Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
 
Old 21 July 2006, 04:46   #31
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Boat name: Seashell
Make: Redbay
Length: 7m +
Engine: Inboard diesel
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 5,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scary Des
only 22 people drowned in boating related incidents
Does that include inland waterways too?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Scary Des
The ability to assess risk comes with experience and maybe to gain experience people should wear lifejackets but to make it compulsory is ridicules.
Des
I disagree. Experiance is one thing but accidents happen and even the most experianced people get into difeculty when they least expect.
__________________

__________________
Tim M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 July 2006, 05:09   #32
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: nr Lymington
Boat name: JU-JU
Make: Halmatic PAC22
Length: 6m +
Engine: 140.5 Mermaid
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim M
Does that include inland waterways too?
No, more drown in lakes, canals etc but they tend to be involved in a non boating activity such as dog walking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim M
I disagree. Experiance is one thing but accidents happen and even the most experianced people get into difeculty when they least expect.
Accident will alway happen but experience helps to mitigate and anticipate, take driving for example, with a little experience you can start to anticipate when an accident might occur. Doesn’t mean you will have no accidents but the likelihood diminishes, this is reflected in the insurance premiums..Des
__________________

__________________
Scary Des is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 July 2006, 05:20   #33
RIBnet admin team
 
Nos4r2's Avatar
 
Country: UK - England
Town: The wilds of Wiltshire
Boat name: WhiteNoise/Dominator
Make: Ballistic 7.8/SR5.4
Length: 7m +
Engine: Opti 225/Yam 85
MMSI: 235090687/235055163
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,645
RIBase
Freedom of choice and freedom of speech are 2 things that are rapidly being eroded by this government. YEs, there's plenty of opportunity for being stupid but LEGISLATION WON'T STOP STUPID PEOPLE BEING STUPID, it'll just mightily piss off those that do things responsibly.

Ill informed policy making by people who have no real idea of the situation who are advised by businessmen who in turn have no idea is what I've come to expect from government and there's no reason it'll change.

I would expect the government consultation group on a policy like that to be something like:-
The top 2 shareholders in P&O
Ditto Townsend Thoresen (are they still going?)
Anyone else with sufficient money,an industrial interest and no idea that's never handled a boat.

You may laugh but that's exactly what happened when the new Working Time Directive(Transport) was formulated. Now all lorry drivers have to observe 2 different sets of rules at once which are almost impossible to follow to the letter. It's also the reason I'm getting out of the industry asafp. They are not only horrendously complicated but the 2 different government agencies responsible for enforcement can't even agree what the correct interpretation of them is between THEMSELVES. Add to that a great proportion of truckers are too stupid to understand even the basic gist of them anyway.

Are boaters REALLY any different?
__________________
Need spares,consoles,consumables,hire,training or even a new boat?

Please click HERE and HERE and support our Trade Members.

Join up as a Trade member or Supporter HERE
Nos4r2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 July 2006, 05:35   #34
RIBnet admin team
 
Nos4r2's Avatar
 
Country: UK - England
Town: The wilds of Wiltshire
Boat name: WhiteNoise/Dominator
Make: Ballistic 7.8/SR5.4
Length: 7m +
Engine: Opti 225/Yam 85
MMSI: 235090687/235055163
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,645
RIBase
Just to reiterate what I said above about stupid people:-

Quote:
Originally Posted by fishing forum
Great boats, more capable than you'd expect. I lost my uncle and 2 nephews in one
This was the gist of a SERIOUS post by someone on worldseafishing.com!

Someone on the same forum was ranting about how he'd fish wrecks with divers down on them...
__________________
Need spares,consoles,consumables,hire,training or even a new boat?

Please click HERE and HERE and support our Trade Members.

Join up as a Trade member or Supporter HERE
Nos4r2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 July 2006, 05:40   #35
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: nr Lymington
Boat name: JU-JU
Make: Halmatic PAC22
Length: 6m +
Engine: 140.5 Mermaid
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,400
There is no way of knowing what effect the drink driving alcohol limit has had because there are so many variables and the stats are misrepresented.

When the Police run a drink driving crack down and announce that convictions are up by X% on last year all they are really saying is they caught X% more which is no indication of how many people are actually drinking and driving. Variables such as the number of cars on the road, drinking habits, better cars and Police resources are not taken into account so the figure are virtually meaningless.
I suspect that there is still a great many people who regularly drink and drive without being caught so introducing a limit for boating will only result in the same but with more bureaucracy and no reduction of risk.

Another issue is that this is an area of the law where people are punished because they ‘might’ do something wrong as opposed to being punished for ‘actually’ doing something. If, as a result of drinking, you always had an accident then a ban makes sense but that is not the case, the vast majority will not have an accident.

An analogy is, small businesses are very likely to fiddle there VAT so because this might happen all small businesses should be fined in anticipation., clearly this make no sense.

I think that people should be given free choice and when, through the results of their actions, they kill someone throw the book at them, lock them up for years and publicly shame them etc it would be better than the current system that really doesn’t work. Des
__________________
Scary Des is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 July 2006, 05:48   #36
Member
 
Richard B's Avatar
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Devon
Boat name: White Ice
Make: Ranieri
Length: 5m +
Engine: Suzuki 115hp
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nos4r2
Townsend Thoresen (are they still going?)
Oh yes, a simple name change and they are very successful as guess who... P&O Ferries.
Richard B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 July 2006, 07:07   #37
Member
 
Country: UK - Wales
Town: swansea
Boat name: Too Blue
Make: BLANK
Length: 8m +
Engine: Suzuki DT225
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scary Des
I don’t think you can make a reasonable comparison between seatbelts and life jackets.
When it became mandatory to wear a seatbelt, deaths on the road went down from around 20k PA to under 5k and injuries by a similar %.
In 2002 (last reliable statistics) only 22 people drowned in boating related incidents and the stats don’t show how many of them were wearing lifejacket but if you are one of those people who believe the urban myth about leg straps then at least half were. So introducing compulsory lifejacket would have little benefit.
I wear a life jacket when conditions dictate, I always wear a buoyancy aid when dingy racing, I never wear a lifejacket when doing foredeck on a racing yacht and I will occasionally wear a jacket on the RIB.
The ability to assess risk comes with experience and maybe to gain experience people should wear lifejackets but to make it compulsory is ridicules.
Des

Where on earth did you get your figures? No evidence at all to support them.Just found this on Wikipedia......

The law mandating the compulsory wearing of seat belts for front seat occupiers came into force on January 31, 1983 in the UK[9].

In the two years following the law there were increases of 14% in pedestrian deaths, 40% in cyclist deaths and 27% in rear passenger deaths, somewhat in excess of Isles' predictions. There was a reduction in driver fatalities and an increase in fatalities of rear passengers (not covered by the law)[10]. A subsequent study of 19,000 cyclist and 72,000 pedestrian casualties seen at the time suggests that seat belt wearing drivers were 11-13% more likely to injure pedestrians and 7-8% more likely to injure cyclists [11]. In January 1986 an editorial in The Lancet noted the shortfall in predicted life-saving and "the unexplained and worring increase in deaths of other road users"[12]. Shortly after this, legal compulsion was extended indefinitely.

Analysis of fatality figures before and after the law shows:

* a clear increase in pedestrian, cyclist and rear-passenger fatalities in collisions involving passenger cars
* no such increase in casualties in collisions involving buses and goods vehicles, which were exempt from the law
* a reduction in the number of drivers found to be drunk at the scene of collisions
* a reduction in overall fatalities between the hours of 10pm and 4am (peak hours for drink-driving offences)
* no reduction in overall fatality rates outside these hours.

In analysing these results, Adams concludes that there is no evidence of the seat belt law having reduced overall fatality numbers, and that there is evidence of fatalities having migrated from drivers to vulnerable road users. Although the Government argued at the time that the law had saved lives, it has subsequently attributed almost all the benefit for the small reduction in overall driver fatalities to the introduction of evidential breath testing.[2]

Seat belt use is a binary: the belt is either worn or not. Belt laws, which tend to lead to substantial changes in wearing rates over very short periods, would, if the predictions of up to 50% reductions in fatalities are correct, be expected to demonstrate large scale step changes in fatality figures. No such changes have been observed. Whether seat belts reduce fatalities, it is inescapably true that any reductions fall well below the predicted levels, a fact widely interpreted as supporting risk compensation theory.

Also look at the official figures - just under 6,000 deaths BEFORE the law was introduced in 1983 - after there was a SLIGHT drop but other deaths rose as they reckon people took less care behind the wheel cos they were strapped in!!!

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208
__________________
codprawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 July 2006, 07:52   #38
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Southampton
Boat name: SMH Rib / War Shot
Make: Ribtec / Scorpion
Length: 4m +
Engine: 10hp Yam / 150hp opt
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,894
RIBase
Quote:
Originally Posted by codprawn
Far more people die in the water when they are NOT boating - it is totally impractical to expect people to wear a lifejacket when they are just near water!!!
My 5 year old non swimmer has to wear his lifejacket as soon as we get onto the pontoons.
__________________
Searider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 July 2006, 07:53   #39
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Southampton
Boat name: SMH Rib / War Shot
Make: Ribtec / Scorpion
Length: 4m +
Engine: 10hp Yam / 150hp opt
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,894
RIBase
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard B
Thought you were going to get commercially coded? The you'll need to INSIST onlife jacket use!
No requirement in the code for passengers to wear lifejackets. You just need to have them on board.
__________________
Searider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21 July 2006, 07:54   #40
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Bracknell
Boat name: Boatless and lost
Length: no boat
MMSI: Who?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Searider
My 5 year old non swimmer has to wear his lifejacket as soon as we get onto the pontoons.
Here here. Couldn't agree more.

As does my girlfriends seven year old daughter who can swim well.
__________________

__________________
Phil

Born to stuff!!
Phil Chitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 21:12.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.