Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
 
Old 27 May 2013, 17:49   #1
Member
 
Country: USA
Town: Oklahoma USA
Length: no boat
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 36
Propeller Accident Statistics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anchorhandler View Post
I couldnt find accurate leisure boating statistics in the UK but over the pond, each year the USCG produce a very useful breakdown of accidents showing type of incident and casualty numbers.
Deprecated Browser Error
I appreciate it refers to the US and should be taken only as a rough guide but here are a few of the more interesting statistics.

2012 saw a total of 651 fatalaties and only one of those was caused by a prop strike...
2011 saw 758 reported deaths with 5 being caused by prop strikes ....
2010 saw 672 deaths with one as a result of prop strikes ....
You misinterpreted the statistics. You are not alone, this often happens. The U.S. Coast Guard records accidents as a series of three events, such as Event 1 = Struck Submerged Object, Event 2 = Person Overboard, Event 3 = Struck by Propeller.

The statistics you cite are only for Event 1, sometimes called the Primary Event. Note - Primary event does not mean it caused the persons worst injuries, it means it was the first event in the sequence. The actual number of reported propeller fatalities that met USCG criteria to be listed were:

2012 - 19 deaths

2011 - 35 deaths

2010 - 27 deaths


We explain the three event method further and show overlays of the USCG's 2012 data you linked at:
USCG Releases Recreational Boating Statistics 2012 :: Propeller Guard Information Center

As to the number of kill cord preventable accidents, USCG prepared a report a few years ago. Its not real easy to read, but pretty thorough.
http://www.regulations.gov/contentSt...ontentType=pdf

A much older USCG report is easier to read, but certainly not very current. See the image on the 1979 document on this page.
Propeller Safety History Repeats Itself, Repeats Itself …. :: Propeller Guard Information Center

We (PGIC) are just completing an an extensive history of kill cord and propeller safety in the UK. It identifies many accidents and should provide some insight into the frequency of kill cord injuries and fatalities in the UK.

Also please note we have remained neutral on the mandatory wear issue, however we have been outspoken on trying to get USCG to make it mandatory for new small boats to include emergency kill switches (kill cords). They have been arguing about making them a requirement in new boats for decades.

gary
__________________

__________________
PGIC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02 June 2013, 20:59   #2
Member
 
Country: USA
Town: Oklahoma USA
Length: no boat
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 36
UK History of Boat Kill Cords and Propeller Safety

Quote:
Originally Posted by PGIC View Post
We (PGIC) are just completing an an extensive history of kill cord and propeller safety in the UK. It identifies many accidents and should provide some insight into the frequency of kill cord injuries and fatalities in the UK.
We just finished the UK History of Boat Kill Cords and Propeller Safety I spoke of earlier. It is about a 20 page pdf available from this post:

UK History of the Boat Kill Cord & Propeller Safety Movement :: Propeller Guard Information Center

gary
__________________

__________________
PGIC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02 June 2013, 21:53   #3
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by PGIC View Post
We just finished the UK History of Boat Kill Cords and Propeller Safety I spoke of earlier. It is about a 20 page pdf available from this post:

UK History of the Boat Kill Cord & Propeller Safety Movement :: Propeller Guard Information Center

gary
I'd like to point out this is a personal opinion, and in no way indicative of any Ribnet official policy.

I note your neutrality on the wear issue. However, you've just 'released' a 'UK' document which in about 90% of the accidents either happened outside the UK, were totally irrelevant to this discussion or contain such tenuous links to propellers that they are even irrelevant to the document itself. The Daily Mail could write a more relevant article. Corpses of drowned people struck by propellers after drowning? People sucked into canal boat propellers?

This isn't a platform for you to campaign for prop guards.
__________________
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 02 June 2013, 21:57   #4
Member
 
paddlers's Avatar
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Sticks, N.Yorks
Boat name: Tamanco
Make: Honwave 3.5AE
Length: 3m +
Engine: Tohatsu Outboard
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nos4r2 View Post
I'd like to point out this is a personal opinion, and in no way indicative of any Ribnet official policy.

I note your neutrality on the wear issue. However, you've just 'released' a 'UK' document which in about 90% of the accidents either happened outside the UK, were totally irrelevant to this discussion or contain such tenuous links to propellers that they are even irrelevant to the document itself. The Daily Mail could write a more relevant article. Corpses of drowned people struck by propellers after drowning? People sucked into canal boat propellers?

This isn't a platform for you to campaign for prop guards.
+1
__________________
paddlers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02 June 2013, 22:22   #5
Member
 
Country: USA
Town: Oklahoma USA
Length: no boat
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 36
Relevance of UK History

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nos4r2 View Post
I note your neutrality on the wear issue. However, you've just 'released' a 'UK' document which in about 90% of the accidents either happened outside the UK, were totally irrelevant to this discussion or contain such tenuous links to propellers that they are even irrelevant to the document itself. The Daily Mail could write a more relevant article. Corpses of drowned people struck by propellers after drowning? People sucked into canal boat propellers?

This isn't a platform for you to campaign for prop guards.
If you are saying the history I wrote is an opinion. That is probably at least partially true as most histories are written from someone's viewpoint, but the history mostly consists of lists of accidents and events. Those accidents and events certainly are not our opinion. They are history.

I am not sure of the percent of the accidents happening outside the UK. I will try to count them when I get some time.

To me, geographical lines don't seem very relevant when UK boaters, swimmers, and divers are being struck by props. People from the UK are in the same accident often involving the same boats and the same drives, it just happened outside the UK.

As to being irrelevant, I AGREE there are many non-RIB accidents in there. I said it was a UK history, not a UK RIB history. If you want a UK RIB history, you are very welcome to try to sort out the rib accidents and events you think are relevant to RIBs. It will take you hundreds of less hours to do that than to begin from zero. Plus we included many references that may no longer be available anywhere else.

I am ABSOLUTELY NOT campaigning for guards. I am campaigning for being aware of your history so you do not keep repeating it. There are many other ways to address the problem. One is open discussion without attacking the comments of others.

gary
__________________
PGIC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03 June 2013, 06:13   #6
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
Fair comment.

I stand by my view that a UK citizen killed in the Bahamas is a Bahamian (?) incident etc though.
As a direct comparison,if there was an earthquake in the Bahamas , it wouldn't be an incident here and it doesn't count as part of our history.
The inclusion of the patenting of sterndrives and the invention of RIBs is also irrelevant.

Once you remove all the non-killcord related things, plus the above, there's very little there.
__________________
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 03 June 2013, 07:34   #7
RIBnet admin team
 
Poly's Avatar
 
Country: UK - Scotland
Boat name: imposter
Make: FunYak
Length: 3m +
Engine: 2 stroke YAM 20 HP
MMSI: 235089819
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,114
Gary, what would be interesting - for those of us who don't have time to read all that - would be a summary table:

Incident........ Location........... Swimmer/Diver/Occupant..... KC preventable....

I suspect from a quick skim that there are few kill cord preventable accidents in UK waters - which is the point about new kill cord rules being largely pointless: prop safety and education would have more effect on overall safety.
__________________
Poly is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03 June 2013, 07:41   #8
Member
 
Country: USA
Town: Oklahoma USA
Length: no boat
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 36
Relevance of UK History

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nos4r2 View Post
I stand by my view that a UK citizen killed in the Bahamas is a Bahamian (?) incident etc though.
As a direct comparison,if there was an earthquake in the Bahamas , it wouldn't be an incident here and it doesn't count as part of our history.
The inclusion of the patenting of sterndrives and the invention of RIBs is also irrelevant.
The UK (as does the U.S. and several other developed countries) has a history of its citizens holidaying / vacationing in water tourism destinations in less developed countries (diving, snorkeling, swimming, sight seeing) where they are maimed or killed by boat propellers. Once those accidents happen, local authorities in those less developed nations make life heck for the surviving family members by suppressing investigations into what really happened because they want tourism dollars to keep flowing. They also continue to operate in the same manner (no marked swimming areas, no spotters when backing up, not even having a first aid kit on a large sail cats, etc.) which results in history repeating itself.

While that may not be a topic for this forum, it is a topic the more developed countries of the world need to be addressing (in my opinion).

The patent was included because it covered a protective duct around the propeller.

I am not sure why your country invented the RIB is not relevant in RIBnet or in a discussion of RIB kill cord incidents.

gary
__________________
PGIC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03 June 2013, 07:42   #9
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Dorset & Hants
Boat name: Streaker/Orange
Make: Avon/Ribcraft
Length: 4m +
Engine: 50Yam/25 Mariner
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post

I suspect from a quick skim that there are few kill cord preventable accidents in UK waters - which is the point about new kill cord rules being largely pointless: prop safety and education would have more effect on overall safety.
It's agree with this. For example last week I took my boat out with 250s full time commercial skipper...we both saw and noted a commercial boat...with two crew and no passengers..with no life jackets and no cord attached.....And they are 'professional'..... you can regulate all you want...but you can't regulate the human factor.
__________________
PeterM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03 June 2013, 09:09   #10
Member
 
Country: UK - England
Town: Bucks
Boat name: Spare Rib
Make: Zodiac/Bombard
Length: 6m +
Engine: 90hp Yamaha
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 157
It is sad to see so many fellow RIB owners/users in denial.

It is possible to debate the pros and cons of various measures that may be put forward to improve safety and to constructively analyse them.

It is impossible, IMO, but it appears to be happening, to argue that no novel technical solution can possibly yield any improvement and that the existing systems, which have self-evidently failed to be effective in a material number of cases is "the best we can do".

This is both logically absurd and, from a social responsibility perspective, simply unacceptable. As a user group we must either wake up and smell the coffee or face regulation we really will find objectionable and, possibly, counter-productive. FFS, we could at least engage in debate with an open mind.
__________________

__________________
Tim Spring
Observer 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 10:04.


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