e petition for lifejackets

[Starovich]

mid summer, no cold shock they drowned.

[hobbit555]

It starts with life jackets then it will be hard hats for the rag and bone types so they reduce head injuries and then what next.
I really can't see all these gin palace type people wearing some form of personal flotation while supping their pimms and cuecumber while round the back of the islands in Poole harbour. I don't need some jumped up civil servant teller me what I have to wear while out on the water...
I work on the water large and small vessels and I decide when I wear a life jacket and when I don't. My company provides me with a top quality jacket 275N crotch straps hood light PLB harness flame cover hi vis. You name it we have it and we wear it when necessary or if the skipper asks us to wear them.

[biffer]

Originally Posted by Starovich

mid summer, no cold shock they drowned.

Quite easy to get cold around Britain in summer. I have a little experience in this kind of thing. Two things that will kill you is panic and cold. There was a report a while back about hoods on life jackets they found that water would wash up between the inflated collar and drown you anyway. A hood would stop water and panic to a certain degree. In salt water most people should be positively buoyant it's only clothes and panic that gets them below the surface

[Cookee]

In the US it is compulsory to carry enough lifejackets for all members of the crew but they don't have to be worn - discuss!

[paddlers]

Speaking personally I wouldn't go out without us all wearing lifejackets but I wouldn't want it to be compulsory !! It's a choice that should be down to us as individuals, there'll always be people that wont want to wear them & those that choose to.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Al Baker

I don't think they should be made compulsory purely because I subscribe to Darwins theory. I'd prefer it if the human gene pool remained lean and clean as was in the past.

Your logic will only work if you 'eliminate' them from the pool before they breed.

Originally Posted by Cookee

In the US it is compulsory to carry enough lifejackets for all members of the crew but they don't have to be worn - discuss!

Obviously its only going to be useful if you have it on when in the water, and not every scenario is going to give you time to put on a jacket from a locker, but I can't think of any valid justification to argue against carrying them on board.

[ShinyShoe]

Originally Posted by Poly

but I can't think of any valid justification to argue against carrying them on board.

Except you are back to what sort of boat... ...could make it every boat with an engine (if its big enough for an engine its either got storage space or small and risky like a tender...

But it doesn't cover canoeists etc...

And it probably means that those who are less able to make a properly educated risk assessment because they perceive risk differently (i.e. children) are still as likely to be at risk as they will tend not to have the resource to buy a powered craft...

[simsy]

I see my local pleasure craft operators placing very small children on their boat with a life jacket and ignoring the crotch strap. With a small child the life jacket is all but useless without this strap in place, they just lift their arms up and fall right through them......

Operators should have proper standards of training, every couple of years....

Anyone that goes on the water with a small child and no correct l.j. on them selves and the child is a fool, IMHO..... Law may help a little. An adult will always have a choice, law or not.... a small child has no choice and some parents and 'professionals' need a law to educate them..... as they will not think for them selves.

95% of people on rib net will make a reasonable judgement as to when to wear a L.J.

[m chappelow]

Then there is the what size lifejacket or the minimum size bouyancy wise you would be required to have to have ,,
the basic 150 Newtons may be ok in the summer wearing a t shirt and cut off jeans or light clothing but in full heavy foul weather gear the lifejacket maybe struggling to keep you afloat or would we be all required to have 275 ones just to cover all events.
even up to recently the british standards for lifejackets dident take seem to into the account the importence of having crutch straps fitted ,

in a number drownings without lifejackets there also is often an element of bravado/fatigue or intoxication through either drink or drugs somewhere down the line ,

Part of my work is beach/sea safety education in schools & youth groups ,suprized faces when you mention in a class that in theory you could drown in a dustbin if you fell in it upside down and it was full of rainwater or even puddle in the school playground ,, then the look on the face of the head teacher trying to work out the playground risk assesment they dident take into account .

[neil.mccrirrick]

It has to come down to personal choice, (hopefully informed re size of jacket, does it work etc), that will be influenced by time.

If you consider seat belts. I'm old enough to have never worn one cos they weren't compulsory and I felt constricted when I was driving. Now I still feel like that at times, but always wear one because I'm in the habit, until it really is in the way, (reversing the rib, jumping in and out of the car as I manoevre to get the boat hitched, unhitched etc).

I never used to lock the house up all the time, now I do cos I got in the habit.

I never used to clean my teeth all the time, (when I was a kid), until I understood my teeth could fall out if I didn't.

Most times on the RIB I wear a drysuit, because I dive and I have one and its practical. Most times I wear a life jacket as well.

Sometime, I hope, it will get warm and sunny, and I'll wear shorts and a t shirt, plus lifejacket, but no dry suit. I know that if I fall in, and more if I'm on my own, no drysuit means I could die of exposure in cold British waters, but I'll weigh the risk on the day, based on the weather, the water, what I'm doing etc.

It has to come down to commmon sense, influenced with some leaned behaviour, and if you don't have that, how on earth did you manage to get on the boat if the first place.

[lakelandterrier]

Having read the thread so far I think everone is agreed that the wearing of LJ/ PFD is generally a good / sensible thing in most circumstances and should be encouraged.

I would not dream of being on a small craft without an LJ/PFD, but if on a yacht it mght be that being clipped on with a harness so one doesn't go over in the first place is the "safer" option (OK so you could have LJ and safety line).

Legislating for this will be very difficult in terms of definitions, exceptions etc (e.g. if I'm swimming off the boat, at what point do I have put an LJ back on?). Knee-jerk, needless or over simplifed legislation is rarely good law.

Who would enforce it and how?
I wouldn't want more delegated legal authority to harbour authorities or rescue services to levey fines turning them more into another police enforcement (revenue raising) organisation. There would be nothing to stop a person removing a LJ out of a harbour limit in any case. I wouldn't want marine police lurking around evey headland waiting to pounce on "random" inspections.

I would suggest that if life is lost at sea / on the water needlessly (or to be more accurately - where it could have practicably been avoided) by an individual wearing a life jacket then it should be possible to prosecute the captain of the vessel for failing in their duty of care towards passengers under current legislation - be it friends / family or paying passengers, if it's in the public interest.

If you take this further for leisure users, what else might be legislated for - minimum safety equipment every boat must carry,compulsory VHF fixed / handheld on every craft with random inspections and fines levied by harbour patrols? Every boat could have to be coded - there's an industry waiting to happen - a compulsory appropriate licence for every boat helm / captain etc...... Each of these COULD possibly save a life. Where would you draw the line?

Is education not better and let people take their own decisions / responsibilities?

[Starovich]

Is education not better and let people take their own decisions / responsibilities?

So get rid of the driving licence for cars give everyone a DVD, they all will learn eventually or die?

It has to come down to commmon sense, influenced with some leaned behaviour, and if you don't have that, how on earth did you manage to get on the boat if the first place.

Takes no common scene to open your wallet and step aboard, and if your only tutor is some other Muppet with no clue, your learned behavior is going to be poor.

[simsy]

I believe all vessels must have a radio in the US, switch on and working and generally on the emergency channel??

[Al Baker]

I think your suggestion would be a very good solution.

Originally Posted by lakelandterrier

Having read the thread so far I think everone is agreed that the wearing of LJ/ PFD is generally a good / sensible thing in most circumstances and should be encouraged.

I would not dream of being on a small craft without an LJ/PFD, but if on a yacht it mght be that being clipped on with a harness so one doesn't go over in the first place is the "safer" option (OK so you could have LJ and safety line).

Legislating for this will be very difficult in terms of definitions, exceptions etc (e.g. if I'm swimming off the boat, at what point do I have put an LJ back on?). Knee-jerk, needless or over simplifed legislation is rarely good law.

Who would enforce it and how?
I wouldn't want more delegated legal authority to harbour authorities or rescue services to levey fines turning them more into another police enforcement (revenue raising) organisation. There would be nothing to stop a person removing a LJ out of a harbour limit in any case. I wouldn't want marine police lurking around evey headland waiting to pounce on "random" inspections.

I would suggest that if life is lost at sea / on the water needlessly (or to be more accurately - where it could have practicably been avoided) by an individual wearing a life jacket then it should be possible to prosecute the captain of the vessel for failing in their duty of care towards passengers under current legislation - be it friends / family or paying passengers, if it's in the public interest.

If you take this further for leisure users, what else might be legislated for - minimum safety equipment every boat must carry,compulsory VHF fixed / handheld on every craft with random inspections and fines levied by harbour patrols? Every boat could have to be coded - there's an industry waiting to happen - a compulsory appropriate licence for every boat helm / captain etc...... Each of these COULD possibly save a life. Where would you draw the line?

Is education not better and let people take their own decisions / responsibilities?

[lakelandterrier]

A further thought:
If government time is to be spent on legislating to save life aren't there higher priority areas to save more lives :
1) ban tobacco / smoking
2) outlaw alcohol
3) ban foods with high fat / salt levels
3) compulsory exercise classes for the whole poulation (at work or elsewhere)
4) reduce all road speeds limits to 30 mph
etc.....

Now I'll definitely

LT

[Dry Run]

This is how it will go (guarantee it).

First spend a fortune (paid for by the tax payer) getting the lawyers to write the legislation.

Then make the wearing of life jackets compulsory.

Then make US pay for the annual compulsory testing of our life jackets.

Then spend a fortune (paid for by the tax payer) on an advertising and awareness campaign.

Then make US pay to set up a regulatory authority to enforce and prosecute.

Then tell US it's "revenue neutral" and not a money making scheme (although we all know it is).

Then find out it's impossible to enforce the legislation without compulsory registration of all vessels.

Then spend a fortune (paid for by the tax payer) getting the lawyers to write the legislation.

Then make the registration of all vessels compulsory.

Round about now - Bin the whole thing and write off all the costs because the European Court has ruled that it's a contravention of our Human Rights.

Finally pay out a fortune in compensation (paid for by the tax payer) for all those poor people who have had their Human Rights infringed by being made to wear something that might just save their lives!

You heard it here first!

[C2 RIBS]

I would not get excited about this e petition anyway, as they only have presently 138 votes and need 100,000 just to get it listed for a debate and then they have to follow the following rules to try to gain something-

E-Petitions and the Backbench Business Committee - UK Parliament