Compulsory kill cords?

bluemoongaffer said:
The seat belt analogy is relevant - although there are many fewer incidents with boats, the wearing of a kill cord is just as self-evidently a good thing to do. As we'd all use one, not sure why there'd be a fuss about it being law?
Click to expand...

Maybe the low number of this type of accident is BECAUSE kill cords are used extensively. There is no data on the level of usage - only a very small number of incidents where it was not used and might have been useful. Bad basis for law.
 
KevO said:
And the wearing of seatbelts is more easily enforced because any passing old bill can see whether or not a car occupant is wearing one at a glance. Not the case with a boat unless it is proposed to have fast patrol vessels stopping every powerboat they see to check that the driver is wearing a kill cord? An unenforceable law in practice IMHO. But I suppose a licence fee would help to pay for the patrol boats and staff etc... :mad:
Click to expand...

This sort of argument doesn't stack up. There is a current law against being intoxicated while in charge of a boat. You don't have harbour patrols stopping people at random to breathalyse skippers just for the hell of it. It'd be the same for kill cords. Even so, it would be enforced by the likes of Chichester Harbour patrol - catch somebody speeding and the first thing they'd do is check on the use of a kill cord. Good idea IMHO if they did. In any event,
enforcement is only one element of law. Having it as law brings it to the top of the agenda for schools, the RNLI, insurance companies, boat & engine retailers
 
bluemoongaffer said:
This sort of argument doesn't stack up. There is a current law against being intoxicated while in charge of a boat. You don't have harbour patrols stopping people at random to breathalyse skippers just for the hell of it. It'd be the same for kill cords. Even so, it would be enforced by the likes of Chichester Harbour patrol - catch somebody speeding and the first thing they'd do is check on the use of a kill cord. Good idea IMHO if they did. In any event,
enforcement is only one element of law. Having it as law brings it to the top of the agenda for schools, the RNLI, insurance companies, boat & engine retailers
Click to expand...

I would think that as an obvious safety feature it would be at the top of their agenda anyway... hey ho...
 
Pkewish said:
I strongly believe that the massive publicity that this accident, others accidents and this petition is raising can only highlight the importance of killcords. If only one life is saved by such publicity then it's worth it.
Click to expand...
yes and no ... the problem with this sort of publicity is the negativity it introduces.

I've driven a 5m rib with 50hp without the kill chord - was I irresponsible? Not really, I was bimbling along at a few knots whilst covering a dinghy race in an enclosed harbour. If I'd needed to open up or the conditions were less than smooth then I c/would've attached the kill chord.
I always take the tender (2.5hp) without the killchord - do I worry? No, because I'm secure in the boat and chances of me going over are next to none.

To much publicity of the downfalls of not taking every safety precaution and we'll end up with legislation at worst or a bunch of "do-gooders" preaching about how we should live our lives. This country is going down the blame culture path - everything bad that happens must be someone (elses) fault and "must never happen again". We need to prevent this going too far and ppl need to take responsibility for their own actions.
Tragic accidents will always happen - you cannot legislate for every eventuality - well, you can, but ppl won't take any notice - and we should learn from them - but we also need to realise that there isn't one answer to everything and you need to look after yourself (and those in your care).
 
bluemoongaffer said:
This sort of argument doesn't stack up. There is a current law against being intoxicated while in charge of a boat. You don't have harbour patrols stopping people at random to breathalyse skippers just for the hell of it.
Click to expand...

That is not a good example - at least to support your argument. The law has been there for some time, but not put into force because (rather like kill cords, I suspect) a rigorous analysis of the facts suggested that it would not make any significant difference - that is drink/boating was not a significant cause of accidents and that it would be unenforceable. Exactly the same problems will come up - to whom should it apply (what sorts of boats), in what circumstances (in harbour, off beaches, or everywhere, for example), at what speeds, who would enforce it and what would the sanctions be.

Once you start working through these issues to frame a workable law you realise how impractical it is, and how different it is from a simple seat belt law which is easy to apply and police.
 
Tranona said:
That is not a good example - at least to support your argument. The law has been there for some time, but not put into force because (rather like kill cords, I suspect) a rigorous analysis of the facts suggested that it would not make any significant difference - that is drink/boating was not a significant cause of accidents and that it would be unenforceable. Exactly the same problems will come up - to whom should it apply (what sorts of boats), in what circumstances (in harbour, off beaches, or everywhere, for example), at what speeds, who would enforce it and what would the sanctions be.

Once you start working through these issues to frame a workable law you realise how impractical it is, and how different it is from a simple seat belt law which is easy to apply and police.
Click to expand...

Point taken - was just trying to make the point that just because there's a law, it doesn't mean there's then an army of law enforcement officers out stopping people on sus
 
fireball said:
yes and no ... the problem with this sort of publicity is the negativity it introduces.

I've driven a 5m rib with 50hp without the kill chord - was I irresponsible? Not really, I was bimbling along at a few knots whilst covering a dinghy race in an enclosed harbour. If I'd needed to open up or the conditions were less than smooth then I c/would've attached the kill chord.
I always take the tender (2.5hp) without the killchord - do I worry? No, because I'm secure in the boat and chances of me going over are next to none.

To much publicity of the downfalls of not taking every safety precaution and we'll end up with legislation at worst or a bunch of "do-gooders" preaching about how we should live our lives. This country is going down the blame culture path - everything bad that happens must be someone (elses) fault and "must never happen again". We need to prevent this going too far and ppl need to take responsibility for their own actions.
Tragic accidents will always happen - you cannot legislate for every eventuality - well, you can, but ppl won't take any notice - and we should learn from them - but we also need to realise that there isn't one answer to everything and you need to look after yourself (and those in your care).
Click to expand...

I have to say, and without being too personal or cause you any offence, that this should, IMHO, be the exact time when you should wear a kill cord. "5m RIB with 50hp...bimbling along at a few knots, covering a dinghy race...."
 
bluemoongaffer said:
Point taken - was just trying to make the point that just because there's a law, it doesn't mean there's then an army of law enforcement officers out stopping people on sus
Click to expand...

So, where's the point if it is not going to be enforced? Sanctions after the event are of limited use if the objective is prevention.
 
bluemoongaffer said:
I have to say, and without being too personal or cause you any offence, that this should, IMHO, be the exact time when you should wear a kill cord. "5m RIB with 50hp...bimbling along at a few knots, covering a dinghy race...."
Click to expand...
It's not caused me any offence...

Why?

So far, the only thing you can glean from that is that it's a 5m rib with 50hp on the back and we're not going very fast ...

See - from my point of view - I know the skippers in the race - having raced with them for many years. I know the race area very well. The wind is light and the water flat. The chances of the safety boat being needed for an emergency are very slight and although the chances of the boat being needed to tow the racers back is significantly higher it's still and outside chance.

So basically, we're relaxing on a big platform doing nothing in particular except keeping an eye on proceedings. We're not going overboard - well, not accidentally, nor are we likely to be unexpectedly involved in rescuing someone from the water. The max speed we travel at is regulated by harbour regs but our actual speed is dictated by the progress of the fleet.

Other than the capability - I might as well be in my tender - or actually, covering it with the yacht (under power) would be more comfortable ;)

If the safety boat is required to perform an action outside "bimbling around" which involves any sort of speed then yes, the kill chord should be used (and is also why covering a race in the yacht or tender is not really applicable!).

We used to cover races with a 17' diesel driven displacement craft capable of max 6kts - no electrics or kill chord on that ... was that irresponsible?

As a rule - the killchord should be attached at all times, but thats the thing with rules - knowing when they can/should be applied - and sometimes it may be appropriate to relax those rules.
 
While I agree in principle driving a fast powerboat without the kill cord attached to the driver was insane, I'm not sure I want a "law" about it.


Take my own boat, an 18ft small sailing cruiser.

It has a 4hp outboard engine, that has a kill cord. I never wear the kill cord on that. I don't think it's required or sensible. It's a totally different situation to driving say a fast RIB. After all, cruisers like mine with inboard engines just have an ignition key and no kill cord.

But I fear any "law" would probably be written in such a dumb way that it would apply to any outboard motor on any boat in any circumstance. The only way that would work for me is to make up a very long kill cord, that would then be more of a hazard than a safety feature, and would probably result in the engine getting accidentally stopped, just when I need it most (coming into the harbour)

If it did become law on my boat, I would love someone to explain to me how I can go forward to put out fenders and prepare my mooring lines as I approach the harbour, or even how I can raise my main sail while motoring into the wind while being constrained by a kill cord. So sorry it would have to be a law that I ignored if ever it happened.

On the other hand, when driving the clubs safety boat (A RIB) you are sat on a seat and a kill cord makes perfect sense and does not get in the way.
 
jimi said:
+1

Sh!t happens occasionally
Click to expand...

It does - but most of the time you know when sh!t is more likely to occur. I've canned a race because I didn't trust who was in the safety boat. I've had times in the safety boat when I was surprised to be still in it after hitting a wave (as crew) and hit a few waves & troughs harder than I would've liked (as helm) so I agree that you can be taken by surprise. However, in a situation as described above it would require a catastrophic event to catch the safety boat helm & crew unawares ... I can't even think of a viable event that would do so.
 
I'm guessing that a higher percentage of sailors are killed from falling overboard than those being killed by runaway boats. Can't imagine anyone wanting to legislate for compulsory jacklines and tethers?

Saying that... I would say any open boat/dinghy capable of more than say 10 knots should have a kill cord. Maybe the insurance companies force the issue by stipulating if a boat has one it must be used?
 
KevB said:
Can't imagine anyone wanting to legislate for compulsory jacklines and tethers?
Click to expand...

I can imagine the sort of shorebased ignorami that most of the Change.org emails will have reached thinking it's a good idea. "We have to wear seatbelts in cars, therefore they should do the same on boats."

Remember, most people know little or nothing about boats or the sea.

Pete
 
snowleopard said:
I received an email from Change.org this morning. It was about the parent of someone who had been killed by a runaway power boat who wanted me to sign a petition to make it illegal to operate a power boat without a kill cord. Would you sign?

I chose not to on the grounds that it would be impossible for British legislators to do just that. They would have to include lots of other safety checks and set up a force to to the checking. And then they'd almost certainly frame it in a way that covered lots of craft where it's irrelevant. They would probably make auxiliary cruisers comply so you'd have to cut the engine so you could go to the bog while motoring on autopilot.

What does the team think?
Click to expand...

That despite the understandable emotional reaction to losing one's child, it's not a thought-through response and you're right.
 
prv said:
I can imagine the sort of shorebased ignorami that most of the Change.org emails will have reached thinking it's a good idea. "We have to wear seatbelts in cars, therefore they should do the same on boats."

Remember, most people know little or nothing about boats or the sea.

Pete
Click to expand...

I have to agree there, Pete. In fact I suspect that most of the people who signed would be sick on the Woolwich Ferry! :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top