Another Drowning On The Broads

[dom]

25 minutes ago, Meantime said:

I think the discussion about mandatory wearing of lifejackets is largely irrelevant as it would probably require the creation of a new Byelaw and isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

Discussion has really gone off on a bit of a tangent with the whole mandatory thing, which wasn't the main point, but I would think BA probably could enforce it at an individual high risk location by virtue of byelaw 68:

The master of a vessel shall:
(1) Obey and conform to all lawful directions given by the Navigation Officer or other authorised Officer of the Authority.

I think "all crew must wear a lifejacket at all times when on deck or when boarding a vessel at the yacht station" would pass quite easily as a lawful direction. Either way, if they asserted that as the position, who's really going to challenge legally? Grendel's point about size might be one issue, but I'd have to question whether someone so large they can't find a lifejacket is really likely to be boarding there anyway. We used to have a larger lady on my dad's boat in the past, but it was hard enough for them to board from a flat and level quay heading.

25 minutes ago, Meantime said:

With regards to the lockers, whilst these are useful, from memory there is a very limited amount, I doubt there would be enough for all the boats if the yacht station was full.

You'd hope that BA would have the intelligence to act and to add more if everyone uses them and they do prove to be too few in number. Would be a nicer problem to have than the current circumstances.

Edited August 22 by dom

[Troyboy]

Imo, life jackets should be a choice for adults but mandatory for children. And it should be strictly enforced with no ifs or buts. I've cringed many times watching young children, as we were passing, playing on boats unsupervised. 

[Mouldy]

7 minutes ago, dom said:

Discussion has really gone off on a bit of a tangent with the whole mandatory thing, which wasn't the main point, but I would think BA probably could enforce it at an individual high risk location by virtue of byelaw 68:

The master of a vessel shall:
(1) Obey and conform to all lawful directions given by the Navigation Officer or other authorised Officer of the Authority.

I think "all crew must wear a lifejacket at all times when on deck or when boarding a vessel at the yacht station" would pass quite easily as a lawful direction.

And without a method for meaningful enforcement, it is useless, in much the same way as a mandatory speed limit on any road in the country is ignored by the vast majority of road users if not being followed by an enforcement officer.

[Paladin]

10 minutes ago, dom said:

Discussion has really gone off on a bit of a tangent with the whole mandatory thing, which wasn't the main point, but I would think BA probably could enforce it at an individual high risk location by virtue of byelaw 68:

The master of a vessel shall:
(1) Obey and conform to all lawful directions given by the Navigation Officer or other authorised Officer of the Authority.

I think "all crew must wear a lifejacket at all times when on deck or when boarding a vessel at the yacht station" would pass quite easily as a lawful direction. Either way, if they asserted that as the position, who's really going to challenge legally?

 

I rather think that's a bit of a stretch. The title of the bye laws is Navigation Byelaws. I would cheerfully challenge a ranger who insisted that all my crew donned life jackets. That would be a serious infringement of personal liberty. I hardly think that any court would consider it to be a lawful direction, when it has no direct connection to navigation.

[dom]

33 minutes ago, Paladin said:

I would cheerfully challenge a ranger who insisted that all my crew donned life jackets.

People who drown, or die in accidents generally thought what they were doing was perfectly safe, and that people telling them otherwise were just being pedantic or authoritarian.

If someone in a position of authority tells you to do something for your own safety (and, more importantly, your crew's), I generally find it best to listen to them.

[catcouk]

I like to think I'm pretty savvy when it comes to lifejacket safety but I've never worn them for boarding and leaving the boat once it's moored. However, I probably would do at GYYS due to the notorious tides and currents but don't want to lug it round with me all the time. If I'd known they had secure storage ashore, I would definitely have worn my lifejacket - I never knew they were available. Where exactly are they?

Having said that, we'd decided to never stay overnight there again and it is a long walk to the beach so probably not likely to call there again.

[Meantime]

1 minute ago, catcouk said:

I like to think I'm pretty savvy when it comes to lifejacket safety but I've never worn them for boarding and leaving the boat once it's moored. However, I probably would do at GYYS due to the notorious tides and currents but don't want to lug it round with me all the time. If I'd known they had secure storage ashore, I would definitely have worn my lifejacket - I never knew they were available. Where exactly are they?

Having said that, we'd decided to never stay overnight there again and it is a long walk to the beach so probably not likely to call there again.

They are on the front wall of the rangers office from memory.

Reedham is as tidal, yet doesn't have lockers, and then what about Burgh Castle and the Berney Arms?

A hand for the boat and proper hand rails where needed should be sufficient.

[dom]

41 minutes ago, Mouldy said:

And without a method for meaningful enforcement, it is useless, in much the same way as a mandatory speed limit on any road in the country is ignored by the vast majority of road users if not being followed by an enforcement officer.

Anything covered by byelaws is very much enforceable, with up to Level 3 penalty (currently £1k fine).

[Mouldy]

2 minutes ago, dom said:

Anything covered by byelaws is very much enforceable, with up to Level 3 penalty (currently £1k fine).

So to enforce a byelaw, surely one has to be seen by someone with the authority to enforce it?

On that note, I rest my case.

[dom]

2 minutes ago, Mouldy said:

So to enforce a byelaw, surely one has to be seen by someone with the authority to enforce it?

On that note, I rest my case.

I'm not sure it's the best case. Seems to be largely "do nothing, accept people might drown", despite having people on site who could enforce a stricter rule for 9 hours a day. That's also ignoring the fact that you could carry out random spot checks. I suspect river rangers would probably be happy of an hour or two's overtime. They don't exactly earn a fortune.

[Paladin]

30 minutes ago, dom said:

People who drown, or die in accidents generally thought what they were doing was perfectly safe, and that people telling them otherwise were just being pedantic or authoritarian.

If someone in a position of authority tells you to do something for your own safety (and, more importantly, your crew's), I generally find it best to listen to them.

As master of my vessel, I am responsible for the safety of it and its crew. I am always prepared to listen to advice, but then I make my own judgement as to its quality and relevance, based on two and a half decades of boat ownership. But I will not be ordered to do something by anyone who lacks the authority to issue that order. It is my firm belief that an order to wear a lifejacket given by a ranger would not come within the remit of the Navigation Byelaws.

1 hour ago, Mouldy said:

And without a method for meaningful enforcement, it is useless, in much the same way as a mandatory speed limit on any road in the country is ignored by the vast majority of road users if not being followed by an enforcement officer.

24 minutes ago, dom said:

Anything covered by byelaws is very much enforceable, with up to Level 3 penalty (currently £1k fine).

A cursory glance at the enforcement statistics will reveal a woeful lack of meaningful enforcement, even if the action or inaction can be shown to be contrary to any of the bye laws. There appears to be an unwritten policy not to prosecute hirers at all, as they probably won't return to the Broads, so it is viewed as wasted time, effort and money. Private owners, on the other hand, are fair game!

[Cheesey69]

Hey, its water right?

I shower in it, bath in it, even drink it. It rains but I get wet but no ones ever died when it rains!

We plod along on it at a gentle speed and we swim in it on holiday.

We have pictures of people laughing and paddling around on boards. Fun.

we sell the rivers and the sea as a happy place. A gentle place.

Water has a good image consultant. We take it for granted. In everyday life we have mastered it, we don't really meet it in its element.

Ask the RNLI what can happen when we meet water in its home.

I'm afraid there is always going to be deaths and misadventures around water in one form or another because as humans, we absorb danger until it becomes common place

 

[dom]

35 minutes ago, catcouk said:

I like to think I'm pretty savvy when it comes to lifejacket safety but I've never worn them for boarding and leaving the boat once it's moored. However, I probably would do at GYYS due to the notorious tides and currents but don't want to lug it round with me all the time. If I'd known they had secure storage ashore, I would definitely have worn my lifejacket - I never knew they were available. Where exactly are they?

Thank you - this is de facto proof of the point I was trying to get across.

Grendel actually first brought it up in December, which was what prompted me to think of it the second I heard about the latest incident. BA posted a response towards the end of the thread, but didn't mention the exact location. They can't be hard to find though - it's not exactly like the place is massive!

[catcouk]

I didn't think shore based lifejacket stores were a thing on the Broads. This is why this forum is great.

[grendel]

7 minutes ago, catcouk said:

I didn't think shore based lifejacket stores were a thing on the Broads. This is why this forum is great.

only at Great Yarmouth, and only if you already know about them.

[Meantime]

I believe they may originally have been installed pre covid as some sort of trial. They have certainly been there a number of years. 

I suspect the lack of them elsewhere is due to poor take up of the facility at Yarmouth. 

[Meantime]

There was a thread as far back as 2017 where the lockers at Yarmouth were discussed. That thread also contained a link to the BA trial on their website but it no longer appears to work.

 

[Paladin]

23 minutes ago, Meantime said:

I believe they may originally have been installed pre covid as some sort of trial. They have certainly been there a number of years. 

I suspect the lack of them elsewhere is due to poor take up of the facility at Yarmouth. 

10 were purchased following a drowning at the Yacht Station in 2011. See para 3/12 in this report NavCom Report

This is the EDP report of the tragedy EDP Report

[Meantime]

4 minutes ago, Paladin said:

10 were purchased following a drowning at the Yacht Station in 2011. See para 3/12 in this report NavCom Report

Thank you Paladin, I knew they'd been there sometime. 

10 lockers won't go very far when the yacht station is busy. So have more not been installed through lack of use? Would more people knowing about them encourage more usage or is it just something that people are not prepared to use.

[dom]

5 minutes ago, Paladin said:

As master of my vessel, I am responsible for the safety of it and its crew. I am always prepared to listen to advice, but then I make my own judgement as to its quality and relevance, based on two and a half decades of boat ownership. But I will not be ordered to do something by anyone who lacks the authority to issue that order. It is my firm belief that an order to wear a lifejacket given by a ranger would not come within the remit of the Navigation Byelaws.

Getting on for 40 years ago, I went on a tallship sailing trip. At the beginning of the trip, during the safety briefing, the skipper advised "Don't fall overboard. If you do, by the time we turn around and get back to you, you'll be dead".

Tidal waters are very different to the nice calm upstream rivers and I think GYYS is much the same. The biggest hazard is how rapidly you can be pulled away from safety. I've done some safety boat training in the past and even with a decent RIB, I wouldn't want to have to rescue someone from the Lower Bure with a full ebb tide running.

If you're an experienced and responsible skipper, then a ranger wouldn't be able to tell your crew to don jackets on deck around GYYS. They'll already be wearing them. If they're not, I'd respectfully suggest letting them decide for themselves whether or not to listen to the advice.

[Roy]

I personally think the hire boats need to have more rails around the deck like a privet boat has with a couple of boarding places where chains can be hooked across when not in use. 
 

[Paladin]

10 minutes ago, dom said:

Getting on for 40 years ago, I went on a tallship sailing trip. At the beginning of the trip, during the safety briefing, the skipper advised "Don't fall overboard. If you do, by the time we turn around and get back to you, you'll be dead".

Tidal waters are very different to the nice calm upstream rivers and I think GYYS is much the same. The biggest hazard is how rapidly you can be pulled away from safety. I've done some safety boat training in the past and even with a decent RIB, I wouldn't want to have to rescue someone from the Lower Bure with a full ebb tide running.

If you're an experienced and responsible skipper, then a ranger wouldn't be able to tell your crew to don jackets on deck around GYYS. They'll already be wearing them. If they're not, I'd respectfully suggest letting them decide for themselves whether or not to listen to the advice.

I have been contributing my opinion for the purpose of this discussion. I have sufficient lifejackets on board for crew and visitors, which they may wear at any time. But I have very strict rules as to when they WILL be worn. Anyone not willing to abide by the rules does stay on board. But I still don't think the wearing of lifejackets comes within the power of the rangers to issue an ORDER.

[grendel]

much as I say I dont always wear one in GY, I do advocate that people do wear them, as for myself, the biggest cause of drowning isnt falling in the water- its the panic when you find yourself in there, and I dont panic if i find myself in the water. a number of times I have accidentally found myself in the water (the incident this year at hardly Cross being the most recent) and while I agree I can fall in, I know I dont panic in such a situation, in fact within a few seconds of going in I had assessed the situation and had a plan to get out and had located the nearest emergency ladder.

I am as much at home in the water as out (this is because Grendel was a lake dwelling monster i suppose) and that is down to the amount of time I spent as a kid, in and around water (mostly cold water- a stream fed outdoor swimming pool in may) I nearly broke the school underwater swimming record, missing out by 1m to a kid with the surname of Salmon, I could easily do 2 lengths plus at the local and school swimming pool- underwater.

but that said there are not many with that upbringing, so for those I would say wear a lifejacket, I still do sometimes,  when I judge the risk is too great not to.

[ExSurveyor]

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.

[dom]

10 minutes ago, Paladin said:

But I still don't think the wearing of lifejackets comes within the power of the rangers to issue an ORDER.

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.