Kill Cords

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Clamchowder

So if you want to swap drivers you have to swap lifejackets?

No - multiple kill cords

[Nos4r2]

Originally Posted by Starovich

Now there is an idea that could work. plug/clip stitched to the LJ which completes the circuit when plugged into the kill cord?

I've been thinking about the practicalities of that one. There's no reliable way to do it. Open contacts will fail by the nature of them being open-unless there was a radical redesign to a killcord.

The only real way I can think of would be a magnet/reed switch setup, but you don't want that near a compass and it'd mean wires that are constantly flexing.

[Starovich]

Originally Posted by Poly

http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/...elt-report.pdf

Suggests that (1) 300+ lives a year are saves by seatbelts (2) about 14% of the population are apparently intermittent users! although it seems only about 5% of drivers are when driving. (3) its estimated another 300 lives a year could be saved if there was 100% compliance with this law. (4) Professional drivers seem less likely to wear than car drivers.

So: - the scale of the problem is rather different (probably 500x more impact from car law?)
- its much easier to enforce on the road (existing infrastructure, identifiable drivers, identifiable vehicles, defined roads v's open sea)
- even where there is enforcement and recognition of the benefits compliance is far from 100%.

Actually - the bloody annoying "pinging" that modern cars do probably has more to do with compliance than the vague possibility you might get £60 fine if you happen to get caught!

As i said before, go put a human life quota on it then.
How may have to die before a change is made?
Would your attitude change if you had to go and sit with the families involved and say "sorry your loss is not sufficient to make any changes in the way we work, only when X more people have died will we do anything."?

[Nos4r2]

Originally Posted by Starovich

As i said before, go put a human life quota on it then.
How may have to die before a change is made?
Would your attitude change if you had to go and sit with the families involved and say "sorry your loss is not sufficient to make any changes in the way we work, only when X more people have died will we do anything."?

If you legislate against everything that you might get hurt by, your boat would be illegal.
Just wait til some nobber gets an idea like 'compulsory minimum freeboard' in his head because you 'might fall off it'.

It is impossible and impractical to wrap people in cotton wool.
To quote Douglas Adams:-
"a common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."

[PGIC]

Originally Posted by Poly

(1) 300+ lives a year are saves by seatbelts

Just noting that is an England or UK seat belt stat. Here in the U.S. with some more open spaces to get wound up in we save a lot more lives with seat belts.

Similarly, I think your kill cord wear rate is much higher than hours. We did some work with the U.S. Coast Guard accident reports trying to calculate what percent of operators were wearing kill cords in any kind of accident and estimated about 3 to 20 percent depending on which set of assumptions you use.
Boat Kill Switch Wear Rate Estimated from U.S. Coast Guard BARD Data :: Propeller Guard Information Center

I suspect your kill cord wear rate is considerably higher.

gary
propellersafety.com

[Oscarguitar]

I won't be renewing my subscription to PBR, but that is just because the content is dull, unimaginative and repetitive. (Apart from PG's) The boat reviews are descriptive but provide no insight, the pictures are too small and don't show the things described in the articles. 3 pages on how to fashion a switch panel in Perspex (useful to about the same number of people) lightweight comparisons of electrical equipment with no testing, gleaned from the promo material and pictures of HMS in free gear because the magazine has an article about the manufacturer. Not to mention the amateur diatribes of "travels", (giving column space to a group of individuals who set off across the channel, with insufficient fuel, in poor conditions in fading light is not really flying the safety banner is it?) longwinded reviews of places you will never visit, and never ending promomotion of round Ireland in a small underpowered rib (with 20% off no doubt) need I continue...

With regard to regulation, the cost of policing compulsory use of safety equipment would be prohibitive and could result in the regular boarding of boats by CG or harbour police as in the USA to check documents and safety equipment with fines for non compliance.

Education yes, regulation no. I totally agree with the sentiment and have reviewed my own approach to safety on board, however the recent terrible accident should not be allowed to precipitate an ill conceived stampede into unenforceable and expensive bureaucracy.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Starovich

As i said before, go put a human life quota on it then.
How may have to die before a change is made?

ALL regulatory changes have to balance the cost and the benefits. e.g. preventing one fatal accident on UK roads is "worth" about £2m: http://www.roadsafetyfoundation.org/...ng%20money.pdf

Preventing a fatality in the workplace is I believe usually valued at closer to £1m.

The concept of Value of Statistical Life may seem absurd because when looking at a specific circumstance we default to 'spare no cost' to save that individual but of course we do take risks all the time and cost of avoiding the riks is part of our subconscious balancing act. This article explains the concept quite well: http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/f...12/v27n4-8.pdf

However clearly legislators can't protect us from every possible risk, so they need a mechanism to decide which regulatory changes bring about a desirable benefit and to prioritise which changes they should introduce.

Would your attitude change if you had to go and sit with the families involved and say "sorry your loss is not sufficient to make any changes in the way we work, only when X more people have died will we do anything."?

I'm a heartless, in human robot so have no great issue with doing this job... ...but (1) clearly thats not how you present it; (2) perhaps it offers some comfort that it was a 'freak accident' rather than something society could protect you from? (3) a change in legislation isn't going to bring loved ones back (4) I accept the harsh reality of the world is you have to spend your pennies where the greatest benefit will arrise.

[Ian M]

I wear a seat belt because not wearing one 'feels' wrong. I have this internal alarm sounding in my head if I cannot feel the reassuring tightness across chest and legs.
Rather than a simple clip on the end of the kill cord, through which the cord can slide and provide no real perssure, is a positive attachment that provides a simple slight pressure possible? I am thinking of something like a simple adjustable strap, with kill cord attached, that stays with the helmsman. The point being that it is fixed when fitted, and requires positive action to release the pressure it provides.

[Peter_C]

Don't forget requiring kill cords is one step away from requiring life jackets for everyone at all times. Far more lives would be saved if life jackets were required. Hey why not require a life jacket for anyone going near the water? After all 70% of all drownings would be preventable if they were wearing a life jacket.

I force myself to wear my kill cord whenever I am moving my inflatable boat because there is a high chance of falling off. While driving a competition wakeboard boat though I will never wear a kill cord.

Not everything is black and white. We don't need a rule for kill cords. Now requiring they be installed on every new pleasure craft boat I believe has already been put in place, as I can't think of a new boat that doesn't come with one, but I could be wrong.

[Dan Gurney]

Originally Posted by Poly

No - multiple kill cords

But the killcord is stitched to the lifejacket (I was responding to Starovich's comment, though I forgot to quote it). So every lifejacket needs to have a killcord stitched to it just in case the wearer wants/needs to drive the boat?

Still, I'm sure it can be disabled with a bent paperclip, rendering it more dangerous than it was in the first place. Of course said paperclip will need to be removed at MOT time (we'll be needing a compulsory MOT to make sure all this new safety kit works ) in much the same way I used to have to take my race exhaust off my bike for the MOT.

[wavebarrier]

As a commercial user of many boats including a very fast rib, I would much prefer that there is a mandatory test, or competency course with recreational users 'encouraged' to use kill cords etc. Please don't impose blanket rules on experienced operators, or try to have them enforced by inexperienced wet behind the ears kids who haven't been alive as long as I have been afloat, without serious accident or injury I may add, oh and while you are at it, yacht club rescue ribs speeding through other clubs anchorages... now there's a topic that spills my pimms!

[jwfrary]

Powerboat Level 2 should be made the compulsory course for use of powerboats in the UK. The MCA would need to endorse the qualification just as the Yacht Master is issued on behalf of the MCA.

Since many people have already got a PBL2 who are experienced operators this would not present an issue and for new boaters this would also change very little as PBL2 is many peoples first step.

I also believe that a vessel fitted with more than 150 HP presents a larger danger than some smaller less powerful vessels. extra layers of training/competence should be required for these vessels.

Those of you who believe you cannot benefit from a little training ought to look long and hard at themselves!

It could be policed by harbour authorities, police marine units, fire units and dockyard police all of which have varying presence in different ports.

I would also be in favour of compulsory fit of kill cords to all open vessels capable of exceeding 7 knots (so as to exclude diesel launches vessels engaged in towing etc) and all vessels with outboards.

Insurance is compulsory in many ports anyway I don't think a national scheme to identify insured vessels would be a bad idea at all, however once it is made compulsory the cost I am sure would rise significantly.

Just as life jackets are useless unless worn so are kill cords. Signage and good practice are the only measures your can use to protect others and yourself. It should be socially unacceptable to not wear one and users who are not should be pulled up by authorities and significant on the spot fines imposed.

I believe lifejackets should also be compulsory

legislation will not effect anyone who is already operating their vessel in a safe, sensible and effective manor already.

[Nos4r2]

Originally Posted by wavebarrier

As a commercial user of many boats including a very fast rib, I would much prefer that there is a mandatory test, or competency course with recreational users 'encouraged' to use kill cords etc. Please don't impose blanket rules on experienced operators, or try to have them enforced by inexperienced wet behind the ears kids who haven't been alive as long as I have been afloat, without serious accident or injury I may add, oh and while you are at it, yacht club rescue ribs speeding through other clubs anchorages... now there's a topic that spills my pimms!

And there's the issue.
You simply won't get one without the other.

[biffer]

Just a thought. You guys do know that you can have wireless kill switches. Move too far from the module and your boat stops. Just keep the fob in you're pocket

[Nos4r2]

Originally Posted by biffer

Just a thought. You guys do know that you can have wireless kill switches. Move too far from the module and your boat stops. Just keep the fob in you're pocket

I don't think the kind of person who'd have a wireless kill switch is the problem though. Lets face it, those who'd buy one are those that'd wear the killcord anyway. Most people (certainly the likes of those that got prop injuries in the Dory in St Austell bay) aren't going to cough up that kind of money.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by wavebarrier

As a commercial user of many boats including a very fast rib, I would much prefer that there is a mandatory test, or competency course with recreational users 'encouraged' to use kill cords etc. Please don't impose blanket rules on experienced operators, or try to have them enforced by inexperienced wet behind the ears kids who haven't been alive as long as I have been afloat, without serious accident or injury I may add!

So regulate other people but not you!

I suspect there are plenty of 'salty old sea dogs' who think they know better and are part of the problem... oh look here's one:

Originally Posted by Ribbed41Pleasure

And then Mercury users (if like the last two I have owned) will have a greater risk of injuring people from false emergency stops because the kill cord toggle switch is too sensitive. I gave up using mine for this reason. I had to balance risk of no kill chord against using one which caused it's own dangers. So now only briefed 'trusted' crew go near the throttle/helm. I make it quite clear to everyone the dangers and get quite 'shirty' with people on the boat who don't listen or head the warnings. Kill chords in my experience solve one problem but can create another - they are not the holy grail in my view (for Mercury anyway)

Not sure why you are having a problem must be the length of cord / where you attach it / where the switch is located as the mercury mechanism itself is not over sensitive from my experience.

Originally Posted by Carl

in my opinion,it is very hard to "forget" to put your kill cord on,when im in my boat i am fully aware of what is going on in my immediate area (ie dash,console for a rib)and i find hard to believe that when your under way you wouldnt notice a bright red cord bouncing up and down reminding you to put it on.

I think different dash layouts and ergonomics can easily mean that the cord is not bouncing up and down in your eye line. Certainly I would only see it if I was not looking where I am going!

[Leapy]

I've ordered sufficient GENUINE Suzuki killcords such that there's a killcord for each of us and they will be attached permanently to our individual life jackets. For us, and I know it's personal, hand attachment of the killcord gets in the way and around the leg makes the cord too short. Fastened to the life jacket crutch strap works great. I'm sure others, with different boat configurations, will apply a different plan, and successfully.

But, I think I'll consider them as spares and in-case-of's and keep with our existing notion that the boat itself has a kill cord - the working killcord if you like - that gets clipped to whomever is helming. Otherwise, I have to stop the engine at sea if I want to change the helmsman at sea??? Don't fancy that myself: balance of risks and all that.

In this way, whatever happens to the helmsman and whatever happens to his killcord, the next up to the helm has a killcord ready.

Form a queue here to shoot me down ...

[Oscarguitar]

[QUOTE=jwfrary;535449]

"I also believe that a vessel fitted with more than 150 HP presents a larger danger than some smaller less powerful vessels. extra layers of training/competence should be required for these vessels. "

Why? Isn't speed and safety the issue rather than power? Smaller lighter boat with 100hp is far faster than large boat with 200hp, more twitchy at speed, smaller tubes, lower freeboard, and less stable at rest. The smaller boat probably presents more danger IMO.

Ill informed blanket statements like this are the sort output we can expect from government agencies if more regulation is introduced.

[Volantis]

We here at PBR are responding to this on-going oversight on the part of boat owners and operators by taking the initiative to issue white on red console dashboard warning stickers[/QUOTE]

With a nice advert for PBR at the bottom and I bet they won't last more than a couple of outings.

PBR is also in favour of a UK mandatory licence of basic competency[/QUOTE]
I've driven in countries where licences of basic competency are required. Firstly they are BASIC. Second, having got their bit of paper everything degenerates to the lowest level of competency required. Good seamanship, Common Sense and a sense of responsibility for themselves and others are lost.

We shall be pushing hard for such legal requirements to be made[/QUOTE] is an act of gross irresponsibility. Instead we need to educate and encourage. Rules for safety of life at sea already exist and apply to all.

I am involved in outdoor activities for young people and the regulations require a Risk Assessment be done. For many, this means that an evening is spent doing a Risk Assessment exercise which is then filed as proof of all requirements having been met ready for the subsequent court case. Risk Assessment shouldn't be just a piece of paper but a frame of mind continually applied throughout the activity. Similarly, safety afloat isn't to be found in a licence but in good seamanship, common sense and taking responsibility.

Britain’s Best Value Powerboating Magazine[/QUOTE] should be ashamed of this knee jerk reaction, or worse still, attempt to use a tragedy to promote itself.

[Starovich]

Originally Posted by jwfrary

I also believe that a vessel fitted with more than 150 HP presents a larger danger than some smaller less powerful vessels.

Come stick your arm in my 90 HP or I'm sure I can find a 9.9 I can borrow and you can stick your leg in there?!

I've seen people fall out of tenders with 2hp, that could kill you just as fast as a 350hp

A lump of metal wizzing round at 100's RPM + is going to make a mess of any flesh and bone.