why not surfers ?

:)

 Lol why not surfers . If it does go ahead we should get some kind of rebate like the sharkshield set up.

 Will watch the conversations here with interest as we will all have opinions, that said on the east coast it seems to be the norm now?

Me and fishing mate were out 15 miles and seen a boat go down with 4 people on board as rescue boat helped them. We didn,t need a law to tell us to put jackets on after witnessing that, we made that decision ourselves. If you think about the fishermen that drowned if they had time in their situations they would have grabbed life jackets, so what does that tell you..... they didn't have time?

It really does make sense. I wasn't aware of those figures. 14 deaths since July, Fuckin hell that's pretty bad.  

the government should probably offer some rebates on inflatable life jackets as a bit of a carrot though.  

 Yet to see that happen outside the metro area. 

 The potential changes, which are certain to spark a furious reaction from recreational boaties

Gotta love that line from the article, I really don't have a problem with this. The inflatables nowadays aren't cumbersome to wear, I'm guessing this will extend to charter boats as well considering the lives lost on those recently.

Fair enough you are better off wearing one than not if something goes wrong. And yes, nobody that is involved in an incident planned on having a bad day, anything can go wrong at any given time.  But a blanket ruling that all people on the water must wear a life jacket might not be the best thing for a comfortable/safe day on the water.

Guidelines for riding solo, at night or faster than a certain speed would be a better fix than jackets at all times. Hear of a few stories over east of boaters getting done at the ramp launching/retrieving without a jacket. I find even the inflatables are a pain in the arse when fishing, resetting a drift and moving around the boat between seats/bow hatch in general.

Would I be allowed to take it off before I jump in for a dive.

The article says 8 out of 14 people died without jackets. That means 6 people died while wearing them.

I suppose a 60% chance of surviving is still worth it. 

 The jackets that come in a bag attached to a belt look okay wouldn't br in the way to much.

 But I'm  happy to wear mine, comforts my missus

 without actually seeing the findings that they are basing these stats on, I wouldn't be putting confidence in them. Pretty sure the investigation for the commercial guy they've referenced hasn't finished yet.

whatever the outcome. Can't cure stupidity.

Be another "wise" decision like when they brought in the law enforcing push bike helmets. Some pencil pusher with nothing to do comes up with a brainstorm in an effort to show his boss that he is actually awake.

Now there is a push to repeal the helmet law.

IMO more education on sea conditions and boat handling would have prevented most if not all of the fatalities with the exception of a couple where greed was a major factor in going out to pull pots in heavy swell conditions.

 Did you know that when seat belts were made law in Europe it was only for the front seat people only, deaths of people in the back seat went up, unfortunately most of these were children. The logic behind this was that drivers didn't change their driving habits just because of the law. Subsequently seat belts were required for all passengers. Nearly 1 1/2 million people a year are killed in road accidents around the world a lot more than any war. Amazing numbers

RE: comment above on stupidity

Actually there is a very natural cure for stupidity... it’s one of the grandest of ironies that we are attempting to legislate it away.

But such is the norm these days and i’m not holding my breath waiting for anyone who makes these decisions suddenly and epiphanously understand the contradiction.

Darwinism be damned. The nanny state will save you!

But rants about personal responsibility aside, let’s take a deeper look into a few of the details of the particular incidents that have prompted this review.

Now I know that in at least three of these incidents where fatalities have occurred (5 out of 14 of the fourteen fatalities) the swell was greater than 4 meters on the day in question and the persons in involved were boating in or around shallow water reefs where large waves might be breaking.

See here…

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-28/two-dead-after-boating-mishap-off-rockingham/8393842

and here

https://thewest.com.au/news/perth/daddy-loved-them-so-much-ng-b88339148z

and here

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/search-for-fisherman-missing-near-coral-bay-called-off-20160602-gpadmu.html

As previously discussed here;

http://fishwrecked.com/forum/coral-bay-2-people-missing

As someone who spends a lot of time around shallow inshore reefs when the swell is large (surfing) I can tell you that the very last thing you would want to have on in the impact zone when the waves are big and surging through and there are items of floatsam about in the water, is a piece of highly buoyant plastic or foam wrapped around your neck. It would significantly impede your ability to move towards the easiest escape route from a fast moving projectile heading your way. That being to dive deep underneath the water and escape below it.

And before a discussion is even had on the merits of a life jacket once a person finds themselves in the water once their boat is hit by a wave, let’s consider for a moment where the actual risks are really likely to be found in such an event.

What we can see from the above is that it’s quite likely that the persons were distracted or facing away from the swell (breaking what’s been known for centuries as the golden rule of the sea, which is to never turn your back it).

If this were the case as seems probable, it’s likely that the wave hit them somewhat by surprise. The real danger in that there is that you sustain an injury through being hit by something in the boat and or by the boat itself. Such a blow, if sustained to the head, a quite likely outcome, would probably render the person unconscious.

Once unconscious and in the water in a wave zone, it’s highly unlikely that a lifejacket is going to save help much as the churn of the waves, if they are of any size, will ultimately drown you.

Now given what we know about other past fatalities it would be naïve to not expect that alcohol and or drugs were not contributing factors in a least some of these other recent incidents.

As was suggested in this here;

http://www.news.com.au/national/his-hope-would-have-died-when-the-sun-went-down-widows-anger-after-party-boat-tragedy/news-story/8643ce8c47f1f5bfcc05abfdfe23d6e8

Or hit by the boat or propeller itself for which had nothing to do with a lifejacket.

http://www.mandurahmail.com.au/story/4448253/singleton-man-dies-in-ravenswood-boat-incident/

Ditto here;

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/boat-strike-kills-perth-man-in-rottnest-tragedy/news-story/d819910e097f0e67a67e67983d40b1b9

Or surfing

https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/36yo-surfer-drowns-north-of-two-rocks-ng-b88467624z

This one is a mystery

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/search-for-missing-fisherman-off-denham-in-was-north-west/news-story/f87f7a91b14d2d407a412a28784cb8bf

So that covers 10 of our 14 deaths.

Not sure about the details in the other four. I see were a couple of recent drowning’s from people jumping into the water from bridges and rocks, not sure if these are included in the 14 listed above.

But in all cases except the last one it’s clear that a lifejacket would have made no difference to the outcome.

Given the details of these incidents it seems the problem was often not a lack of lifejackets but misjudgment on the behalf of the persons involved. Misjudgment as the result of a lack of awareness. Now to me it would seem the cure for a lack of awareness is not to put a lifejacket on everyone (just in case), but to undertake a campaign of education about the particular risks that (some) segments of the community don’t seem to be adequately aware of.

That risk being that boating around shallow water reefs when the swell is large, as in 3m meters and above, is a very dangerous thing to be doing.

Also that combining alcohol and boating is a dangerous thing to be doing.

Or that being to close to the side of a moving boat is a dangerous thing to be doing.

That undertaking any activity on the water if you are inexperienced at it has a higher level of risk attached and thus perhaps a person with less experience or capacity might wish to take extra precaution such as wearing a lifejacket.

One suggestion to deal with issue of the small portion of the boating public that don’t make themselves aware of the risk of high swells and dangerous seas, (I believe the majority do take more careful consideration), would be to install signage at boat ramps informing people of the size of the swell on a particular day and the strength of the wind and from that deduct a rating or risk factor for people to understand the level of risk for persons choosing to go to sea on that day.

Perhaps with obvious and permanent sign that reminds us that boating around shallow reefs in high swell is a risky endeavor with a reminder to please exercise all possible precaution and that boating under the influence of alcohol, regardless of whether or not you are the skipper onboard, is also an activity that has a higher risk or injury or death.

As it happens we already have a similar system in place in another area of outdoor recreation with the fire level danger warning signs that you see in bushland areas and national parks.

Boat ramps could install digital signs to the same effect.

Administering such a system would not be that hard.

We could install a these digital signage unit at each of the boatramps around WA to run on solar or wind) power just as the 40k per hour street signs around schools currently do.

The information could be updated with each weather update every six or 12 hours or so for each region of the state from a control room by whatever government department is given responsibility for it. Be it the Department of Transport or Water police or BOM or whoever.

For example it might say –‘ 4-5m swell height today, high risk of waves breaking unexpectedly, please exercise extreme caution and refrain from boating in shallow water areas where way might break unless absolutely necessary”

Or

“1-1-5m swell today, moderate winds, enjoy your day and the water and always take heed of the risks of being at sea”

I don’t have the statistics for the number for the number of sea journey’s undertaken by people in WA each year. But having spent many years queuing around at boat ramps through most of summer I suspect that it would cumulatively be in the millions across the breadth of Western Australia.

Enforcing a blanket rule for everyone across the board, when the issue is with a tiny and uninformed minority is a very blunt and ineffective means to achieve an end.

Moving to the next issue which is that of practicality. Will this be a rule brought in only for the recreation boat user? Or will this impost fall to others as well?

For example will persons catching ferries to Rottnest be required to wear life jackets at all times whilst on the vessel?

Will people catching ferries around the Swan and river for transport purposes be required to wear life jackets at all times when aboard the vessel (As in catching the ferry from South Perth to Barrack Street each day to work)?

Will commercial workers, fisherman and others that work on boats day in day out be required to wear life jackets at all times when on board a vessel?

Will persons large on private vessels be required to wear lifejackets at all times when aboard even whilst they are sleeping? Will this rule incompass the wealthy and politically influential types that like to moor their large boats at Rotto in summer? It’s hard to see James Packer being able to woo wealthy Asians down here to gamble at crown using carrot of trips out on the river and Rotto on his luxury yacht if these guys are forced to wear lifejackets as they swan about the place.

https://thewest.com.au/news/australia/packer-gambles-on-high-rollers-ng-ya-183574

Or would these owners of larger vessels be granted exemptions from the rules that govern the little people?

Will people undertaking pleasure cruises on commercial boats be required to wear lifejackets at all times such as the many thousands of Swan river cruises that take place each year for Christmas parties and for weddings etc?

If not, why not?

To impose the law otherwise would be an act of pure and unabashed discrimination.

If the argument is that the water presents risks, then it must presents risks exist to all equally.

However devising a law that sees that all persons on any waterway encompassing all manner of watercraft wear a lifejacket will have ramifications much beyond the recreational boating sector.

I’m visualizing the absurdity of that now, a bunch of lads out on the swan for a bucks party with a few hired entertainment girls along for the ride. The boys all sitting around chatting with their beer in hands firmly strapped up in their safety vests while the girls get about doing their thing, naked except for the floaties the government is forcing them to wear (and hiding the surgically enhanced ones that they were being paid to display).

And wearing a life jacket over the top of your bridal gown would make for great wedding party photos I’m sure.

This rule, if it comes into to effect, is highly impractical and will detract from the enjoyment a very large number of Western Australians get from being out and about on the water.

Another point of practicality relates to diving and surfing from a boat as many of us regularly do, how much leeway does one get when they return to a vessel having been in the water?

I’ve not yet attempted it, but one doesn’t need to be Einstein to see that changing out of a wetsuit back into normal clothing whilst on a boat is going to become a stupid task. Will we have heavy handed authorities peering at us through binoculars and cameras to catch us out while we take our lifejacket off for a moment to change into dry clothing? How much leeway would be given here?

What about sunbathing on a boat? I can’t see to many girls being too enthusiastic about the tan lines a bunch of lifejacket straps is going to leave across ones chest as they laze about on the deck of a boat moored up in the shelter of Geordie bay.

Further again, will those hipster kids lounging about in waterways on blow up plastic swans, donuts and pieces of pizza be required to wear lifejackets also?

The risk of drowning for these people is certainly equal to that of someone on a paddleboard so for consistency this law would need to apply to them as well would it not?

“Hi everybody, Looks like a great time you’re having here! Now let’s all now say hello to the fun police…:)”

We need to ask ourselves what are we giving up and in return for what? Given the nature of the circumstances in the events outlined above its possible that all we would get here is basically an illusion of safety that doesn’t actually go to dealing with the real deficiency in the public consciousness that leads to resolving the problems that have been arising.

There is a decent body of evidence in the fields of psychology that says that if you add additional layers of safety, people actually become of the belief that the safety items are a failsafe and will save them from harm, diminishing their sense of personal responsibility leading to greater complacency and resulting in greater numbers of ‘accidents’.

See here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/01/people-take-more-risks-when-wearing-helmets-potentially-negating-safety-benefits-0

And against that we must ask what the costs are?

It’s a deep erosion into the level of enjoyment and sense of freedom I and many tens of thousands of others would get from being out and about and having fun on the water for one.

The additional financial burden as another.

I say do not legislate this into law, there are better and more effective alternatives elsewhere that are possibly cheaper such as simple and targeted public awareness campaign that address the most common problem activities and other actions that increase the public awareness of the most unheeded risks (such as boating in shallow water in times of large swell and not turning ones back to the sea to fish, or pull craypots, or anchors or anything else. And not combing water activities with alcohol).

Those that want to the safety of a lifejacket have the discrestion to use one at their will, making it a punisheable enforcement for all is simply unjust.

WA has the largest boating fraternity in the nation on a percentage basis and the enjoyment of the water is integral to the satisfaction of life many people from living on the edge of the desert over here in the West.

We really do not need these kinds of uninformed and blanket rules that substantially harm the freedoms and enjoyment had by the majority in a misguided attempt to save a tiny few whose lives have a much better probability of being saved through a campaign aimed at creating informed awareness.

It won't make any difference what people think DoT have already made their mind up. I really look forward to trolling for barra in the middle of a wet season on a dead calm river or creek with a jacket on sweating like an absolute c@#t. You will always get the dickhead that will risk their lives no matter what(how many people are still getting washed off the rocks down south despite the great work being done to educate everyone). Better put them on all beachgoers as well just in case they get caught in a rip.....

Probably just a token effort to collect public comment, but if you've got a spare 20 minutes, jump onto the DoT website's marine section to fill in the survey on marine safety review. Might be your only chance to avoid having to wear a PFD at all times. Judging from the questions looks like everything is getting looked at.

 As someone who has been involved in sea rescue for 25 years I have had to deal with a number of deaths in that time including a friend. Many of these may have had a different outcome has they been wearing a life jacket.

Some may complain about waering a big bulky jacket but we wear the manual inflating jackets on all our rescue vessels when at sea. It Is a DFES requirement. They are very comfortable and they cosy as little as $100. A small price to pay for you life and those of your passengers particularly if they are your family.

It still amazes me to see families going out on a boat with small children onboard who are not wearing a life jacket.

Think about

1. your safety

2. your familes/passengers safety

3. The people who would have to go out and find you.

Just imagine if you are out to sea and your vessel sinks or capsizes. You may time to activate you EPIRB but would you have time to put on a life jacket. Could you then tread water for up to an hour as that is how long it may take for authorities to receive the EPIRP signal, respond and get out to your location. If in remote areas could be even longer.

To them unfortunately 

 Thats life in general Uncle, you should change that to "we all think it'll never happen..."

 I wouldn't say most people think it won't happen to them, I'd say the majority of people who use the water for recreational activities have a functioning brain and a healthy respect for the ocean. Things like being underway at night, children and weather outside of normal operating conditions would be well worth looking at chucking a PDF on and I reckon most people do.

I think the current regulations of having the same number of PFD's per passengers is sufficient enough to let people make their own decision based on their own preference/experience as to whether or not they wear one. If you were going to try eliminate every risk in life we'd be wondering the streets in helmets.

My two cents worth anyway.

im not for it , imo it is up to the individual to make the call on when and where to put one on ,my deckie wears one always , but not me that our choice and that works well , he is not a strong swimmer and feels safer with one on

the gov needs to leave it as is imo

id far rather see huge farking fines etc for peeps who are texting /using mobile phones while driving . around here latly it is in epidemic proportions , and is totally way more dangerous

 Family to tell them the sad news.

As someone that deals with life and death, and the outcome of some of these tragedies anything to lessen the risk with fairly minimal cost and inconvenience is a good move. Its never just the unfortunate one that suffer, its the flow on effect to all family and friends.
I don't wear a inflatable out at sea, but bring out the jackets to be in reach on the deck. Even if the boat capsize "hopefully" they will float out if you didn't have the chance to grab them.
So if mandatory to wear a PFD not a problem at all.

A quick glance at the other states reg's on life jackets shows that no state currently requires adults to wear a life jacket offshore unless:

1) They are in a small boat (less than 4.8m and underway)
2) Its night time
3) Crossing a bar
4) Solo

This is a very board brush look at the other states rules, but they don't seem that bad.

I guess for the small boaters out there, rule 1 might be annoying, but its only while under way.

I would rather the rules stay as they are, but if they do try to bring us into line, lets hope they don't go overboard!

Some potential good news for you blokes actively against any form of life jacket legislation besides needing to carry it onboard in open waters.

Was listening to the wireless today and heard and interview with the Liberal Democrats MLC Aaron Stonehouse who is dead against governments interfering in people's civil liberties and has formed a somewhat loose bloc with Rick Mazza and One Nation.

I heard an interview with David Leyonhjelm about 3 years ago where he said he was against legislation that prevented parents smoking in cars with young children in it so I'd be putting my eggs in that basket if I were you guys.