Compulsory prop guards

[Searush]

What do you guys think of this idea? Will it help save lives?

http://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/boy-who-nearly-lost-leg-3902875

 

[Whitelighter]

I doubt it.

You might find limbs actually get trapped in the guard. Plus it's not iften the prop that kills, it's being run over by a ton and a half of boat.

Needless legislation to protect the stupid or careless

 

[rbcoomer]

Sadly, probably not. I think it's a great idea in waters where there are swimmers or for watersports users, but for the average cruising boat, I'd say the risks of fouling on unmarked pots or other debris is increased and as with all things there are different risks with different uses/environments. Like the kill cord issue, education is better than legislation IMHO.

 

[epervier]

Lots of dive boats around the Solent fit guards as routine,not sure if it's part of their insurance requirements, same as ski clubs I'd guess, makes too much sense when you mix swimmers with propellers, but again does it need legislation or education?

 

[rwilson]

The guard won't protect someone being injured by the skeg when the boats travelling at 30 knots plus

 

[Searush]

Education doesn't seem to work very well with Kill-Cords does it?

Mind you I doubt that legislation would do any better either as you would probably only be prosecuting dead or bereaved persons.

 

[Robg71]

to avoid confusion

 

[Searush]

not a nice thought, divers have gone through these, prop guards not fitted, and wont be

The article refers to speedboats & I suspect the envisaged guard will look very like the tunnel fitted around that prop, but a fraction of the size. Like to comment on the thread again?

 

[Tranona]

This subject was done to death here last year following the accident off the Needles.

As usual there are pros and cons, but little hard evidence that they are viable or effective. Number of people reported using them (in applications like dive support boats), but often not satisfactory because they are not robust enough, can result in loss of performance and invalidate warranty on some engines.

The RYA published a useful summary of the issues in February this year. It is on the website under Safety.

Just out of interest subject also came up on Scuttlebutt and somebody posted the data from the US, where the type of boat that might need a propguard is vastly more numerous than here and it is low on the list of causes of injuries and deaths.

So, although the consequences of being hit by a prop can be severe, but probably no worse than being hit by a speeding boat, the incidence of it happening seems to be low.

 

[NormanS]

not a nice thought, divers have gone through these, prop guards not fitted, and wont be

Surely you don't think that that is a guard. That is a type of Kort Nozzle, designed to give more prop thrust.

 

[Robg71]

indeed not, hence the bit that says, not fitted....

 

[chanelyacht]

Needless legislation to protect the stupid or careless

That's out of order.

The kids at Padstow were neither, they didn't get the choice.

The problem with runaway boats is they don't discriminate that the person they're hitting isn't the driver.

 

[Tranona]

That's out of order.

The kids at Padstow were neither, they didn't get the choice.

The problem with runaway boats is they don't discriminate that the person they're hitting isn't the driver.

We may well discover when the report comes out that Whitelighter's basic sentiment is not far off the mark, even if the language is insensitive. The point so far is that the boat was fitted with a kill cord, but not used. As many have said, knee jerk reactions without being in full possession of the facts - whether it be about kill cords or prop guards, leads to bad law.

Making something either illegal or compulsory is only useful if it first addresses the problem and second is enforceable. Mobile phone usage in cars is a good example - not enforced so largely ignored. It is naive to think that just legislation will force compliance.

 

[wipe_out]

Why is regulation and legislation always the first place people jump when there is an accident??

Taken to its logical conclusion where EVERYTHING is regulated you would have a hard time getting out of bed.. If we had this level of "rediculousness" 100 years ago we wouldn't have cars, planes or boats..

Can you imagine if the car hadn't been invented and today you were telling the world you were going to create a device that carried a highly explosive liquid in a tank and was capable of being propelled forward at speed through public places and would be able to be used by anyone from 18 year old upwards.. Drivers licence or not with the amount of red tape these days it would never make it to production..

As insensitive as anyone may feel Whitelighter's comment was it's harshly exactly right.. Yes, I feel for the kids who had no choice and were innocent victims but any new legislation wouldn't have applied to them.. It would have applied to the person in control on the boat who was either operating it unsafely (careless), was not capable of controlling the boat and didn't realise it (stupid) or was caught by a freak event off guard (accident) that we are all susceptible to the minute we move (any even when standing still)..

 

[maby]

There is an important difference between cars and boats. We have places reserved for cars - they are called roads. While it doesn't always work, we seek to impose a separation between cars and pedestrians which, most of the time, reduces the risk of fatalities to a very low level. In many places on inshore waters, we have an environment which is not far removed from the equivalent of allowing untrained fools to drive quad bikes through a children's playground at 50mph. I'm fairly neutral if someone wants to drive a high power mobo at 40 or 50 several miles off shore - he/she is only really risking their own lives and those of their passengers. I would like to see speed limits in the region of a few knots strictly enforced inshore.