Kids under 12 to Wear life Jackets all the time

[Spaniard_King]

For anyone who has kids you need to read this

http://www.msq.qld.gov.au/qt/msq.nsf/index/compulsory_lifejackets

Garry

[Poseidon]

Thanks for the information. By the interpretation 'underway' would include drifting along throwing lures etc, so my young bloke will need to wear the lifejacket at this time as well. Not too comfortable.

So, best I save up and buy one of those inflatable jackets,vest then.

More $$$$$. Boat = Bring On Another Thousand

[Poseidon]

PS. I wonder why this hasn't been advertised on the radio, TV etc, or have I missed it.

One thing for sure, unless it becomes more advertised there will be alot of $150 fines dished out.

[Derek_Bullock]

New child protection law

Rosemary Odgers

Courier Mail - March 13, 2006

IT will be compulsory for children under 12 to wear life jackets in dinghies and other small boats, in a bid to reduce drownings in Queensland.

From April 1, parents and operators face fines of at least $150 if they do not ensure children are properly protected.

Dinghies and small boats are defined as those under 4.8 metres – that means most of Queensland's approximately 200,000 registered recreational vessels.

It will also be compulsory for all people on board boats under 4.8 metres to wear a life jacket or flotation device when they are crossing a designated bar.

Transport Minister Paul Lucas said eight people drowned last year as a result of swamping, capsizing or after falling overboard.

"It's unfortunate that we need to regulate for something that should be common sense, but this is about protecting some people from their own actions," he said.

"This is even more important in the case of young children who are dependent on the good sense of their parents or the person operating the boat."

The State Government crackdown to be announced today follows a boating accident last year near Mackay when six-year-old Samantha Davison drowned after falling overboard from a small aluminium dinghy – and her father, Christian, drowned while attempting to rescue her.

At that time, the girl's grandfather pleaded with safety authorities to make it compulsory for all children to wear life jackets in Queensland.

Under existing laws, all boats have to carry life jackets – but it is not compulsory to wear them.

The new Queensland laws will apply to any commercial, fishing or recreational open boat under 4.8 metres because these are considered to be more likely to capsize in bad conditions.

Recreational fishing body Sunfish said plans to make it compulsory to wear life jackets while crossing bars was sensible, but questioned the changes involving children.

"We could be putting children more at risk from the heat by forcing them to wear life jackets in the middle of summer, particularly in the northern parts of the state," spokesman Vern Veitch said.

"It should be a commonsense thing that you put on a life jacket when it's rough – not something you have to legislate."

It will now be compulsory to wear life jackets at: Currumbin Bar, Tallebudgera Bar, Jumpinpin Bar, South Passage Bar, Caloundra Bar, Maroochy Bar, Noosa Bar and Wide Bay Bar.

[Derek_Bullock]

North Qld tragedy behind life jacket laws change

ABC Online - Monday, 13 March 2006. 14:08 (AEDT)

The Queensland Government says the drowning of two people near Mackay last year is the catalyst for new laws to make it compulsory for children to wear life jackets in dinghies.

Sarina man Christian Davison and his daughter Samantha, 6, died in a boating tragedy after she fell overboard.

Neither was wearing a life jacket.

From April, it will be compulsory for children under 12 to wear life jackets in small boats.

Emergency physician Dr Marianne Cannon says it is a step in the right direction.

"It can be inconvenient and what have you, but we believe it's a definite move in the right direction. You know, having to legislate does seem to be a bit silly, but if it saves one child's life then go ahead and legislate," she said.

[longtail]

lifejackets when crossing bars is a good idea ,

if i'm reading that right , the kids will have to wear it as long as their in the boat :-?

does that also mean when fishing at anchor???? :-/


jason

[Swerve]

lifejackets when crossing bars is a good idea #, #

if i'm reading that right , the kids will have to wear it as long as their in the boat #:-?

does that also mean when fishing at anchor???? :-/


jason

The kid will need a life jacket if

1- If the boat is drifting, moving (If at anchor or tied to a non movable object no jacket required)
2- If the boat is less then 4.8m in length.
3- If the boat is a open boat (Half cabins are excluded)

Steve

PS- Look at the FAQ

[finga64]

Sounds good in theory and shouldn't be any problems with people putting the jackets on going over bars :)
Wonder why the size limit is 4.8m?? Don't 4.9 or 5m boats sink too??
The definition of underway is a bit #:-? :'( as there's not much difference between anchored and drifting. I would be much happier if the "underway" was when the vessel was actually moving either by mechanical means or wind power.
What does everybody else think??

Wonder what difference a rigid deckhouse makes?? Sounds a little silly. Boats go over/under with/without a cabin. :'(

Kids under 10 wear jackets in my boat now when we're under power and we always wear jackets going over bars as we mainly do that in NSW (laws already in down there) so not so bad for us to adjust. ;)

It's a shame that laws are made by the sad misfourtunes of a very few.

I wonder if they're going to make parents responsible for their kids by law as well now, due to the sad loss of 3 little kids on railway lines in Brissy.

[Just_One_More_Cast]

Thanks for the information. By the #interpretation 'underway' would include drifting along throwing lures etc, so my young bloke will need to wear the lifejacket at this time as well. Not too comfortable.

So, best I save up and buy one of those inflatable jackets,vest then.

More $$$$$. Boat = Bring On Another Thousand



I have two kids 7 & 9. Both are excelent swimmers and have recentlty competed in zone swimming carnival finals for their school. They both still wear life jackets whenever they are in the boat. We are in New South, so the laws aren't here yet, but I personally don't think they are a bad idea.

The day I bought my boat, I bought two PFD2 jackets for the kids and the rule is, if they want to get in the boat, they put the jackets on. Never once had an arguement. Might be harder with kids who are used to going out without one and obviously they will be less inclined to co-operate as they get older.

Don't know what the law in Qld states, but if you can get away with PFD2 or PFD3's, they are very lightweight and comfortable. Many PFD3's are actually very sporty as they are designed for waterskiers. As far as I can ascertain the only difference between the 2 and 3's is the color. PFD2s are bright fluro colors, whereas 3's are often red, blue etc. I chose the flouro yellow #ones for my kids who were 4 and 6 at the time.

You would of course need PFD1's for bar crossings or outside work.

Can't deny the cost hurts though (mine were towrds the bottom of the price range and about $70 each), but at the risk of a serious cliche "what price do you put on your kids lives?" Here's another one "accidents happen"

[Poseidon]

My concern also is that of children overheating whilst wearing a PFD. I am not opposed to the wearing whilst under-power however for a child to wear a PFD when drifting throwing lures for instance is a bit much. We have all felt how hot it can be from radiating heat within a boat, to turn a child into a thermos is asking for trouble.

How can a child be more at risk within a vessel whilst drifting along than another child swimming upsupervised in the breakers at Main Beach?

Surely the risk of waves and rips should raise more concerns.

What ID will the child have to carry to prove his age ?

Regards Cameron.

[Derek_Bullock]

I can just see it happening .............. as soon as the first helicopter is called out to rescue a kid who is suffering from heat stroke they will start talking about kids being banned from open boats.

Hope I am not predicting a reality here.


Derek

[Spaniard_King]

Yes Cameron,

I too am worried about my kids overheating, I think common sense should prevail

Garry

[Spaniard_King]

There I go double posting again..ignore this one :-[

[familyman]

This is law already in nsw (the bar bit) but really isnt this commonsense? :-/If the water is glass calm then what issue is there?
I went on a trip on the James Craig(tall ship about 1500tons) out of sydney harbour with a howling sou east 30+knots and 20-25'swell.They made us wear jackets coming out of the harbour but once into the open sea we could take them off.Thats a bit illogical if you ask me .The other thing does Dr marianne cannon have to listen to whingy kids that are hot and uncomfortable in the boat becuse of the jacket.Personally I will make my kids wear a jacket if need be but if the weather is that bad then what are they doing out there in the first place?And whats with 12?dont kids over 12 drown ?How old was dad?
Then again I also have the view that people that have no idea of the lifestyle should not be making rules concerning it.By all means make everyone wear jackets all the time .No dont bother getting the incompitent people some skills so they know what they're doing >:(
To me while the government and various child protection agencies still flounder around trying to prevent child abuse and such then maybe they should concentrate on their own backyard and leave the parenting to the parents that actually give enough of a crap to enjoy having their kids on their boats.
cheers jon

[robersl]

can not see a problem with it but as mentioned a bit hot for kids to wear a jacket in our heat all day if you want to drift or troll all i can say is more kids will end up with heat stress. you try and keep fluids up to a kid while fishing not easy i have worked with harness horses most of my life and have to wear a protective vest while working the horses and you sweat like a pig

shane

[gawby]

As for bar crossings i fully agree that all persons on board should wear a life jacket. As for those who say what about if you capsise and get trpped under the boat, think about it you get a pocket of air in there he jacket off , take a breath of air and get out from under it and try and drag the jacket with you. My opinion.
When travelling i would agree that children should wear a jacket if over 10 to 15 knots. When they are behind you and you are watching where you are going they could fall out the back and you wouldnt know.
For me if its law i will wear the jacket without any problems. I am not a goood swimmer and would take my chances with capsise.
Graeme

[Needmorerum]

As with everyone else, agree with the bar part, as we all should do this anyway.

As for the kids bit, my girls are 9 and 7, and they only wear a jacket in the big boat when we are outside the harbour and under way, when we stop and anchor, they can take it off. Inside the harbour, I don't worry about it.
In the tinny, they don't wear a jacket at all, and I haven't come across a reason as to why they should. Both are competent swimmers, and the river has never been bad enough to capsize a boat, and I doubt ever will.
This isn't saying that there aren't other reasons as to why things go wrong, but people get hit by cars everyday, we don't see us fully fencing off roads. Cars on the highway pass each other at about 1m apart at an impact speed of 200kph, don't see this changing anytime soon.
I just think we need to use some common sense in the decisions that are made. This definately isn't user friendly for the younger generation to enjoy our sport.

Cheers
Corry

[Grand_Marlin]

quote from legislation:

"Under 12 - From 1 up to, but not including 12 years of age. It is not recommended that children under this age travel on boats unless necessary, at which time they should be held securely by a parent or adult."

What a F#%#^ing joke ... so now we should leave the kids at home?

Lets legislate to stop them from drowning, but let them become juvenile delinquents because they are left to their own devices on the street and arent allowed to participate in a good, wholesome family activity.

... fair dinkum .... #>:(

I would like to see the statistics - Kids knocked off bikes v's kids drowned in boats...


This rule will be introduced as per all the other rules ... sneakily.

Any change of rules in this nature ... I believe all registered boat owners should be notified by direct mail.... 55 cents out of our $80 rego shouldnt be too much to ask...

Our boat is 6m... but I still put the life jackets on the kids when travelling.

I dont when trolling, unless it is getting slightly rough.
My kids are competent swimmers as well.

I would never deliberately put my kids in danger. #They love fishing, know my rules on life jackets ... and they dont question it ... otherwise they would be made to stay home.

Bar crossings? #dangerous to even the biggest boats ... I think life jackets should be mandatory to any size boat crossing a bar.

There are so many variables to what makes a boat dangerous.... I can see that the bureaucrats are pointing the finger just from statistics, (not experience) which is what makes this list so narrow minded and incomplete.

What about taking into account:
Can the kids swim?
The different waters - lakes, rivers, open ocean?
Experience of kids ?
Experience of skipper? (no matter what size boat)
Current conditions of wind / wave / weather?
Type of hull? flat bottom / vs V bottom / vs cat?
How far from shore?

I cant wait for their full overhaul of life jacket rules....

Cheers

Pete

[finga64]

Hear, hear Pete.
Well said.

[skales]

What a JOKE this law is ------2 kids, 10 years old can cross the Seaway in a 5mtr cuddy cab with NO LIFEJACKETS and don't have to wear them while outside.
The Goverment and Sunfish need to grow a Brain

[blaze]

I am a believer in life jackets
for all the people that bitch about heat, get your kids a good inflatable yoke, dont even know you are wearing them.
said it before and I will say it again
$50000 for a boat and $120 for a high quality yoke

[Grand_Marlin]

Is there anywhere we can have a say on this issue?

Especially the new "total overhaul" of new laws that are yet to come?

If the new laws are sensible, they will be well accepted ... if they are ridiculous, then they will be treated with contempt (unfortunately, but understandably)

Please keep in mind though, that currently it only applies to open boats.

A 4.8m and under cuddy cab is exempt from the rules.

Cheers

Pete

[Grand_Marlin]

I sent this to MSQ.

Lets see what develops.


Dear Sir,

As a regular recreational boater, a Marine industry Worker, and a member of Ausfish, I take interest in your publication "Compulsory Wearing of Life Jackets"

Whilst the new rules are generally accepted, there is some conjecture regarding:

a) Not all bars that are considered dangerous by the boating fraternity are mentioned, with the Gold Coast Seaway and Mooloolaba Harbour, being of particular inter.

b) The crossing of bars rule. #The boating fraternity widely believe that All Boats on All Bars, should comply with this rule.

c) The size limit of open boats being capped at 4.8 metres, needs further review.

d) The compulsory wearing of life jackets by children does not take into account smooth water operation, which is considered by most to be a little ambiguous.

It also contradicts the Transport Operations (Marine Safety—Recreational Ships Miscellaneous Equipment) Standard 2006, Subordinate Legislation 2006 No. 19, Section 15 (2)

15 Safety equipment in smooth waters

(1) A recreational ship operating in smooth waters should be equipped with—
(a) a PFD type 1, 2 or 3 for each person on board;

(2) However, subsection (1)(a) does not apply if—

(a) the ship operates in a river, creek, stream or the waters contained within breakwaters or revetments; and

(b) the ship is equipped with grab lines, grab rails or other permanent means of giving each person on board a way of keeping a secure hold to the ship; and

(c) there is a statement in the approved form for the ship that the ship has positive flotation.



Which rule takes precedence? The Current Standards, or the new Life Jacket Rules?

Will the current standard be ammended to incorporate these changes?



Popular opinion says that the new rules so far have been made totally on statistics, with practicality being the first casualty.

Will the public discussion paper on the review (available June 2006) allow us as individuals, and boating groups to contribute to ideas on the new laws, or will it just be a case of "Here are the Rules, try and object to them"?

As stated earlier, in general, the boating fraternity welcome new laws to make our waterways safer, BUT, we need them to be practical, and useable.

Comments such as the following are not at all constructive, and are considered to be an insult to all responsible boating parents and families.

Quote from Definitions

Under 12 - From 1 up to, but not including 12 years of age. It is not recommended that children under this age travel on boats unless necessary, at which time they should be held securely by a parent or adult.

The comparison between the amount of children injured in boating mishaps, as compared to being hit by cars on bikes (especially if they are left at home due to the Government saying they should not be on boats) should possibly be considered.

Your reply is eagerly awaited.

Sincerely,

Peter McCullagh.

[finga64]

I am a believer in life jackets
for all the people that bitch about heat, get your kids a good inflatable yoke, dont even know you are wearing them.
said it before and I will say it again
$50000 for a boat and $120 for a high quality yoke

Gidday Blaze #:)
I think the main gripe people have is the inconsistancy or stupidity in the proposed laws. Not the fact of wearing a jacket.
ie open vessel V's cabin; 4.8m vessel V's any vessel; drifting V's under propulsion and the wording which effectively means leave your kids at home. "Under 12 - From 1 up to, but not including 12 years of age. It is not recommended that children under this age travel on boats unless necessary, at which time they should be held securely by a parent or adult." What happens if you have three kids?? 1 adult to hold three kids whilst the other adult operates the vessel safely. Maybe bunging a rope around them all will do?? What about people under 1 year of age, they don't count at all. They don't need a PFD or somebody holding them.(personally I wouldn't have a child under 3 on the boat anyway but that's another story)

By far, the majority of boaties do everything in their power to preserve life in their vessel as it's usually family and loved ones in the vessel. In my opinion, it would be better to make all skippers do courses concerning boating safety which includes bar crossings, weather prediction, proper radio operation and more indepth vessel operating skills. Not the present method of doing a day course, go for a putt up the river and that's about it.

From reading the thread nobody is against the wearing of the jacket whilst crossing a bar. Funny part is the bars they mention are all concentrated in the South-East corner of the state. Apparently there are no bar crossings elsewhere in the state.

I can't see why the discussion paper has not been discussed before the laws are made. In this case the laws are implimented April 1st whilst the discussion paper concerning the laws is only available from June. Two months later after the laws are in.
That's a bit like the headless chook hiding from the axe.

P.S. Does anybody know the statistics concerning accidents in boats??

Cheers Scott

[Mad_Barry]

This is the typical balls up of trying to legislate some common sense into the .001% of people that weren't born with any. :(

There's no seperation between travelling off shore in a 12 ft tinny in a 30 knot 'breeze' or drifting the shallows for flathead in a quiet little estuary.

Parents/Skippers discretion should apply.

I operate an open boat regularly with my kids, luckily it's a 4.8m :) so the way I read it, is I can still can add or remove jackets on the kids as I see fit. (I'm glad it's not a 4.75)

And who ever wrote that waffle about kids under 12 shouldn't be on boats anyway needs to poke their head out of their office occasionally and get a life. ;D

[seatime]

Good luck getting an educated answer from MSQ Grand_Marlin, I've interacted with them recently. They especially don't like it when contradictions and mistakes are pointed out to them. Even Paul Lucas' office won't reply to me anymore (the flares business, still ongoing).

I'm not against the rules yet, I'll wait and see how they work in practice.
There are senior management staff at MSQ who don't understand their own legislation. One clown I had an email debate with, had an infantile understanding of the regulations. These are public servant office workers who don't necessarily have industry experience. So any confusion they have created is not surprising. It would be interesting to know who the govt's advisers on these changes were?

finga, more in depth pre-boating courses are a sensible idea. It will take another tragedy though before major changes like that are introduced. It was only last year that license courses became compulsory, wasn't it.
Education is certainly the key to preventing mishaps and MSQ fails badly. It's time for a change in government methinks. cheers Steve.

[seatime]

#sorry, slipped

[SeaHunt]

Let parents look out for their children, thats how it has been for the last million years and it seems like plenty have survived.
If the parents are too stupid maybe they shouldn't be breeding anyway. :-/

[FishinDad]

I agree that the new laws are inconsistent and seem to have been put in place without full consideration of the facts.

However, as someone who has had to deal, at close quarters, with the deaths of many children through accidents and other causes, i'd implore parents to do the following:

1. Forget the crap written here about heat related illness. #As a parent who has had kids in boats since very early ages in the tropics, the kids have worn lifejackets, life vests and auto inflating vests at times as suited to the style of boating without incident.....ever.

Scouts as an example, spend entire days on the water in canoes wearing full lifejackets paddling their arms off in summer and i've never seen or heard of 1 single case of heat exhaustion, heat stroke or anything similar as a result #- #not 1.

2. Have your kids taught to swim. - By a real instructor.

3. Teach your kids how to stop the boat and turn it off as soon as they are old enough to be responsible enough..........basic man overboard training!

4. Learn first aid yourself..........yeah i know, you already know all there is to know about first aid......
# #Go do a full 2 or 3 day course with your local Paramedics.

5. Don't skimp on vests - buy the best you can afford and finally:

6. Stop whinging about the inconvenience and extra expense of vests for kids, when they have to wear
# #them and when they don't. They are surely worth a lot more than you'd pay for a 24 ct gold plated
# #one when the chips are down, you made a mistake and your child is now dead as a result of
# #skimpiness, stupidity and a lack of forethought.


It's just my opinion, but it's based on a 20 yr career in emergency medicine and 40 years in boats.

Have a nice day.

[gif]

When we stated boating I made it a house rule – life jackets at all times.

The teenager and I had inflatable pfd’s - slight discomfort on a hot day. These are down t0 $99 this week for genuine RFD Approved PFD1 types. ( manual inflate) at BIAS if you mention you heard it on Nuggets 4BC show.

If you are outside Brisbane and have any problem call Peter Ruhle at BIAS Tingalpa

That price is cheaper than any eBay price or any price for the EU approved jackets ( without the Australian approval)


My little guy complained about his “kid sized” vest type. I looked around for an inflatable kids size – none in Australia could I find.

So I got mine, inflated it but the mouthpiece, put it on him, and threw him in the pool. It seemed to work fine and he could not wiggle out of it when the belt was done up .


So now he has his own auto Inflate jacket - no problems about comfort. They are not perfect but are 1000 times more comfortable than any other jacket.


If you are going to scrimp on that for your kids - then sell the boat IMHO.


Gary

[Derek_Bullock]

Quote from Definitions

Under 12 - From 1 up to, but not including 12 years of age. It is not recommended that children under this age travel on boats unless necessary, at which time they should be held securely by a parent or adult.

The comparison between the amount of children injured in boating mishaps, as compared to being hit by cars on bikes (especially if they are left at home due to the Government saying they should not be on boats) should possibly be considered.

Peter

Don't want to start world war three over this but you have made a big mistake there because that definition means kids under the age of one.


Derek

[Grand_Marlin]

Thanks Derek,

You may well be right, and your comment makes perfect sense.....

It is only a definition ... but I was wondering where they were taking that point .... especially in the new overhauled rules.

Their definition isnt made all that clear, as it can certainly be interpreted as under 1 or under 12.

Cheers

Pete

ps - Never heard a thing back from MSQ

[finga64]

Sorry fellas but I disagree about the little bit of the definition about age.

From 1 means from 1 year of age.
If they meant under 1 as well it should be worded from birth up to, but not including 12 .

Sorry, just a personal opinion from the cook and myself and no nastiness intended or implied :), see smiley person.
Cheers Scott and the cook :)

[Grand_Marlin]

Finga & Finga Cook,

I think Derek is right.

Their wording is pathetic, but if you think outside what is written, the answer becomes a bit clearer.

The reason I say this:

The law currently states that a person under 1 does not have to wear a life jacket.

This is why the definition of a child under 12 is actually between 1 and 12 (not 0 and 12), because if they are under 1, then they are exempt from the laws.

so...

the actual definition says:

Under 12 = From 1 up to, but not including 12 years of age.
It is not recommended that children under this age travel on boats unless necessary, at which time they should be held securely by a parent or adult.

In proper laymans terms it should read:

A child between the ages of 1 and 12 (Actually 11years, 364 days), has to comply with the new laws on the compulsory wearing of life jackets.

A person under the age of 1 does not have to comply with these new laws, as they are not required to wear a life jacket at any time (by law).

It is recommended that a person under the age of 1 should not travel on boats unless necessary.

If a person under the age of 1 has to travel on a boat, they should be held securely by a parent or adult.

As with a lot of legislation, there are always grey areas.
The more you read it, the clearer it becomes (sort of)

Cheers

Pete

[snave]

all kids on my boat wear life jackets all the time.

[finga64]

Beauty, thanks for the blurb GM. :) We appreciate that.
Your right, it's as clear as mud and most of the new laws are the same. Clear as mud and not consistant. :-/
I think all Ausfishers will not have any trouble with the new laws as most responsible adults already put littlies in jackets.
We have been dong this already up til the kids are old enough, wise enough and strong enough to be able to fend for themselves a bit. This has usually been about 9-10 in the rivers but if we're going outside it's actually a bit older then what the new regs say. Everbody in my boat have been wearing jackets crossing bars for years. My theory is that it's a waste of money having the jackets there and not using them. it's also easy to sort out the tangles of the straps and everybody has the ability to bung a jacket on without haste.
Can't wait for the 'discussion paper' to come out.
Cheers Scott

[PADDLES]

Good rule snave, no lifejacket, no boat ride. It's a small price to pay for the safety of the kiddies.

[Grand_Marlin]

I got a reply from MSQ:

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your comments on the recent amendment to the Regulation that
introduced provisions relative to the above. I have attached a set of FAQs
which assists in answering the majority of the questions you have raised.

Your suggestions regarding changes to the legislation to pick up other bars
and all vessels regardless of size when crossing bars is noted and has been
referred to the relevant area for consideration as a part of the formal
review process. And yes, the review period has been specifically set aside
to consider feedback from industry on the current provisions.

Should you have any further queries please contact me.

http://www.msq.qld.gov.au/qt/MSQ.nsf/ReferenceLookup/lifejackets_faq.pdf/$file/lifejackets_faq.pdf

Regards,

K Wiltshire
Manager (Policy Implementation & Support)
Telephone 3120 7354
Facsimile 3120 7355

This sheet answers a lot of questions, that are not spelled out in the legislation.

People:
PLEASE TAKE PARTICULAR NOTE OF THE SECTION ON INFLATABLE LIFE JACKETS FOR KIDS - page 5
Yet another twist for us....

For the people who are commenting without reading all our posts ... so far no one has objected to the new rules, me included.

What we do oppose, and want to argue for, is common sense rules that encompass all people, and that are plain to understand.
eg. all boats, regardless of size that cross bars should wear life jackets, not just 4.8 and under.

eg2 the current new legislation says a 4m open boat must wear life jackets, but a 4m boat with a cabin is exempt - insanity at its best.

We are sick of boaties being fined for grey areas in legislation, that in most cases are quite frankly ridiculous.
eg carrying out of date flares as well as current in date ones is an offence, but even the police and msq think it is wrong ... but at the end of the day, it is law.

And when you read the fact sheet I posted the link for, you will see that there are more grey areas that people will be fined for.
eg body mass under 40kg cant wear inflatable jacket (even that is stupid ... what if they have a stormy seas self inflating jacket?)

The policy writers / advisors certainly lack experience in practicality.

I for one, will be having a say on the new laws when the sheet is available for discussion in june.

I think a post that encompasses all our thoughts should be forwarded to msq by the moderators, on behalf of Ausfish?

What do you think?

Cheers

Pete