Cycling UK Forum

People don't seem to posses proper reasoning powers when it comes to safety equipment.

http://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/em ... story.html

"The webbing on the back of what the jury found to be an ill-fitting buoyancy aid became caught on a cleat on the boat, causing Emily, from Abbeymead in Gloucester, to drown."

"Clive and Deborah Gardner have called for a law to be put in place to enforce all passengers on a boat to wear properly fitting life jackets.
"

So the girl was killed by a life jacket and now the parents want compulsory life jackets.

Insisting that they fit properly is obviously nonsense. A life jacket costs more than a cycle helmet, is more likely to be shared and we know that cycle helmets do not fit properly.....

It's bizarre that the response to a life jacket killing your child is to want MORE life jackets.

Yes, the logic escapes me. Like the American Senator whose nephew was killed by a drunk driver while wearing a helmet. Response? Campaign for a helmet law.

“Any responsible bicycle rider should wear a helmet,” Liu said in a press statement. “This law will help protect more people and make sure all riders benefit from the head protection that a helmet provides.”

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/transp ... 57085.html

thelawnet wrote:People don't seem to posses proper reasoning powers when it comes to safety equipment.

http://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/em ... story.html

"The webbing on the back of what the jury found to be an ill-fitting buoyancy aid became caught on a cleat on the boat, causing Emily, from Abbeymead in Gloucester, to drown."

"Clive and Deborah Gardner have called for a law to be put in place to enforce all passengers on a boat to wear properly fitting life jackets.
"

So the girl was killed by a life jacket and now the parents want compulsory life jackets.

Insisting that they fit properly is obviously nonsense. A life jacket costs more than a cycle helmet, is more likely to be shared and we know that cycle helmets do not fit properly.....

It's bizarre that the response to a life jacket killing your child is to want MORE life jackets.

Why is it nonsense? We know a slight 14 year old girl was wearing an inappropriately-sized lifejacket, causing her death, and her parents want to put something in place to avoid that happening to others by way of making compulsory current best practice guidance from the HSE and RYE.

Bonefishblues wrote:...and her parents want to put something in place to avoid that happening to others by way of making compulsory current best practice guidance from the HSE and RYE.

I understood they want new laws

http://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/emily-gardner-parents-emily-s-law-daughter-s/story-29347772-detail/story.html wrote:They also have also called for a law to be put in place to enforce all passengers on a boat to wear properly fitting life jackets.

Also

http://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/emily-gardner-parents-emily-s-law-daughter-s/story-29347772-detail/story.html wrote:Clive and Deborah Gardner have launched a campaign for 'Emily's Law' to be introduced, making it compulsory for speedboat drivers to obtain a licence before taking to the water.

(I would assume licenses would require quite a lot of laws, test centres, etc.)

I can see that alternatives (e.g. new sets of safety standards and boats and/or skippers voluntarily get certificated by some non-governmental body (e.g. as the RYA does with its sailing certificates you take). Then commercial operations can advertise their certificates and qualifications giving them an "edge" over those without the certification. However I cannot see that would address their concerns as I suspect a lot of the speedboats buzzing around are privately owned. And to some extent RYA does aspects of this already (I have a RYA Powerboat II certificate I took so I could drive the club's safety boats for sailing races - most sailing clubs require those doing safety duty driving the safety boats to have minimum RYA Powerboat II).

Ian

They are campaigning for a law for:

They also have also called for a law to be put in place to enforce all passengers on a boat to wear properly fitting life jackets.

Seems fairly logical, and sensible if your daughter is killed by an ill fitting device, you campaign for them to be properly fitted.

Cunobelin wrote:They are campaigning for a law for:

They also have also called for a law to be put in place to enforce all passengers on a boat to wear properly fitting life jackets.

Seems fairly logical, and sensible if your daughter is killed by an ill fitting device, you campaign for them to be properly fitted.

This.

...and even if not logical, grief does funny things to people who often feel they have to do "something to help others". Pointing out how illogical they are is rather crass.

Bonefishblues wrote:

thelawnet wrote:People don't seem to posses proper reasoning powers when it comes to safety equipment.

http://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/em ... story.html

"The webbing on the back of what the jury found to be an ill-fitting buoyancy aid became caught on a cleat on the boat, causing Emily, from Abbeymead in Gloucester, to drown."

"Clive and Deborah Gardner have called for a law to be put in place to enforce all passengers on a boat to wear properly fitting life jackets.
"

So the girl was killed by a life jacket and now the parents want compulsory life jackets.

Insisting that they fit properly is obviously nonsense. A life jacket costs more than a cycle helmet, is more likely to be shared and we know that cycle helmets do not fit properly.....

It's bizarre that the response to a life jacket killing your child is to want MORE life jackets.

Why is it nonsense? We know a slight 14 year old girl was wearing an inappropriately-sized lifejacket, causing her death, and her parents want to put something in place to avoid that happening to others by way of making compulsory current best practice guidance from the HSE and RYE.

The issue is that people are not going to carry every possible combination of life jackets on their £2500 Ebay boat. You probably buy the appropriate lifejackets for your family, and maybe a spare or two, but in the given scenario, a law about appropriately fitting lifejackets would do nothing, because people wouldn't follow it.

You can mandate lifejackets by all means, but the choice here is not 'no life jacket' versus 'properly fitting ones', it is 'no life jacket' versus 'possibly ill-fitting life jacket', because that's just how reality is.

thelawnet wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:

thelawnet wrote:People don't seem to posses proper reasoning powers when it comes to safety equipment.

http://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/em ... story.html

"The webbing on the back of what the jury found to be an ill-fitting buoyancy aid became caught on a cleat on the boat, causing Emily, from Abbeymead in Gloucester, to drown."

"Clive and Deborah Gardner have called for a law to be put in place to enforce all passengers on a boat to wear properly fitting life jackets.
"

So the girl was killed by a life jacket and now the parents want compulsory life jackets.

Insisting that they fit properly is obviously nonsense. A life jacket costs more than a cycle helmet, is more likely to be shared and we know that cycle helmets do not fit properly.....

It's bizarre that the response to a life jacket killing your child is to want MORE life jackets.

Why is it nonsense? We know a slight 14 year old girl was wearing an inappropriately-sized lifejacket, causing her death, and her parents want to put something in place to avoid that happening to others by way of making compulsory current best practice guidance from the HSE and RYE.

The issue is that people are not going to carry every possible combination of life jackets on their £2500 Ebay boat. You probably buy the appropriate lifejackets for your family, and maybe a spare or two, but in the given scenario, a law about appropriately fitting lifejackets would do nothing, because people wouldn't follow it.

You can mandate lifejackets by all means, but the choice here is not 'no life jacket' versus 'properly fitting ones', it is 'no life jacket' versus 'possibly ill-fitting life jacket', because that's just how reality is.

People don't obey speed limits. People take illegal substances. People do a lot of stuff they aren't allowed to do, often to the detriment of their own or others' wellbeing. I guess we should consider reality there too? I'm sorry but I don't see the logic you are applying.

Legislation is one way to effect behavioural change, let's not dismiss it as too hard, and most of all let's not hold up these parents as example of a lack of proper reasoning.

Why not pass a law *against* wearing ill fitting jackets?