Another Drowning On The Broads

[dom]

12 minutes ago, ExSurveyor said:

Is it not possible to make the use of the Yacht station conditional on the wearing of life jackets for crew on deck. It is a charged for facility.

That is in effect exactly what I'm suggesting.

They manage to collect fees fine, despite staff only being there for limited hours. I suspect the rangers on site are probably keener than anyone to prevent any further incidents, so would probably happily explain the need to hirers.

I suspect, in reality, if someone in uniform told them to do so, they'd generally be compliant. The only difference is the tone of voice and telling them they have to, rather than recommending they do so. In my experience, the majority are nervous of doing something wrong, so easily persuaded.

[Meantime]

3 minutes ago, dom said:

I suspect if you ran aground on Breydon, then refused to wear a jacket after being instructed to do so, a court would very likely levy a fine using S.68(1) of the byelaws.

It's unreasonable to put rangers in a position where they have to choose between leaving people on the boat, or a high risk rescue without lifejackets. If the above isn't true, the byelaws probably need changing to address this.

99 times out of 100 it wouldn't be the rangers making the rescue. Spirit of Breydon is unsuitable for such tasks. The RNLI or inshore lifeboat do nor have the power to direct you to wear a lifejacket. Any reasonable person would if required to do so during a rescue but would be very unlikely to be prosecuted if they didn't. 

[Paladin]

17 minutes ago, dom said:

I suspect if you ran aground on Breydon, then refused to wear a jacket after being instructed to do so, a court would very likely levy a fine using S.68(1) of the byelaws.

It's unreasonable to put rangers in a position where they have to choose between leaving people on the boat, or a high risk rescue without lifejackets. If the above isn't true, the byelaws probably need changing to address this.

Ranger: Put a lifejacket on, or we won't rescue you.

Private boat owner: Sorry, I don't have a life jacket on board.

Ranger: Then we can't rescue you, and we'll prosecute you for refusing to obey an order that is physically impossible for you to comply with.

Really?

[Meantime]

13 minutes ago, dom said:

That is in effect exactly what I'm suggesting.

They manage to collect fees fine, despite staff only being there for limited hours. I suspect the rangers on site are probably keener than anyone to prevent any further incidents, so would probably happily explain the need to hirers.

I suspect, in reality, if someone in uniform told them to do so, they'd generally be compliant. The only difference is the tone of voice and telling them they have to, rather than recommending they do so. In my experience, the majority are nervous of doing something wrong, so easily persuaded.

I cannot remember if there is a public right of way through the yacht station but you see enough members of the public taking a stroll along there. How do you regulate for that? Put on a lifejacket before entering!!! Very unlikely, but what happens if you see a boat struggling to moor? The rangers cannot be everywhere. So you go to help and slip!

Walking along an unguarded waters edge with trip hazards can be as dangerous. Most drownings in the river in Norwich do not involve a boat.

Just being near the waters edge carries risks.

We still don't know if the latest incident involved someone leaving or returning to their boat.

 

[dom]

23 minutes ago, Paladin said:

Ranger: Put a lifejacket on, or we won't rescue you.

Private boat owner: Sorry, I don't have a life jacket on board.

Ranger: Then we can't rescue you, and we'll prosecute you for refusing to obey an order that is physically impossible for you to comply with.

Really?

That's an entirely different context to the one being discussed. Stupidity and belligerence are two different things.

Rangers have to deal with the first. They shouldn't have to deal with the latter.

[dom]

23 minutes ago, Meantime said:

I cannot remember if there is a public right of way through the yacht station but you see enough members of the public taking a stroll along there. How do you regulate for that?

There's a sign on the fence at the entry saying private, no right of way.

[grendel]

further up the quay, there are steps over the bund wall, and the boundary fence has stopped before that point so acess is easy enough

[MargeandParge]

We would find it very hard to shout at a kind brave person trying to help us that we had life jackets in the cupboard .

I also struggle to see parents making their off spring wear jackets and not doing so themselves. One it should be lead by example and two if they do have to go in fully clothed to rescue their kids are they going to use the kids as floats. When anyone needs to act quickly they don't  usually have time to prepare themselves so if you're wearing a jacket you are half way to being ready.

Just the way we see it.

Kindest Regards Marge and Parge 

 

[Paladin]

1 hour ago, dom said:

That's an entirely different context to the one being discussed. Stupidity and belligerence are two different things.

Rangers have to deal with the first. They shouldn't have to deal with the latter.

I was simply responding to the context that you provided, should a boat run aground on Breydon Water. And I don't recall anyone here suggesting belligerence. While hire boats are equipped with sufficient lifejackets for the crew as part of the hire requirements, private boats have no such requirements.

[dom]

1 hour ago, Paladin said:

I was simply responding to the context that you provided, should a boat run aground on Breydon Water. And I don't recall anyone here suggesting belligerence.

The context was belligerence and someone refusing to follow an instruction to put on a jacket. Your response changed that to stupidity, ie. someone crossing Breydon without lifejackets on board, which is an entirely different thing.

It's unavoidable that BA should have to deal with the latter. They shouldn't have to deal with the former and there should be legal frameworks in place to make sure they don't have to, or have legal recourse if forced to.

1 hour ago, Paladin said:

While hire boats are equipped with sufficient lifejackets for the crew as part of the hire requirements, private boats have no such requirements.

Pleasure boats over 45ft crossing Breydon are Class VII vessels operating in category C waters, so under MSN 1676, are required to have "a lifejacket appropriate for every person on board" which "must be fitted with a lifejacket light".

Those below 45ft are not subject to any formal requirements, but common sense says you'd do so - not least because, if the worst happens and you're involved in a serious incident, a court might ask you to justify why you thought it was safe to adhere to a lower standard. That's assuming you can't accept the simpler premise not to do anything to put another person in any form of risk.

[Hylander]

13 hours ago, MargeandParge said:

We would find it very hard to shout at a kind brave person trying to help us that we had life jackets in the cupboard .

I also struggle to see parents making their off spring wear jackets and not doing so themselves. One it should be lead by example and two if they do have to go in fully clothed to rescue their kids are they going to use the kids as floats. When anyone needs to act quickly they don't  usually have time to prepare themselves so if you're wearing a jacket you are half way to being ready.

Just the way we see it.

Kindest Regards Marge and Parge 

 

And an old saying but true - if you are prepared it never happens.    I would rather the latter.

[RumPunch]

One thing missing from this discussion is the fact the authority struggle to get their current prosecution load through. Under manned / resourced at the legal side of NCC ( who do their prosecutions )

[rightsaidfred]

3 hours ago, RumPunch said:

One thing missing from this discussion is the fact the authority struggle to get their current prosecution load through. Under manned / resourced at the legal side of NCC ( who do their prosecutions )

Added to which they are not a Police force and have limited powers.

Fred

[Polly]

I always think the time to put on my life jacket isn’t when something is actually happening. 

[rightsaidfred]

While I would never ever discourage anyone from wearing a floatation device I know of two occasions when they almost caused the opposite problem where they held the individual concerned trapped underneath the hull of the boat potentialy causing them to drown, fortunately they both managed to free themselves but it shows we need to ne cautious of what we preach.

Fred

[Gracie]

How very sad, another life lost and a family left heartbroken

The thing is we all love the water, there are risks that come with that. The same as there are risks when boarding a plane, driving a car etc. You never know what's around the corner, just take care and have some common sense my dad always says

I was raised wearing a life jacket as were my boys, they wouldn't be allowed outside the boat without wearing one much to their annoyance at times . But tough, rather a battle over wearing one than seeing my child in the water without one

Grace x