Drink Survey - What does it mean?

[Major Catastrophe]

[ QUOTE ]

The crucial, and rather obvious, distinction is that not wearing a lifejacket will not put other people at risk.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't agree with that statement and I don't advocate compulsory lifejackets. EDIT:Er, sorry, your double negative threw me and I think we are arguing the same point....maybe.


EDIT 2: No, I've read it again and we are arguing two different points. Sheesh. Nurse, is it time for my lie down now?

IMHO not wearing a lifejacket arguable does put other people at risk, because rescuers may have to risk their lives to affect a rescue or to recover the body afterwards!

A person in the water with a lifejacket has more chance to help themselves and their rescuers than a person who does not have one, which may lead to a rescuer having to dive in.

I think there is an argument to have a rule for everything, but I think that the more rules and regulations you impose, the less aware of danger people become. Why not ban boating altogether – along with those apparently dangerous baths?

Frankly, I like a bit of risk, I like to push the boundary and scare myself a bit and the more restrictions, rules, regulations, licences, taxes, jobsworths, penalties, fines, surveillance and government intrusion, the less fun it becomes.

I should add that I tell everyone on board to wear a lifejacket, but that is my decision, not some politician's.

 

[Bergman]

I think perhaps you need to look a little deeper.

The normal demonstration of impairment due to drink is based on reaction times.

Clearly in a car where lots of vehicles are in very close proximity travelling at speeds up to 70 mph then even a small impairment in reaction time and judgement of speed and distance presnts a considerable risk.

My last trip in the boat was at night and I never saw another vessel. I travelled at about 6-7 knots so lightning reactions were hardly necessary.

You also have to consider the time factor - most car journeys are relatively short - 2-3 hours perhaps, is it sensible to apply the same rules to that sort of usage as toa boat where you may be on board for several days, which include off watch periods where yourtime is your own - are you still liable to be breathalysed?

Now I know there is more to the argument than this and I know there is a question of quality of decision making and judgement.

But my point is that applying the same rules and standards to cars and boats is not a valid way to to address the problem, that is, if there is a problem in the first place.

 

[Guest]

Sorry duncan.
I got the message you were disagreeing with the RYA and wanted them worn by all, at all times, hence making people think. I did not get how they would make people think if they were in cupboards.

As for the money thing; If I wore mine daily I would probably have to replace it (test it) quite often. If it is safe then they will last for a lot longer. So I would spend less on it.

So I think we agree, but it is late and obviously my faculties are stretched tonight.

 

[duncan]

no problem - I agree the threads get confusing.

your reference to cupboards makes me believe you see this as a yachting issue. I practice I believe that small boats, dingys and small fishing boats esp, have represented the biggest risk in this regards. Only 2 weeks ago 2 fatalities with an overturned dingy on the south coast? I could research the stats in detail but haven't - however I believe the stats over the last 10 years would bear this out.

Making anything compulsory will make people think twice before setting out in a small boat - even if they decide to go ahead anyway. This is I think the key to starting a ball rolling. It can't be a complicated list, it can't pretend to be a comprehensive list, therefore a single compulsory item - lifejackets on board for all people on the boat.

 

[Twister_Ken]

>Don't forget the local authorities that employ people to bring prosecutions for dropping toffee papers.<

Not in my manor, they don't.

 

[misterg]

(Reply to general thread, rather than Talbot specifically...)

[ QUOTE ]

I believe in past years there have been occasions when more people have died in baths than in the sea, perhaps we should wear lifejackets whenever we use the bath as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly, I must apologise for ever mentioning bloomin' life jackets!!!! (I've no particular axe to grind, but have previously criticised the MAIB for bias in this thread a year ago which includes MAIB fatality by cause data courtesy of Readwald.)

However, Talbot makes the same point: If the priority were to reduce accidental deaths or injuries, 'drink boating' just wouldn't figure on the radar. The 2 incidents being cited on R4 to support the 'need' for legislation accounted for 4 deaths in a year. (The recent conviction, reported as 'the latest example' is related to the Carrie-Kate / Ketts collision in 2005). For comparison, 10,500 people a year are injured by tea or coffee from the latest figures I could find (1998)

To quote my comments in the thread a year ago:

[ QUOTE ]
Despite the hype, AFAIK there has only been the Loch Fyne incident and the Carrie Kate / Kets collision that they have linked to alcohol.

In the former, it looks like a navigational error, but I don't think anyone will ever know what happened, because the majority of those involved were killed. In the latter, both boats were proceeding on roughly reciprocal courses, at night without nav. lights. Surely this is more significant than the conclusion drawn by the MAIB that (loosely) alcohol *may* have affected their night vision / judgement

[/ QUOTE ]

Sadly, there are precedents for the introduction of legislation to solve non existent problems, however once the argument is twisted to one of safety, rational debate becomes futile in the face of "even one death is one to many" (As opposed to "What is the biggest addressable issue to concentrate our finite resources on")

The other factor cited was the increase in reports:

[ QUOTE ]
For a while, it was mandatory to report all incidents, then there was the publicity campaign encouraging people to file voluntary reports, CHIRP, etc. What did they expect?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Arthur Ransome had it right - If not duffers, wont drown.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%, but the law isn't framed that way. (I deal with industrial safety at work, and a more accurate version might be: DUFFERS OR NOT, IF DROWNED YOU'RE IN THE DOCK.)

If you're interested, the MAIB reports are here:

Loch Fyne (Sea snake)
Carrie Kate / Ketts

Andy (on a bit of a rant, sorry!)

(edit to correct some typos)

 

[mel80]

[ QUOTE ]

EDIT 2: No, I've read it again and we are arguing two different points. Sheesh. Nurse, is it time for my lie down now?

IMHO not wearing a lifejacket arguable does put other people at risk, because rescuers may have to risk their lives to affect a rescue or to recover the body afterwards!


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, sorry about that rather cumbersome sentence! The distinction is that rescuers are volunteers, and can opt out if they feel they are being put at undue risk. You cannot (easily) opt out of being in the path of a drunken sailor.

In many ways I agree with your position; I too value personal freedoms, but I think that in the case of handling a large or fast boat whilst drunk, the potential risk to others is significant enough to justify some restrictions. Whether this law will be effective or neccessary is another matter, but I can't object to the intentions behind it.

 

[Major Catastrophe]

[ QUOTE ]
I too value personal freedoms, but I think that in the case of handling a large or fast boat whilst drunk, the potential risk to others is significant enough to justify some restrictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fully agree with you and so do most of the other people on here. The argument is whether bing slightly over the car drink drive limit is actually the same as being 'drunk'.

I would never use my boat when 'drunk', but I have on three occasions driven it when returning from a BBQ and maybe have been slightly over the car limit. I certainly was not drunk.

If this nanny government introduces the new lower limit of blood/alcohol, just about any non teetotal skipper will be fair game.

No drink, padded up with compulsory lifejackets, patrolled by concerned health and safety officials. What next, drain the seas? /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[jezjez]

The nanny state probably isn't thinking about us. We're essentially the knowledgeable - we know why we shouldn't drink and go boating. We also know why we might or might not wear a life jacket. We have a lot of opinions about it because we think about boating all the time! Just ask our wives.
When I was younger i went on the norfolk broads on a broads cruiser - you get one minute instruction and no-one says anything about collision safety except stay on the right.
There are lots of first timers who know very little who go boating and drinking because they haven't learnt enough yet.
Anecdotally, the deaths from drinking and boating seem to be related in the main to falling off the jetty after going into the yact club bar till late rather than ploughing into next door's boat under command. Most people realise they need their wits about them fairly early on, I should have thought.
An idiot doesn't need alcohol to make things bad but it probably helps.

 

[jezjez]

incidentally, on the broads I took out a gaffer - brilliant! One woman was so obsessed with the only rule she was given to stay right that we had to do a very flambouyant gybe infront of her. I don't think she had been drinking but the near-accident occured becuase of lack of knowledge /experience / instruction. Had she been drunk as well I doubt this would have made much difference.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Once sailed a boat back from France where you wouldn't have wanted to light a match below coz there was so much alcohol exuding from the recovering crew we'd have blown a hole in the sea bed. The two of us on deck could justifiably have claimed to be less drunk than average. We we're probably judicially sober by the time we got back to UK waters, though.

 

[misterg]

[ QUOTE ]
Anecdotally, the deaths from drinking and boating seem to be related in the main to falling off the jetty after going into the yact club bar till late rather than ploughing into next door's boat under command.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just for completeness, the deaths in the MAIB report: (Not my image, so I don't know how long it will be available - whatever happened to Raedwald??)

Fully agree with the general sentiments expressed.

Andy

 

[Twister_Ken]

Only in one of those is booze mentioned, and then it may well not have been the primary factor. Certainly helps make a case for wearing a LJ though.

 

[rickp]

And those details were from the very discredited MAIB 2005 annual report - where they claimed "an astonishing 1162 leisure craft accidents/incidents in UK waters", but then failed to provide any credible evidence for this.

That report was, I believe, the start of their campaign for alcohol limits.

Rick

 

[rickp]

Right, my count made it 4 deaths in 14 years that were in some way attributable to alcohol. Interestingly, an answer in Hansard by Ladyman (scroll down a bit to the two tables) gave a much higher count - so can anyone ID the accidents in 2001 and 2003?

I'm sure he wasn't lying - but we already know that the MAIB figures are suspect so if he was relying on them....

Rick

 

[Major Catastrophe]

[ QUOTE ]

Just for completeness, the deaths in the MAIB report:

[/ QUOTE ]

The table fell to pieces for me when I got the the line Sea Snake. As the skipper was 2 1/2 over the drink driving limit, there is no mention of alcohol being a factor. So how many other of the accidents listed involved alcohol?]

It does support my personal choice to wear a lifejacket at all times, but don't wish it become a law. It is very important to me to continue enjoying personal choice.

 

[rickp]

Neither the 2001 or 2003 MAIB reports mention alcohol. Even an FOI response from the MAIB/DfT disagrees with his figures - so I do wonder where Ladyman got his figures from then...

This is a real stitchup job /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Rick

 

[Major Catastrophe]

Even if it is eight deaths in five years, that is a miniscule amount and hardly asks for a draconian imposition of car driving limits.

I am sure more people die on stairs than that, but we don't breathalise them.

I think there is a rather large sledghammer being employed to crack a very small nut.

I know that some people think that everybody should be protected from everything, but............

 

[2Tizwoz]

How will the speed capability be measured?

Does the law apply only to motor boats?

It is interesting to note that in the case of the two drink related incidents with fatal outcomes in 2005, one of the vessels, Sea Snake was just over the 7m limit but the other Carrie Kate was under 7m.

The consequence for breaking the drink driving law is points on a licence.

Are we to be licenced by Ladyman?