Sea Kayakers

New Zealand Marine

Ministry of Transport

New Zealand Fishing News

New Zealand Jet Sports Boating Association

New Zealand Search and Rescue Secretariat

New Zealand Underwater

New Zealand Waka Ama

Queenstown Lakes District Harbourmaster

Surf Lifesaving New Zealand

Waikato Regional Council

Water Safety New Zealand

Wellington Regional Council Harbourmaster

Yachting New Zealand

 

NOTE:

Representatives from the NZ Jet Sports Boating Association, Coastguard New Zealand, New Zealand Underwater, New Zealand Waka Ama and the Ministry of Transport were not present at the Forum meeting on 9 May 2013 during which the Forum resolved to write to the Minister of Transport seeking his support for the introduction of a maritime rule making the wearing of lifejackets on under 6 metre boats compulsory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in Oz, legislation dosnt mention low risk.....rather high risk...

That is, anytime after dark, crossing a bar, while solo, and in inclimate weather. (or below a certain age)

On small craft, life jackets are compulsory all the time.

On larger only while exsposed (as in , in the cockpit or on deck)...

I only mention this because it will probably have something to do with the NZ legislation. (looking over their shoulders).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad i'm not a politician having to read letters like that

Might have another go at reading it sometime but it would go to the bottom of the pile on my desk.

How many of the total drownings were from boats under 6mtrs and the cause was solely that no life jacket was worn.

The parties that would be good to support the case were not present, poor planning or deliberate

Can see a debate starting here for lawyers when it is "up to the skipper" half of them would have no idea

Link to post
Share on other sites

This really annoys me. The most we use the inflatable for is to go walking ashore and that means being away for several hours. Leaving around $400 to $500 of lifejackets to be weathered by the elements or stolen will make me very uneasy - pissed off in fact. Already we are meant to have them in the dinghy I know but haven't bothered to date. If we go fishing or head into rough weather then we use them, not in flat calm water in an unsinkable boat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and another point, 6mtr boat you're less likely to drown.

 

Thats why some over the past year have been re-branding their boats so they are now 6mtrs. same boat same length but now a 6mtr.

 

so mr coastguard and national pleasure how does that work, much the same as a shoe size, depends which country you buy it in as every manufacturer has a different tape.

 

But, this was one of the reasons why i brought a boat over 6mtrs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh... all seems to reflect a fundamental belief that people must not be allowed to make decisions and bear the consequences themselves.

 

It will also ensure that enforcement agencies (such as Maritime NZ and Regional Councils) do not go overboard in the application of the rule – there would be no reason to take action where a skipper was able to explain reasonably how risks were being managed in the absence of wearing a lifejacket.

In other words, discretion would be transformed from being a skipper's right to decide autonomously what they think is appropriate to a bureaucrat's right to decide whether or not they'll prosecute, with the skipper's responsibility now being to 'explain' their decision to said bureaucrat.

 

I'm sure many will think this is perfectly reasonable, but I find it just a little bit sad. But then maybe I'm just one of those problematic people who definitely can't be trusted -

male, aged 40 and over, who have been boating for a number of years
who don't like being told what to do. And proud of it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

*IF* (and it's a big IF) that is adopted as-written ("unless the skipper considers the safety risk is low")... then

(a) it's of no consequence to us and

(B) it will have absolutely NO effect on the actual target group

Link to post
Share on other sites
It will also ensure that enforcement agencies (such as Maritime NZ and Regional Councils) do not go overboard in the application of the rule – there would be no reason to take action where a skipper was able to explain reasonably how risks were being managed in the absence of wearing a lifejacket.

In other words, discretion would be transformed from being a skipper's right to decide autonomously what they think is appropriate to a bureaucrat's right to decide whether or not they'll prosecute, with the skipper's responsibility now being to 'explain' their decision to said bureaucrat.

Hmmm. Someone drowns while not wearing a lifejacket in my boat, in circumstances where a lifejacket would have saved them, then explaining my decision to a bureaucrat will be the absolute LEAST of my issues.

 

EDITED: I should have read the original quote a bit better... true, God help us: The harbour police. Hadn't thought of that. Yuck, yuck, yuck :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

By their own admission though, making the wearing of lifejackets compulsory will not eliminate drowning altogether. They talk about the numbers of people who drowned "many of whom were not wearing lifejackets". So .... that means that some were wearing lifejackets and they still drowned. So .... what makes them think that compulsory lifejacket wearing is actually the answer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still can't see how the request is adamant for the Compulsory wearing of life jacket on one front, then gives an out for the skipper - a contradiction. Also doesn't this really just mirror the current legislation which still leaves it for the skipper?

 

Having been part of the safety forum in a previous life, I can say that at that time they were practical and listened to reason however the pressure was always on from the minority.

 

And it is hard to argue against any safety message.

 

 

I feel that many of the current member groups have a vested interest in pushing such ideals as delivery of the messages, safety/education campaigns and lobbying is their reason for being and gives them a good case for grants, subsidies and donations to "deliver" the messages.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting to see YNZ as a signatory
The same way many do when they say things out loud. It happens all day everyday in all aspects of life.

 

1 - If we say nothing what happens? - We look like we don't care, that's knot a good look.

2 - If we say it's knot the best idea what happens? - We look like we don't care and/or are very self interested, that's knot a good look.

3 - If we agree what happens? - We look like we care, that is a good look.

4 - But do we really agree with it? - That doesn't matter as much as looking good does.

 

I'm knot saying that's YNZ's specific train of thought though, they may indeed see it as a good thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The letter states 51 fatalities in the last three years. Is there breakdown of these? I can't see this stoping the over laden tinnies we all see out there, which I suspect make up a lot of these numbers.

What is the corresponding total for all drowning s, again broken down to river, sea, lake, boat, swimming? I am sure google will have these answers but I think mr t, you have nailed it as to why these organisations back this letter, but don't address other issues?

A hypothetical question for the lawyers: a small dinghy(tender) is hooning around a bay, lets say these are 15 year old kids, as you often see, who is the skipper? The helmsman or the Riv 60 dad? Who is responsible to assess the risk?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm. Someone drowns while not wearing a lifejacket in my boat, in circumstances where a lifejacket would have saved them, then explaining my decision to a bureaucrat will be the absolute LEAST of my issues.

 

 

more likely to be explaining it to a judge in that circumstance I would have though

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...