toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
...and how many would *not* have been saved by being clipped on, or wearing a huggy and dry suit.
Questioned by RNLI re not wearing lifejacket.
- Thread starter longjohnsilver
- Start date
...and how many would *not* have been saved by being clipped on, or wearing a huggy and dry suit.
chanelyacht
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, but I think you're dangerously wrong here.
All the examples you give - New Years swims, etc, have one thing in common - entry into the water is intended and controlled (you can turn around, stop, gasp, etc) AND you are able to make decisions throughout the process.
True cold water shock is very different - as I've mentioned before, entry into the water is unlikely to have been either intended or controlled, and there is a significant chance of having inhaled water in the process (which may not be of immediate concern, but secondary drowning is a very significant factor in subsequent water related deaths). Add to that the fact that without a lifejacket, there is an immediate imperative to use energy simply maintaining position in the water, which over a very short period of time (related to the water temperature) will draw heat away from the body's core into the extremeties, thus hastening the cooling process.
The FACT is that lifejackets save lives - which is why they are complusory in the commercial arena, they are rightly viewed as an essential piece of PPE. The FACT is that cold water shock does kill, every year - far from all being captured by MAIB reports given that you have land based entry or coroners reports outside the scope of MAIB referral.
Personally, I really don't understand the open hostility on here to minimising the chances of dying. If you don't want to wear an LJ fine, but don't spout incorrect attacks on the overall message, just leave others to make their own decision.
Searush
Well-Known Member
Here's an item on the BBC Wales site today
Lone Kayak off Penmon point capsized & L/J failed to inflate (this is equivalent to no L/J really), in the water for 25 mins trying to get back in boat.
My questions would be - why alone in a noted tide race? 2 kayakers can easily rescue each other, even if they can't do a solo recovery. I would also guess he hasn't manually inflated the L/J as that would completely prevent him getting back in the boat, which should be possible with a bouancy aid or wet suit (my choice when kayaking).
Fortunately, no loss of life, but I don't think the L/J would have helped if it had auto inflated. Perhaps it was a manual & he wisely chose not to lose his mobility but stay with the boat & try to recover? Certainly a serious situation & Beaumaris LB probably saved his life - not being able to self recover after 25 mins suggests he was cold & tired & no longer likely to succeed.
Lone Kayak off Penmon point capsized & L/J failed to inflate (this is equivalent to no L/J really), in the water for 25 mins trying to get back in boat.
My questions would be - why alone in a noted tide race? 2 kayakers can easily rescue each other, even if they can't do a solo recovery. I would also guess he hasn't manually inflated the L/J as that would completely prevent him getting back in the boat, which should be possible with a bouancy aid or wet suit (my choice when kayaking).
Fortunately, no loss of life, but I don't think the L/J would have helped if it had auto inflated. Perhaps it was a manual & he wisely chose not to lose his mobility but stay with the boat & try to recover? Certainly a serious situation & Beaumaris LB probably saved his life - not being able to self recover after 25 mins suggests he was cold & tired & no longer likely to succeed.
Bosun Higgs
N/A
people have an infinite capacity to take offence. You only need to consider how easy it is to say the wrong thing to your wife.
toad_oftoadhall
Well-Known Member
I'm sure loads of people fall in cold water without dying.
Yet, thermal protection is also complusory in the commercial arena. How do you explain that?
I've not seen figures but I bet it doesn't kill many. I expect few die at all and of the dead most succumb to the cold over a longer period of time.
I object to being patronized and mislead. I object to people who take a considered view of marine safety that includes thermal protection, hear protection & safety lines tell me it's one dimensional. (...and using misleading figures in the process.)
Cantata
Well-Known Member
The OP's point was, should the RNLI accost him in the way that he reports that they did.
The answer has to be 'no'.
RNLI volunteer training issue. Neither they, nor we on the volunteer end of the CG, are asked to be judgemental when we fish people out. We'll give advice, very firmly if we think it appropriate, but not criticise. That's IMHO is how it should be.
The answer has to be 'no'.
RNLI volunteer training issue. Neither they, nor we on the volunteer end of the CG, are asked to be judgemental when we fish people out. We'll give advice, very firmly if we think it appropriate, but not criticise. That's IMHO is how it should be.
Last edited:
Peter_Chennell
Active Member
More from the horse's mouth...
To add to my earlier post and answer some of the questions that have arisen from it, here’s a quick response to some of the main issues. Apologies in advance if I haven’t answered you directly – I want to try to keep my post fairly succinct. Please feel free to contact me directly by PM here or by calling the RNLI.
As people have pointed out, there is an issue with the way the OP was approached. I recognise that, for any campaign, it’s not just about the message, but the way it’s delivered and it’s something that we try very hard to get right. But it’s clear from posts on this thread we still need to work on that - please be assured that we will.
As to advocating lifelines, drysuits and all other safety gear – this kit can make your time out on the water safer and we’d love to campaign on those too (and our Sea Safety volunteers certainly talk about them during SEAChecks). But inevitably it comes down to money – for a campaign like ours with a finite budget and a broad audience, we are limited to promoting one simple key message that applies to the majority of boaters. I accept that our message to wear a life jacket doesn’t take into account specific situations, but I would argue that the alternative (‘wear a lifejacket, except if you’re on a yacht in calm conditions, have a decent amount of experience, are clipped in and wearing good thermal clothing’) doesn’t have quite the same ring to it, nor would it be relevant to anyone in a tender, small powerboat, RIB etc. I’d also argue that our tag line ‘useless unless worn’ is broadly true – no lifejacket (or buoyancy aid) will help if it’s neatly stowed in a cupboard down below. But this isn’t a demand that you must wear it, and if the campaign prompts healthy discussion like the one here, then it is certainly achieving something by getting people thinking and talking about when and why they put a lifejacket on.
To answer those questions about the Lifejacket Panel Review statistics on marine fatalities between 2007 and 2009, here’s their breakdown of deaths per sector:
Sailing 19
Motorboating 8
Commercial fishing 24
Commercial 2
Kayaking/Canoeing 8
Angling 18
Of the sailing deaths, the panel found that over 80% could have probably or possibly been prevented if a lifejacket was worn and, of the motorboating deaths, that figure is over 70%. Interestingly, there are slightly fewer deaths in the commercial sectors (26) then in sailing and motorboating combined (27). If you take all the recreational activities together (sailing, motorboating, kayaking/canoeing and angling) then these are almost double that of the commercial sector (53 compared to 27). To me this provides a sound argument to promote lifejacket wear to anyone out on the water – whether they’re sailing a yacht or fishing from a kayak. And if these numbers seem small to you, then it’s also worth pointing out that what they don’t tell us is how many fatalities were avoided because a lifejacket was worn – a figure that would be useful but is hard to prove statistically. Having said that, last year the RNLI launched a record number of times (9,223), which suggests an increase in the number of incidents at sea and whatever these incidents were, I’d argue that at least some of those we helped benefited from wearing a lifejacket.
I’m afraid the demands of my workload mean I am not able to get drawn into an internet debate on this (much as I would like to), but of course if anybody wishes to contact me directly, I am happy to respond.
Best regards, enjoy your boating.
To add to my earlier post and answer some of the questions that have arisen from it, here’s a quick response to some of the main issues. Apologies in advance if I haven’t answered you directly – I want to try to keep my post fairly succinct. Please feel free to contact me directly by PM here or by calling the RNLI.
As people have pointed out, there is an issue with the way the OP was approached. I recognise that, for any campaign, it’s not just about the message, but the way it’s delivered and it’s something that we try very hard to get right. But it’s clear from posts on this thread we still need to work on that - please be assured that we will.
As to advocating lifelines, drysuits and all other safety gear – this kit can make your time out on the water safer and we’d love to campaign on those too (and our Sea Safety volunteers certainly talk about them during SEAChecks). But inevitably it comes down to money – for a campaign like ours with a finite budget and a broad audience, we are limited to promoting one simple key message that applies to the majority of boaters. I accept that our message to wear a life jacket doesn’t take into account specific situations, but I would argue that the alternative (‘wear a lifejacket, except if you’re on a yacht in calm conditions, have a decent amount of experience, are clipped in and wearing good thermal clothing’) doesn’t have quite the same ring to it, nor would it be relevant to anyone in a tender, small powerboat, RIB etc. I’d also argue that our tag line ‘useless unless worn’ is broadly true – no lifejacket (or buoyancy aid) will help if it’s neatly stowed in a cupboard down below. But this isn’t a demand that you must wear it, and if the campaign prompts healthy discussion like the one here, then it is certainly achieving something by getting people thinking and talking about when and why they put a lifejacket on.
To answer those questions about the Lifejacket Panel Review statistics on marine fatalities between 2007 and 2009, here’s their breakdown of deaths per sector:
Sailing 19
Motorboating 8
Commercial fishing 24
Commercial 2
Kayaking/Canoeing 8
Angling 18
Of the sailing deaths, the panel found that over 80% could have probably or possibly been prevented if a lifejacket was worn and, of the motorboating deaths, that figure is over 70%. Interestingly, there are slightly fewer deaths in the commercial sectors (26) then in sailing and motorboating combined (27). If you take all the recreational activities together (sailing, motorboating, kayaking/canoeing and angling) then these are almost double that of the commercial sector (53 compared to 27). To me this provides a sound argument to promote lifejacket wear to anyone out on the water – whether they’re sailing a yacht or fishing from a kayak. And if these numbers seem small to you, then it’s also worth pointing out that what they don’t tell us is how many fatalities were avoided because a lifejacket was worn – a figure that would be useful but is hard to prove statistically. Having said that, last year the RNLI launched a record number of times (9,223), which suggests an increase in the number of incidents at sea and whatever these incidents were, I’d argue that at least some of those we helped benefited from wearing a lifejacket.
I’m afraid the demands of my workload mean I am not able to get drawn into an internet debate on this (much as I would like to), but of course if anybody wishes to contact me directly, I am happy to respond.
Best regards, enjoy your boating.
Scotty_Tradewind
Well-Known Member
toad_oftoadhall
"Where opinions differ I give more weight to those that are based on fact."
hahaha!
"Where opinions differ I give more weight to those that are based on fact."
hahaha!
skodster
Well-Known Member
I must admit to having a preference for exercising my own judgement when it comes to my safety but I will admit to always wearing by life jacket when afloat.
I would also say that if we collectively fail to demonstrate a mature and reasonable attitude toward safety on the water, then the Government will eventually do it for us...now we don't want that do we?
I would also say that if we collectively fail to demonstrate a mature and reasonable attitude toward safety on the water, then the Government will eventually do it for us...now we don't want that do we?
longjohnsilver
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
sailorman
Well-Known Member
maxi77
Well-Known Member
Perhaps if you had actually had to rescue some one suffering from cold water shock then you may take it a trifle more seriously. I have and I was absolutely amazed how fast the MOB lost all ability to save himself.
There is a very signifcant difference in how the body reacts to a planned or expected cold shock and how it reacts to one that is not expected or planned.
You of course, just as with lifejackets, have every right to ignore this.
ribrunt
Well-Known Member
It would be of great benefit to ALL posters /lurkers on this thread if people read the book referenced - Essentials of Sea Survival by Golden/Tipton - and then comment. It comprises of proper research on the impact of cold water shock. People in these waters generally do not die of hypothermia, but of drowning due to the short or longer term effects of the cold.
The information in the book might also help to inform and update the various personal risk assessments clearly being undertaken by so many........
Just a thought.
RR
Lakesailor
Well-Known Member
Well I read into that that if we don't all wear lifejackets then we will be forced to.if we collectively fail to demonstrate a mature and reasonable attitude toward safety on the water, then the Government will eventually do it for us...now we don't want that do we?
So. Where's the choice in that?
That sounds like "All wear lifejackets"
jac
Well-Known Member
Classic exampleof fred drift!
OP asks was the RNLI person rude and officious ( which seems to be the case) and the debate is on whether or not to wear LJ.
OP asks was the RNLI person rude and officious ( which seems to be the case) and the debate is on whether or not to wear LJ.
Lakesailor
Well-Known Member
All threads drift.
We've established he was out of line.
RNLI spokesman has been on and said he'll try to do better.
Now we are trying to debunk the message, however politely offered.
We've established he was out of line.
RNLI spokesman has been on and said he'll try to do better.
Now we are trying to debunk the message, however politely offered.
jac
Well-Known Member
All threads drift.
We've established he was out of line.
RNLI spokesman has been on and said he'll try to do better.
Now we are trying to debunk the message, however politely offered.
Haven't we missed the stage of jumping to conclusions about the RNLI volunteer and carrying general character assasination - Thats normally done way before page 15
BrendanS
Well-Known Member
That's fine, we are still on page 4 (just reset your personal settings to show more posts per page! 
)
)
grumpy_o_g
Well-Known Member
I'm surprised no-one's mentioned the lassie in the Ice Boat telly programme who underwent cold shock immunisation therapy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00vdlt3/Bang_Goes_the_Theory_Series_3_Episode_6/
She was a fit young girl every sense of the word (by my standards at least) and clearly suffered cold shock as measured by both heart and breathing rate in a water temperature of 13C. The hyperventilation was the one that would get anyone and made me even more convinced about spray hoods. The thing that really surprised me was the difference just 12 one minute immersions over a day made and that the effect would last for year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00vdlt3/Bang_Goes_the_Theory_Series_3_Episode_6/
She was a fit young girl every sense of the word (by my standards at least) and clearly suffered cold shock as measured by both heart and breathing rate in a water temperature of 13C. The hyperventilation was the one that would get anyone and made me even more convinced about spray hoods. The thing that really surprised me was the difference just 12 one minute immersions over a day made and that the effect would last for year.
BrendanS
Well-Known Member
Just watched on iPlayer.
I'm pretty sure there is a psychological habituation as well. Falling in unprepared will always be a shock, but if you have lots of experience of cold water shock, I'd be prepared to wage a small bet you'd survive better. I was used to fording ice cold mountain rivers in teenage years, and similar things most of my life. I'm pretty sure (and this goes against my scientific hat on mode)of saying that if you know what to expect, you'd cope better, and probably woudn't have such an extreme reaction as that lass did?
I'm pretty sure there is a psychological habituation as well. Falling in unprepared will always be a shock, but if you have lots of experience of cold water shock, I'd be prepared to wage a small bet you'd survive better. I was used to fording ice cold mountain rivers in teenage years, and similar things most of my life. I'm pretty sure (and this goes against my scientific hat on mode)of saying that if you know what to expect, you'd cope better, and probably woudn't have such an extreme reaction as that lass did?