Questioned by RNLI re not wearing lifejacket.

[Robin]

I've also been sailing since I was a toddler, but I must admit when dinghy sailing, for mobility reasons, I always chose a buoyancy aid over a life jacket and still do.

Me too, but that is not the scenario in the original post, nor is it a case of wearing a harness and safety line to avoid going overboard from a tender. It was a trip in a stable RIB between boat and shore and in a very sheltered harbour not off an exposed beach. I'm fully in favour of wearing LJs in tender trips from exposed moorings or anchorages when conditions (or the type and size of tender) justify and anyway wouldn't question the judgement of anyone wearing one by choice.

Many years ago a member of my then YC was drowned when the tender tipped over in rough conditions going ashore from an exposed mooring in Poole, another in the dinghy survived. The tender however was a 7ft or 8ft plywood pram, very tippy and worlds apart from a 10ft modern RIB in calm waters.

Perhaps the RNLI man thought they had been out to sea in the RIB rather than just going a short distance from the mooring. I would suggest if not he could have a very busy life chasing the good mooring holders of the Dart to preach to!

 

[Phoenix of Hamble]

But (and please don't take this as a criticism, its a genuine question), do you not think that the term you've used 'evangelist 24/7' suggests in a slightly negative way that you don't believe they fully appreciate the benefits of 'clipping on'? (in the context of your sentence)... its a subtle point I appreciate, but it does make me just stop and think about our overall view as a community...

I regularly see the argument on here for making the decision based on risk... and while I fully support that... I sometimes contemplate whether that is really the reason, or whether people subconsciously don't want to wear them, and only do when they feel that they need to based on history rather than risk...

I may wear mine most of the time, but I certainly wouldn't consider myself an evangelist... on here is the only place I have ever engaged in the debate... certainly wouldn't out and about (not sure what that says about me either!)....

I'm trying hard not to sound evangelic on this thread because I really really don't want to see a situation where they are compulsory - i'm on the same side as everyone else, just interested in a grown up debate.

 

[doug748]

If someone's doing what's right for them then great.

Amen to that.

Alas the temptation to solve problems that don't exist, beats in the heart of all politicians. Get a fitting for your new life preserver soon.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

But (and please don't take this as a criticism, its a genuine question), do you not think that the term you've used 'evangelist 24/7' suggests in a slightly negative way that you don't believe they fully appreciate the benefits of 'clipping on'?

Yes, you've got me there. That's true.

I'm fairly sure that attitude doesn't creep out of me in real life.

 

[Alfie168]

The rescuers don't have to do it.

But show me one who won't try, and in doing so may put themselves at peril for your or my sake. I just ask the question, do we owe people who put themselves at risk on our behalf, voluntarily or otherwise, a duty of care in not making their task more difficult than it need be?. e.g. a helicopter winchman, who is probably not there voluntarily.

I'm just asking people to add this into the equation when they make their life jacket decisions. Also its one thing to castigate the RNLI as an institution for being officious and going beyond its remit, but I strongly suspect that if you canvassed the opinion of the lifeboat crews themselves, they'd most likely say much the same. I don't know that for sure, but it would be my guess.

Tim

 

[Ubergeekian]

But show me one who won't try, and in doing so may put themselves at peril for your or my sake. I just ask the question, do we owe people who put themselves at risk on our behalf, voluntarily or otherwise, a duty of care in not making their task more difficult than it need be?

No, I don't think we do, particularly not on the voluntary side. It is, of course, extremely generous of them to be willing to carry out rescues, but it is still their choice to do so.

There are many very good reasons for clipping on and wearing lifejackets, but "It'll cause the RNLI extra trouble if you don't" isn't one of them. Similarly there are many very good reasons for eschewing recreational drugs, but "It'll cause Alcoholics Anonymous extra trouble if you don't" is not one of them. We all have the right to go to hell in the handcart of our choice.

 

[Touchwood]

Inevitable I suppose that a thread such as this should lead to debate on the relative merits of lifejackets, buoyancy aids, clipping on etc., and nothing at all wrong with that, but I feel the OP's point was more to do with whether it is appropriate for a RNLI official to take the stance he apparently did.

I work in the construction industry, and we are increasingly encouraged to take a proactive attitude to the safety of others and question unsafe practices whenever and wherever we see them. That said, the manner in which one does this is very important. Clearly, in this instance, the issue was raised in an inappropriate and counterproductive manner, since the OP felt offended and slighted. Perhaps as has been suggested, the RNLI should take note and encourage their officials to behave in a less dictatorial fashion?

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

But show me one who won't try, and in doing so may put themselves at peril for your or my sake.

So if they're allowed to voluntarily put themselves in peril by going on shouts, then why the hell can't others voluntarily put themselves in far less peril by not wearing an LJ when they consider it needless?

I strongly suspect that if you canvassed the opinion of the lifeboat crews themselves, they'd most likely say much the same.

In spite of their LJ propaganda they have MASSIVE wire jackstays to clip on to.

 

[Ubergeekian]

So if they're allowed to voluntarily put themselves in peril by going on shouts, then why the hell can't others voluntarily put themselves in far less peril by not wearing an LJ when they consider it needless?

Precisely. Well put.

 

[Alfie168]

Well, you don't mention the involuntary ones like the helicopter winchman and his crew.

I find this discussion a bit redolent of the "Why do we give pilots parachutes, nobody forces them up there do they" argument.

I'd also suggest that by volunteering to go on shouts they are providing a public service for the good of all, which we as yotties doing our own thing are not. That is what differentiates us from them. I think the volunteering bit is a red herring anyway. I think the question I posed applies whether they were volunteers or not.

Tim

 

[Touchwood]

So if they're allowed to voluntarily put themselves in peril by going on shouts, then why the hell can't others voluntarily put themselves in far less peril by not wearing an LJ when they consider it needless?

Because they (the rescue services) are doing so to aid "those in peril" rather than for their own purposes?

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Because they (the rescue services) are doing so to aid "those in peril" rather than for their own purposes?

Ok, so as long as I don't wear a LJ because it leaves me more agile to help others then that's a valid reason and I can't be b*ll*cked for it by a bloke in a RiB. Great.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I find this discussion a bit redolent of the "Why do we give pilots parachutes, nobody forces them up there do they" argument.

It's more "We need to ban flying because someone has to clear up when they crash."

If not wearing an LJ is bad because it puts RNLI staff at risk then sailing must be 1000 times worse for exactly the same reason. Only craft that can 100pc self rescue can go to sea.

 

[Touchwood]

Ok, so as long as I don't wear a LJ because it leaves me more agile to help others then that's a valid reason and I can't be b*ll*cked for it by a bloke in a RiB. Great.

I quite agree.

For the record, I fully support anyone who decides to not wear a LJ for considered reasons. The lack of mobility to help others (and oneself) imposed by wearing a LJ is a perfectly valid consideration.

All I was doing was attempting to make the point that it is not reasonable to ignore motives and reasons when assessing actions. For a person to put themselves voluntarily at risk to aid others is a different kettle of fish to unthinkingly taking unnecessary risks.

 

[LadyInBed]

Seems to me that several cases are being argued here:
- Sailing / MoBo out at sea in light or heavy conditions
- Cold winter northern clims v S UK late summer (no-one has yet bought the Med into the discussion!)
- Open v Sheltered Water

IMO there is no hard and fast rule, each case should be assessed on the conditions at the time.

I use an unstable dingy on a river and don't ware a LJ
Same dingy going 200yds from shore in Portland harbour with a bit of a SWer blowing and I put on a dry suit and LJ! - Judgement was correct, as an oar came out of the rowlock, dingy broached and tipped me out. Wind surfer rescue boat picked me up.

Horses for courses!

 

[chanelyacht]

Well, you don't mention the involuntary ones like the helicopter winchman and his crew.
Tim

You must be joking - if I turned round to our SAR flight and said "it's OK chaps, no calls for the next three month because everyone's safe" they'd climb the walls after day 2! Not that they like seeing injuries, or worse, but on the other hand they have a morbid fascination for what would be called "a decent working job"

I must admit I am getting more of an issue over recent years with the RNLI almost appointing themselves as guardians of our conscience - the main reason being, of course, they need to spend as much cash as possible before the Charity Commission question their reserve levels again.

The OP might find it worth dropping a line to Peter Chennell, Sea Safety Manager at Poole - or mention it to the local LB station if the guy was active crew.

The local LB crews are as good as ever, but, as it seems in many organisations, those further up are set on empire building and "mission creep".

 

[MissFitz]

One small observation on the subject of cold shock - I have regularly swum in the Dart in August & can testify that then at least it is absolutely f***ing freezing. It used to take me about 15 mins to get in bit by bit off my godmother's boathouse steps & while this may be because I'm a big girl (literally), I certainly wouldn't want to land in the water unexpectedly.

As it's well known that cold shock is something you can accustom yourself to, is it possible that those suggesting it doesn't exist & advocating New Year swimming have immunised themselves to it?

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

As it's well known that cold shock is something you can accustom yourself to, is it possible that those suggesting it doesn't exist & advocating New Year swimming have immunised themselves to it?

I'm only speaking for my own reaction to cold water. Other people may have a totally different experience. Having said that there is a video above of a female thin person jumping into Langstone harbour with a deflated LJ, able to do a bit to camera and then coming out alive. Plus the countless charity cold water swims & cold water swimming clubs. PLus the beaches are often heaving at Easter - they don't all die.

Also I don't accept you can accustom yourself to medical 'shock'. Otherwise you could get people used to having their legs cut off - which you obviously can't.

I firmly believe that for everyone running three miles is more dangerous than falling in cold water. Nobody's scared of running except the infirm or frail.

 

[Alfie168]

I'm obviously just a little old country boy who thought the general idea of being on the water was to promote the concept of floating on it wherever possible. Standing by peoples rights to sink prematurely should they be unfortunate enough to find themselves in the drink is fine with me. I just happen to apply different rules to my own conduct on the water, mainly for reasons of self preservation, and perhaps in a touching belief that floating for longer might just aid both myself and also those who would hopefully come to my aid in the event of such an occurrence. I don't find the wearing of an L.J. a burden except when I need a pee. In fact compared to the Kapok filled Michelin Man type buoyancy aids I started sailing with, I think the modern ones are pretty discrete in the wearing of.

I know its a step too far for some.

Tim

 

[chanelyacht]

One small observation on the subject of cold shock - I have regularly swum in the Dart in August & can testify that then at least it is absolutely f***ing freezing. It used to take me about 15 mins to get in bit by bit off my godmother's boathouse steps & while this may be because I'm a big girl (literally), I certainly wouldn't want to land in the water unexpectedly.

As it's well known that cold shock is something you can accustom yourself to, is it possible that those suggesting it doesn't exist & advocating New Year swimming have immunised themselves to it?

The key word there is "unexpectedly" - which is what a lifejacket is all about. The posts earlier saying entering the water is no big deal all assume ahealthy, controlled entry - a bit different to going in after a whack with the boom or having fallen off and hit your head on a stanchion on the way. The benefit of an LJ is more to do with (a) keeping an unconscious head above water, and (b) preventing you from having to expend energy by treading water constantly than anything else. Interestingly, of the few pleasure craft related fatalities we've had over the past couple of years, at least two have been entering the water unconcious as a result of a fall from a pontoon, not a boat. Both, I feel, would have been potentially likely to survive had an LJ been worn.