Are liferafts really a rational expenditure

[Gadagirl]

You're statistics are drawn from U.S. data only.
To go to the opposite extreem of your bathtub analogy....... If only those greedy human traffickers had equiped their boats with life rafts?!!!! If only the Titanic had more life rafts?!!!!

Offshore and world wide cruising, safety, and preparedness is different I imagine.

It's your personal choice on how much you want to spend and your comfort level to the risk. Like rolling the dice, or picking stock investments. A personel choice. You just don't know until you know.

[Cyrus Safdari]

Originally Posted by belizesailor

Responsibility for others is a big consideration I think.

If Im single handing, choose to go without a liferaft, and die as a result then...my life - my call (though others are still affected).

If Im responsible for others aboard then its a different situation entirely.

Responsibility for others is indeed a big concern and selling point for liferafts, and what you;re citing is the Fear Premium.


The idea of the Fear Premium is when you take extraordinary measures beyond what is strictly required to deal with a risk, because you find the risk to be so inherently awful that the cost-benefit analysis does not apply

So in you have particular fear of sharks, and decide to only swim with your own personal shark cage (yes they make them) when the the actual risk of being attacked by sharks is very tiny, you're paying a Fear Premium.

Most people are more lackadaisical about their own safety than the safety of others, and so are willing to go to greater lengths than justified to prevent someone else being hurt on their boat. They are insufficiently concerned about themselves, and overly concerned about others (and the others don't mind that!)

So telling someone "You need a life raft to save yourself" may get an "eh" response

But telling them that "You need a liferaft to save others on your boat" will inspire more concern.

Rationally, it shouldn't make a difference who is threatened, you or someone else -- either way you should take the right measure to prevent injury. But smeone else being injured invokes something more than just a rational response. So do sharks

[ranger58sb]

Originally Posted by Cyrus Safdari

Is spending $4k on that risk worth it, regardless of the precise details, especially when that money could be used for other gear that would provide an incrementally better improvement in safety.

What if there's a fire? Well, what if that money used for the liferaft was used to install automatic fire suppression instead?

Pounds of safety/per dollar.

I suppose one can depreciate the cost of the raft and say that over the course of the life of the raft, say 10 years, at 2 people dead per yea versus the cost of the raft/10 years, then it would be worth it.

Personal decision; might be worth it to me, maybe not to you. Or vice versa. Or we'll get Charlie over there to give his answer, too...



What if you've got an automatic fire suppression system (we do)... and there's a fire anyway (argh!)... and all that automatic system does is give you time to get off? What do you get off... onto?

And so forth.

(Inland and near coastal, could be swim to shore or maybe dinghy or maybe swim to another boat if one happens to be tooling by... or maybe just float for a bit while waiting for help. 200 NM off shore?)

The mention of how many times/year a life raft is deployed -- ostensibly saved somebody -- seems to good path to examine.

-Chris

[Liam Wald]

Depends on how far you can swim and the temperature of the water.

[hellosailor]

The rational man would not be playing with recreational sailboats in the first place. he'd be staying someplace safe on land and either having safer fun or being more productive with his time.

So, liferafts are simply not related to "rational" choices.

But for the irrational fool who chooses to go sailing? Your odds of needing a liferaft are not what the statistics claim them to be. Either you will need one, or you won't. So your odds are actually 50:50. Either you will need it or not, forget "odds" in the general population, that's not personal odds.

Are life rafts ridiculously expensive and in need of a paradigm shift to an entirely different package? Yeah, you could have found 30 years worth of pre-existing threads that have all said that many times over.

Better to learn how to walk on water, start a new religion, and then there's no need for the life raft or the boat.

[boatman61]

I think the liferaft is an over expensive and underperforming item..
I'll stick with my 'unsafe' slat bottom dinghy with the appropriate extras in a ditch bag..
This decision was arrived at as a result of having taken part in several ocean survival course's and a few years service in the RN.. however this is a personal choice and NOT a recommendation to others.
Its a shame that the Tinker Tramp was discontinued as that was a true all purpose product that could turn one into another Captain Bligh..

[Cyrus Safdari]

Originally Posted by ranger42c

What if you've got an automatic fire suppression system (we do)... and there's a fire anyway (argh!)... a

But how far do you take the whatifs?

Especially when you consider that every measure you take to reduce risks, creates other risks and burdens too and has an "opportunity cost" -- could the money have been spent better on a different safety angle.

[Cyrus Safdari]

Originally Posted by Gadagirl

You're statistics are drawn from U.S. data only.
To go to the opposite extreem of your bathtub analogy....... If only those greedy human traffickers had equiped their boats with life rafts?!!!! If only the Titanic had more life rafts?!!!!

Offshore and world wide cruising, safety, and preparedness is different I imagine.

It's your personal choice on how much you want to spend and your comfort level to the risk. Like rolling the dice, or picking stock investments. A personel choice. You just don't know until you know.

Very true and would love to see data from other countries but I believe that close to shore sailing is actually more dangerous so the offshore risks would be less not more.

[hafa]

Originally Posted by ranger42c

A commonly considered factor is about how far away help might be, and how long it might take to find you. (Open ocean vs. coastal vs. inland rivers or lakes, etc.) Maybe it's a "distance premium."

Another might be how close are the sharks. "Proximity premium"?

THIS. Where we often sail, the nearest inhabited land is 400+ miles away, help even further and 20'+ Tiger and pelagic gray sharks are common. Since I'm a statistical anomaly, I'll spend the $230 per year premium for the raft.

Plus, lost at sea does not constitute drowning in the statistics and US data is a relatively small sampling of global data with an under represented target group.

Originally Posted by Cyrus Safdari

...I believe that close to shore sailing is actually more dangerous so the offshore risks would be less not more.

Although there are more risks, there is also a much better chance for help once things go pear shaped. The point of a life raft is to have something to step up into when there are no other choices.

[UNCIVILIZED]

Not trying to be an ass, but have you read the dozen+ other threads on this topic? It comes up about every 6 weeks, & usually runs for several pages. With lots of good points covered.

[Snowpetrel]

Originally Posted by belizesailor

Responsibility for others is a big consideration I think.

If Im single handing, choose to go without a liferaft, and die as a result then...my life - my call (though others are still affected).

If Im responsible for others aboard then its a different situation entirely.

+1 this is my take on it as well.

[roverhi]

Life rafts are a totally useless waste of money.

That is until you need one and then they are totally necessary and priceless!!!!!!!!

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by UNCIVILIZED

Not trying to be an ass, but have you read the dozen+ other threads on this topic? It comes up about every 6 weeks, & usually runs for several pages. With lots of good points covered.

Actually that can be said for a lot of out threads, and of course begs the search function, however what else do we have to do

I've come to the conclusion that I won't pop for one myself unless or until we are in fact actually Sopac bound, I won't for knocking around the Caribbean.

Fire wise, I think I could drop the dink from the davits as fast or faster than I could deploy a life raft.
Yes I am familiar with recent burning of the IP in Mexico where I believe their dinghy was pretty badly burnt and may have launched it self, what remained of it anyway.

[daletournier]

It depends, im currently far north Queensland, 150nm from the top and its blowing hard. If I was sailing coastal even up here im fairly confident a dinghy , portable vhf and epirib would see you through, even up this far there's plenty of traffic ,even a border watch plane that flys over and the wind eventually blows you a shore,..given the above I believe a life raft isnt a necessity.

In less than four weeks things change, I'll be a long way from help and at one point over 1000nm (2mths from now) from the nearest land. If the worst was to happen (and it can) im glad I got my life raft inspected, a extra epirb put in and my grab bag sorted, help isnt nessacarily coming within a week and a dinghy won't provide the necessary protection.

I think most importantly in our modern area is to take advantage of technology. As well as epirbs I have an inreach , I can email or text authorities if needed, there is a solar charger and battery in my grab bag, therefore theoretically this communication should be indefinate. My epirbs are proberly registered, I will also be notifying the epirb authorities when I leave Thursday island keeping them in the loop, paranoid?? dont think so, I just like manipulating the odds to favor me.

Its not just about having a life raft, how is it mounted? Ive had a friend that had his life raft washed of deck due to poor mounting.

For those that think it cant happen, ive had one friend hit something hard of new Zealand and the boat took on massive water and sunk, his dinghy and cell phone saved him. Another acquaintance lost his boat to fire of the Australian coast and bailed into dinghy badly burnt. Another couple I new had there very well maintained Malos rudder break away from the skeg and lost the boat to flooding 400nm from the Seychelle, rescued by ship. Another friend hit a whale near Madagascar and was taking on water etc etc.

I don't expect any of the above and don't worry myself to much about those possibilities BUT I don't ignore them either. I don't expect to crash a car and never have but I wear a seat belt.

It depends on where you intend to sail, your financial situation and your own personal comfort level.

Personally falling of the boat imo is a greater risk than sinking, having a boat that eliminates the need to leave the cockpit is high on my priorities, this become apparent to me last year at 3am when on deck with gunnel in the water, 40+k, lightening and pouring rain, 50nm of the Sumatra west coast where I know there is zero help, afterwards it got me thinking about how dangerous it is to be on deck.

[markpierce]

Too bad one can't obtain the opinions of the Titanic's dead.