Mandatory Life jackets

[diver dave]

Just keep the big picture in mind. Cancer, cardiovascular, traffic accidents and if you are in school, gun shot wounds. These are the killers. And GSW is not large but is the leader[emoji30]

 

[BruceK]

It`s sad to see what should be simple opinions on how to best achieve safety without compromising enjoyment influenced by politics.
I`ve criticized our state Maritime authorities in the past and doubtless will in the future, but it`s hard to criticize the motto "No ones day on the water was ruined by wearing a lifejacket".
It may be hard for me, but I`m sure others will readily criticize, based on strongly held politicized views.

 

[Simi 60]

Queensland Australia law works for me.

Q. When is it compulsory to wear a life jacket?
A. It is compulsory to wear a life jacket:
 when crossing a designated coastal bar in an open boat that is less than 4.8 m in length
 if you are under the age of 12 in an open boat that is less than 4.8 m in length, while it is under way.

Responsible people know when they need a life jacket or when not to use their dinghy.
Let Darwinism sort out the rest.

 

[OldDan1943]

If the owner puts on a life jacket, that's a pretty big hint.

 

[Jetstream]

Queensland Australia law works for me.




Responsible people know when they need a life jacket or when not to use their dinghy.
Let Darwinism sort out the rest.

Agree 100%. The other states are really turning into Nanny states with their laws and regulations. Common sense does not seem to apply to many these days with regards safety equipment but I don't like being told what to do because of others incompetents. Maybe it me just getting old and cranky though.

 

[Gordon J]

I appreciate the sentiment, but...

It`s sad to see what should be simple opinions on how to best achieve safety without compromising enjoyment influenced by politics.
I`ve criticized our state Maritime authorities in the past and doubtless will in the future, but it`s hard to criticize the motto "No ones day on the water was ruined by wearing a lifejacket".
It may be hard for me, but I`m sure others will readily criticize, based on strongly held politicized views.

It really misses the point. It is not about ruining ones day. No ones day was ruined by not being allowed to buy a gun. No ones day as ruined because sugar was taxed at 300 percent.

My view has little to do with politics, but has to do with over reach of the government. I will not kill someone because I failed to wear a life jacket. I am only a POTENTIAL danger to myself. I am guessing that the odds of significant personal injury or death are greater every time I get in a car than they are of drowning because I failed to wear a life jacket in my dinghy.

Simply, the law exists because there are too few of us to raise a ruckus.

 

[BruceK]

Good grief, now guns are involved! It`s definitely political.

 

[D.Duck44]

In NSW Australia we have lifejacket laws as mentioned above. For the most part I ignore them. The idea of wearing a jacket to row out a short distance to our boat through a few moorings is stupid.
I much prefer to use my own judgement backed by over 50 years of experience.
On the other hand, laws like these may protect the silly and the inexperienced, so they may not be altogether bad.

 

[AusCan]

I prefer to use my own judgement as well, and in this case the new rules align with my judgement fairly well. Maybe not perfectly, but closer than I expected.

I agree with DDuck. The new laws may get a few newbies to ensure their 8 & 10yo kids wear a PFD when on the bow of the boat. I see that as a good thing.

A life or two may be saved, and it hasn't really been an imposition on anyone. Why would I want to "raise a ruckus" over that?

 

[Benthic2]

Since the members here take boating fairly seriously, and spend considerable resources enjoying it, it's probably a fairly sensible crowd.

You want some fun ? Grab a sandwich and go sit at a public boat ramp on a holiday weekend. I've seen people fall in trying to tie up the boat, pull away from the trailer without putting drain plug in, leaving the boat strapped to the trailer and wondering why they can't back up, and having a boat float away with no one aboard.

Common sense isn't all that common, and some people need to be told things that come naturally to others.

In fact, isn't that idea really the basis behind most laws ? Most people know you can't drive a car on the sidewalk, steal your neighbors stuff, or commit murder.....but we have laws against those things, and they would probably happen more often if we didn't.

 

[psneeld]

Being told the danger exists is different than mandating habit changes.

Being "told" is what the mandatory boating safety certificate requirements are all about...not laws telling people exactly when and where a life jacket should be worn.

So far, PFD laws in the US have been reasonable, and still could have a few more times jackets could be mandatory, but easy laws are often sweeping and that is just poor legilation and poor leadership.

 

[OldDan1943]

Being told the danger exists is different than mandating habit changes.

Being "told" is what the mandatory boating safety certificate requirements are all about...not laws telling people exactly when and where a life jacket should be worn.

So far, PFD laws in the US have been reasonable, and still could have a few more times jackets could be mandatory, but easy laws are often sweeping and that is just poor legilation and poor leadership.

I am not advocating requirement to wear PFDs but, with the advent of wearable USCG approved automatic inflating PFDs the inconvenience is greatly reduced. IMO

Remember how inconvenient the first seat belts were?

 

[psneeld]

While I dont disagree that life are more comfy these days....

I just dont compare life jackets with seat belts or helmets.

People can argue that they are all you want but the differences are so great in the way they work, I cant believe people are using them as examples.

Maybe just the fact that people get used to safety laws, but to me the similarity ends there.

Do they save lives? Probably, but the real numbers are hard to prove that wearing one actually saved a life at all, let alone having it on at a certain time also was critical.

 

[OldDan1943]

While I dont disagree that life are more comfy these days....

I just dont compare life jackets with seat belts or helmets.

You can argue that they are all you want but the differences are so great in the way they work, I cant believe people are using them as examples.

Maybe just the fact that people get used to safety laws, but to me the similarity ends there.

I dont know for sure because I have never experienced it but, I suspect one would might get very lonely out in the ocean without a PFD while watching the boat disappear over the horizon. I would want at least 6 of my 'closest friends' (6 PFDs) with me. They would make it easier to spot me. I guess that is why I have an auto release offshore auto release and inflation raft and an auto release EPIRB . But they are only good if the boat sinks.

 

[psneeld]

You made my point.

How many sinkings involved deaths because people could not get a life jacket on? No one knows....no do they know how many have abandoned shipbwithout a PFD, but could have. so the stats are pretty meaningless beyond having them aboard...a current requirement. On top of all that, look at vessel types and activities, more monkey wrenches in defensible conclusions.

If my boat sailed away from me, I am not sure which I would rather have, a PLB or a PFD. So make PLBs mandatory too.

 

[Bay Pelican]

The rules which have been cited are similar to those applied on Bay Pelican. Noted exception in daylight when lifting anchor in the normal calm harbor with boats every 100 feet I do not wear a life jacket at the bow. Nor do I wear a life jacket when I install the bridle after dropping anchor.

 

[Benthic2]

..... so the stats are pretty meaningless beyond having them aboard....

the stats seem pretty solid to me.

in 2016 they were:

Where cause of death was known, 80% of fatal boating accident victims drowned. Of those drowning victims with reported life jacket usage, 83% were not wearing a life jacket.

I think the statistics are even more compelling because there were life jacket wearers who died from hypothermia so that skews the stats a little. However, I'm sure they would have died from drowning if they hadn't had their jackets on.

 

[jftr88]

Being x coast guard , damage controlman , i always put mine on when the water started coming over the bow and the sides of the boat from the weather we were in , that is a pretty good hint i would say. Shoulda maybe put it on earlier but i spent 99.9 percent of my time below decks keeping the water on the proper side of the boat.

 

[psneeld]

the stats seem pretty solid to me.

in 2016 they were:

Where cause of death was known, 80% of fatal boating accident victims drowned. Of those drowning victims with reported life jacket usage, 83% were not wearing a life jacket.

I think the statistics are even more compelling because there were life jacket wearers who died from hypothermia so that skews the stats a little. However, I'm sure they would have died from drowning if they hadn't had their jackets on.

You cant be sure and no one can whether hypothermia would have killed them any more than having or not having a jacket on.

Also the details of where and how those stats were compiled is really debateable...as I was one that supplied/monitored/ was responsible for thousands of those stats entered into the system through the years.

Nope, cant convince a person who lived through compiling those stats, supplied many of them and was highly trained to decipher them ....nope, they are anything but compelling.

So tell me, just why were 83 percent not wearing a jacket, what type of boat, what activity and why werent they wearing one?

I doubt anyone can answer those nevessary wuestions to even begin to understand the issue.

 

[OldDan1943]

I suspect most of that 83% were in smaller, open boats.
If one is inside an closed up boat, drowning is not the problem so long as water tight integrity is maintained. We would perhaps experience head wounds and broken bones but, we'd be dry and we would discover all those things that are not properly stowed.

 

[psneeld]

I suspect most of that 83% were in smaller, open boats.
If one is inside an closed up boat, drowning is not the problem so long as water tight integrity is maintained. We would perhaps experience head wounds and broken bones but, we'd be dry and we would discover all those things that are not properly stowed.

Just one of many possible scenarios that the stats never address fully.....

 

[markpierce]

Depends on circumstances, no? On cruise ships, passengers wear life jackets in preparation for abandoning the ship, and most always just for practice. Crew wear them when operating 30-foot tenders as they spend time on the boats' exteriors which have hand-grabs but no railings or decks. I rarely wear one unless single-handed since I'm blessed with wide decks and high railings while spending most all the time in the pilothouse.

 

[Gordon J]

This means nothing

the stats seem pretty solid to me.

in 2016 they were:

Where cause of death was known, 80% of fatal boating accident victims drowned. Of those drowning victims with reported life jacket usage, 83% were not wearing a life jacket.

I think the statistics are even more compelling because there were life jacket wearers who died from hypothermia so that skews the stats a little. However, I'm sure they would have died from drowning if they hadn't had their jackets on.

Serval years ago I read a report about speed in this relationship to fatal accidents. I don’t recall the exact details now But the figures were horrific. It was clear that driving fast would lead to an early expiration.

However, a reporter looked at all of the reports that fed into the statistical data base and came up with a different story. Apparently, at the time, Police attributed accidents to a primary, secondary, or tertiary reason. Oddly enough almost every accident was attributed to access speed. So, someone suddenly find them self on a patch of sheet ice going 15 miles an hour and falling off a cliff would be attributed to excess speed. What is speed the cause of the Fidelity or was it the sheet ice that suddenly appeared. Clearly speed played a role but was not the cause of the accident.

Well I am a big believer that statistics can teach us a lot, I think one has to look at more than the gross data to really understand. Buried in the Center for disease control‘s numbers on Boating gas, a mirror 330 or so a year, is a lot of data that we do not understand. Blaming the all these deaths on wearing or not wearing a life jacket is fairly simplistic.

I maintain, that I am the best judge of when it is necessary to wear a life jacket. No one. Not anyone. Is a better judge of that than me. To think that I would have to stand before a judge for exercising my superior judgment is beyond belief. I believe lifejackets have a place. I have used them many times. But I do not have to be told when or how to use them. How do you think that I would be fined because of some long which thinks it has better idea of the situation that I have is incredible to me.

I believe lifejackets have a place. I have used them many times. But I do not have to be told when or how to use them. I do think that I would be fined because of some long which thinks it has better idea of the situation that I have is incredible to me.

Call me jaded but I think if people are not smart enough to wear lifejackets when they onto then let them drown.

 

[Gordon J]

Let’s get this straight

Depends on circumstances, no? On cruise ships, passengers wear life jackets in preparation for abandoning the ship, and most always just for practice. Crew wear them when operating 30-foot tenders as they spend time on the boats' exteriors which have hand-grabs but no railings or decks. I rarely wear one unless single-handed since I'm blessed with wide decks and high railings while spending most all the time in the pilothouse

Crews on cruise ships wear life jackets because of insurance requirements. Next time you go through great bridge lock in Virginia you can be amused at the folks who take your lines are also required to wear jackets even though they are on land. They know it’s stupid so do you and I. Bureaucrats rule!

 

[aboatman]

Next time you go through great bridge lock in Virginia you can be amused at the folks who take your lines are also required to wear jackets even though they are on land. They know it’s stupid so do you and I. Bureaucrats rule!

They are required to wear life jackets because they can easily fall into the water. I assume the workers know how to swim but jumping into the water and unexpectedly falling into the water are two different things.

Some of the more responsible parents make their young children wear life jackets before going on the dock at my marina.

 

[dhays]

I don’t enjoy wearing PFDs but I do whenever I think it is prudent. Unlike our extreme libertarian friends, I am not bothered by laws requiring PFD usage anymore than I am bothered by laws requiring seat belt usage in cars.

Like Gordon, I will continue to use use PFDs whenever I deem them prudent. Unlike Gordon I will also happily wear PFDs when required by law.

 

[aboatman]

Se.................. Call me jaded but I think if people are not smart enough to wear lifejackets when they onto then let them drown.

What about children? Should they drown because their parents are not smart enough to require them to wear PFDs?

 

[psneeld]

What about children? Should they drown because their parents are not smart enough to require them to wear PFDs?

Children are required to wear them ..but then again, my kids below the required age were smarter, more sober, better swimmers and better at survival than many of my adult boating friends.

And they were under the watchful eyes of someone long involved with water safety and survival.

So while I am not against kids being forced to wear them, I am strongly against much more nanny state intrusion as it isnt fair to the smart and careful.

And believe me, i can make a case for many regulations to make us all miserable all the time.

 

[Gordon J]

I was waiting for this

What about children? Should they drown because their parents are not smart enough to require them to wear PFDs?

Any time you want to win an argument, all one must do is bring up the poor children. Sentimentallity beats facts any time, at least in our country. I guess that I don’t see my self as being in a position to pass judgement on those “not smart enough”. I have seen this comment a couple of times in this forum on this subject, that we are smarter than others and can best decide for them. If we are going to start passing laws to protect children from any potential harm caused by parents, we better get busy, because the list is surely long.

 

[BruceK]

Of course you were. Making children safer? How silly! Let `em drown, eh Gordon?
I`d prefer this subject was discussed based on commonsense and safety. Unlike my first sentence, raised in irony for effect. And Gordon,fixing just one issue out of many, is still an achievement.
Discussion based on preserving perceived personal freedom clouds the issue with irrelevant considerations. If personal freedom outweighs safety and life for some so be it, but leave the less libertarian masses with less than perfect judgement to follow the advice of regulatory authorities.