NSW Waterways - new lifejacket regulation

[Andyok]

Hi all,

All you NSW fisho's and boaties might like to check out the regulation that comes into force on October 1 that specifies that a PFD1 lifejacket must be worn when crossing a bar or face a $200.00 on the spot fine. It can be viewed at www.waterways.nsw.gov.au
There is also a list of bars in NSW available on the site.

Don't get caught.

Andyok

[webby]

Was down the Bruns' pub last nite having a fuel ales with Mono, He reckons its a good thing, plus they'll be enforcing it , and if you do decided to head out without them on, and think you got away with it, they'll be taking photos of boat ID's and hand you the fine when you return. Should also be inforced in qld. regards

[mackmauler]

Webby, how will that work, not all pfd 1s are worn on the outside! personally im not keen on wearing a pfd 1 on the outside driving my rig through bars, it affects my co-ordination, ill be getting a "bra" setup if they bring that rule in here ;)

Rob

[webby]

I'd like to see you wear one under your t-shirt, unless you have a big mother of a t-shirt. Though any lifejacket would be more comfortable worn on the outside of whatever your wearing. ?? it effects my co-ordination ?? how does it hinder anyone steering a boat. regards

[blaze]

Hi all
In Tassie all people in vessels under 6m must wear a pfd1 except while at anchor.
When the laws first came out I thought they were stupid and pfd's were uncomfortable to wear, bit like seatbelts now and wear it all the time (even at anchor), they are comfortable to wear, not resrictive in any way and may save your life one day so why complain about wearing across a bar.
cheers
blaze

[mackmauler]

Webby, have you ever been on a surfboard with a pfd1 ;D there will be some "traffic hazard" shirts coming in when all the ladies downsize with these setups ;)

[blaze]

Hi all
I personel do not like the inflatable pfd's because if you are k oed then you have no chance to inflate, i believe some of them self inflate with a water activation device but that is a cost on top of the pfd1
cheers
blaze

[damons33]

this "safety" crap is pretenous from a bunch of people that allow the sale of tobbaco! how many die crossing bars opposed to die of smoking annually! these poticians take the cake -one branch is left one is right there is no common sence or symmetry in their rational! get with it pollies or get stuffed! >:(

[Graham_N_Roberts]

Dammons33, what's ya problem with safety?

The idea is to keep ya from sinkin' if ya fall in or worse, get thrown in the drink, and clout the scone on the way. As a paramedic, I know of no one who can maintain their airway in water, or out of water for that mater, when unconscious.

As for smokin', yeah that sucks .... you do suffer a longer dyin' process.

So, put out the fag and do ya jacket up.

Cheers ;D

[damons33]

i have no problem with safety just the duplicitous nature of politicians, as for ure airways comment i beg to differ there as well - i dont think ian thorpe has any problems maintaining his breathing in water or smokes for that matter ;) now lets understand that this is just more ways to expand on revenue collecting and department self sufficiency-provacative to the bitter end. if a bar requires me to put a lifejacket on i dont cross it i go back up the creek and fish flathead, i know that because i'm a part of seq rec fishing community where common sence preveils and new comers to scene are welcomed and educated to the dangers-governments and marketeers seek to destroy unity in community! by the way with ure surname i'd leave the fag bit alone!

[Kerry]

Lifejackets when crossing bars MIGHT make some sense but one can take it or leave as being totally usefull. Usefull might not always be the case.

In recent times there's been some instances here where if life jackets were being worn there possibly would have been some different results. In one instance a boat flipped on its back trapping 2 kids. These kids were only a few years old but had been taught to swim at a very early age. They were able to swim out from under the hull, anybody tried swimming out from under an up turned hull in a life jacket? while being pinned underneath. Try it sometime as obviously some who make these laws obviously haven't.

The tassie legislation is rather absurd and really wasn't a well thought out decision what so ever.

Cheers, Kerry.

[nhoj]

I am not against safety but a comment made by damons33 makes sense to me: if a bar requires me to put a lifejacket on i dont cross it:
I also notice that they list Mooball Creek, Cudgen Creek, Cudgera Creek, and Bellinger River as bars effected by this legislation. You would be lucky to get through these without bottoming even on a jetski. What is big brothers obligation in improving the condition of the bars? Dont do anything about the condition, just improse more rules. John.

[blaze]

Hi Kerry
Have to disagree that wearing a life jacket is absurd, if one life is saved is that not enough, or in the case hyperthermia does take a life then with some hope there is the remains that can berieved can bury and bring some type of closure
just my thoughts
cheers
blaze

[damons33]

here here john and kerry! :) by the way blase up here no hypothemia- just sharks eat you! go queenslanders! i would use my bunk seat as a boggie board if i need and would prefer it to a jacket-i carry flippers so i would get back in. seems a lot of these laws are for landlubbers!ha'harrrhhh'

[Hagar]

Guys
At the risk of attracting flak over this issue consider this.
Which way do most vessels end up after a bar incident ? Upside down. Speak to someone who has been trapped under an upside down vessel on a bar ( I have ) and they will probably tell you a jacket would have prevented them getting out from under it . I know a VMR crew who almost suffered a similar fate. There are risks on both sides of the argument. Mine will be only done up with one quick release strap if at all.

Chris

[Kerry]

Blaze, it's not the wearing of a life jacket (as such) that's absurd as wearing life jackets certainly have a place but the Tassie legislation went way beyond commonsense.

Much was said about this absurd (it was absurd then and still absurd now) legislation that Tasmania introduced as a knee jerk reaction by legislators who probably wouldn’t know any better due to the unthinking actions of a few.

Most PDF1 life jackets were never designed as a fashion statement as they are simply not designed to be worn all the time. Design and performance standards deals with the primary function as a floatation device in an emergency situation. So since this legislation was introduced has there been any change to the overall design of PFD1’s? and if not why not?

No, many see/saw this Tassie legislation as an over-reaction based on an unfortunate year of circumstance. Literally millions of people go boating in the world each and everyday yet where else in the world does one have to wear a PFD1 at all times in underway vessels under 6 metres? Why what’s different with a 6.2m vessel, not a thing?

So 95% of all boating fatalities in Tasmania occurred when the vessel was stopped, yet one must wear a life jacket when the vessel is underway? That’s very clever. Did anybody actually do any real research into any of this or was it all simply rushed through based on a knee jerk reaction caused by the unthinking actions of a few in one particular year.

No really the world is going mad. Like maybe if we're concerned about people drowning then maybe all who go boating must be able to swim. No everything needs to be kept in perpective.

Cheers, Kerry.

[jaybee]

I've got to agree with damons and kerry, although except for mooloolaba i do wear a life jacket and as mack says it does hinder the coordination of ones arms, you have to wear one to believe it, Boats are not designed to wear a pfd 1 standing or sitting while negotiating a bar unless you are in a cab of a trawler, even then the jacket gets in the way. i think here we can also add the same people who reap the benefits of tax on cigarettes also do alcohol, and look how many alcohol related deaths are on the roads. same tax more lives.
cheers
joe

[webby]

No wonder some of you blokes dont need to wear jackets when crossing bars, you'd float because of the amount of hot air between your ears. As to how they would hinder your steering abilities, you must have arms the same length as the one between your legs. I enforce that anyone crossing bars in my rig, don a vest, till where out. The onus as skipper of the rig, no matter how good or immortal you think you are, is the safety of your crew, if they dont like it they dont come. Every skipper to his own set of rules, as for taxes can't see where this has anything to do with it, the rule states for any boating, you have to carry sufficient life jackets for the number of people your rig is licenced to carry. So as to govt' making money out of the law is a load of rubbish. But its your life and maybe your families your playing with. regards

[jaybee]

webby
as for taxes can't see where this has anything to do with it, thats just it webby it doesnt have anything to do with it cause the money reaped isnt sowed .simple as, oh btw just talking to some of the guys down bruns they all agree, trying to navigate bruns with a pfd1 in their boats, bloody difficult to steer, so not all has the luxurary of owning a big boat you can stand/sit behind a steering wheel with a pfd1 one, we all cant be put in the same box so to speak.
cheers

[blaze]

hi all
I thinkv that if people were to wear a modern pfd1 they would find that they are not that bulky (not like the old dolly parton life jackets). I find that that my only complaint is that I would like it to be a bit longer in the back to help keep the tassie winter chill out
Webby after reading your comments I must be hung like a horse
cheers
blaze

[mono]

Hi all, yes it can be a pain in the rectum to put a life jacket on when crossing a bar. We do it at least a few times a week but at the end of the day it WILL save your life if an accident happens. Our bar here at Brunswick, has, over the years has claimed lives that could have been saved if they were wearing lifejackets. I'm sure their families and loved ones wish they were wearing one.
The other side of the coin is to think of the poor buggers who have to go and rescue these people. Over the years I have plucked a few people out of the water. The ones that came aboard alive had jackets on and were very pleased they did, the ones that were found deceased didn't.
A few years during the Straddie Classic my decky and myself (and quite a few other boats) put our lives at risk at 2am in the morning on a moonless night on a bar that I'm not familiar with to try and rescue some anglers who had capsized on the south passage bar. One of them had swum to shore and was found by John Palemo's crew. John then proceeded to get his boat on the water and contacted myself and the authorities. We spent the rest of the night searching for these people in the dark of night in the current, rough broken water. It was one of the worse nights I've experienced. Looking for survivors under the blaze of the helicopters lights. Spotting things like cloths, tackle boxes and life jackets washing around. The boat's nose was just sticking out of the water and the stern was sitting on the bottom. We searched hard as we were told these people were not good swimmers.
The next morning the bodies were found very near the boat. If they had of been were jackets, who knows, maybe they would still be here catching fish.
Capt Mark Mono Stewart

[jaybee]

Hi mono, i believe the stats between bruns and narooma (not sure is it is narooma could be further south), since 1999 are 90 boat capsizes and 8 deaths. In relation how much traffic are these bars getting, and would it warrant the government to try an fix them. Next thing where does the government get the money to fix the bars, not a cheap exercise, widening, and extending, and possibly changing directions.
cheers

[mono]

Jbee, and thats on 90 'reported' capsizes! I dont know what the answer is to making all bars safer, realistically its probably imposible but I have ideas that would make Bruns at least a bit safer. Each bar has its own individual problems and it would be a major undertaking just to asses each bar individually. Where the money comes from is the biggest question and there is no way the current state government is going to spend money on doing it.
The other side of the coin is if the Bruns bar, for example, is widened, dredged and the south wall lengthened with a small bend to the north, it will open up other problems.
The extra boat traffic would put even more pressure on our reef and fish populations for example. Not to mention the extra yachts putting pressures on the boat harbour for more moorings. Extra demands push mooring prices up etc.
As you are probably already aware the Bruns CO-Op and its surounding land are for sale and some worring things are coming to the surface from very reliable sorces about one consortium who are talking major development of the Co-op site!! This includes townhouse-resort type marina setup!!! Do we really want this for our small coastal village? Real estate is already starting to skyrocket and there are some big punter$ moving through the area looking for deals.
The only thing that I can see that will stop this type of development is having very limited access to the ocean, as it is now.
I'm not a greenie and I beleive in sustanable development but after watching what happened to my home town of Byron for 25 years I would hate to see the same happen here at my new home.
I know bars can be dangerous if not respected but maybe its natures way of stopping fishing boats getting out 360 days of the year so the fish get a chance to replenish?
Just a thought.
Capt Mark Mono Stewart

[jaybee]

I'm not a greenie either however i don't think bruns folk can afford to let a development like that go ahead on the marina, will be the end of a nice place. The same thing was going to happen at kingscliffe, it was all in the pipeline when i left the area, i see the lenghtened and turned the walls slightly don't know what happened to widening and dredging the creek, guess we are lucky it didnt go ahead. Didnt think about the extra traffic put in areas if they were safer, sort of between a rock and a hard place eh.
cheers

[Kerry]

The last thing they really need to be doing is trying to modify things with dredging, walls etc as the most likely outcome is a different and generally bigger problem that will never disappear and really takes some looking after.

Unfortuneately one might expect there will be more and more regulations. Some will be based on litigation prevention and others for no good reason other than trying to protect people from themselves.

As much as I hate to say, one might suspect that in the not to distant future there will become increasing restrictions on vessels and just what type of vessels etc can go where.

It's becoming that type of world where authorities are covering their ar... (and other things) by indirect controls.

As for developers etc they only have one thing in mind and it's becoming increasingly more difficult to slow them down as most councils are simply blinded by development hysteria but must be getting to a point soon where the tables will turn as many communities are starting to see some light and react.

Cheers, Kerry.

[Finnie]

Hi All,

Just a couple of quick comments on this.....

Firstly, Mono and Jaybee......for a couple of blokes who claim to not be greenies you sure are starting to sound like some!!! Sustainable development, replenishment of fish stocks, anger at development of local communities into tourist destinations.......you guys aren't going to start chaining yourselves to things are you??!! Being concerned for the state of things doesn't make you a raving mad greeny, and I think we should be careful when we take any opportunity to label concerned people as such.....we have our fair share of idiots to make us look bad as well don't worry!

As far as the life-jacket call goes.......Kerry mate, let's just assume that going bottom up going over a bar isn't the gentlest experience in the world. Now, what happens to your PFD1-free body when it goes into the water unconscious, with a disclocated shoulder, a broken arm, or just plain old becomes tired from being washed all over the shop by the same waves that extensively modified your boat recently! I can guarentee you that I'd rather take the few seconds to unclip my jacket and swim out from under an upturned vessel than to try to stay afloat with a dislocated shoulder until someone came to get me!!!

Wearing a life-jacket going over bars makes a lot of sense to me......kinda makes me wonder that it even needed to be put into legislation to encourage people to do it really!

Cheers,
Finnie