marine safety review imminent in wa

this has been on the cards for a while here now ,

cant say i agree with making it compulsory , but im sure thats where it will end up

if it does , then it should apply across the boartd to any water craft that is used , not applied selectivly to just boaters imo
hezzy

https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/deaths-spark-lifejacket-move-ng-b88486549z

____________________________________________________________________________

OFW 11

evil flourishes when good men do nothing

 


Posts: 1522

Date Joined: 09/03/13

why not surfers ?

Sat, 2017-05-27 10:40

why not surfers ?

:)

Posts: 408

Date Joined: 23/11/09

Exactly.

Sat, 2017-05-27 19:16

 That's what I've been yelling today.

____________________________________________________________________________

.

 

Willlo's picture

Posts: 1490

Date Joined: 07/10/11

 Lol why not surfers . If it

Sat, 2017-05-27 10:33

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

____________________________________________________________________________

 Call Sign - BZ785

Haynes Hunter Prowler CC

 

Tom M's picture

Posts: 662

Date Joined: 22/09/15

 Will watch the conversations

Sat, 2017-05-27 10:41

 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?

 

____________________________________________________________________________

Tom M

scotto's picture

Posts: 2469

Date Joined: 21/04/08

It's probably fair enough I reckon,

Sat, 2017-05-27 11:07

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.  

Posts: 4561

Date Joined: 01/02/10

 Should definitely offer a

Sat, 2017-05-27 11:30

 Should definitely offer a rebate on inflatables. Maybe even offer a deal where you trade you old ones in and upgrade for a cheaper fee.

____________________________________________________________________________

Does anyone know where the love of god goes, when the waves turn the minutes to hours?

Tim's picture

Posts: 2496

Date Joined: 26/09/06

Recfishwest

Sat, 2017-05-27 11:42

This already happend through Recfishwest in limited ammounts now.

Funding is probably the limiting factor atm 

Willlo's picture

Posts: 1490

Date Joined: 07/10/11

 Yet to see that happen

Sat, 2017-05-27 11:58

 Yet to see that happen outside the metro area. 

____________________________________________________________________________

 Call Sign - BZ785

Haynes Hunter Prowler CC

 

sea-kem's picture

Posts: 14826

Date Joined: 30/11/09

 The potential changes, which

Sat, 2017-05-27 12:29

 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.

____________________________________________________________________________

Love the West!

bennym_82's picture

Posts: 86

Date Joined: 18/05/16

Jackets

Sat, 2017-05-27 12:32

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.

crano's picture

Posts: 694

Date Joined: 04/11/09

Diving

Sat, 2017-05-27 13:22

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

Posts: 1522

Date Joined: 09/03/13

might cost you $400 if the

Sat, 2017-05-27 14:57

might cost you $400 if the fisheries/water police officer is anything like the one who fined the "non seatbelt boatramp user"

z00m's picture

Posts: 1086

Date Joined: 10/05/14

40% still died with Lifejackets

Sat, 2017-05-27 14:53

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. 

Willlo's picture

Posts: 1490

Date Joined: 07/10/11

 The jackets that come in a

Sat, 2017-05-27 18:46

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

____________________________________________________________________________

 Call Sign - BZ785

Haynes Hunter Prowler CC

 

uncle's picture

Posts: 9316

Date Joined: 10/02/07

Can't see them making it law

Sat, 2017-05-27 18:53

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

____________________________________________________________________________

all aggressive fish love bigjohnsjigs

Posts: 408

Date Joined: 23/11/09

Hmmmm

Sat, 2017-05-27 19:22

 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.

____________________________________________________________________________

.

 

sea-kem's picture

Posts: 14826

Date Joined: 30/11/09

 Yep that's why they have to

Sat, 2017-05-27 21:34

 Yep that's why they have to bring these laws in 

____________________________________________________________________________

Love the West!

Lastchance's picture

Posts: 1272

Date Joined: 02/02/09

Not all accidents occur

Tue, 2017-06-06 14:56

Not all accidents occur through acts of stupidity though mate

carnarvonite's picture

Posts: 8619

Date Joined: 24/07/07

Like bike helmets

Sun, 2017-05-28 05:47

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.

Posts: 8016

Date Joined: 07/05/12

The arguement behind the

Sun, 2017-05-28 08:08

The arguement behind the helmet law is around participation rates not safety. The theory is that the public health outcomes will outweight the increases incidences of head trauma. Robbing Peter to pay Paul in my eyes.

I wonder how much groaning there was when seatbelt use became mandatory back in the 70s?

____________________________________________________________________________

Honourary Pies member for a while

Posts: 5738

Date Joined: 18/01/12

 Agree with you JohnIt is

Sun, 2017-05-28 08:20

 Agree with you John
It is nothing like seat belt laws at all

Unless the law was that you had to wear seatbelts while sleeping in your Winebago.
 

____________________________________________________________________________

 Give a man a mask, and he'll show you his true face...

 

 

The older you get the more you realize that no one has a f++king clue what they're doing.

Everyone's just winging it.

 

Posts: 8016

Date Joined: 07/05/12

It's exactly like seatbelts.

Sun, 2017-05-28 08:39

It's exactly like seatbelts. The law used to be that having a seatbelt was mandatory but the useage of it while you are driving your vehciles was voluntary... just like life jackets They changed the law and thousands of lives have been saved.

____________________________________________________________________________

Honourary Pies member for a while

carnarvonite's picture

Posts: 8619

Date Joined: 24/07/07

Wrong

Sun, 2017-05-28 09:51

The law was if your vehicle was fitted with seat belts you had to wear them, later it was changed to have all except for the vintage vehicles retro fitted

Posts: 8016

Date Joined: 07/05/12

Right

Mon, 2017-05-29 12:50

The Australian Design Rules were changed in 1969 to make seatbelt fitting in all new vehicles manditory. Seatbelt wearing legislation was introduced in 2 states in 1971 and the rest (including WA) in 1973.

____________________________________________________________________________

Honourary Pies member for a while

Posts: 5738

Date Joined: 18/01/12

 Nothing like seatbelts.When

Sun, 2017-05-28 11:19

 Nothing like seatbelts.
When your car is parked there is no danger of impact and you dont have to wear them.

When your boat is anchored, tied up or whatever there is still water all around and hence the danger of sinking, MOB etc.
When you are sleeping on your boat there is still the same danger of it sinking etc

Make it law for bar crossings etc but its a skippers responsibility to oversee the safety of the people aboard.

Next will be the most idiotic of all boating safety rules-some pen puisher sitting in an office in the metro who looks at the forecast and says "no boating today its not safe"

____________________________________________________________________________

 Give a man a mask, and he'll show you his true face...

 

 

The older you get the more you realize that no one has a f++king clue what they're doing.

Everyone's just winging it.

 

Posts: 8016

Date Joined: 07/05/12

How many times have you slept

Sun, 2017-05-28 21:32

How many times have you slept on the boat in the open ocean?

____________________________________________________________________________

Honourary Pies member for a while

Posts: 5738

Date Joined: 18/01/12

 Thats where I work, so

Sun, 2017-05-28 22:39

 Thats where I work, so roughly half of my life...
I dont get what your point though, do you propose it to only apply "in the open ocean" not the river, lakes harbours etc

Its fairly common knowledge on this site that I spend alot of time sleeping on my boat at the Abrolhos, Rotto etc etc

____________________________________________________________________________

 Give a man a mask, and he'll show you his true face...

 

 

The older you get the more you realize that no one has a f++king clue what they're doing.

Everyone's just winging it.

 

Posts: 8016

Date Joined: 07/05/12

Your employer makes you drive

Sun, 2017-05-28 22:47

Your employer makes you drive your boat out to the rig and sleep in it?

____________________________________________________________________________

Honourary Pies member for a while

Posts: 5738

Date Joined: 18/01/12

 I dont work on a rig?I dont

Sun, 2017-05-28 23:08

 I dont work on a rig?
I dont get what your on about

____________________________________________________________________________

 Give a man a mask, and he'll show you his true face...

 

 

The older you get the more you realize that no one has a f++king clue what they're doing.

Everyone's just winging it.

 

Posts: 8016

Date Joined: 07/05/12

Didn't realise you worked on

Mon, 2017-05-29 13:08

Didn't realise you worked on a boat. I was referring to your boat but you already knew that...

I never said I was for the changes to the current law only that if life jackets were manditory that it would definitely save lives and that it can be legislated as it's already been done elsewhere. May not be a perfect law and there may be loopholes etc but it can be done. On top of that imagine the savings to the community when the Water Police, Westpac chopper etc don't have to spend 3 days looking for someone who is already at the bottom of the ocean.

I personally would like to retain the option to wear one but wouldn't be overfly fussed if I was forced to wear one all the time. A lot of my boating is done solo or with my kids and I already wear my inflatable jacket when I do.

____________________________________________________________________________

Honourary Pies member for a while

Tom M's picture

Posts: 662

Date Joined: 22/09/15

 Did you know that when seat

Sun, 2017-05-28 09:01

 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

 

____________________________________________________________________________

Tom M

Posts: 53

Date Joined: 19/08/11

RE: comment above on

Sun, 2017-05-28 12:05

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.

Posts: 1522

Date Joined: 09/03/13

some interesting and good

Sun, 2017-05-28 12:57

some interesting and good comments above,

Attached link could possibly answer some of your questions.
regarding larger size vessels. over 12m in length.
this is how Victoria does it.

Although I certainly don't want more legislation being introduced people do need to realise this is not "blanket legislation" that is being considered.

they do state "DoT would prefer that safety equipment requirements for recreational vessels in WA be as similar as possible to equipment required in other parts of Australia"

http://www.wearalifejacket.vic.gov.au/lifejacket-laws

Posts: 53

Date Joined: 19/08/11

 Thanks for the link.Next

Sun, 2017-05-28 13:42

 Thanks for the link.

Next question to ask is, if jackets are only to be worn whilst the vessel is in motion is there any evidence out there that says that there is a greater likelihood of falling overboard than when it's stationary? Or any greater risk of harm if a person does?

If anyone could point us to any research around this it would much appreciated.

I get the sense that a lot of these proposals and eventual regulations are made on a 'touchy feely' basis. With little actual concrete evidence to assert that you're more at risk in one circumstance or the other. 

Ditto for boats over 4.8m and over 12m for that matter, and why the distinctions have been nominated to fall at those vessel sizes.

Posts: 8016

Date Joined: 07/05/12

.

Sun, 2017-05-28 21:53

.

____________________________________________________________________________

Honourary Pies member for a while

Posts: 8016

Date Joined: 07/05/12

Additional financial burden

Sun, 2017-05-28 21:57

Additional financial burden on top of already having to carry a life jacket for each passenger in open waters? 

____________________________________________________________________________

Honourary Pies member for a while

Posts: 53

Date Joined: 19/08/11

 Kayakers, canoeists,

Mon, 2017-05-29 02:48

 Kayakers, canoeists, kitesurfers, paddleboarders.

Of which there are many thousands all currently exempted and free to go about their hobbies without the long arm of the state regulating their personal freedoms. Pending the outcome of this review this could be all set to change.

New legal requirement making lifejacket wearing mandatory =  additional  financial burden.

Posts: 8016

Date Joined: 07/05/12

 Sorry mate, I didn't twig on

Tue, 2017-05-30 11:40

 Sorry mate, I didn't twig on as you didn't mention any of those activities in your thesis

____________________________________________________________________________

Honourary Pies member for a while

sea-kem's picture

Posts: 14826

Date Joined: 30/11/09

 Sorry but I don't agree with

Mon, 2017-05-29 20:42

 Sorry but I don't agree with that, firstly this is not about a personal freedom it's about safety. Secondly Kayakers, canoeists, kitesurfers, paddleboarders as you mention I'm sure if they can afford to do this as a hobby  they can afford a life jacket. Same as with us boaties, we can all afford a boat with madatory jackets on board so no extra financial burden there. 

Personally I don't agree with the proposed legisaltion entirely but as mentioned it's because of people who take uneccessary risks and come to grief is why this has come about. If I have to wear a jacket by law then I'll do it without a grumble, just happy to get out on the boat for a fish.

____________________________________________________________________________

Love the West!

Krusty's picture

Posts: 714

Date Joined: 27/11/15

 *Mandatory**Legislation**Unn

Mon, 2017-05-29 20:54

 *Mandatory*

*Legislation*

*Unnecessary*

I don't normally wear one but have put one on time to time when the weather has been a bit average or out solo.

If it was made mandatory then like you I would wear it without a second thought.

____________________________________________________________________________

 

My fishing spots are so secret........... even the fish don't know where they are !!

sea-kem's picture

Posts: 14826

Date Joined: 30/11/09

 Lol I'm being lazy and not

Mon, 2017-05-29 20:58

 Lol I'm being lazy and not checking my spelling tonight, I'm usually a grammar nazi

____________________________________________________________________________

Love the West!

Krusty's picture

Posts: 714

Date Joined: 27/11/15

 Hahaha....yea I know that's

Mon, 2017-05-29 21:01

 Hahaha....yea I know that's why I just couldn't help myself 

Opportunities like that don't pop up very often 

____________________________________________________________________________

 

My fishing spots are so secret........... even the fish don't know where they are !!

sea-kem's picture

Posts: 14826

Date Joined: 30/11/09

 Getting toey to get outta

Mon, 2017-05-29 21:05

 Getting toey to get outta town for a week and do some serious fishing ;) 

____________________________________________________________________________

Love the West!

crasny1's picture

Posts: 6985

Date Joined: 16/10/08

LOL Andy

Tue, 2017-05-30 08:12

I would have put "serieus" fishing. Cant remember the original post or spelling that came from but had to laugh

____________________________________________________________________________

"I would like to die on Mars. Just not on impact!!" _ Elon Musk

sea-kem's picture

Posts: 14826

Date Joined: 30/11/09

 

Tue, 2017-05-30 08:33

 

____________________________________________________________________________

Love the West!

Posts: 1991

Date Joined: 16/05/09

It won't make any difference

Mon, 2017-05-29 08:11

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.....

bennym_82's picture

Posts: 86

Date Joined: 18/05/16

DoT

Mon, 2017-05-29 09:08

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.

bennym_82's picture

Posts: 86

Date Joined: 18/05/16

Safety equipment review

Mon, 2017-05-29 09:10

Posts: 1991

Date Joined: 16/05/09

Cheers for the link. I just

Mon, 2017-05-29 12:10

Cheers for the link. I just filled the survey in and hopefully put in some worthy responces. In all a well worded survey.

Iceman's picture

Posts: 745

Date Joined: 17/03/09

Have your say

Mon, 2017-05-29 11:43

 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.

 

____________________________________________________________________________

Smartline Personal Mortgage Advisers - Level 1, 11 Hobsons Gate Currambine 

0448122208

uncle's picture

Posts: 9316

Date Joined: 10/02/07

They all thimk it'll never happen

Mon, 2017-05-29 14:04

To them unfortunately 

____________________________________________________________________________

all aggressive fish love bigjohnsjigs

Posts: 5738

Date Joined: 18/01/12

 Thats life in general Uncle,

Mon, 2017-05-29 16:33

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

____________________________________________________________________________

 Give a man a mask, and he'll show you his true face...

 

 

The older you get the more you realize that no one has a f++king clue what they're doing.

Everyone's just winging it.

 

bennym_82's picture

Posts: 86

Date Joined: 18/05/16

Not sure about that

Mon, 2017-05-29 17:54

 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.

carnarvonite's picture

Posts: 8619

Date Joined: 24/07/07

Trouble is

Mon, 2017-05-29 18:45

Trouble is that some wanker behind a desk thinks we cannot make our own decisions because some of us make fatal mistakes and the rest of us have to suffer from it.
No doubt he came up with his "brilliant" idea in the middle of a wet dream and promptly wrote it down so he wouldn't lose his concentration and the result of his dream

hezzy's picture

Posts: 1519

Date Joined: 27/11/09

im not for it , imo it is up

Mon, 2017-05-29 20:09

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

____________________________________________________________________________

OFW 11

evil flourishes when good men do nothing

 

Posts: 1991

Date Joined: 16/05/09

Unfortunately the minority

Tue, 2017-05-30 08:03

Unfortunately the minority will determine what the majority will have to do. A lot of the deaths this past 12 months have been people going out in conditions that are not suitable for the boat they are in. You will never stop that happening. Personally I think it should be up to the skipper and crew to work out what is best on the day.
Spend more of our registration fees on educating the public about going out in unsuitable conditions etc.

uncle's picture

Posts: 9316

Date Joined: 10/02/07

Never know might save a visit from the cops to your

Mon, 2017-05-29 20:49

 Family to tell them the sad news.

____________________________________________________________________________

all aggressive fish love bigjohnsjigs

crasny1's picture

Posts: 6985

Date Joined: 16/10/08

As someone that deals with

Tue, 2017-05-30 08:19

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.

____________________________________________________________________________

"I would like to die on Mars. Just not on impact!!" _ Elon Musk

Bucko's picture

Posts: 138

Date Joined: 08/05/10

A quick glance at the other

Tue, 2017-06-06 16:12

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!

Willlo's picture

Posts: 1490

Date Joined: 07/10/11

 overboard lol , i see what

Wed, 2017-06-07 08:46

 overboard lol , i see what you did there 

____________________________________________________________________________

 Call Sign - BZ785

Haynes Hunter Prowler CC

 

Posts: 8016

Date Joined: 07/05/12

Some potential good news for

Tue, 2017-06-06 19:01

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.

____________________________________________________________________________

Honourary Pies member for a while

Posts: 4561

Date Joined: 01/02/10

 Done.

Tue, 2017-06-06 19:48

 Done.

____________________________________________________________________________

Does anyone know where the love of god goes, when the waves turn the minutes to hours?