Mandating Adult Life Jacket Wear

[CaptFrankM]

Originally Posted by Boracay

From the NSW Maritime website:-
The "original" can be found here:-Lifejacket Reforms - Frequently Asked Questions

The concept of "open water" and "enclosed water" is key to other areas of marine regulation as well. If you have a look at the Clyde Estuary Safe Boating Plan and scroll about half way down to the map you'll get some idea of what "open water" looks like in NSW. The plan gives some idea of how the bureaucrats like to manage this concept.

I appreciate this link, Boracay, because it makes an interesting point. In order for the "Clyde Estuary Safe Boating Plan" to define where open water and enclosed water is, they have to list very specific landmarks. If this policy were to be extended to either your entire country or mine, we would have literally books worth of documents defining each waterway and where the "enclosed" and "open" water meet. Or, we would have blanket descriptions, much like the ColRegs lines, which would end up with people wearing type 1 PFDs in conditions that mirror those of a bathtub and people wearing type 3s in areas that would really be safer with a type 1 - because "the rules say I only need a type 3 here."

And, regarding the earlier post that a person can drown in 1.5 meters as easily in 30 meters - this is true, but it is also true that more people drown in bathtubs and pools than drown in boating accidents, if the alcohol factor is removed. Yet, I doubt anyone would recommend requiring PFDs in the shower (OK, HARDLY anyone - I am sure that there is someone out there who would be in favor of such a rule).

Now, I want to circle back to that "alcohol" exemption. The fact is that a significant number of drownings - and other boating accidents - involve alcohol. But the fact remains that a law enforcement professional cannot "see" if someone is inebriated. They can observe the operation of the vessel - but cannot check someone's BAC without stopping the boat.

I believe that, if we scratch the surface of the "mandatory PFD" rule, we would find that the underlying idea is that, if a law enforcement professional were to see a boat being operated without the appropriate PFDs, this would allow the officer to stop the boat and test the operator - since, as most of us have agreed - only a person with a diminished sense of risk would operate without a PFD.

That brings us back to a key point. A mandatory PFD rule does not make people put on PFDs any more than a mandatory speed limit prevents people from speeding. All it does is give the police permission to stop you.

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Piglet

It is dangerous to walk barefooted. Should shoes be mandatory?

Why not make anyone over X feet tall wear a helmet at all times?
They might "Faww Down Go Boom" and hurt their wittwe head !!

This stuff has GOT to stop !

How long until sailing is banned as being too dangerous ?

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by CaptFrankM

I appreciate this link, Boracay, because it makes an interesting point. In order for the "Clyde Estuary Safe Boating Plan" to define where open water and enclosed water is, they have to list very specific landmarks. If this policy were to be extended to either your entire country or mine, we would have literally books worth of documents defining each waterway and where the "enclosed" and "open" water meet. Or, we would have blanket descriptions, much like the ColRegs lines, which would end up with people wearing type 1 PFDs in conditions that mirror those of a bathtub and people wearing type 3s in areas that would really be safer with a type 1 - because "the rules say I only need a type 3 here."

And, regarding the earlier post that a person can drown in 1.5 meters as easily in 30 meters - this is true, but it is also true that more people drown in bathtubs and pools than drown in boating accidents, if the alcohol factor is removed. Yet, I doubt anyone would recommend requiring PFDs in the shower (OK, HARDLY anyone - I am sure that there is someone out there who would be in favor of such a rule).

Now, I want to circle back to that "alcohol" exemption. The fact is that a significant number of drownings - and other boating accidents - involve alcohol. But the fact remains that a law enforcement professional cannot "see" if someone is inebriated. They can observe the operation of the vessel - but cannot check someone's BAC without stopping the boat.

I believe that, if we scratch the surface of the "mandatory PFD" rule, we would find that the underlying idea is that, if a law enforcement professional were to see a boat being operated without the appropriate PFDs, this would allow the officer to stop the boat and test the operator - since, as most of us have agreed - only a person with a diminished sense of risk would operate without a PFD.

That brings us back to a key point. A mandatory PFD rule does not make people put on PFDs any more than a mandatory speed limit prevents people from speeding. All it does is give the police permission to stop you.

They can stop you anytime they want for a safety check... and yes..you slurred a word saying OK...so the BAC is checked....

NO...the PFD initiative has nothing to do with alcohol...it...in its own misguided way is to stop drownings.

[coultereng]

We just had an unfortunate drowning on the Tennessee River. It was reported that the fisherman got too hot and jumped into the river to cool off and couldn't get back to the boat and drown. The news media made a big deal over the fact that he was not wearing a life jacket. This tragic accident will now be part of statistic showing why we have to wear life jackets on boats less than 18 feet. What's next, we have to wear life jackets when we go swimming. These proposed life jacket laws would not have had any impact in this situation. I am very much against any laws mandating the wearing of life jackets. It should be a choice, not a requirement.

[Target9000]

Originally Posted by coultereng

What's next, we have to wear life jackets when we go swimming.

You may have missed it but earlier in this thread I pointed out that they are ALREADY trying to do this.

But its alright citizen, you'll have a designated "swimming" area.

[Bash]

Originally Posted by Boracay

This table details NSW Maritime's idea of "Heightened Risk".

My system is a bit more simple. If the foredeck is wet, life jackets are mandatory for anyone leaving the cockpit.

[alan_za]

I think it's reasonable on boats under 18ft, just like seat belt laws are reasonable. Where I sail the water is cold and even on my 25ft boat I always wear a pfd. It's just common sense that was instilled in me through learning to sail on dinghies.

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by alan_za

I think it's reasonable on boats under 18ft, just like seat belt laws are reasonable. Where I sail the water is cold and even on my 25ft boat I always wear a pfd. It's just common sense that was instilled in me through learning to sail on dinghies.

Cold water..you said it...what applies to you isn't universal..what about the guy in the Florida Keys????...should he/she live by your problems????...that's why most laws stink...they cover too many situations that don't apply....

Universal application of common sense...error message.....

[CaptFrankM]

You are probably right, psneeld, about the alcohol usage not being an issue - I was being a (little) sarcastic. You are definitely correct about being able to be stopped at any time, although I do think that this makes it easier to identify "bad" boaters.

However, we circle back to the most important issue. There is no problem with PFD usage. There is no problem with training people for PFD use. However, there is a definite problem with forcing anyone to do something when, if in their opinion, they are being safe. They may be wrong - but it is THEIR call.

[Sam Plan B]

Why yes. We do need the life jacket police. With an unemployment rate above 9% we need to find work for thousands and shorten the dole queue. Otherwise there will be crime in the streets and rampant domestic piracy. While we are on the subject, everyone has been bumped on the head by an accidental jibe. Lets make sailing helmets manditory like people on bicycles wear. Boat shoes too. And sun screne to fight skin cancer in later life. So, we will have the life jacket police, the boaters' helmet police, the sun screne police. And lets just make boating illegal too. Then everyone will be safe. Oh, but then all the extra boat police will have nothing to do. No matter. They will be unionized.

[Aussiesuede]

I support mandatory helmet and mandatory seat belt laws because of the threat lack of their use presents to the general public. Most car and motorcycle accidents are survivable. Seat belts and helmets measurably reduce the extent of injuries sustained during an accident. It's a quantifiable fact that there is a measurable percentage of t general public which operated these motor vehicles uninsured. When those folks are involved in accidents and need emergency care, WE the public pick up the tab for the uninsured. They present a very real, and measurable, risk to we the public.

Most of those in the boating public who are involved in accidents which a PFD would have saved their lives if they had been worn, do NOT end up injured, but rather end up dead via drowning. In that most common instance, there is no measurable threat to the public good. The deaths incurred are almost entirely personal in nature, and as such - I believe the government has no business trying to protect individuals from themselves. As long as we, the Public, are not being asked to be in the position of picking up the tab for those who engage in the irresponsible behaviour of those who eschew the use of PFD's then I don't feel we have standing to mandate their use. We, the public, simply are NOT in the position to sustain injury by those individuals engaging in this particular irresponsible behavior and, imho, individuals have the inalienable right to be stupid as long as they aren't putting others in harms way by engaging in said stupidity.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by zeehag

ANYONE SEEN A NEAR DROWNING -- THE RESULT IS SAD AND LOOONG LASTING. i took care of those also. not fun to see these--pfds do not necessarily prevent that.

Unfortunately I have had to take part in finding a drowning victim when I was a lifeguard.

Not fun when you are in your early 20's and victim is found after 3 days. I suspect I would rather see a near drowning, and although I have brought swimmers to safety, I never had to do an AR on one.

I see the point of life jackets, insist on them in small craft, and they are good practice at any almost any time. Except for small craft, I don't always practice what I preach... hypocrite, huh?

[CaptFrankM]

Originally Posted by Aussiesuede

I support mandatory helmet and mandatory seat belt laws because of the threat lack of their use presents to the general public. Most car and motorcycle accidents are survivable. Seat belts and helmets measurably reduce the extent of injuries sustained during an accident. It's a quantifiable fact that there is a measurable percentage of t general public which operated these motor vehicles uninsured. When those folks are involved in accidents and need emergency care, WE the public pick up the tab for the uninsured. They present a very real, and measurable, risk to we the public.

Actually, the only reason they present a "risk to we the public" is because the government - before deciding that there needed to be mandatory seat belt laws - decided that there should be mandatory lifetime medical care for people who are injured in automobile accidents if they are not wearing seatbelts. If you remove the requirement for the latter, you remove the requirement for the former. On the other hand, if you do not want to remove the latter, then why stop at the former? Why not make a law that says if you are caught not wearing a seatbelt, you can never drive again? This would certainly protect "we the people" from "real and measurable risk."

The fact is that mandatory seatbelt laws don't really make a difference, after a period of adoption. People who are going to wear seatbelts will, people who are not won't. Same with PFDs.

[Sam Plan B]

Here is a question for anyone reading this thread. Can you name any human activity or any physical object so insignificant as to be unworthy of the attention of government? Really, anything at all.

[sabray]

Originally Posted by Sam Plan B

Here is a question for anyone reading this thread. Can you name any human activity or any physical object so insignificant as to be unworthy of the attention of government? Really, anything at all.

Quite right. I tore my palm up letting anchor chain get away from me. Now I would like to mandate padded anchor chain. All bagels should be pre cut before sale. Ending Saturday morning emergency room bagel hand crisis. Yesterday the Delaware bay was 102 i think. I wore nothing the commercial guys kept wanting to pass me with 2 whistles. I say come by and whistle if you like your choice. I was wearing nothing that would float me.really I had ais on and when I saw them I would call them and say I'll go on the north edge I see you. They would say okay 2whistles and add thanks for the com. I say have a nice evening I'm not wearing my life jacket so if we botch this and you turn my boat into a plastic patch I won't be bobbing up in your wake. Course when I stood up and waved as they whistled past channel 13 lit up that sail boat guy isn't wearing a damn .........