The advice from CRT is to wear lifejackets.

[paulstoke1975]

 

Richard Parry was wearing on on the BCN Challenge. He did look faintly silly in it, even though I can see why he was wearing it.

 

The endless drive for 'safety' is politically unstoppable. Who could ever justify advice to do something in a less safe manner when there is a more safe manner?

 

 

MtB

i do agree, people would look silly but if they became compulsory it would be like a cycle helmet,

still look daft but everyone would look the same,

[Machpoint005]

i do agree, people would look silly but if they became compulsory it would be like a cycle helmet,

still look daft but everyone would look the same,

 

That's another example of a piece of safety equipment that can be dangerous if misused -- eg children throttling themselves on the loose chinstrap.

 

 

>> With any piece of safety equipment, there is a risk that its presence will cause people to behave with less thought for their own safety than if they didn't have it.

 

Teaching people to adopt safe ways of doing things rather than believing that safety equipment will save them is far better.<<

 

I agree but perhaps only up to a point - the safest way might be some combination of equipment and safe systems of behaviour. The really tricky bit is drawing the line in the right place.

[magpie patrick]

Isn't this, though, another case of not really thinking about the risk that is being addressed? Especially those who would espouse the use of life jackets around locks.

 

The risks of going through a tunnel are manifold, most of them are rather unlikely to occur but in all cases they have potentially serious consequences of either being knocked off the boat or being crushed by it. Of these risks, which does wearing a life jacket actually resolve? It only addresses some of the risks should you end up in the water, by which time something has already gone fairly badly wrong.

 

There are a number of things it would be patently daft to do in a tunnel - walk down the gunnels, stand or sit on the roof, dangle your legs over the side. For some reason, no one wants to add sitting on a perch at the very back of the boat behind the tiller to this list. Shouldn't it be on the tunnel safety sheet at Harecastle "Taff rail seats, where fitted, should not be used whilst in the tunnel"

 

The problem with a life jacket is it is likely to make people think that other risks are less significant, because nothing is done to mitigate those risks.

 

At a lock the ife jackets can become a liability. The only safe thing to do when a lock is filling or emptying is to not fall in - wearing a life jacket gives you a good chance of being stuck against an open paddle if you fall in near one

[mayalld]

i do agree, people would look silly but if they became compulsory it would be like a cycle helmet,

still look daft but everyone would look the same,

 

Cycle Helmets;

 

http://www.risksense.org/2012/06/14/the-myth-of-the-bicycle-helmet/

[b0atman]

I would assume that all manned tunnels will have loan life jackets from now on as once there has been an incident then they have to cover their posterior.

Not too long and we will be doing Risk assessment before we untie

When single handing I think I will start to wear mine more often .

[Alan de Enfield]

Life-Jackets

 

If I suffer 1000 accidents on the water, and the life-jacket would do its job in just one of those accidents I would deem it both worth while, value for money', and worth looking a 'fool' (in some peoples eyes).

 

When on our lumpy-water boat it was a rule that if on deck, you wear a lifejacket.

On our NB it is a rule that you wear a life-jacket on the River and if you feel it necessary - anywhere you want to.

 

I am virtually a non-swimmer ( I used to swim, but seem to have lost the ability) and so have a 285 Newton lifejacket, it has crotch straps and an incorporated lifting harness - Brand new with manufacturers guarantee it cost less than £80.

The crotch strap makes my testicular area look huge but it does not restrict movement in any way.

 

I just dont understand this 'Macho-Man' thing when it comes to safety (be it VHF Radio, anchor, or life-jackets)

Edited November 21, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[Machpoint005]

>> The crotch strap makes my testicular area look huge but it does not restrict movement in any way.

 

I just dont understand this 'Macho-Man' thing when it comes to safety (be it VHF Radio, anchor, or life-jackets)<<

 

Quite agree. I'd rather be alive and look a fool than dead and look cool.

 

Cycle Helmets;

 

http://www.risksense.org/2012/06/14/the-myth-of-the-bicycle-helmet/

 

Nice one - thanks. The solution is not to protect heads, it's to protect cyclists. Preferably by keeping them and motorists as far apart as possible.

[ditchcrawler]

CaRT insisted that the crews of the boats taking part in the boat handling competition at Saul Junction wore life jackets, they also insisted on a minimum of two persons onboard.

 

The Broads Authority advocate the wearing of Life Jackets and provide storage lockers at their G.t Yarmouth Yacht Station so you can take them off when you are ashore and put them back on before boarding your boat. Lots of drownings on the Broads happen when people return to their boats in the evening, not while cruising.

[howardang]

Life-Jackets

 

If I suffer 1000 accidents on the water, and the life-jacket would do its job in just one of those accidents I would deem it both worth while, value for money', and worth looking a 'fool' (in some peoples eyes).

 

When on our lumpy-water boat it was a rule that if on deck, you wear a lifejacket.

On our NB it is a rule that you wear a life-jacket on the River and if you feel it necessary - anywhere you want to.

 

I am virtually a non-swimmer ( I used to swim, but seem to have lost the ability) and so have a 285 Newton lifejacket, it has crotch straps and an incorporated lifting harness - Brand new with manufacturers guarantee it cost less than £80.

The crotch strap makes my testicular area look huge but it does not restrict movement in any way.

 

I just dont understand this 'Macho-Man' thing when it comes to safety (be it VHF Radio, anchor, or life-jackets)

One pet hate of mine is to see people wearing lifejackets but unfastened, presumably to look "cool", but really they just look stupid!

 

Howard

[ditchcrawler]

i do agree, people would look silly but if they became compulsory it would be like a cycle helmet,

still look daft but everyone would look the same,

I think cyclests on the towpath would be better off with lifejackets than helmets

[Radiomariner]

Quite a few boat insurance policies contain (in the small print) a clause on the requirement for buoyancy aids to be worn by single handed boaters. Check yours out.

[mayalld]

Life-Jackets

 

If I suffer 1000 accidents on the water, and the life-jacket would do its job in just one of those accidents I would deem it both worth while, value for money', and worth looking a 'fool' (in some peoples eyes).

 

It is a persuasive argument, just so long as you omit some of the variables (as you have done)

 

Your analysis presumes 1000 accidents, and that in 1 case the outcome was improved by the wearing of the lifejacket. Clearly a win.

 

However, to complete the analysis, you have to ask several questions;

1. How many additional accidents will occur as a result of complacency that results from wearing the life jacket?
2. How many additional accidents will occur as a result of the lifejacket becoming entangled with the boat or a lock?
3. In how many cases will the wearing of a lifejacket cause a worse outcome?

Without those answers are you certain that it is a good move?

[Machpoint005]

I think cyclests on the towpath would be better off with lifejackets than helmets

 

Depends what you do when they cycle towards you at speed...

 

It is a persuasive argument, just so long as you omit some of the variables (as you have done)

 

Your analysis presumes 1000 accidents, and that in 1 case the outcome was improved by the wearing of the lifejacket. Clearly a win.

 

However, to complete the analysis, you have to ask several questions;

1. How many additional accidents will occur as a result of complacency that results from wearing the life jacket?
2. How many additional accidents will occur as a result of the lifejacket becoming entangled with the boat or a lock?
3. In how many cases will the wearing of a lifejacket cause a worse outcome?

Without those answers are you certain that it is a good move?

 

We all need to see the 'big picture', and I for one like to try to work out what it is for myself. On that basis, voluntary lifejackets, as opposed to compulsory, are probably a 'good thing'.

 

If wearing is made compulsory in tunnels, what is to stop a boater donning one to enter the tunnel under the eye of a CRT official, then taking it off, and putting it on again when reaching the other end?

[MtB]

I've been told that most single-handing boaters who drown, do so by falling into the cut on the way back to their boat from the pub.

 

Is this an urban myth or can anybody cite some stats to back it up?

 

 

MtB

[ditchcrawler]

I've been told that most single-handing boaters who drown, do so by falling into the cut on the way back to their boat from the pub.

 

Is this an urban myth or can anybody cite some stats to back it up?

 

 

MtB

Similar to the Broads, hence the reason for encouraging people to put them on before boarding. How successful it will be I haven't a clue

[larryjc]

This whole safety thing drives me mad. Its my life and as long as my decisions doesn't affect anyone else then it should be my business. I wear a lifejacket at night at sea if I'm sailing or by day if its very rough but that's my decision based on my own perception of risk. On the canals I never wear one but when I did the Thames I did, again my decision. Its a crazy world - we let people buy cigarettes - narcotic poisons that kill thousands every year and no one says a word. One poor guy falls into a canal and suddenly we're talking about mandatory life jackets. Where on earth has our sense of proportion gone????

[Murflynn]

Some of the reasons (excuses) for not wearing LJs reminds me of the refuseniks when car seat belts became compulsory.

The roads are safer for drivers now. The same would apply for boats if LJs are compulsory.

 

I do not wear one, but I have 2 on the boat in case I need to do something risky. They must have crutch straps.

 

I had an accident with a flying windlass key that knocked me for six, luckily away from the lockside, but it was a deep lock and if I'd gone in I would have been in danger. An LJ would have saved me from drowning.

 

If they became compulsory we would soon get used to them.

[Machpoint005]

>> Its my life and as long as my decisions doesn't affect anyone else then it should be my business. <<

 

On the surface, that's fine, but what about:

 

Your family affected by your accidental death;

The emergency services who may be affected by having to drag up and deal with your corpse;

The poor so-and-so's who have to break the bad news to your family;

The cost to the public purse of picking up the pieces resulting directly from your 'freedom' to make ill-advised decisions

 

...to mention just some.

 

It's just not that easy to decide whether anyone else is affected, is it?

Some of the reasons (excuses) for not wearing LJs reminds me of the refuseniks when car seat belts became compulsory.

The roads are safer for drivers now. The same would apply for boats if LJs are compulsory.

 

I do not wear one, but I have 2 on the boat in case I need to do something risky. They must have crutch straps.

 

I had an accident with a flying windlass key that knocked me for six, luckily away from the lockside, but it was a deep lock and if I'd gone in I would have been in danger. An LJ would might have saved me from drowning.

 

If they became compulsory we would soon get used to them.

Agreed subject to the above edit

[Murflynn]

This whole safety thing drives me mad. Its my life and as long as my decisions doesn't affect anyone else then it should be my business. I wear a lifejacket at night at sea if I'm sailing or by day if its very rough but that's my decision based on my own perception of risk. On the canals I never wear one but when I did the Thames I did, again my decision. Its a crazy world - we let people buy cigarettes - narcotic poisons that kill thousands every year and no one says a word. One poor guy falls into a canal and suddenly we're talking about mandatory life jackets. Where on earth has our sense of proportion gone????

if you drown on an inland waterway then other people will become involved.

I had the inglorious job of assisting the lifting of a bloated corpse from the Humber many years ago. Not nice.

[Machpoint005]

if you drown on an inland waterway then other people will become involved.

I had the inglorious job of assisting the lifting of a bloated corpse from the Humber many years ago. Not nice.

 

Crossed with mine, it seems.

[Hawkmoth]

I think cyclests on the towpath would be better off with lifejackets than helmets

No, cyclists on tow path would be better off (it)

Bob

This whole safety thing drives me mad. Its my life and as long as my decisions doesn't affect anyone else then it should be my business. I wear a lifejacket at night at sea if I'm sailing or by day if its very rough but that's my decision based on my own perception of risk. On the canals I never wear one but when I did the Thames I did, again my decision. Its a crazy world - we let people buy cigarettes - narcotic poisons that kill thousands every year and no one says a word. One poor guy falls into a canal and suddenly we're talking about mandatory life jackets. Where on earth has our sense of proportion gone????

Have a greenie!

Bob

[Murflynn]

No, cyclists on tow path would be better off (it)

Bob

 

luvvit!

[Machpoint005]

But how to divert them towards the wet bit -- accidentally a-purpose, like?

[Wanderer Vagabond]

 

 

On the surface, that's fine, but what about:

 

Your family affected by your accidental death; I can agree with that to a degree, however at some time my family ARE going to be affected by my death whether accidental or natural, the one thing about life is that no-one gets out of it alive. Once someone is dead (by whatever means) there is little to be gained by speculating 'but what if.....', provided they have enjoyed life.

 

The emergency services who may be affected by having to drag up and deal with your corpse; Having done this on occasions, it is just part of the job. Am I supposed to sympathise with the Undertaker who will deal with my death as well? You will find that those of us who were in regular contact with death, rather callously regarded it as just a body (if you didn't it would probably break you).

 

The poor so-and-so's who have to break the bad news to your family; Have also done this on a number of occasions, once again it is just part of a job. The difficult one's are telling someone that their young child has died, but then we'd tend to put a non-swimming young child in a LJ wouldn't we?

 

The cost to the public purse of picking up the pieces resulting directly from your 'freedom' to make ill-advised decisions Think you need to clarify the additional expenses incurred, compared with say suffering a heart attack in the street?

 

My thoughts on Life jackets is that I know what they are and what they do so if I choose to wear one, or not to wear one, is my adult choice.When offshore sailing I would wear one if the conditions suggested it to be a good idea, as a dinghy sailor I would always wear a buoyancy aid (never LJ) As with cycle helmets I generally choose not to wear one since I don't believe that they offer sufficient protection (they are effective up to an impact velocity of 12 mph which is about the speed that a child's head would hit the floor it they fell off their cycle from stationary) Mayer Hillman gives an interesting take on cycle helmets for anyone interested.

 

[Machpoint005]

WV - Not disagreeing with any of your responses, and bowing to your personal and professional experience but the point remains -- which is that it may not always be possible to determine at what point personal freedom of choice trumps social responsibilities. Which is what I was getting at.