470 drownings

[qsiv]

I see that 470 people drowned in the last year - of which 20% drowned in coastal waters. The implication is that 80% drowned on inland waters.

As a result the MCA is launching a drive aimed at yachtsmen - it seems to me that the efforts would be better targeted at the 'inland' drownings - or is it just that boats are seen as dangerous - and as such a campaign to make coastal sailors safer will have better publicity.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Jools_of_Top_Cat]

ooh ooh controversial, Kim, Kim tell 'im!


Of the 80% I wonder how many were in garden ponds, or is it a case of drunks slipping off tow paths.

Lets look at the broader picture, if you add together all the parts, read through the press this forum etc.

I wonder what the form number will be that we have to ask for in the Post Office for our annual licence.




<hr width=100% size=1>J

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk>

</A>

 

[ParaHandy]

some very odd goings-on at the moment vis a vis commercial and leisure marine activities ....

last year (2002) the MCA reported 320 deaths and opined the following:

"The increase in incident numbers is almost entirely due to our new and extended search and rescue responsibilities particularly on the River Thames, but including Loughs Erne and Neagh in Northern Ireland, the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads and Loch Ness. However, we must also acknowledge the increased use of the sea in leisure activities. When we consider how many people use the sea and coastline for pleasure and leisure purposes, we can understand the rise in the figures for individuals being assisted at the Coast although we will redouble our efforts in reminding people to take care when sailing or using the coastline for leisure activities. In the last 12 months we have appointed an Accident Prevention Manager specifically to analyse the root causes of accidents, personal behaviours and then put in place accident prevention initiatives around the Coast in order to help reduce these figures. Our summer beach campaign `Sea Smart’ was very successful in highlighting the dangers"

I suppose you could just about describe Loch Ness as a "sea" loch ....

The Belfast coastguard put a subtly different spin on it (in 2002):

"The year has seen further PR campaigns on inland waters, and this has heightened awareness of the Coastguard’s new responsibility inland. This awareness has had direct influence on the increased number of incidents with which we have had to deal. This in turn is an indicator that many boating accidents had been going unreported and extrication had been by eventual self-help, or by the luck of a passing boat."

and the Thames Coastguard in 2002:

"Our first year has been busy and has resulted in successful integration with the other emergency services who have responsibilities for this area. The increase in deaths in the latest figures are predominately in the Central London Thames area, which with its dense population and large number of bridges attracts a disproportionate number of attempted suicides."

Absolutely nothing at all to do with sea-going yachtsmen and women .... what agenda, one wonders, is the MCA working to?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Twister_Ken]

A bee in my bonnet

Despite living aprox 35 miles from the nearest bit of recognisable sea, I somehow manage to live within 1 mile of a lifeboat station. The local freebies which dent the doormat regularly carry tales of derring-do from our local lifeboat heroes, which RNLI's own publicity machine generates. What follows is typical and taken from RNLI's own site...

"Two RNLI lifeboats from Chiswick Pier <font color=blue>saved</font color=blue> 51 people from the Thames on Sunday 21 March when the Veterans Head of the River race fell foul of gale force winds and strong tides. The race, between Putney and Mortlake, saw many craft overwhelmed by <font color=blue>huge</font color=blue> waves. One boat split in two, another boat sank at Barnes and a four sank at Putney" (my <font color=blue>emphasis</font color=blue>).

The implication is that without RNLI at Chiswick, 51 people would have lost their lives. I'm told by rowers that many of those who ended in the water made it to the bank without outside assistance, many more would have made dry land but were able to be assisted ashore by club safety launches, and RNLI helped out in this effort.

But, I suspect as far as RNLI and probably MCA stats are concerned, 51 lives were saved.

Cobblers.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.writeforweb.com/twister1>Let's Twist Again</A>

 

[boatless]

I love this bit

"The increase in incident numbers is almost entirely due to our new and extended search and rescue responsibilities particularly..."

So - are they pushing people in and then rescuing them?

<hr width=100% size=1>my opinion is complete rubbish, probably.

 

[ParaHandy]

Re: A bee in my bonnet

... hmm ... yes .. thought the same when I read it .. its all numbers and targets aka smoke and mirrors ...

i bet that bee was munching a morsel of bort-yn-safe ...

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[maxi]

I understand that the statistics, that imply that we all indulge ineptly in a dangerous sport, also include all of the remarkably high number of drownings by suicides (and possibly all the heavy landings when the tide was out).

How cynically misleading to include the Beachy Head fliers and the bridge jumpers, when statistics exist independently for that category, someone somewhere is building a case for more legislation.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[qsiv]

<<what agenda, one wonders, is the MCA working to? >>

Well, it will be easier and more profitable to collect 'safety dues' from yachtsmen than from canal side fishermen.

For all the the thousands (if not millions) of 'sea days' it does smack of an agenda when 'only' 94 deaths are attributable, yet a significant campaign is mooted.

In comparison to the 3000 or so road fatalities which already have a safety seems to represent an increase (as compared to the then current decline) since the tax (cameras) were introduced.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Keen_Ed]

Re: A bee in my bonnet

It must be said that the London rowing community are less than impressed by the RNLI. Fer intance, check out the Tideway Slug http://www.twrc.org/



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[sailorman]

Re: A bee in my bonnet

Empire Builders!.
although i am Govener Member they are one of the richest charities in Britian & waste our cash in their oun self interest as Building Societies use to do in the past.
the more "life boats" the more people they can rescue / save.
remember when they simply " Rendered Assistance"

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mirelle]

I had no idea that the 470 was such a dangerous class of dinghy!

<hr width=100% size=1>Que scais-je?

 

[sailorman]

just wait until they Graduate to 505s, or even Enterprising ones to 707s

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TonyD]

Well I've found the article on the MCA web site which says that the figure of 470 people drowned was the average over the last 10 years, not last year's number. I cannot find any reference to their launching a drive aimed at yachtsman. Where are you getting your information from?

TonyD

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[halcyon]

MP on the local radio ( Cornwall ) to-day was refering to powerboats and jet ski's, travelling at speed thus a danger from drunk driver, not drownings. But he went out of his way to mention that they had to avoid boats tied up to a quay, etc. When local population of Padstow were inerviewed, they refered to using heavy equipment, or falling overboard, they must have a odd view of sailer's.

Brian

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Joe_Cole]

"I see that 470 people drowned in the last year - of which 20% drowned in coastal waters. The implication is that 80% drowned on inland waters."


I'm not sure that your deduction is correct. If 20% are drowned in coastal waters, than a percentage may be drowned in offshore waters as well as inland waters? The original report may clarify it.

I do however agree with what you are saying about MCA et al. It does look as if the beaurocrats are wanting to get their wretched way with us.


Joe

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[qsiv]

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.ybw.com/auto/newsdesk/20040230103809ymnews.html>Just the front page of this worthy site!</A>

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[qsiv]

The front page of YBW<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.ybw.com/auto/newsdesk/20040230103809ymnews.html>has this news item</A>

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[qsiv]

.. and the 20% isroughly 2 times 49ers. I suspect we have exhausted this particular line of puns!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[TonyD]

The front page of YBW does NOT say that there were 470 drowning last year. It says 470 people die annually, i.e. its an average figure. Because 20% of the deaths are coastal does not mean that 80% are inland - they could include offshore.

The SeaSmart scheme, according to their web site, appears to concentrate just as much on the safety of people on the beach as it does on boat users. The boat user page does not mention the word "yacht" and is aimed as much at the users of rowing and power boats as yachts.

So is it accurate to say that the MCA are "launching a drive aimed at yachtsmen "?

Or was this aimed at playing on the fears of the regulars of this forum? ...not trolling by any chance? If you were, you succeeded! /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

TonyD

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[poter]

Tony
In defence of QSIV, I don’t think he was "Trolling" but making a very valid point.
It may well be that the figures can be interpreted in many ways but the basis of the post was, I think, that along with other draft legislation, in particular the "Influence of Booze" the MCA are looking at a soft touch, e.g. the recreational boating community, it is a very short step as has already been suggested to get all boat users registered & licensed and a whooping fee paid to Mr. Brown, so he can give more dosh to the NHS boys in blue.

What on earth are these people doing apart from building mini empires?

I really do, very strongly object, to some nanny state official, along with the health & safety executive, et all, proscribing how I can sail my boat!
Very soon we wont be allowed to leave harbour without having a full inspection, including a check on all your safety equipment, your licence & the colour of your Blinking underwear.


poter.......nurse! NURSE!...more Laphroig please.


<hr width=100% size=1>