Mandatory Life jackets

Benthic2 said:

really !?!?!

I know your particular boat is safe because you have a ton of training and experience....but if you compare the average mid size trawler/cabin cruiser with a cruise ship, its not even close. Cruise ships run 24/7/365 with thousands of passengers....I can't even venture to guess but the passenger miles travelled is in the Billions.....and deaths are exceedingly rare. Even with a major disaster like the Costa Concordia, less than 3 dozen people died. Over 700 recreational boaters died in 2016 alone.

I'm not saying that you are unsafe or reckless...but privately owned boats controlled by average citizens, are no where near as safe as a cruise ship.

Click to expand...

So I should be forced to abide because of the sins of others?

And no, there is a chance of disaster on any boat or ship, so all should comply. Safety is safety.

There are seatbelts in small AND large airplanes including lifejackets on airliners....how safe are they?

Sorry, but mandating lifejackets be worn at all times on other than small craft is just too intrusive...or make it mandatory for all vessels to show just how silly it really is.

The new rules mentioned by AusCan are pretty much what we do already so I have no quarrel with them. In fact for some guests legal rules help compliance.

Here in Canada we have a couple of rules that I'll mention that may or may not make sense.

1) Whereas there must be enough life jackets on board for all persons on board, inflatable lifejackets only count if they are actually being worn. (I.e., if the Coast Guard stops you for an inspection, you'd better be wearing that inflatable if that's all you've got.)

2) There are no approved lifejackets for children under 20 pounds.

I don't think anyone is suggesting PFD's be required all the time.

The OP said all the time in very small boats, then just in certain situations on larger boats.

I was taking exception to your comment that you are as safe on your boat as on a cruise ship.

Conrad said:

....Here in Canada we have a couple of rules that I'll mention that may or may not make sense.

1) Whereas there must be enough life jackets on board for all persons on board, inflatable lifejackets only count if they are actually being worn. (I.e., if the Coast Guard stops you for an inspection, you'd better be wearing that inflatable if that's all you've got.)

2) There are no approved lifejackets for children under 20 pounds.

Click to expand...

There was a suggestion inflatables only counted as PFDs if inflated, otherwise they were not a PFD. I corresponded with (Roads &) Maritime, they ruled inflatables need not be inflated to comply.
I guess the CG rationale is something other than putting on the inflatable has to be done before it functions as a PFD, so you`d better be wearing it.

Benthic2 said:

I don't think anyone is suggesting PFD's be required all the time.

The OP said all the time in very small boats, then just in certain situations on larger boats.

I was taking exception to your comment that you are as safe on your boat as on a cruise ship.

Click to expand...

It is exactly what a lot of people want including some in the USCG.

And we already have a prorated set of situations where they are required.

So the discussion of more regulation in the US would have to again be very specific and stay away from mandatory all the time on all smaller vessels to get support from me.

Better they madate other safety gear in more situations.....such as anchors and vhfs and plbs.....etc, etc..... that as a former rescue guy canvwrap my head around.

But then, I find that there are plenty of situations where those items are not really needed so without careful wording, it too can be way overreaching by government safty goobers.

BruceK said:

There was a suggestion inflatables only counted as PFDs if inflated, otherwise they were not a PFD. I corresponded with (Roads &) Maritime, they ruled inflatables need not be inflated to comply.
I guess the CG rationale is something other than putting on the inflatable has to be done before it functions as a PFD, so you`d better be wearing it.

Click to expand...

A couple years ago I decided to get inflatables for my wife and me. Researching different brands, I found some that were acceptable as PFDs when not worn and others that were not. I can't explain why that is but I checked with the manufacturer and they were approved so those are the ones I bought.

The new rules described seem very realistic and practical. I know that some of our more libertarian leaning folks get upset by any rule that restrict their behavior, but those PFD rules seem sensible and relatively non-intrusive.

aboatman said:

A couple years ago I decided to get inflatables for my wife and me. Researching different brands, I found some that were acceptable as PFDs when not worn and others that were not. I can't explain why that is but I checked with the manufacturer and they were approved so those are the ones I bought.

Click to expand...

The ones that are acceptable when not worn have some inherent bouancy built in. They are a sort of hybrid regular PFD and inflatable. They are bulkier than straight inflatables.

HopCar said:

The ones that are acceptable when not worn have some inherent bouancy built in. They are a sort of hybrid regular PFD and inflatable. They are bulkier than straight inflatables.

Click to expand...

They look and feel like "straight inflatables". The Coast Guard Auxiliary folks who inspect my boat each spring have inspected them but never said they don't count. If I knew the brand I would post it but they are on the boat and I am not.

I also have the traditional bulky PFDs on my boat but not quite "readily accessible". If I have guests on board I get them out to where they are "readily accessible.

aboatman said:

They look and feel like "straight inflatables". The Coast Guard Auxiliary folks who inspect my boat each spring have inspected them but never said they don't count. If I knew the brand I would post it but they are on the boat and I am not.

I also have the traditional bulky PFDs on my boat but not quite "readily accessible". If I have guests on board I get them out to where they are "readily accessible.

Click to expand...

If the hybrid jackets are as comfortable as the straight inflatable, go for it. They probably have two ratings, Type V and Type III. The Type III means it has about 15 pounds buoyancy when not inflated. That's a good thing to my way of thinking.

How much flotation is provided by any PFD not worn? Rediculous that inflatables are not counted if not worn but non-inflatables are.

I had always assumed that a regular PFD could be just held onto and would provide bouyancy if you grabbed it when you were in the water, while an inflatable is not actively bouyant until its ripcord is pulled, which might be hard to do in a high stress situation.

Benthic2 said:

I had always assumed that a regular PFD could be just held onto and would provide bouyancy if you grabbed it when you were in the water, while an inflatable is not actively bouyant until its ripcord is pulled, which might be hard to do in a high stress situation.

Click to expand...

A few seconds difference in it being of use and that could be critical.

Don’t always require deployment

My harnesses deploy automatically when dunked in water. They do not require me to pull a handle or otherwise make it decision to deploy.

I have to say, that this kind of thing makes my teeth hurt. I do not think it is anyone’s business if I decide to kill myself. Whether I decide to wear a life jacket or not is simply no one else’s business. It is my life to do with as I see fit and no one else’s.

I am currently in the Bahamas and do not wear a life jacket when in my 12 foot dinghy. Yes I could fall out. The dinghy could come back around and hit me in the head. Life is full of risk and there are no guarantees. Perhaps we need police on every street corner watching every pedestrian so they don’t cross the street when it is unsafe. Where do we draw the line?

Should I really be fined for not wearing a seatbelt? Seems a little stupid to me. My fine will come when I have an accident and I’m not wearing one. I don’t need the mommy police Running around trying to enforce a law to make me safe. I think seatbelts are a great thing and would not drive a car without everyone on. I also think that with my swimming ability wearing a life jacket and a dinging in a harbor is a little stupid. I am capable of making this decision.

Gordon J said:

My harnesses deploy automatically when dunked in water. They do not require me to pull a handle or otherwise make it decision to deploy.

I have to say, that this kind of thing makes my teeth hurt. I do not think it is anyone’s business if I decide to kill myself. Whether I decide to wear a life jacket or not is simply no one else’s business. It is my life to do with as I see fit and no one else’s.

I am currently in the Bahamas and do not wear a life jacket when in my 12 foot dinghy. Yes I could fall out. The dinghy could come back around and hit me in the head. Life is full of risk and there are no guarantees. Perhaps we need police on every street corner watching every pedestrian so they don’t cross the street when it is unsafe. Where do we draw the line?

Should I really be fined for not wearing a seatbelt? Seems a little stupid to me. My fine will come when I have an accident and I’m not wearing one. I don’t need the mommy police Running around trying to enforce a law to make me safe. I think seatbelts are a great thing and would not drive a car without everyone on. I also think that with my swimming ability wearing a life jacket and a dinging in a harbor is a little stupid. I am capable of making this decision.

Click to expand...

So, I'm assuming you don't carry life insurance and have no family depending on you for us to worry about? And your friends won't miss you?

We have laws to keep people safe because all of society ends up paying for deaths. It starts with life insurance premiums. It includes both private and government programs to assist survivors both financially and mentally.

Do you know how much we, society, end up paying on motorcyclists who choose not to wear helmets? Sometimes the hospital bills exceed a million dollars. Families suffer. Other drivers have their lives damaged severely by being in a fatal accident even if not their fault. Only one good thing comes out of it and that is organs for transplant if the families decide to pull the plugs and donate.

There is both a financial and emotional cost to society. Protecting people from themselves is part of it.

Yes, you should be fined for not wearing a seatbelt. That risk you're taking can cost every other car owner as the cost of a fatal accident. We're all tied together in many ways. I'm glad others in society have seen the wisdom that has protected me from myself and my possible stupidity. Without the seat belt laws, I might never have. Without stronger auto doors, we'd all be in greater danger. If we were allowed to build cars a couple of thousand dollars cheaper but unsafe, they'd sell and we'd all be hurt by it.

A Policeman on every corner to protect pedestrians? Not in most places. However, in Vegas they are stationed just for that purpose because Vegas had the highest rate of jaywalker deaths of any city in the country by far. People get distracted by all the lights and entertainment and so many areas to walk around, the street just sort of catches them asleep. I've seen it and I've seen a policeman grab a woman about to cross without looking or thinking.

Sure....if you want to kill yourself, go ahead...but what if you don't quite succeed and end up in an ICU for months on end and a multi-million dollar hospital bill ? Society has to pay for that, so society gets to do what it can to prevent that from happening....ie: require seatbelts, helmets, life jackets, smoke detectors, trigger locks, electric/building codes, etc. Everyone will have a different opinion as to how far to the left or right on the continuum is justifiable but that's the theory anyway.

I should have waited a second....B&B said it much more eloquently than I did.

Benthic2 said:

I should have waited a second....B&B said it much more eloquently than I did.

Click to expand...

I thought you said it well.

Something I learnt from a sailor with over 40 Sydney-Hobart races to his credit. An inflatable PFD must be the top garment, there should be no clothing, like a jacket over it, so it can inflate unrestrained. Otherwise part of the inflation is against the body and constricting. My sailor friend took a knife and "stabbed" through the clothing to stop the inflation compressing the body.

You missed the point

BandB said:

So, I'm assuming you don't carry life insurance and have no family depending on you for us to worry about? And your friends won't miss you?

We have laws to keep people safe because all of society ends up paying for deaths. It starts with life insurance premiums. It includes both private and government programs to assist survivors both financially and mentally.

Do you know how much we, society, end up paying on motorcyclists who choose not to wear helmets? Sometimes the hospital bills exceed a million dollars. Families suffer. Other drivers have their lives damaged severely by being in a fatal accident even if not their fault. Only one good thing comes out of it and that is organs for transplant if the families decide to pull the plugs and donate.

There is both a financial and emotional cost to society. Protecting people from themselves is part of it.

Yes, you should be fined for not wearing a seatbelt. That risk you're taking can cost every other car owner as the cost of a fatal accident. We're all tied together in many ways. I'm glad others in society have seen the wisdom that has protected me from myself and my possible stupidity. Without the seat belt laws, I might never have. Without stronger auto doors, we'd all be in greater danger. If we were allowed to build cars a couple of thousand dollars cheaper but unsafe, they'd sell and we'd all be hurt by it.

A Policeman on every corner to protect pedestrians? Not in most places. However, in Vegas they are stationed just for that purpose because Vegas had the highest rate of jaywalker deaths of any city in the country by far. People get distracted by all the lights and entertainment and so many areas to walk around, the street just sort of catches them asleep. I've seen it and I've seen a policeman grab a woman about to cross without looking or thinking.

Click to expand...

I have life insurance because I chose to buy it. It is not compulsory. If we are going to mandate safety because of the potential cost to society there are a lot more low hanging fruit than life jackets. The list could be quite long starting with cigarettes, alcohol, sugary foods, all of which kill magnitudes more people than failure to wear life jackets. And. Let’s not even think about guns?

The CDC says that between 2005 and 2014, 332 people per year are killed in boating related accidents. It would be interesting to parse the data and understand how many died because they were not wearing life jackets.

THE ONLY reason that a mandatory life jacket law would probably pass is because the number of people who are impacted by the law is so small. 98 percent of society could care less about boating safety.

So let’s not get wrapped up in the safety flag and talk about the cost to society. No one writing legislation cares about this except for the agencies charged with writing regulations. Somewhere, improving boater safety will appear on some bureaucrats resume.

Have you ever asked yourself about driving speed limits? Why not 45 mph? Why do some states have 75 mph and others 65? Who is to say what speed is safe enough?

So let’s see, in my 12 foot rib I must carry life jackets for every passenger, a throwable flotation device, and carry a sound making device, I don’t think a whistle counts. Oh, and don’t forget a white stern light, which is more hindrance than help as it destroys my night vision. All this is mandated because of the cost to society.

I could not imagine riding a motorcycle without a helmet. But I think it should be my choice.

That Las Vegas chooses to keep people from getting run over is more about the number of drunks and wanting to ensure that the casinos get very dollar from the tourists instead of the hospitals.

I hope all who wave the safety flags are wearing seat belts while astride their high horses.

Been a highly trained, senior safety officer.

Some safety rules are outstanding, some just feel goodies to shut some wanker or group up.

Not all rules should apply all the time either.

Like the guy who wears a safety harness on deck versus a person who does not. The risk management in either case is not perfect, but one greatly offsets the other. And this is where safety legislation by committee falls flat on its often unreasonable face.

BruceK said:

Something I learnt from a sailor with over 40 Sydney-Hobart races to his credit. An inflatable PFD must be the top garment, there should be no clothing, like a jacket over it, so it can inflate unrestrained. Otherwise part of the inflation is against the body and constricting. My sailor friend took a knife and "stabbed" through the clothing to stop the inflation compressing the body.

Click to expand...

Reading the directions would have avoided this. It's almost common sense if you think about it.

aboatman said:

Reading the directions would have avoided this. It's almost common sense if you think about it.

Click to expand...

Its actually more common than one would think.

Some feel they are so comfortable, they almost forget they are wearing them and when the afternoon wind pipes up, a foulie or windbreaker gets put on without thought.

Have seen it done.

With the auto inflation PFDs, I can accept the necessity of wearing it.
Even though there is a law, in FL, requiring children up to a certain age to wear a PFD of a certain size, I see many children not wearing a PFD. What is worse are the children forward on deck without a PFD while underway.

It is federal law that 13 and under ....wear all the time except in a cabin...unless a state has a law requiring.

psneeld said:

It is federal law that 13 and under ....wear all the time except in a cabin...unless a state has a law requiring.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the update.

Wow its only three pages so far, I glanced at this thread yesterday and thought now thats a topic that might carry on for 6 or 7 pages at least
I can't resist: This is an age old debate where certainly a parallel can be drawn not only to seatbelts but also motorcycle helmets.

Yes i've heard the argument that all our costs go up when people choose less safe alternatives and injure themselves. Plus i've acquired a motorcycle license in both Washington state and Texas. Currently in Texas riders are not required to wear a helmet and I have to say I support the law. To be clear; i think it is smart to wear a helmet but I think if a guy wants to feel the wind in his hair cruising his harley down a country road, the state shouldn't force him to break the law to do it.

As for the Aussie law: agreed we pretty much meet this PFD requirement as daily practice, but it would be in the back of your mind and slightly more irritating if when cruising you had the added stress of keeping that law in mind.... rather than what we do now treating it as 2nd nature.

Sorry but it sure seems like our "legislators" always have an insatiable desire for more rules and you have to wonder how far they will go with it....

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin

I am told, in the medical community, those who ride a motor cycle without a helmet are known as "donors".

Hmmm wasn't Ben Franklin the author of "Common Sense"?
I remember when a motor cycle drivers wore full leather to prevent road rash.

Oddly enough

Hamrow said:

Wow its only three pages so far, I glanced at this thread yesterday and thought now thats a topic that might carry on for 6 or 7 pages at least
I can't resist: This is an age old debate where certainly a parallel can be drawn not only to seatbelts but also motorcycle helmets.

Yes i've heard the argument that all our costs go up when people choose less safe alternatives and injure themselves. Plus i've acquired a motorcycle license in both Washington state and Texas. Currently in Texas riders are not required to wear a helmet and I have to say I support the law. To be clear; i think it is smart to wear a helmet but I think if a guy wants to feel the wind in his hair cruising his harley down a country road, the state shouldn't force him to break the law to do it.

As for the Aussie law: agreed we pretty much meet this PFD requirement as daily practice, but it would be in the back of your mind and slightly more irritating if when cruising you had the added stress of keeping that law in mind.... rather than what we do now treating it as 2nd nature.

Sorry but it sure seems like our "legislators" always have an insatiable desire for more rules and you have to wonder how far they will go with it....

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin

Click to expand...

Your legislatures and Congress only make some of the rules. Many many others are made by bureaucrats and executive fiat.

And one more thing

According to the law we are given a pass as long as we have lifejackets in the boat. We don’t even have to wear them. I wonder how many lives have been lost because passengers on boats did not wear the lifejackets but assumed they might be able to hang onto them if they ever went into the water. Of course, this would be a small number given that only a few more than 300 a year ever die in boating accidents. and of that number we have no idea how many died because they were not wearing lifejackets.

I suspect that were everyone required to actually wear a jacket we would hear a much loader protest against it. Bureaucratic rule makers are not answerable to anyone.