Propeller Accident Statistics

[Nos4r2]

Originally Posted by Pikey Dave

Rule #2 is galloping over the horizon, hotly pursued by #3 I've tried to avoid the whole killcord debate, as it's a circular argument & in the end Darwin always wins.

Is that 'validate your argument by using Hitler' or the other one?

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by Nos4r2

Is that 'validate your argument by using Hitler' or the other one?

Hitler, pahh!! lightweight

[willk]

Originally Posted by Nos4r2

Is that 'validate your argument by using Hitler' or the other one?

I think he's referring to his Rules 2 & 3, as per his signature line.

His rule #1 is my favourite, and probably my most broken...

[Nos4r2]

Originally Posted by willk

I think he's referring to his Rules 2 & 3, as per his signature line.

His rule #1 is my favourite, and probably my most broken...

Yep, BTDT

[Cookee]

Originally Posted by PGIC

6. We have suggested several inventions ourselves. Among them are:
A. Integrating a virtual kill cord with a life jacket (boat operator wears life jacket which automatically acts as a virtual kill cord)
B. Sense capacitance of people in the boat to detect man overboard situation
C. Detect screams
D. Man overboard detection without the use of lanyards or wearable tags
E. Automatically detecting a vessel circling with no one on board, and shut it down.

gary

I find it quite incredible that an entire organisation who have done that much research comes up with a list of complete and utter rubbish! I won't even dignify your list with reasons that none of them will work as you will obviously disagree.

Detect screams? How much have you really thought this through?

[chris.moody]

Originally Posted by Cookee

.

Detect screams? How much have you really thought this through?

Scream detectors we will not even get the charter ribs out of the harbour with a hen party onboard as they love making loads of noise.

[paddlers]

I'm sorry PGIC but I have to ask. Do you spend much time in boats on the sea ?
I like my killcord, when it's worn I KNOW it will do what it's supposed to because it's simple & relies on nothing more than me putting the thing on. No batteries, nothing !!

[Observer]

As I said earlier, there are so many of you in denial that a self-evident problem exists. I have seen one, just one, half-way constructive response.

At best, the collective wisdom of the RIBNET community as evidenced in here seems to be that a system developed 40 years ago, the first and only system that has been widely implemented to mitigate the empirically validated problem of runaway boats, invented at a time when microprocessors and computerised engine management were more or less unimagined, is nevertheless for all time the best technical response to the problem that is capable of being devised.

The complacency displayed here is astounding. As representatives of your interest group you are a disgrace.

I am one of you and ashamed of it. Don't kid yourselves by thinking my view is extreme and unrepresentative. If I can see it this way, so will others. My personal position is probably just middle of the road.

Don't like the message? Take a look in the mirror.

[Cookee]

Originally Posted by Observer

As I said earlier, there are so many of you in denial that a self-evident problem exists. I have seen one, just one, half-way constructive response.

At best, the collective wisdom of the RIBNET community as evidenced in here seems to be that a system developed 40 years ago, the first and only system that has been widely implemented to mitigate the empirically validated problem of runaway boats, invented at a time when microprocessors and computerised engine management were more or less unimagined, is nevertheless for all time the best technical response to the problem that is capable of being devised.

The complacency displayed here is astounding. As representatives of your interest group you are a disgrace.

I am one of you and ashamed of it. Don't kid yourselves by thinking my view is extreme and unrepresentative. If I can see it this way, so will others. My personal position is probably just middle of the road.

Don't like the message? Take a look in the mirror.

I await your perfect solution with baited breath..........

[Observer]

And so it goes on. More of the same and you really can't see that the attitude you're displaying is the paradigm of the problem.

Are you really so blind and stupid you cannot see that a "perfect solution" is neither necessary nor expected". An improvement is what's needed. A step in the right direction. Positive progress. Acceptance by a decent proportion of stakeholders that devotion of some effort to seek better answers is both due and reasonable.

What is not needed, what is not acceptable, is that you and like-minded others sit back and criticise and reject suggested solutions, even not very good ones, because they're not "perfect".

By the way, it's "bated" not "baited", unless you're trying to defeat your opponents by breathing on them.

[paddlers]

Can I just point out that the terrible accident that brought about this debate was because of the human element ! The craft had a functioning safety device that wasn't used !
I see no need to reinvent the wheel because it's been about for centuries and by the same reasoning see no need to complicate a simple switch & a bit of string with complicated electrical gismo that may or may not work when I need it most.
I know that if my cord is in good order, attatched to me & I fall out of my boat the engine WILL stop !!
Apologies in advance if my grammar or spelling is not at the highest level but I hope that you'll accept I've done my best.

[DGR]

Originally Posted by Observer

And so it goes on.

Yes you do. Fundamentally, what's wrong with a killcord? It works, use it - as most of us do, if you actually bothered to read the thread.

There may well be a 'better' technological solution - it just hasn't appeared yet. All we are doing is pointing out the potential pit-falls of the technology that keeps being suggested - the main one being that people will be using it (and finding ways round using it for whatever reason). If a better solution came along which was as reliable as a kill cord, then I think we'd embrace it fully. Until then...what it seems to come down to is that a mechanical switch and a bit of string is still the most reliable, dependable way to do it.

[Leapy]

Originally Posted by Observer

.. An improvement is what's needed ...

... and when a proven, reliable, stable, durable and practical improvement comes along I will embrace it totally, as I'm sure will the vast majority of folks on this forum.

I might be wrong but you're giving me the impression that you're confusing counter-arguement for new technologies as a reluctance to embrace any new technology, whether an improvement or not. For my own part, as one who has offered counter-arguement, I'm simply attempting to be realistic. Embracing new technologies that are not proven, reliable, stable, durable or practical is neither sensible nor a contribution to safety.

[willk]

Tim/Observer. Getting your opinion across can be achieved without the use of over emotional language. There are as many opinions as there are posters on here, some of them hugely experienced, others not so much - I'd appreciate it if you didn't address and castigate us as one.

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by Observer

As I said earlier, there are so many of you in denial that a self-evident problem exists. I have seen one, just one, half-way constructive response.

At best, the collective wisdom of the RIBNET community as evidenced in here seems to be that a system developed 40 years ago, the first and only system that has been widely implemented to mitigate the empirically validated problem of runaway boats, invented at a time when microprocessors and computerised engine management were more or less unimagined, is nevertheless for all time the best technical response to the problem that is capable of being devised.

The complacency displayed here is astounding. As representatives of your interest group you are a disgrace.

I am one of you and ashamed of it. Don't kid yourselves by thinking my view is extreme and unrepresentative. If I can see it this way, so will others. My personal position is probably just middle of the road.

Don't like the message? Take a look in the mirror.

Well chum, you've lost me We're obviously not reading the same thread, or one o' us is in a parallel universe.
What are we in denial about? Why are we being complacent? Just humour me will you & put your point across in words of one syllable, I'm just a simple Yorkshire man after all

[Observer]

Sorry but when the prevalent attitude is so uniformly complacent, strong language is necessary to produce some response. No-one, or almost no-one, that I have seen, is standing up and saying "We will try to do more".

It is complete and utter bowlocks to argue, against the extraordinary technology advances of the last 40 years, that no better safety contribution by technology is possible.

And why the seemingly deliberately obtuse argument against additional layers of safety; as if all safety systems are mutually exclusive.

Yes there may issues and conflicts to resolve. Refusing to have the debate is offensive to reason and conscience - and yes, I am offended and prepared to say so.

[willk]

Originally Posted by Observer

strong language is necessary to produce some response.

I don't think that it is.

Originally Posted by Observer

And why the seemingly deliberately obtuse argument against additional layers of safety; as if all safety systems are mutually exclusive.

Just because some of us don't agree with you, doesn't mean that we're thick.

I'm largely disinterested in this killcord/prop debate, but I will insist that it be conducted civilly.

[Pikey Dave]

Originally Posted by Observer

Sorry but when the prevalent attitude is so uniformly complacent, strong language is necessary to produce some response. No-one, or almost no-one, that I have seen, is standing up and saying "We will try to do more".

It is complete and utter bowlocks to argue, against the extraordinary technology advances of the last 40 years, that no better safety contribution by technology is possible.

And why the seemingly deliberately obtuse argument against additional layers of safety; as if all safety systems are mutually exclusive.

Yes there may issues and conflicts to resolve. Refusing to have the debate is offensive to reason and conscience - and yes, I am offended and prepared to say so.

I still don't see what you're arguing for. Are you saying that just because the kill cord Is old tech' it's no good & that we should have something hi tech? That is, replace something that is cheap, simple, works, universal, reliable etc. with something that is none of the above? We could have a look at re-inventing the wheel whilst we're at it. The problem lies not with the kill cord system, but between the seat & the helm. I fail to see how this could be construed as complacent or being in denial, we have a perfectly good system that works, all we need is us numpties to use it.

[Cookee]

Originally Posted by Observer

And so it goes on. More of the same and you really can't see that the attitude you're displaying is the paradigm of the problem.

Are you really so blind and stupid you cannot see that a "perfect solution" is neither necessary nor expected". An improvement is what's needed. A step in the right direction. Positive progress. Acceptance by a decent proportion of stakeholders that devotion of some effort to seek better answers is both due and reasonable.

What is not needed, what is not acceptable, is that you and like-minded others sit back and criticise and reject suggested solutions, even not very good ones, because they're not "perfect".

By the way, it's "bated" not "baited", unless you're trying to defeat your opponents by breathing on them.

Thanks for correcting my spelling - at least we can agree on that.

To me the sense in this thread has been spoken by the contributions that suggest education not enforcement, and the addition of some of the most useless ideas I have ever heard of add nothing except noise to the conversation - you can discuss scream detectors all you like but it will still be a useless idea, and if you think that idea isn't quite perfect then my argument will be lost on you.

I really believe that there isn't one idea that has been discussed on here or the other forums that I have seen has any technical merit that would either add to or replace the kill cord, it's not to say there isn't an idea out there but to criticise the whole of Ribnet for not doing more is astounding, they have come up with ideas of T shirts, signs and proposals of education that would help make everyone aware of exactly what the potential dangers of boating without a kill cord are.

[lakelandterrier]

Originally Posted by Leapy

... and when a proven, reliable, stable, durable and practical improvement comes along I will embrace it totally, as I'm sure will the vast majority of folks on this forum.

Agreed!

Having followed the various debates, I do not think that many - if any of the contributors to RIBNET are complacent -a high level of complacency would have meant there would not be these debates as no-one could be bothered to comment.

There is a very simple, legally required fail-safe system that WORKS - the kill cord. The system is universal - same process on any boat- and cheap, two key attributes to a safety system. I have yet to see / read of any better, cost effective and practical device.

I don't subscribe to "there's no such thing as a bad idea...just another step to a good one" Much damage can be caused by poorly considered ideas that have not been though through then implemented with unforeseen consequences, sometimes, worse than the "problem" they were meant to solve. I see this very often with IT solutions which do not deliver the flexibility of systems they replace, forcing interventions and manual errors, or loss of capability

That is not complacency in my book.