National’s irrational fear of being tagged with the ‘Nanny State’ label they successfully over-hyped against Labour has just jumped the shark.
3 News reported tonight that optics man Steven Joyce pulled a last minute flip-flop on making life jackets compulsory on small boats.
Associate Transport Minister Simon Bridges, sounding like he was on morphine, gave National’s reasoning as not wanting to over-regulate.
What the hell? We have tragedies like this happening all the time because our laws are inadequate and wearing of life jackets is unenforceable.
Frankly, this is even worse than National’s refusal to change the drink-drive limit.
It’s an utterly irresponsible decision from a Government more worried about the ‘optics’ than human lives.
Need more than just compulsory life-jackets. What we really need is a boating license system as a lot of people out in boats just have NFI WTF they’re doing. Don’t know the rules of the sea, don’t know how to read the weather and don’t know how to read a map.
Iain
you are obviously not a sailor and do not know how impractible it is to wear a life jacket full time while sailing
Get real
No matter what political persuation we have had enough of stupid social engineering by politicians taking away our liberties
Such a law would be completely unenforceable..
Everybody already knows the dangers of not wearing a life jacket and thus take the risk at their own peril.
The Government cannot protect people from every little danger
ILG – No amount of prescribed cotton wool will save the idiots that walk amongst us risking the next Darwin award.
One day I live in hope of politicians that will take a stand to remove the petty nanny state dictates that abound in our over regulated society. Obviously you Sir are not one of those.
IMHO, those who go to sea without taking necessary and well documented precautions unfortunately deserve everything that comes their way.
Sir, you are the lowest for attempting to link recent tragic events in a seriously overloaded tinnie apparently without any safety gear onboard as the clarion for yet more regulations. Not one more regulation will save those already lost, yet you have the gall to blame the other side?
Pentwig, there are excellent designs in life jackets that allow full freedom of movement. Your remarks remind me of the silly comments people made when car seat belts were made compulsory.
Must agree with pentwig & Sam
While absolutely agreeing that National has deviously overhyped ‘nanny-state Labour’ to their advantage, I do not believe compulsory wearing of life jackets is always desireable.
Education is the way to go!
While some terrible and truely tragic loss of life may cccur, we must be careful that we never discourage youth from the spirit of adventure and freedom in our great outdoors. Jackets must be carried(law) but wearing should be the perogative of the skipper. Lets educate them
I believe that even the compulsory wearing of Cycle helmet might in balance, be a negative for our TOTAL national health.
So few Kids cycle to school now(I understand helmets are an issue with many youth)- BUT, so many are becoming unheathily obese being motored to & from school and then playing make believe before a screen. Our kids are becoming alarmingly unable to discern danger. Their ‘virtual reality’ experience is an appalling excuse for reallife knocks
If we really want to save many lives we should make helmets compulsory in vehicles, and forbid tramping without a gps beacon…. and on, and on..
Of course the Nats are wrong and simply electorily expedient in refusing to acknowlege the proven danger of our high alcohol driving limit, BUT that directly endangers OTHER road users – A very, very different situation.
At times Coroners in an incedibly emotional environment seem to indignantly suggest all sorts of restrictions and regulations BUT please – think of our total physical and mental health
Oh, Me- 6 years cruising the Pacfic and Aust waters – wore a jacket only rarely – when I determined it was prudent.
As a sailor myself I really fail to see how it is impratical to wear buoyancy aids. I assume Iain is not talking about “lifejackets” but actually “buoyancy aids”, proper offshore life jackets are difficult to wear for free body movement I’ll accept that. But a colar less buoyancy vest is fine for inshore boating. I always wear mine. If your a dinghy sailor then obviously you must wear a buoyancy vest while if you a larger boat sailor then you can probably get away with an inflatable one. For power boaties there is even less of an excuse. Obviously if petwig is a keel boat sailor then obviously not wearing life jackets below deck but you must wear them once you on deck in my opinion regardless of the weather conditions in any boat less than say, 40 foot.
I think helmet law is strange. Obviously we really want to encourage cycling but staying safe as well. Again I fail to see how the need to wear a helmet stops people from cycling.
Its simple, if your in a car put your seatbelt on, if your on a bike put your helmet (it always annoys me about the strange people how insist on clipping their helmet around the handle bar rather than wearing it) and if your in a boat put your buoyancy aid on. It costs you nothing and can save lives. Its sad that people need the threat of a $150 fine to put your seatbelt on, but that’s what need to do. Allow the Police and Coastguard to issue fines for failing to comply with life jacket laws and requesting that boats return immediately to shore if they do not have suitable life jackets on board.
These nats are just shockingly poor.
So they can force solo mums onto contraception, which is ok and not meddling at all, but cry nanny state over low energy light bulbs or compulsory life jackets on pleasure craft.
No surprises really, given the constituency they represent, but stupid people do need to be told what to do sometimes.
I’ll make it simple.
Divs of Epsom – Put your life jackets on, stupid.
I wouldn’t go on the water without one, just like I wouldn’t drive a car without wearing my seat belt, or putting my child in her booster seat.
Heres a website to shows lifejackets for the active yachters… 20 sec to find
http://www.viking-life.com/viking.nsf/public/yachting-rescyoulifejackets.html
The nats have sold policy, are prepared, nay, eager to drill, mine and desecrate the country for cash and sell the backbone assets of the country to the highest bidder on the stock market…
Is it any wonder they’ll sacrifice a few of us, so as not to upset the yacht club?
The rule for the life-jackets was for those on boats under 6metres. Those are boats small enough to be tipped by errant waves, or careless movement by those on board. It includes dinghies which have the highest risk factors. When in boats greater than 6 metres the risk of instant disaster is steadily lower until on a 20 metre boat falling overboard is the greatest instant risk.
Ianmac .. Good points. But my reasoning above is that too much cottonwool is suffocating. It is very sensible to wear lifejackets in small boats, particularly for non swimmers, but it should be the skippers call (Or the Individual). Perhaps I was misleading above but my yacht was 8m(small) and the whole adventure on a shoestring. I doubt I would consider it now – too many regulations. As a boy our scoutmaster would dump us in the bush and retun for us a couple of days latter. We cut ourselves and other minor damage- but someone could run to a farm.
We learned to survive . I think it was good for us. I feel sorry for the molycoddled, and the couch potatoes with just a remote, joystick or whatever for fun.
An example; Paddled the Whanganui several times – an easy river but always jacketed. But playing with the same canoe in a swimming hole – no jacket. The call should be for the individual to make- not some PC enforcer. Sorry
Paul B. In my family we learnt to row and went out on the family dinghy solo from about 5 years old. But putting the life jacket on was just part of the preparation. I think not wearing a life jacket or buoyancy aid is selfish as you are not thinking about those who, in the event of an accident, might have to retrieve your body or who will grieve for you, or the coroner who will blame you.
@ Hilary – Absolutely take your points, but have you thought where it ends. In fact where you rowed, you could probably freely swim ( with a jacket?.. no). But it becomes an offence to be without a lifejacket for a proficient swimmer rowing 20m from the beach! As children, your parents required you to wear a jacket – Their call, and very sensible too, but it should not be law especially when risk is slight. The corollary of your reasoning IS an advancing nanny state and I for one do not want to be any part of it. eg Why not helmets in cars – would save many lives (and mess very many hairdos). Prevent anyone without tested bushcraft skills venturing into our great forest parks, and certainly not without expensive satelite communications. Prohibit cycling – far too dangerous, helmeted or not. There has to be personal responsibility. In a sense by discouraging everyhing unless cosseted and qualified we exacerbate the problem. EDUCATION is the good answer. There will always be foolish behavior – rules will not stop that… And what would Anne Tolley do without a trophy car to display on… so God help us
Those that retrieve, grieve, and patch up the mess are heros, but they choose to be in that situation, and surely should realise that there may be more, and often chronic, mental and physical health problems if we all just sit around in fear of offending someone or some regulator
Education, not legislation please!
PaulB – so cycle helmets are responsible for childhood obesity?
Sheesh.
They may not want a Nanny State, but Nat supporters seem to have created their own Ninny State.
Well here’s our glorious leader The HONjKEY and his songbird Peter Sinclair on Gone fishing Season 21, Ep 9 which aired last week.
http://ondemand.tv3.co.nz/Gone-Fishin-Season-21-Ep-9/tabid/59/articleID/6892/MCat/183/Default.aspx.
Go straight to 14.57. to hear what “Dear leader” says about wearing life-jackets.
The ‘boat went out’ so to speak for nanny state taking away boaties rights when they were forced to carry lifejackets on the boat, no doubt they kicked and screamed over that invasion of their rights.
Expect a push back over wearing seat belts , child seat restraints ,iodised salt and fluorinated water.
Who knows, pasteurised milk could be for the chop as its obviously the mammary source of all the nanny state initiatives
@ Daz
Well I am told that girls will not mess their hair and some males find them uncool-ie helmets. Hardly good reasons for anything , but why are the bike sheds at schools being dismantled? The mums that drive their children to school may be a greater problem ,but there is no doubt at all that many of our kids are becoming obese and would benefit from a lot more exercise. Sometimes it may be very slightly dangerous – and exciting. But sadly many kids now seem to prefer virtual kicks.
I have said enough, and am out of here. You people scare me more than a big wave
Agree with Paul B to some degree but see my previous post. The real problem we have is that people are going out in boats just don’t know how to handle the boat or themselves if things go wrong.
Should be under 4m, you wouldn’t catch me in a dingy without a life jacket. Changing behavior through a bit of legislative prompting is fine.
5-6m is a good safe size boat if your doing everything else right, but I always put a life jacket when kids are on board, weather gets up, getting dark or crossing a bar.
The tag of Nanny State to the helen Clark Government was a fair tag considering how much the Labour Government interferred in our lives. Everything from Light bulbs, anti-smaking, de-facto marriages, WFF, and many more. Only when it cam the the shower Heads did Labour finally realise they went to far and Clark cut that one interference in our lives.
On the subject of Life Jackets, most boaties are very responsible. I have been involved in boating for about 30 years. No kids go in the boat without a life Jacket. But there are instances where a life jactket is not suitable – trolling for a trout at 3km an hour on a calm flat evening on Lake Taupo. Or wearing a full 7mm wetsuit while diving.
Yes there are sad instances when a life jacket would have saved a life (or lives) but would making the Life jackets mandatory actually have helped if people carry on and ignore the law regardless?
For the record every boatie I know always has more than enough life jackets for everyone on the boat easily accessible.
To me this blog post is another example of Labour focussing on things that matter
Education not regulation all that is required. And not more nanny state. We have more than enough of that already.
As an RYA Yachtmaster and Cruise Instructor I always saw it as personal responsibility and always pushed this on my students. If a calm day and not single handed I would not bother, this has included some fairly large offshore tracts.
I’d be concerned at drinking while in charge of a vessel, at the end of the day you can’t legislate for stupidity no matter how hard you try.
I’ve been waiting for some of these “experts” to suggest a rational approach to what is a large, and growing problem….
the easy answer is right in front of us…. “at the captains discretion” has been bandied about often enough for it to be obvious….
Make the “captain” i,e, the owner of the vessel responsible for any loss of life incurred as a result of drowning through inadequate provision of life jackets…..
this has been maritime law for as long as traders have reached around the globe….in as much as, the captain, being the ultimate authority on board, is the one who bears responsibility for mistakes, oversights etc…
simply transfer the principal to small craft… Who here is prepared to say that boat owners will continue to overlook the safety of their passengers once they are legally responsible for what befalls any, and all who sail with him?
Monty, I’m interested in why you think debating ways to prevent unecessary tragedies and death is not something that matters.
To everyone else, there are some good alternative ideas here. Why didn’t Steven Joyce look at these rather than just blocking any progress on boat safety? The optics.
@ Monty Would you then suggest that we dont have to have the compulsary rule about wearing a seat belts in cars as in some instances such as driving in a car park at 10km an hour make the chance of injury negligable.
Could someone on here tell me how having a law will save people from getting on a boat without a life jacket?
Will it work in the same way that the seatbelt law works – where dozens a year die from not wearing seatbelts even though it is illegal?
Or will it work the same way that the dog microchipping law has failed to prevent any dog attacks, but has cost the NZ public millions of dollars?
Its hilarious that you people think making a law so people can be prosecuted is a more effective way of prevention than actually educating people in the first place.
At least it would give the police more to do rather than chase actual criminals.
” Nanny State ” being one of the many terms conjured up for the right wing by their US PR firm , to be applied willy nilly in place of rational discussion, using ridicule and name calling which may well reflect the level of rationality in the conservative mind.
I guess they are scared of the term for obvious reasons.
Silly petty stuff while the important things such as increasing loss of sovereignty in the not so gradual transfer of our wealth away from most people, the public purse, family businesses as well as important attempts by Labour to slow this erosion; are all sidelined from serious public discussion.
The press and media dare not be too critical and certainly some collusion or directions is becoming more evident.
“At least it would give the police more to do rather than chase actual criminals.”
As opposed to them spending a week combing Manakau harbour for little childrens bodies.