RNLI 2012 stats

Last time I carried out an analysis of trends the overall trend was down in just about every category but it fluctuates from year to year and is very seasonal. Without having any measure of level of boating activity or prevailing weather or any other external variable such as fuel costs that affects levels of activity any meaningful analysis beyond noting the trends is impossible.

What is reported and how it is categorised is determined by the RNLI and as pvb's definitions show are very subjective. They rely totally on the judgement of the person completing the incident form within the definitions set by the organisation - and are clearly designed to maximise the perceived value of what they do.
 
BlowingOldBoots said:
Why do you think that Searush? I would have thought that it is likely that most water users are getting safer: engines are more reliable, boats are built to a standard that defines usage, navigation aids are reliable and accurate, weather information is reliable and accurate as well as readily available. I also believe that more water users are better trained these days from whatever source of training. Would you agree that industry is today much safer than it was years ago, driving, flying, housework, risks to children? I think they are because in general terms stuff is designed better and practices improve. I think the natural progression in matters is towards efficiency which delivers greater safety, less risk taking, or perhaps, more certainty.
Click to expand...

It's only my opinion, but I don't see fewer numpties out & about than I used to, altho cost of access probably hits the numpties first as they are often the most likely to not be able to afford (bother?) with safety kit. having said that there still seem to be plenty of people who think "I fancy a boat" & just buy one & do it with no understanding of the risks.

Your concept of "risk assessment" assumes that the individual actually realises there is a risk. Many of the RNLI call outs I read about are non-coastal people getting caught out by a tide that they don't expect or blokes fishing in dinghies without any safety gear "Cos they don't mean to go far".

I agree that it is fashionable (even legally compulsory) for companies to have "Risk assessments" for all properties & activities, but it still isn't common for Joe Public & his hobbies.
 
Searush said:
..... have "Risk assessments" for all properties & activities, but it still isn't common for Joe Public & his hobbies.
Click to expand...

I was trying to imply that water sports are inherently safer these days because of advances in technology, so I would expect water users to benefit from this which might be reflected in statistics. "Joe Public" is probably a lot more aware of risks now, than in past years, if for no other reason than the ubiquitous HSE at the work place — that has to rub off on people, I would have thought.

Still, you can never account for numptyism when it comes to appreciation or mitigation of risks — even amongst those who should know better!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know (from past threads) that I stand almost alone in this point of view, but saying you hope everybody saved made a donation is rather missing the point of a charity; which is what the RNLi is - not a subscription service. I'm sure most did, but I'm also pretty sure that the RNLI are not finance constrained. They don't publish a number for how many people would have been saved if they'd had more money, so it's probably vanishingly small.

Our local lifeboat is independent, and has about as many launches per year as an average RNLI station, but like many independent lifeboats is quite severely finance constrained. When people see them go out in a storm, they feel warm glow of appreciation and give money to the RNLI instead. Maybe there's one near you:
http://www.i-lifeboat.org.uk/

Not knocking the RNLI at all - I'm glad they're there, and they do a fantastic job, but in terms of "likelihood of my pound saving someone's life", I think the independent is better value. They tend to be less good at promoting themselves, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be appreciated.
 
Last edited:
sighmoon said:
Not knocking the RNLI at all - I'm glad they're there, and they do a fantastic job, but in terms of "likelihood of my pound saving someone's life", I think the independent is better value. They tend to be less good at promoting themselves, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be appreciated.
Click to expand...

Sure that's true, the problem is the RNLI is awash with money because of lots of little old ladies who donate thinking they're saving sailors in peril on the high seas, rather than towing in a broken mobo from the bay.
 
Grumpybear said:
What were the other 41% for, I wonder. Some will be for training, of course, but how many?
Click to expand...

No, these are all service launches.

Launches for exercise aren't included. Although if a lifeboat on exercise is subsequently diverted to a job, then that obviously that goes down as a service.
 
Searush said:
here's another report from Welsh Stations; I see the links still don't work right!



It also comments on the large number of call-outs to flood victims.

So it seems that boaters are possible out less (fuel costs?) or, less likely, getting safer.
Click to expand...

Not speaking for the RNLI, but these figures represent service launches - therefore training launches are not included.

There are many reasons for falls in boating calls - last year, poor weather, recession, cost of fuel, even the Olympics resulted in less leisure users - we noticed that markedly in some areas. Yet I suspect more people holidayed at home in the UK, resulting in more cut off by tide etc calls than usual.

The flood rescue teams had a record year (unsurprisingly) as did the London lifeboats, most of which at TTJ (sorry, threatening to jump) calls.

As ever, the RNLI and the 60 or so independents did a fantastic job.
 
"we noticed that markedly in some areas. Yet I suspect more people holidayed at home in the UK, resulting in more cut off by tide etc calls than usuaL"


Not far off the mark,most of my MoBo club cruises were either curtailed or cancelled altogether last year.
the cost of diesel is also affecting just how far people travel.
A trip up the East coast was altered early on into a trip up the Thames.
 
I have to say I think all boats, sail and power, are a lot safer now than in the 1970's when I started; we all read these forums - hopefully taking in advice - and the books ( everything from pilots and how not to graunch onto rocks, to things like ' Heavy Weather Sailing ' ) and I'd suggest we're a lot better equipped and less casual these days.

The RNLI PR counting anyone they've strolled their dog past as ' lives saved ' does indeed undermine their cause...:rolleyes:
 
BlowingOldBoots said:
"Joe Public" is probably a lot more aware of risks now, than in past years
Click to expand...

Do you really think so? I'm inclined to the opposite view (for which I blame, and only partially tongue-in cheek, the decline of the Meccano set). To be aware of risks you have first to have a concept of consequences, mechanical and otherwise. Even with the best of intentions, you don't get that by rote.
 
Last edited:
Seajet said:
The RNLI PR counting anyone they've strolled their dog past as ' lives saved ' does indeed undermine their cause...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Except that they don't. As has already been discussed at length on this forum in the past.

To quote a previous post in this thread:

"Lives saved – where, if not for the actions of the lifeboat and/or its crew, a life would have been lost.

Person landed – where a lifeboat rescues a person who is at risk but not in a life-threatening situation.

Person brought in – where a lifeboat rescues a person who is at very little risk, if at all, but if left would probably have been at risk later.

People rescued – a combination of the above three categories."


In the 20+ years I've been involved with the RNLI, the total number of people landed/brought ashore has increased, whereas the number of lives saved has decreased.

Probably because not only is it now much easier for a person or vessel to call for assistance (ie mobile phones are now widespread), but lifeboats are much faster now, and can get to someone before the situation becomes life-threatening.
 
janeK said:
I just hope that everyone of those 21,000+ persons rescued, showed their appreciation by making a donation, the least they can do when others are risking their lives for them.


JaneK
Click to expand...

On a single handed trip from Peterhead to Eyemouth I was taken ill with suspected food poisoning & sea sickness. The coastguard decided to call the lifeboat from Eyemouth at 02-00
What surprised me was how many people were involved
7 crew on the lifeboat
3 RNLI shore crew
2coastguard officers
1 harbourmaster
2 ambulance drivers
Everyone dragged out without any complaint. The RNLI crew had had a party that evening & had just all rolled into their beds when they got the call. They all gave me the utmost care
It was rough. Max speed for the lifeboat was 11kts but there were no complaints just concern for my welfare
If one considers the number of calls on the op's original thread that means an awful lot of people
Getting involved
 
Camelia said:
RNLI lifeboats launched 8,231 times
798 (10%) lifeboat launches were to commercial craft

823 = 10%

Can you point me to the detail as this is primary school maths that they are having issues with!
Click to expand...

Well, although it's clearly true that 10% of 8231 is 823, it's also true that 798 is 9.695% of 8231, so perhaps they don't have that much of an issue with primary school maths - maybe they've got past that bit in year 4 when 'rounding' is covered.
 
apward said:
This guys helps:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-declines-help-lifeboatmen.html#ixzz2IrMQOqGZ
Click to expand...

apward & co,

except that it doesn't help at all, just a Daily Mail style headine...

Fishing boat mates towed in after poorly maintained engine failure or trippers ' rescued ' off beaches whether they want to be or not don't equate to ' lives saved ' as the PR accountants love to quote and some numbers mentioned here " an average 57 people a day rescued " are farcical.
 
apward said:
This guys helps:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-declines-help-lifeboatmen.html#ixzz2IrMQOqGZ
Click to expand...


Just listened to Jeremy Vine interviewing him on radio 2, according to him the lifeboat has turned up to rescue him fifteen times just because his catamaran has capsized. He says somebody on shore sees him and calls 999 and the lifeboat is called out, as he says, it takes a bit of time to right a capsized cat, but he doesn't think he has been in danger. So do these fifteen times go down in the statistics as rescues, or false alarms. Funny that false alarms don't seem to appear in the statistics.
 
The term "Rescue" conjures up mental images of life-risking bravery, and I'm sure that in some cases, that is correct.
Often a truer term would be "Persons assisted". I don't think anyone would object to that, but it doesn't sound as "sexy".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top