High tech kill cords - the next generation?

[Boats&Outboards]

Originally Posted by Observer

But in this case an 'automatic' engine cut out would very likely have saved two lives, two serious injuries and immeasurable personal anguish, not to mention a substantial amount of public money. So there is at least a respectable argument for saying that the safety system is 'broken' or, at the very least, that there is room for improvement.

Just an idea, how about a system that requires a periodic (once a minute?) affirmative action, perhaps a push button, absent which the throttle is retarded to idle (or ignition cut completely).

With respect, so would have the current system if it was used correctly.

www.BoatsandOutboards4Sale.co.uk

[mister p]

Originally Posted by Boats&Outboards

With respect, so would have the current system if it was used correctly.

www.BoatsandOutboards4Sale.co.uk

Absolutely and exactly, precisely. Well said and +1.

[mister p]

There is a definite advantage in having a mechanical fail-safe. By all means add electronic back-up, but they would always play 2nd fiddle. Like seatbelts and airbags.There is a lot of discussion about proximity sensors in cars, they are not safety items, merely security. The safety comes from the seatbelt and knowing that wearing it will save your life.

[Boats&Outboards]

Originally Posted by mister p

There is a definite advantage in having a mechanical fail-safe. By all means add electronic back-up, but they would always play 2nd fiddle. Like seatbelts and airbags.

Maybe but the suggested idea of pushing a button every minute or the engine stops dead, seriously ? That's a killer right there.

www.BoatsandOutboards4Sale.co.uk

[PeterM]

Originally Posted by chris.moody

The "fly by wire" wireless top mounted throttles as well as having no interlock move very easily where as the side mounted cable ones are far stiffer. A slight knock could very easily knock it wide open.

Anyone know why they don't have an interlock?

But you can press the button (which is not that likely to be done by accident) and it's throttle only and no gear selected.

It's the few seconds of connecting a cord or pressing a button (that people don't do) that will always cause drama....

[Leapy]

Originally Posted by Cookee

I'm in the "it isn't broken why try and fix it with complicated stuff" camp

Originally Posted by Crusher

+1 Keep it simple ....

+ another 1

[mister p]

Originally Posted by Boats&Outboards

Maybe but the suggested idea of pushing a button every minute or the engine stops dead, seriously ? That's a killer right there.

www.BoatsandOutboards4Sale.co.uk

Agree, I was thinking more about having a kill cord and MAYBE using an electronic proximity as a backup ( just not the electronics on their own ).

[Observer]

Originally Posted by Boats&Outboards

Maybe but the suggested idea of pushing a button every minute or the engine stops dead, seriously ? That's a killer right there.

www.BoatsandOutboards4Sale.co.uk

I think that reaction is a bit unimaginative. The reaction needn't be "engine stops dead", which I agree could cause another problem. It could be a gradual retardation of throttle back to idle/neutral.

There are several incontrovertible facts;

1. However good/safe/simple the kill cord safety mechanism is, it is self-evidently not "idiot proof".

2. A truly idiot proof system installed in the accident boat would have saved lives.

3. Technology exists today that was simply not available when kill cords were introduced.

An electronic solution on the lines I have suggested could be incorporated quite easily and inexpensively in higher end boats. I agree it's not an answer at the lower end but it does provide a partial solution. There may be better ones. I don't claim my suggestion is perfect but I think there is some mileage in it. By all means critique it, but constructively please.

[Crusher]

Originally Posted by Observer

2. A truly idiot proof system installed in the accident boat would have saved lives.

If it truly is that easy then it would be done, truth of the matter IMO is that you will NEVER have an idiot proof system, you can't legislate or design out IDIOTS.

While this accident is incredibly emotive, and I really hope it changes the behaviour of many boaters, from the MIAB own statistics earlier in this thread, there were something like 19 preventable deaths by non use of the kill cord in the last 5 years (forgive me if I have that stat slightly wrong) however how many lives have been lost on our roads in the UK, in the same period of time?
If you have some clever ideas to get rid of , by design or legislation then can I be bold enough to suggest you make a much bigger impact and start on our roads instead of our waterways?

[mister p]

Originally Posted by Observer

I think that reaction is a bit unimaginative. The reaction needn't be "engine stops dead", which I agree could cause another problem. It could be a gradual retardation of throttle back to idle/neutral.

There are several incontrovertible facts;

1. However good/safe/simple the kill cord safety mechanism is, it is self-evidently not "idiot proof".

2. A truly idiot proof system installed in the accident boat would have saved lives.

3. Technology exists today that was simply not available when kill cords were introduced.

An electronic solution on the lines I have suggested could be incorporated quite easily and inexpensively in higher end boats. I agree it's not an answer at the lower end but it does provide a partial solution. There may be better ones. I don't claim my suggestion is perfect but I think there is some mileage in it. By all means critique it, but constructively please.

1....nothing is

2....yes, but it doesn't exist

3....yes, but not implemented ( maybe because it isn't any more effective)

Partial solution isn't the answer unfortunately......with all respect.

[Nos4r2]

Originally Posted by Observer

2. A truly idiot proof system installed in the accident boat would have saved lives.

There is no such thing as idiot proof. Make it idiot proof, and someone will breed a better idiot.

It's been proved time and time again.

[Observer]

Originally Posted by Crusher

If it truly is that easy then it would be done, truth of the matter IMO is that you will NEVER have an idiot proof system, you can't legislate or design out IDIOTS.

While this accident is incredibly emotive, and I really hope it changes the behaviour of many boaters, from the MIAB own statistics earlier in this thread, there were something like 19 preventable deaths by non use of the kill cord in the last 5 years (forgive me if I have that stat slightly wrong) however how many lives have been lost on our roads in the UK, in the same period of time?
If you have some clever ideas to get rid of , by design or legislation then can I be bold enough to suggest you make a much bigger impact and start on our roads instead of our waterways?

So, if I understand correctly, your position is:

- the existing technical solution can't be improved; or

- no improvement is needed because average ~4 preventable deaths per year is trivial/negligible/not worthy of consideration.

Is that it?

[Observer]

Originally Posted by Nos4r2

There is no such thing as idiot proof. Make it idiot proof, and someone will breed a better idiot.

It's been proved time and time again.

Yes accepted. But accepting that a perfect solution is unachievable doesn't excuse/justify failing to explore and pursue incremental improvements, particularly in the aftermath of an event that has highlighted the limitations of the existing safety model.

This is pretty obvious. Why the resistance?

[andyxs]

Originally Posted by Observer

So, if I understand correctly, your position is:

- the existing technical solution can't be improved; or

- no improvement is needed because average ~4 preventable deaths per year is trivial/negligible/not worthy of consideration.

Is that it?

I think you would be hard pushed to make a less idiot proof reliable system than a cord you attach to your self. An electrical system is a very complicated system and far less idiot proof and easier to forget, flat batterys it would have to have a bypass that people could activate. This is like seatbelts people dont wear them for one reason or another and die because of it just like killcords it dosnt take alot of education to say wear your killcord. Advertisment would be a far better use of money, just on the exits of marinas "WEAR YOUR KILLCORD" signs, on the slipways, park and launch facilites etc etc.
The limitations of the current model is people not clipping a peice of string to themselves. make the string longer with a bit more elasticity if you need to move further.

[Boats&Outboards]

Originally Posted by Observer

So, if I understand correctly, your position is:

- the existing technical solution can't be improved; or

- no improvement is needed because average ~4 preventable deaths per year is trivial/negligible/not worthy of consideration.

Is that it?

Improvement is needed but efforts should be towards EDUCATION and Awareness rather than re-inventing the wheel. The mechanical system doesn't need improved, it works and rarely fails ie when the attached cord is pulled the engine stops - Its the way its used that fails ie if no cord is attached/pulled it obviously won't stop when needed to. Just like a car will stop when you hit the brake pedal, that doesn't stop people failing to push it.

My point was If you think people will be wanting to push a button every 1,3 or 5 mins your way off the mark. Would you equally accept having to push a button every mile travelled on the motorway, let's say if your speed has/hasn't changed by more than 5 mph - incase you've fallen asleep at the wheel ? And if you fail to do so the car comes to a stop, in the fast lane for example ?

www.BoatsandOutboards4Sale.co.uk

[Nos4r2]

Originally Posted by Observer

Yes accepted. But accepting that a perfect solution is unachievable doesn't excuse/justify failing to explore and pursue incremental improvements, particularly in the aftermath of an event that has highlighted the limitations of the existing safety model.

This is pretty obvious. Why the resistance?

It hasn't highlighted the limitations of the existing safety model, it's highlighted that someone didn't USE the existing safety model.

Every proposal so far (bar the very simple one I made a few pages back about the igniton switch which was ignored) has been overcomplicated, introduced many more potential fail points, utterly impractical and a total pain in the neck for the end user.
They sound like a 'bluesky thinking brainstorming solution' by salesmen who don't have any practical clue of how the actual system would work or any real idea of how people will respond to such a system.

All of which means there's more likelyhood of people trying even harder for a way to disable it-or simply eleminating any new sales of the motor if it was an OEM fitment.

You have to be realistic.

Originally Posted by thetruthaboutcarswebsite

Former TVR owner Peter Wheeler used to explain the lack of airbags in his firm’s high-powered sportscars by arguing drivers would be safer if he installed a metal spike in the middle of each steering wheel.

The killcord is our metal spike. If people are too stupid to use it,then there really isn't much you can do.

[Observer]

Originally Posted by Boats&Outboards

Improvement is needed but efforts should be towards EDUCATION and Awareness rather than re-inventing the wheel. The mechanical system doesn't need improved, it works and rarely fails ie when the attached cord is pulled the engine stops - Its the way its used that fails ie if no cord is attached/pulled it obviously won't stop when needed to. Just like a car will stop when you hit the brake pedal, that doesn't stop people failing to push it.

My point was If you think people will be wanting to push a button every 1,3 or 5 mins your way off the mark. Would you equally accept having to push a button every mile travelled on the motorway, let's say if your speed has/hasn't changed by more than 5 mph - incase you've fallen asleep at the wheel ? And if you fail to do so the car comes to a stop, in the fast lane for example ?

www.BoatsandOutboards4Sale.co.uk

A different technical approach and additional education approach are not mutually exclusive.

It seems you refuse to even contemplate that a technical improvement MAY be possible? Remarkable!

Your car driving analogy is not well thought through. We can all see the obvious distinctions between boats and cars.

I don't claim that my idea is perfect but it has some merits and yes, I would be willing to use it on a RIB. I think you'll find it is similar in concept to the watch keeping system installed on some commercial vessels to address/combat watchkeeper fatigue. The affirmation interval would have to be short (maybe 1 minute) but if it is done by programmable logic then (for example) the interval could be inversely proportional to throttle setting.

[andyxs]

Originally Posted by Observer

A different technical approach and additional education approach are not mutually exclusive.

It seems you refuse to even contemplate that a technical improvement MAY be possible? Remarkable!

Your car driving analogy is not well thought through. We can all see the obvious distinctions between boats and cars.

I don't claim that my idea is perfect but it has some merits and yes, I would be willing to use it on a RIB. I think you'll find it is similar in concept to the watch keeping system installed on some commercial vessels to address/combat watchkeeper fatigue. The affirmation interval would have to be short (maybe 1 minute) but if it is done by programmable logic then (for example) the interval could be inversely proportional to throttle setting.

I would never want to take my hands off the throttle or wheel when driving fast especially if it is rough. I would have thought a better Idea would be to make the throttle spring loaded above 15mph so it returned to zero. Meaning you have to keep your hand on the throttle or it stops a high speed but not so much for low speed. But this would encourage people to stop using the killcord.
Driving a rib fast

[Observer]

Originally Posted by andyxs

I would never want to take my hands off the throttle or wheel when driving fast especially if it is rough. I would have thought a better Idea would be to make the throttle spring loaded above 15mph so it returned to zero. Meaning you have to keep your hand on the throttle or it stops a high speed but not so much for low speed. But this would encourage people to stop using the killcord.
Driving a rib fast

The safety button could be on the throttle or on the steering wheel or close enough to either to be within fingertip reach.

I can't see how throttle friction can easily be made variable at different settings. In any event, it has already been stated and I agree that a low friction spring loaded throttle is not a great idea when running at speed (possibly not at all).

The safety button idea, if implemented as a logic solution, would be easily adaptable to have varying effects at different throttle settings.

And yes there is a risk that such a system would discourage use of a conventional kill cord. That would need some careful thought.

[Poly]

Originally Posted by Observer

The safety button could be on the throttle or on the steering wheel or close enough to either to be within fingertip reach.

I can't see how throttle friction can easily be made variable at different settings. In any event, it has already been stated and I agree that a low friction spring loaded throttle is not a great idea when running at speed (possibly not at all).

The safety button idea, if implemented as a logic solution, would be easily adaptable to have varying effects at different throttle settings.

And yes there is a risk that such a system would discourage use of a conventional kill cord. That would need some careful thought.

You could relatively cheaply impliment such a system. Why not do it to make your own boat safer and see if it catches on? I'm fairly sure it will be totally impractical and after a couple of trips you'll disable it. Happy to be proved wrong by anyone who puts their money where their mouth is.