Cycling UK Forum

Pastychomper wrote: I gather the risks around weirs are well known among canoeists and kayakers, so presumably their LJs are easy enough to remove while spinning underwater.

They are, and are treated with great circumspection.

I wrote that I was not aware of a compulsory LJ lobby.
I have now taken the trouble to search and found that I was very wrong.

https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2016/11/03/fishermen-against-compulsory-wearing-of-lifejackets/

THE SCOTTISH Fishermen’s Federation (SFF) has decided against backing a call made by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch to make the wearing of lifejackets compulsory for commercial fishermen.

https://safety4sea.com/mnz-supports-compulsory-lifejacket-law/

Maritime New Zealand (MNZ) supports a move to make the wearing of lifejackets compulsory for people under 15, and continues to encourage everyone on the water to wear lifejackets at all times.
The move to make lifejackets compulsory for young people, the subject of a private member's bill from National MP Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, is similar to legislation already enacted in the United States, US Coast Guard Chief of Boating Safety Jeff Hoedt says.
Mr Hoedt is in New Zealand on an MNZ-sponsored visit to speak on water safety initiatives, and said US Federal law, also reflected in most states, made lifejackets compulsory for anyone under 13 years of age.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45486710

A coroner in Enniskillen has called for life jackets and flotation devices to be made compulsory on Northern Ireland's waterways.
Joe McCrisken was speaking at an inquest into the drowning of an experienced boatsman in Fermanagh.
Michael Beattie had been drinking alcohol which may have played a part in the tragedy.
The former commodore of Lough Erne Yacht Club slipped and drowned in icy conditions.
The coroner viewed CCTV footage which showed him struggling in the almost freezing water for almost two hours.

I should have expected it.

Mike Sales wrote:

Pastychomper wrote:One difference between halmits and life-jackets is that LJs have been shown to increase the chances of survival in many of the situations for which they are recommended.

Have they been shown to increase chances of survival? I have never seen any population level studies of LJs of the sort which show no helmet benefit.

The US Coast Guard have summarised available studies https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.americanc ... _Maxim.pdf

While the data have some of the same problems that helmet studies do, for example, looking only at boaters who have had an accident (and not at those who haven't), they do show a significant benefit to wearing a life jacket.

I used to do a fair amount of canoing (open boat type), and was dumped out of more than one canoe that capsized. It was always an inexperienced person whom I was teaching to paddle that capsized the canoe. While I did not wear life jackets, I did hit my head a couple of times; a sort of thing that could easily be severe enough to result in drowning, even for an experienced canoist & strong swimmer. What's more, I was out on the water with inexperienced folks, and knowing what I know now, I would wear a life jacket in the same situation.

p.s. life jackets are a legal requirement in some places & circumstances

Cyril Haearn wrote:Right about LJs on canals surely, wearing one could be an impediment, makes one bigger and less manoeuvrable

Considerably less of an impediment than a helmet.

Vorpal wrote:

Mike Sales wrote:

Pastychomper wrote:One difference between halmits and life-jackets is that LJs have been shown to increase the chances of survival in many of the situations for which they are recommended.

Have they been shown to increase chances of survival? I have never seen any population level studies of LJs of the sort which show no helmet benefit.

The US Coast Guard have summarised available studies https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.americanc ... _Maxim.pdf

While the data have some of the same problems that helmet studies do, for example, looking only at boaters who have had an accident (and not at those who haven't), they do show a significant benefit to wearing a life jacket.

I used to do a fair amount of canoing (open boat type), and was dumped out of more than one canoe that capsized. It was always an inexperienced person whom I was teaching to paddle that capsized the canoe. While I did not wear life jackets, I did hit my head a couple of times; a sort of thing that could easily be severe enough to result in drowning, even for an experienced canoist & strong swimmer. What's more, I was out on the water with inexperienced folks, and knowing what I know now, I would wear a life jacket in the same situation.

p.s. life jackets are a legal requirement in some places & circumstances

My choice is always to wear a PFD whilst on the water, whilst under my own steam, as it were. I'm less rigid with helmet wearing.

Vorpal wrote:

Mike Sales wrote:

Pastychomper wrote:One difference between halmits and life-jackets is that LJs have been shown to increase the chances of survival in many of the situations for which they are recommended.

Have they been shown to increase chances of survival? I have never seen any population level studies of LJs of the sort which show no helmet benefit.

The US Coast Guard have summarised available studies https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.americanc ... _Maxim.pdf

While the data have some of the same problems that helmet studies do, for example, looking only at boaters who have had an accident (and not at those who haven't), they do show a significant benefit to wearing a life jacket.

I used to do a fair amount of canoing (open boat type), and was dumped out of more than one canoe that capsized. It was always an inexperienced person whom I was teaching to paddle that capsized the canoe. While I did not wear life jackets, I did hit my head a couple of times; a sort of thing that could easily be severe enough to result in drowning, even for an experienced canoist & strong swimmer. What's more, I was out on the water with inexperienced folks, and knowing what I know now, I would wear a life jacket in the same situation.

p.s. life jackets are a legal requirement in some places & circumstances

One difficulty with assessing LJs and with mandating them is that boating is even more diverse than cycling.
It ranges from paddling a canoe or kayak in a pond, through rowing boats, dinghies, narrow boats, fishing, recreational and commercial, sailing, cruising, etc. in water of many different characters. You will find people on all sorts, from canals to oceans, from white water rapids to the Pentland Firth. Likewise the wearers, or not, of an LJ vary hugely in capabilities.
Population studies must be even more difficult. How can the number of boaters be counted, and how allotted to their relative risk levels. The problems of reaching any solid conclusion are even more difficult than for cyclists.
I know you would not allow anecdotes to inform any conclusions, but doesn't your own experience incline you towards wearing a helmet in your canoe?

Mike Sales wrote:I wrote that I was not aware of a compulsory LJ lobby.
I have now taken the trouble to search and found that I was very wrong.

https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2016/11/03/fishermen-against-compulsory-wearing-of-lifejackets/

THE SCOTTISH Fishermen’s Federation (SFF) has decided against backing a call made by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch to make the wearing of lifejackets compulsory for commercial fishermen.

https://safety4sea.com/mnz-supports-compulsory-lifejacket-law/

Maritime New Zealand (MNZ) supports a move to make the wearing of lifejackets compulsory for people under 15, and continues to encourage everyone on the water to wear lifejackets at all times.
The move to make lifejackets compulsory for young people, the subject of a private member's bill from National MP Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, is similar to legislation already enacted in the United States, US Coast Guard Chief of Boating Safety Jeff Hoedt says.
Mr Hoedt is in New Zealand on an MNZ-sponsored visit to speak on water safety initiatives, and said US Federal law, also reflected in most states, made lifejackets compulsory for anyone under 13 years of age.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45486710

A coroner in Enniskillen has called for life jackets and flotation devices to be made compulsory on Northern Ireland's waterways.
Joe McCrisken was speaking at an inquest into the drowning of an experienced boatsman in Fermanagh.
Michael Beattie had been drinking alcohol which may have played a part in the tragedy.
The former commodore of Lough Erne Yacht Club slipped and drowned in icy conditions.
The coroner viewed CCTV footage which showed him struggling in the almost freezing water for almost two hours.

I should have expected it.

The latter is a classic analogy with helmets.

Drinking alcohol is common to some 60% of head injuries, yet the answer is to wear a helmet. Here on the water, life Jackets are the answer to drinking as well!

firedfromthecircus wrote:

Bonefishblues wrote:A helmet, a lifejacket and a poppy are standard issue as far as I can see.

I wonder which one would cause the largest volume of coruscating correspondence were it to be lacking from a presenters person?

Obviously a (plastic) poppy

Learned something new again, about LJs (floating jackets, safety jackets?), +1!
I always wore a seatbelt when driving, is there something to be said against that? First car had static belts, they were a bit inconvenient

What about HS elsewhere, at work for example? I got offered a job in a firm where I should have had to visit the warehouse a lot, full of idiots enjoying driving forklifts, yakking, telephoning, turned it down. In a warehouse separation is desirable I think

Someone at work has a helmut* that is quite tight to the head, the helmeted head is not much bigger than the plain head. Is that less bad than helmets that extend back and front, all round?

*Helmut, German boys name: 'bright courage'

A couple of years ago I made a typically fruitless call for helmets to be made a parental choice for Bikeability training. It was shut down using dopey factoids by an outdoor ed instructor, one of whose colleagues suggested to me afterwards that having kids go out without helmets for Bikeability would be like sending a flotilla of kids out on to a loch in kayaks without buoyancy aids*. I reported him to the Bad Analogy Police, not that 20 years of sea kayaking experience to underpin my answers counted for anything...

A clear difference between a BA and a helmet is that one is for acute trauma as an accident happens and the other is for dealing with the lingering after-effects. If you go in the drink well away from shore in UK waters you will get very cold quite quickly. If you were knocked senseless on your way in (say, an unintentional gybe in a sailing boat) your drowning potential will go up considerably. In small craft it can be very hard to get an uncooperative body out of the water, and doing so may well risk the rescuer joining the victim. While a road isn't exactly a nice place to be lying around, your basic default is it won't kill you all by itself after your accident, but cold water can and will, and you'll get moved and hard to find too.

So... in a sailing dingy, a canoe or sea-kayak in deep water a fair way from shore, or a wee kayak in surf or white-water I'll absolutely be wearing mine (helmet too for surf or white water, I've had my head literally bounced off the bottom and it's really not the time or place to be knocked senseless, even with a lifeguard near). Faffing about on a paddle-board in a glorified pond, a leisurely sail on a yacht, a pedalo or sit-on-top kayak not far from sure, I'm entirely happy without. Other crucial kit factors with cold water are what you wear and will it keep you warm enough. Lots of folk these days seem to think you need to be in a dry suit (we're looking at north of £500 for a basic one) to paddle 50m from shore with a group of friends on a warm summer day...

Pete.

* AIUI a "life jacket" is one of the ones with an over-head design and practically all the buoyancy on the front, so you float head up. They're a total [rude word removed] to swim in if you want to see where you're going, but this is a bit of a moot point for e.g. a plane passenger that's ditched at sea and can't do much except bob around until help arrives.
A "buoyancy aid" is more like a waistcoat with buoyant material all around so you tend to float in a more upright stance. Still a PITA to swim in, but you can see where you're going and arrange stuff like righting your boat.

The typical yottie LJ is an automatically inflating (point of failure!) device likely to be hard to swim in. There is talk about hoods which will stop wave action giving frequent face fulls of water drowning one in rough conditions. I am not sure is many have this yet. Automatic lights are another extra.
The choice of flotation device must be very much affected by the circumstances of use.
When these things are mandated by law I wonder if and how different circs. could be taken into account.
It seems to me that on a yacht at sea a harness and line clipped to the boat is probably best (except in the case of sinking!)
The possibilities for trips and tangles complicate the choice though.
I very much want to be free to make my own decision.

Cyril Haearn wrote:Learned something new again, about LJs (floating jackets, safety jackets?), +1!
I always wore a seatbelt when driving, is there something to be said against that? First car had static belts, they were a bit inconvenient

What about HS elsewhere, at work for example? I got offered a job in a firm where I should have had to visit the warehouse a lot, full of idiots enjoying driving forklifts, yakking, telephoning, turned it down. In a warehouse separation is desirable I think

Someone at work has a helmut* that is quite tight to the head, the helmeted head is not much bigger than the plain head. Is that less bad than helmets that extend back and front, all round?

*Helmut, German boys name: 'bright courage'

A few eras ago the Post Office tried to make helmets compulsory for their staff. The HSE refused point-blank to play stating that cycle helmets were NOT in any form PPE

Post Office was forced to take a new track and make cycle helmets a "uniform"m item, and anyone not wearing one would be censured as if they wore the wrong socks!

What was the punishment for wearing the wrong socks?
My trousers are long, my legs are short so no-one sees my socks

Cyril Haearn wrote:What was the punishment for wearing the wrong socks?
My trousers are long, my legs are short so no-one sees my socks

That sort of talk will get you in to very hot water if the UCI finds out about it...

Cyril Haearn wrote:Learned something new again, about LJs (floating jackets, safety jackets?), +1!
I always wore a seatbelt when driving, is there something to be said against that?

Well, that depends... if you're about to have an accident then the odds are very much better for you if you've got your seat belt on, but it's a bit more complicated than that. John Adams' "Risk" is a good read on this, and the Good News is that rather than an obscure out-of-print reference it's no freely downloadable at http://www.john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/RISK-BOOK.pdf

It turns out that people using safety equipment tend to take more risks, so while in any given accident you're better off with a seatbelt in, that doesn't factor in the chance of an accident in the first place. One of the main effects of seatbelt legislation seems to be that cyclist and pedestrian casualties increased. The UK seems to be the only country where road fatalities went down coincident with mandatory seat belts, but if you look at other factors it could well be it's not causal (the reductions tended to be at chucking-out time, and the legislation was coincident with tougher drink-driving legislation...). But, read the Adams book for far more detail.

Cyril Haearn wrote:Someone at work has a helmut* that is quite tight to the head, the helmeted head is not much bigger than the plain head. Is that less bad than helmets that extend back and front, all round?

Well, that depends... If you've got more crushable padding between you and the road that's generally a good thing if you're doing a head-plant, but it also increases your chances of hitting it at all, and also increases the leverage of twisting effects on your neck etc. A closer one with a reasonably stiff shell can still benefit you by spreading the impact force over a wider area, though it remains the case that you ideally need to be able to choose the accident profile in advance...
Professor X: what's your mutant super power?
Me: Hindsight
Professor X: that doesn't help us
Me: well, I can see that now

Pete.