Compulsory Life Jackets for Fishermen

[Frances144]

http://www.shetnews.co.uk/newsbites/13552-fishermen-against-compulsory-wearing-of-lifejackets

I struggle with this.  Why on earth would you not wear a life jacket, even a free life jacket out at sea?

 

I ride a horse.  I always wear a riding hat.  It is not the law (only for children under 14 on the public highway) but I wear a my safety helmet, that is up to legal standard.  No hat, no horse.  That is how I think and how I have taught my children.

 

So, why wouldn't you wear a life jacket if it could help save your life?  They are not all huge and bulky and get in the way.

 

I really do not understand. 

 

No doubt I will be thrown to the Shetlink sharks but here I go!

[Colin]

I suppose that there might be several sides to this argument.

 

No1, How long would the average person survive in the water with, or without, a lifejacket.  Might be long enough to be rescued but, who knows?

 

No2, Does a modern lifejacket seriously impede a fishermans ability to work?

 

No3, Should it be compulsory for a fisherman, or anyone else employed at sea, be forced to adopt this measure or, be able to swim?

 

No4, If No3 is adopted, how long before someone pushes for ferry passengers etc. be similarly equipped?

 

Which ever option you favour, around here in winter, it boils down to "do you prefer death by hypothermia or, by drowning"?

[Rasmie]

If you happened to fall in, I am sure that you would quickly realise its a no brainer.

More chance of surviving on the surface of the ocean.

In the unfortunate event of your demise, more chance of  being brought ashore and less time spent by rescue services trying to effect a recovery.

[Frances144]

If I were the wife of a fisherman, I am sorry but would nag and nag and nag until they did.

 

I couldn't sleep at night knowing they were out there at sea without a lifejacket on. 

 

The worry, oh, the worry. It would be too big, too much for me and my family.

[mikeyboy]

1. If you fall in long enough for the boat to do a figure of 8 and come back to pick you up. Will also keep your face out of the water to if you are unconscious so at least you have a chance.

2. I wouldn't think so. They aren't like something of the Titanic nowadays just a waistcoat style device that inflates when you hit the water.

3. How long do you think you can swim with hypothermia or when unconscious? If wearing flotation you can bring your arms and legs in and try and keep your core warm for longer. Gives you more of a chance. 

4. Ferry passengers don't work on deck.

 

So no real reason not to wear one.

[George.]

Won't be long until you have to wear a lifejacket whenever either North Sea oil or Northlink ferries is mentioned on the news. You'll also have to wear one when you have a bath and the coastguard will peek through random bathroom windows to check that everybody is wearing their lifejacket from the moment the taps are turned on until the plug is pulled and the bath emptied.

[Frances144]

But that's like saying soon every pedestrian will have to wear a safety helmet when they walk on a pavement.

 

I agree the Nanny State is something to avoid, but basic common sense and safety is not.

[Rasmie]

We never wore lifejackets  on small boats when I was young,

a) they were expensive

we were indestructible

 

Wear one now, but mainly to educate the youngsters that its not uncool.

 

Didn't have seatbelts in our cars either

[Frances144]

We never wore lifejackets  on small boats when I was young,

a) they were expensive

we were indestructible

 

Wear one now, but mainly to educate the youngsters that its not uncool.

 

Didn't have seatbelts in our cars either

 

We did.  It was Family Law and at open sea (sailed from Kinlochbervie round Cape Wrath to Orkney) we had to wear a line that clipped onto everything.  Forget and have the wrath of my father.

[Ghostrider]

I am very against make anything comuplsory that only affects the individual concerned. The "WE know what's good for you better than you do" attitude that generates it deserves only one thing. A damn good punch in the throat.

 

That said. While on the face of it it might seem like a no brainer, being at sea is not all alike, fishermen be definition are far more likely to be out there in poor conditions than good, the opposite of the recreational seafarer, and to be wearing a considerable mount of protective clothing, again the opposite of the recreational seafarer.

 

While one of those small vest type things may well be perfectly adequate to float a recreational seafarer, wearing usually relatively lightweight clothing and operating in relatively benign sea conditions and inshore water, are they capable of keeping someone wearing heavy boots and oilskins dragging them down 20 or 40 miles off in 10 or 20 foot breaking swells?

 

Even if they are, given the hinderance and liabilities created to a fisherman by their necessary protective clothing, is the addition of even one of those small vest types not going to increase the hinderance and liability to them, equal to, or even greater to the benefits of wearing one. In a nutshell, if the presence of the vest increases the wearers chances of an accident by x% due to its presence, is that increase more than cancelled out by lives saved.

 

Personally I think folk need to use common sense and be realistic - that if you fall in the sea round Shetland unless in summer and/or within easy reach of the shore, you can expect to meet old St Peter, or the dude down below, rather than anything else, so you'd be wise to make damn sure you don't fall in in the first place.

[Da Burra Shop]

You have as much chance if not more of being dragged over the side than falling over the side, and in that case a lifejacket is a hindrance to your survival not an aid.

[Scorrie]

There's persuasive and very valid arguments on both sides of this discussion, but I'll just leave this here:

 

 

How many people who find themselves overboard without a lifejacket are pleased that they are not wearing one?

[Colin]

[mikeyboy]

I am very against make anything comuplsory that only affects the individual concerned. The "WE know what's good for you better than you do" attitude that generates it deserves only one thing. A damn good punch in the throat.

 

That said. While on the face of it it might seem like a no brainer, being at sea is not all alike, fishermen be definition are far more likely to be out there in poor conditions than good, the opposite of the recreational seafarer, and to be wearing a considerable mount of protective clothing, again the opposite of the recreational seafarer.

 

While one of those small vest type things may well be perfectly adequate to float a recreational seafarer, wearing usually relatively lightweight clothing and operating in relatively benign sea conditions and inshore water, are they capable of keeping someone wearing heavy boots and oilskins dragging them down 20 or 40 miles off in 10 or 20 foot breaking swells?

 

Even if they are, given the hinderance and liabilities created to a fisherman by their necessary protective clothing, is the addition of even one of those small vest types not going to increase the hinderance and liability to them, equal to, or even greater to the benefits of wearing one. In a nutshell, if the presence of the vest increases the wearers chances of an accident by x% due to its presence, is that increase more than cancelled out by lives saved.

 

Personally I think folk need to use common sense and be realistic - that if you fall in the sea round Shetland unless in summer and/or within easy reach of the shore, you can expect to meet old St Peter, or the dude down below, rather than anything else, so you'd be wise to make damn sure you don't fall in in the first place.

The normal standard is 275N which I think will give just under 28Kg of lift. Enough for even the biggest chap.

Waterproofs/oilskins things like that trap air and actually help if you fall in. As for boots you better kick those suckers off.

Using your scenario what chance do you think someone would have wearing oilskins and boots but no lifejacket?

To be honest I haven't had to wear one for a few years but they weren't much of a hindrance and you were used to it after a day.

In the winter I would be wearing a boat suit as well. Gives you a bit of protection and flotation if you go overboard in the cold.

By the way being lost at sea doesn't just affect the individual concerned but their family and friends too.

Edited November 5, 2016 by mikeyboy

[Ghostrider]

 

Using your scenario what chance do you think someone would have wearing oilskins and boots but no lifejacket?

 

Like I said, falling in the sea around Shetland is about as certain to get you a plywood overcoat as playing in motorway rush hour traffic, and i'm just wondering if a lifejacket, when looked at in the big picture, is really going to make any real difference to the total fatalities, or simply put different names on the tombstones.

 

No doubt it would save some, but if at the same time others found wearing one to in any way be restrictive, a distraction or a nusiance, and suffered a fatal accident as a result, there's no aggregate gain when all you've succeeded in doing is putting a different body on the slab.

 

I'm all for making it compulsory for vessels to have suitable lifejackets readily available to all of those on board who want them, and for it to be strongly recommended folk use them, but at the end of the day it should be down to the individual to make their own choice. If a person feels more safe wearing one than not, and/or they don't feel it distracting/restricting them, they'll wear one. However, if someone feels less safe because they are in any way being restricted of distracted by wearing one, its wholly counter-productive to force them to wear it.

 

Its a personal thing, the combination of a person's build, what other clothing they choose to wear, the lifejacket available and the tasks they're doing are largely unique to them, and like everything else one size never fits all. For anyone that can don a lifejacket along with their normal clothing and get on with their job forgetting its there, all good, hopefully they'll never need it, but maybe it'll be the one thing that saves them someday. However, if you force someone else to wear one who for whatever reason, be it their build, other clothing or the job they do, is forever finding the lifejacket a nusiance, it'll be very cold comfort to them when they don't see a tangle in a warp heading their way that drags them over the side, or something in a derrick taking an unexpected swing and smashing open their skull, because at the moment they would have seen the approaching danger they were distracted by the lifejacket digging in to them someplace it shouldn't, or getting caught up someplace it shouldn't.

 

Folk need to be educated in potential dangers, and potential ways they may be able mitigate them and their possible outcomes, then be left to make their own decision what they believe is best for them as an individual.

 

Every accident is a singularly unique event and we've been fed this fallacy many times before in other areas, crash helmets were made compulsory, and yes, they prevented quite so many smashed skulls, but they increased the number of deaths due to whiplash on account of the increased load on folk's necks from the helmet weight. Seatbelts were made complulsory, and yes they reduced the number of folk going through the windscreen, but increased the number of folk who perished because they were crushed inside the car, or were unable to escape the seatbelt and burned or drowned. But of course, that's "okay", because it wasn't really about making things safer overall, it was about evening out the numbers in the statistics. Never mind more bikers die from broken necks now, that's a different bar on the graph, its the bar with deaths from head injuries that's important, never mind that more people now die from being trapped in vehicles, that's a different bar on the graph, its the bar for going through the windscreen that's important.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but like the crash helmets and seatbelts all I'm seeing from making lifejackets compulsory is possibly the number of drowning deaths bar on the graph becoming very slightly shorter, but the bars for numbers going overboard and/or accidents with gear growing. If so, is that really an "improvement"?

 

Whatever it is, having already been mooted by the powers that be, its inevitable it in time will come in to force, and regardless even if it ends up in escalating victims, it'll remain in force with the powers that be standing steadfastedly behind it spouting whatever bull they need to to try and "justify" it, as this is what they always do. So folk better hope it makes a big positive difference, and not the opposite, for we're stuck with it, whatever the outcome.

 

 

By the way being lost at sea doesn't just affect the individual concerned but their family and friends too.

 

Of course, that's a given in any death or accident anywhere, not just at sea. Its also a private matter between them and their's as far as i'm concerned. I don't see what business or concern it is of folk beyond the victims circle of relatives/friends/acquaintences.

Edited November 5, 2016 by Ghostrider