Lifejackets: lifesavers? Or not?

[timbartlett]

I'm sorry to see my comments being perceived as some kind of campaign against the wearing of lifejackets.
(1) IMHO it is entirely up to the individual (or the skipper) whether to wear a lifejacket or not.
(2) If I saw no point in the wearing of lifejackets, why on earth would I be interested in whether they work or not?

Personally, there are some occasions when I would not think of going afloat without one, but there are plenty of others when it would not enter my head to do so. I would not (for instance) set off across the channel in a 5m RIB without wearing a lifejacket, or sail a performance dinghy without a buoyancy aid, but neither would I contemplate donning a lifejacket the moment I drive my car onto a ferry. And if I wear a buoyancy aid in a canoe in still, shallow water, it is only because I want my kids (in kayaks) to wear theirs.

My point is that there are wide spectra of vessels, conditions, and personal circumstances that determine whether I wear a lifejacket, or buoyancy aid or not. I am rather concerned that the messages being put out about lifejackets are as dumbed down as those about "five a day" "speed kills" or "slip slap slop". The motives may be worthy, but the over-simplification of the issues — and the attempts to demonise those who dare to think for themselves — tend to undermine their credibility.

Messages along the lines of "lifejackets save lives" are as unrealistic as telling an adult that they must never touch matches or that it is dangerous to cross the road unless they "at the kerb halt: look left, look right, look left again, and if all is clear quick march!" (or whichever version was current when you were at infant school!)

I'm also concerned that the messages tend to hide the fact that in many cases the equipment simply does not work. Boaters are castigated for not spending money on expensive safety equipment (not just lifejackets) whose design and construction is based almost entirely on some official standard — which may well be based on what was commercially possible fifty years ago, rather than what is actually required to do the job.

 

[gjgm]

It isnt law in the Uk to wear a LJ, unlike some countries, so we havent dumbed-down totally.
Its the way of the world though, that the message/instruction/rule has to cover everything, and you cant really have one message for jolly clever chaps, and another for thickos. You also base your views on your own experience;what about someone who is just starting? Can he/she make the same quality of judgement that you can ?
As regards something being made to an official (minimum) standard- what wrong with that? In fact, thank goodness for that.
You can always spend more money in going beyond that standard if you so choose.

 

[Solitaire]

Oh very clever! I see that all the Google ads down the side are now promoting life jackets for sale! Funny things key words!

 

[fireball]

Best to be safe and wear a LJ.

What that says to me (and I hope it is wrong) is that you have not evaluated or understood the risks yourself, therefore trust blindly in a LJ as it WILL SAVE YOUR LIFE when you end up in the water. As posts subsequent to yours state - a LJ will only keep you afloat, it will not keep you alive.

While on the Solent during Cowes Weeks, one thing I did notice was all those yachts racing I didn't see one LJ, it was only the odd non-racing yachts - why is that? And watching a BBC news of a reporter on one of those yachts he too was not wearing a LJ.

Personnally I think this gives the wrong message, If your racing you don't need a LJ - crazy.

Mixed thoughts about this - but I don't think it was a particularly windy week (didn't watch the wind closely though) and no matter what anyone says - you've got more freedom of movement without a LJ on than with - so, if the risk is small and manageable then don't wear one. Also, as others have said - there are that many boats around you won't be in the water for long anyway!

It really is about time we stopped this complete nonsense about LJ being life savers, they are NOT! You are far safer and more likely to survive if you remain ON YOUR BOAT (providing it is still afloat and not on fire!). If they were that vital to wear on or near the water then every time you got on a ferry you'd have to put one on.
Wear one if you like, no skin off my nose, but please understand the only thing it is capable of doing and therefore the reason why you are wearing it.

 

[PaulGooch]

<snip>

It really is about time we stopped this complete nonsense about LJ being life savers, they are NOT! You are far safer and more likely to survive if you remain ON YOUR BOAT (providing it is still afloat and not on fire!). If they were that vital to wear on or near the water then every time you got on a ferry you'd have to put one on.
Wear one if you like, no skin off my nose, but please understand the only thing it is capable of doing and therefore the reason why you are wearing it.

I have always worn one when i feel there is an added chance that i might end up in the drink. When i'm at the helm, i don't see much chance of me falling out of the window, over the side deck and into the sea and if the boat suddenly sank i wouldn't want to be in the cabin with the LJ on. If i have to go onto the bow and it's choppy, i usually wear it. I like making up my own mind when it is best to wear it, or not.

The RYA and the RNLI do NOT say you should wear your life jacket at ALL times. Very recently an RNLI sea safety chap told us that we should wear our life jackets "when we needed to", that's just what we do.

 

[ricky_s]

Also, as others have said - there are that many boats around you won't be in the water for long anyway!

A minute or two would be too long for me, I can't swim!

 

[PaulGooch]

A minute or two would be too long for me, I can't swim!

Just relax and you'll float, especially in the sea. But, i think the point was, wear one if you want, but leave that choice up to everyone else as well

 

[fireball]

Excactly ... thank you!!
M-i-Law always has one on in the dinghy - cos she can't swim - usually takes it off onboard though because she doesn't venture out of the cockpit unless we're stopped.

 

[timbartlett]

The RYA and the RNLI do NOT say you should wear your life jacket at ALL times. Very recently an RNLI sea safety chap told us that we should wear our life jackets "when we needed to", that's just what we do.

But the MCA line is slightly different:-

http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga07-home/leisurenandtheseaside/lifejackets.htm
Correctly maintained, worn and fit for purpose Lifejackets and Buoyancy Aids should be worn at all times when at sea

 

[fireball]

But the MCA line is slightly different:-

But the MCA line is slightly different:-
http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga07-...ifejackets.htm
Correctly maintained, worn and fit for purpose Lifejackets and Buoyancy Aids should be worn at all times when at sea

What - both? at the same time?!

 

[timbartlett]

Advertising

Oh very clever! I see that all the Google ads down the side are now promoting life jackets for sale! Funny things key words!

Not on the screen I'm seeing, they are not: they are plugging the RNLI's beach safety DVD and a couple of Sailing Schools.
But it's got nothing to do with keywords ... most internet advertising is more subtle than that, because the search engines look for content, rather just for keywords or titles. And it (often) happens entirely automatically. I have no idea what adverts will appear on my own site, for instance, though I have the option of rejecting any that are unsuitable.

 

[RIB_imposter]

But the MCA line is slightly different:-

Ah but they are not even consistent. E.g. the MCA have the power to make that mandatory on coded vessels but they don't - simply that L/Js must be carried.

My point is that there are wide spectra of vessels, conditions, and personal circumstances that determine whether I wear a lifejacket, or buoyancy aid or not. I am rather concerned that the messages being put out about lifejackets are as dumbed down as those about "five a day" "speed kills" or "slip slap slop". The motives may be worthy, but the over-simplification of the issues — and the attempts to demonise those who dare to think for themselves — tend to undermine their credibility.

Messages along the lines of "lifejackets save lives" are as unrealistic as telling an adult that they must never touch matches or that it is dangerous to cross the road unless they "at the kerb halt: look left, look right, look left again, and if all is clear quick march!" (or whichever version was current when you were at infant school!)

Tim, I'm not sure if you are being dumb or deliberately obtuse. Clearly advertising relies on short sharp messages - "lifejackets save lives" is punchier than "a properly fitted and effective lifejacket, reduces your chance of dieing at sea in the event you fall overboard, however it won't garuntee your survival" just as "five a day" is snappier than "eating a healthy balanced diet reduces your chace of cancer or heart disease - but other risk factors including genetics and lifestyle may be equally if not more important" or "clunk click every trip" is easier than "wearing a seatbelt improves your chances of survival in collision, however if you hit a brick wall or artic at speed you'll probably still end up as Jam".

If you are smart enough to understand that it simplifies the risk/benefit you are smart enough to make your own assesment. At no point does "life jackets save lives" say "a life jacket WILL save YOUR life" - anyone dumb enough to mix those two meanings up is probably too dumb to make an assesment of risk for themselves.

I'm also concerned that the messages tend to hide the fact that in many cases the equipment simply does not work. Boaters are castigated for not spending money on expensive safety equipment (not just lifejackets) whose design and construction is based almost entirely on some official standard — which may well be based on what was commercially possible fifty years ago, rather than what is actually required to do the job.

This is a much more credible thing to be concerned with. Since you are in the marine press you are probably as well placed as anyone to influence this - trials of Lifejackets (and other over priced guilt purchases) in real life situations - does the £200 jacket really work better than a £50 one. And is the £50 one fundamentally useless or just not quite as comfy etc. Then you need to write that in such a way that we read it and believe this matters - because none of us are planning to need it anyway (and many of us apparently aren't planning to wear them so effectiveness and comfort is irrelevant).

 

[timbartlett]

Tim, I'm not sure if you are being dumb or deliberately obtuse.

The trouble is that it doesn't take very much for what starts as an advertising slogan to take on the status of holy writ. I don't want to reopen the speeding debate that is still rumbling on in the lounge, but "speed kills" is a classic example. Yes, speed kills, so long as you hit someone. But the last bit of the sentence got lost. So now, our "road safety" policy conveniently consists of collecting money from motorists and spending it on bizarre anti-safety measures such as erecting high fences on the approaches to roundabouts to block the view of approaching traffic! Similarly, I can see us heading inexorably towards the day when all small craft accidents are blamed entirely on either alcohol or or not wearing a lifejacket.

This is a much more credible thing to be concerned with. Since you are in the marine press you are probably as well placed as anyone to influence this - trials of Lifejackets (and other over priced guilt purchases) in real life situations - does the £200 jacket really work better than a £50 one.

The trouble is that an awful lot of people -- even some of those on this forum -- do not like what they read in "the meeja" so they choose to shoot the messenger.

As a member of a profession that ranks somewhere close to politicians and estate agents in the popularity stakes, I simply cannot compete with a mournful-looking boat show salesman wringing his hands and murmuring "You can't put a price on your family's safety, can you sir" as he zaps your credit card for several hundred quids' worth of lifejackets.

 

[Tranona]

Tranona, well there are various reports here: http://www.mcmurdo.co.uk/news/rescues_and_testimonials.html which are obviously in favour of EPIRBs being posted by McMurdo - I've not appraised them all myself so it may be that the role of the EPIRB was exagerated. However there are others either in the press or the MCGA press releases which convince me that these have saved lives. Here are some examples where it has contributed: http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/mcga07...s-releases.htm?id=8779B5EA2E004DCC&m=1&y=2008 and http://www.mcga.gov.uk/c4mca/press-releases?id=DAC363A13F4E2F9B this might also be of interest: http://www.maritimesafetynews.com/?p=19

I don't have time to go through finding specific cases where the EPIRB was definitely the defining feature when you yourself have cited one such cases conceding that your original point that there are "no reports" is wrong. It seems you are looking for an "overview report" - the absense of such a report (when actually no such report exists for flares, vhf, lifejacket etc) hardly suggests that they are inneffective or unnecessary. Indeed such data might be more available for EPIRBs as they are "processed centrally" - e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cospas-Sarsat#Rescue_statistics which suggests if you've got the time you might read http://www.cospas-sarsat.org/DocumentsSystemDataDocument/SD33-DEC07_ENG.pdf

Thanks for the links. In a way they confirm what i suspected. Not one of the incidents involves a UK based yachtsman, sailing in the typical UK and North Atlantic waters (with the possible exception of the 4 French 350 miles off Lands End). Not one involved the classic family of mum and dad + 2 children on their summer cruise. These incidents reflect the incidents of yachts foundering and resulting in deployment of a liferaft - not of any direct relevance to the typical UK yachtsman.

I am reminded of this because I have just paid 330 Euros to service my liferaft and £55 to re-register my EPIRB to my identity. I shall NEVER on the basis of the evidence have to use these pieces of equipment.

It might of course be different if I went of adventuring in hostile places on my own, but then I would look at the evidence of literally hundreds of people who have done this successfully and never used this equipment.

BTW the only reason why I have the equipment on my boat is because it is a coding requirement for the Greek charter licence I used to have. Again irrelevant because I could find no record of either a liferaft or EPIRB being deployed by a Greek charter boat!

 

[RIB_imposter]

Thanks for the links. In a way they confirm what i suspected. Not one of the incidents involves a UK based yachtsman, sailing in the typical UK and North Atlantic waters (with the possible exception of the 4 French 350 miles off Lands End). Not one involved the classic family of mum and dad + 2 children on their summer cruise. These incidents reflect the incidents of yachts foundering and resulting in deployment of a liferaft - not of any direct relevance to the typical UK yachtsman.

I haven't read them all or hunted specifically for that requirement - you are getting increasingly specific. I generally support your "issue" but please try not to say that these things are pointless (which was effectively your original post) as that seems to be how "urban myths" start/get propogated which then means someone who would benefit from an EPIRB or Liferaft decides not to because "everyone knows" that they are never needed. I think that "typical UK yachtsman" is also rather broad. e.g. there are people who never leave the solent - where the greatest risk is possibly getting minced by the scramble of boats coming to your aid, and people who cruise the west coast of scotland where the nearest lifeboat may well be over an hour (or several hours) steaming time from you.

I am reminded of this because I have just paid 330 Euros to service my liferaft and £55 to re-register my EPIRB to my identity. I shall NEVER on the basis of the evidence have to use these pieces of equipment.

no you are very unlikely to need it - but past performance is not always a good indicator of future performance.

It might of course be different if I went of adventuring in hostile places on my own, but then I would look at the evidence of literally hundreds of people who have done this successfully and never used this equipment.

most people would never use their flares, never use much of their first aid kit, never use their emergency steering or sea anchor - but if you were going on a long voyage those might be sensible precautions too! Just because the last resort option is very rarely required doesn't mean that the circumstance will never arrive or that if it does that it will be pointless.

BTW the only reason why I have the equipment on my boat is because it is a coding requirement for the Greek charter licence I used to have. Again irrelevant because I could find no record of either a liferaft or EPIRB being deployed by a Greek charter boat!

you'll be reassured to hear that the similar requirements apply UK vessels operating commercially!

 

[RIB_imposter]

The trouble is that it doesn't take very much for what starts as an advertising slogan to take on the status of holy writ. I don't want to reopen the speeding debate that is still rumbling on in the lounge, but "speed kills" is a classic example. Yes, speed kills, so long as you hit someone. But the last bit of the sentence got lost. So now, our "road safety" policy conveniently consists of collecting money from motorists and spending it on bizarre anti-safety measures such as erecting high fences on the approaches to roundabouts to block the view of approaching traffic! Similarly, I can see us heading inexorably towards the day when all small craft accidents are blamed entirely on either alcohol or or not wearing a lifejacket.

tim - I think you get too worked up about it, I agree with you that there is almost a presumption that these are the main causes so if we can tick that box we will - but I don't loose sleep over it. I wear a life jacket and stay sober when boating so they'll need to work out what I actually did wrong!

The trouble is that an awful lot of people -- even some of those on this forum -- do not like what they read in "the meeja" so they choose to shoot the messenger.

if that were the "dominant" group the mags would have died out! there are also a lot of people who put a lot of credibility in what you [the mags] say in your reviews. It might be advertising suicide to criticise all lifejackets - but surely some of them must be better than others.

As a member of a profession that ranks somewhere close to politicians and estate agents in the popularity stakes, I simply cannot compete with a mournful-looking boat show salesman wringing his hands and murmuring "You can't put a price on your family's safety, can you sir" as he zaps your credit card for several hundred quids' worth of lifejackets.

you'll be pleased to hear boat show salesmen are on a similar standing to journos! If you can't write compelling copy, with good pictures which convince me that model X lifejacket is better than Y then either your not very good at your job or the difference are trivial. If people chose natural selection by trusting someone who is selling something to them then so be it. Surely if any of the products are truly differentiated by being more effective, then positive coverage to this effect in your mag would be excellent marketing collateral which might help encourage the rest of the industry to catch up. Of course that may conflict with the interest of your advertising department.

Or alternatively maybe its not really that big an issue...

 

[Tranona]

I haven't read them all or hunted specifically for that requirement - you are getting increasingly specific. I generally support your "issue" but please try not to say that these things are pointless (which was effectively your original post) as that seems to be how "urban myths" start/get propogated which then means someone who would benefit from an EPIRB or Liferaft decides not to because "everyone knows" that they are never needed. I think that "typical UK yachtsman" is also rather broad. e.g. there are people who never leave the solent - where the greatest risk is possibly getting minced by the scramble of boats coming to your aid, and people who cruise the west coast of scotland where the nearest lifeboat may well be over an hour (or several hours) steaming time from you.

no you are very unlikely to need it - but past performance is not always a good indicator of future performance.


you'll be reassured to hear that the similar requirements apply UK vessels operating commercially!

Think you are wrong about urban myths. They work the other way round. Urban myths see dangers that are not there. I am saying exactly the opposite which is the dangers that people think they see are not there. Examples Devil worshippers are active in the Orkneys. No. Foxes attack chidren in bed. One case. And so on. Urban myth. Foundering and falling overboard is a common danger for UK yachtsman. No. Urban myth. The urban myth is that these devices are necessary - thousands are sold every year, but there is no evidence that there is a need or that they are used. Evidence (in the case of EPIRBs, but perhaps not liferafts) is that they are effective - although you never hear of those cases where they are not effective (think why?).

I use the term "typical UK yachtsman" because that is what we are about. It is a broad church, but I repeat not one of the cases in your reports involved a UK based yachtsman crusing in UK or Northern Atlantic coastal waters. Yet the hundreds who pop across the Channel or North Sea etc every year are exhorted to "take these precautions".

I know all about coding requirements. Point me to an incident involving a UK charter yacht where either an EPIRB or a liferaft has been used. As far as I can recall only one incident of a charter yacht foundering and neither piece of equipment was deployed. There are, of course examples of coded boats getting into trouble, but hey are not typical 35-40ft AWBs that make up the bulk of the charter fleet.

 

[timbartlett]

Surely if any of the products are truly differentiated by being more effective, then positive coverage to this effect in your mag would be excellent marketing collateral which might help encourage the rest of the industry to catch up.

Thanks to ybw.com, I now know that if I say anything remotely complimentary about any product, it's must be because I have been bribed. The fact that there are some good companies and a lot of hard-working, honest people in the marine industry doesn't matter. We are all, apparently, crooks and charlatans.

Of course that may conflict with the interest of your advertising department.

See what I mean?

I don't own a mag, and I don't have an advertising department. I don't even have any contact with IPC's ad sales people, other than by chance.

I'm a freelance journalist.

In the publishing industry, that puts me on about the same level as a sub-contracted bricklayer on a building site. OK, so I've been doing it quite a while, so I do get to choose the bricks. But I still have to supply what my customer wants, not what I feel like selling him. So I can't just decide that I fancy writing about lifejackets instead of electronics. it wouldn't get published, and I wouldn't get paid, so it would be a complete waste of time.

 

[RIB_imposter]

In the publishing industry, that puts me on about the same level as a sub-contracted bricklayer on a building site. OK, so I've been doing it quite a while, so I do get to choose the bricks. But I still have to supply what my customer wants, not what I feel like selling him. So I can't just decide that I fancy writing about lifejackets instead of electronics. it wouldn't get published, and I wouldn't get paid, so it would be a complete waste of time.

Tim, I know that you don't own the mag, and you don't necessarily get to pick what you write about - but you have much more potential to influence the editor than I do. I also realise that in many mags the journos and advertising people are quite separate - but I have no doubt that consciously or subconsciously the editor and owners (your customer) are influenced by their customer (advertisers) such that an article slagging off the industry won't go down well and is hardly going to encourage ad spend from people who have been criticised.

The reason people are sceptical about magazine reviews is it is rare to see any real criticism - that is precisely what I am suggesting. If a product is as ineffective or innapropriate as you suggest the mag should be shouting about that - not politely commenting on the fact that its more comfortable on deck or available in 3 colours. If I'm wasting £200 on a fancy product when the £40 version is just as good I expect to be told that, likewise if the £40 version is pointless I expect to see something like "you'd be better spending your money on XXX (to reduce the change of needing lifejackets) than buying this".

 

[timbartlett]

Tim, I know that you don't own the mag, and you don't necessarily get to pick what you write about

Sorry, I should have added that I actually enjoy writing about electronics.
It's a nice little niche with very few competitors, and a few good customers, and it's my own special interest.
There is no need for me to venture into the stormy waters of back-to-back testing of safety equipment.
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt (lots of them!)