Thank God they saw sense

June 25th, 2012 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

Iain Lees-Galloway blogs at Red Alert:

National’s irrational fear of being tagged with the ‘’ 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.

Oh my God, I can’t believe that Labour wants to have water police motoring around and fining people for not having a life jacket on at all times.

Having life jackets on board at all times is essential. But making it compulsory to wear them at all times would  be a step too far.

I recall the last time I went out fishing. It was a beautiful day as we caught fish, cooked the fish and ate it. I also dived off the boat and swam around a bit before coming back on to dry off in the sun. Having to have a life jacket on at all times, would have seriously got in the way of fishing and sun bathing. As adults we made the decision that the boat was sturdy enough (close to the 6 metre limit for the proposed law) and the conditions calm enough that it would be ridiculous over-kill to be wearing life jackets. If I was in a two metre dinghy on a stormy choppy day, then I would wear one. It is called judging the conditions.

Yes it is sad when people die at sea. But going to sea always has an element of risk. Swimming at the beach is bloody risky also sometimes. I do not want to live in a society when the only goal of the Government is to eliminate risk, at the expense of choice and enjoyment.

Tags: ,

46 Responses to “Thank God they saw sense”

  1. grumpy (226 comments) says:

    Thank God…………………

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Manolo (12,636 comments) says:

    Individual responsibility rules!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. tom hunter (4,010 comments) says:

    I can’t believe that Labour wants to have water police motoring around and fining people for not having a life jacket on at all times.

    You can’t? Come now, I find it entirely believable. When there are no dragons left to be slaughtered new ones must be created. Just wait until they’re back in power.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. mikenmild (8,888 comments) says:

    Time to ditch those liberty-encroaching seatbelt rules as well?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. BeaB (1,958 comments) says:

    I liked the sign at a US beach which shouted RISK OF DROWNING! NO SWIMMING. $500 FINE.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. joe bloggs (126 comments) says:

    Labour’s scraping the bottom of the barrel again. One wonders what’s next from the Nanny Statists? Helmets in cars? Banning bicycles? Obligatory swaddling in cotton wool until the age of 25?

    Newsflash – cotton wool’s a killer too! http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090403/120905112.html

    And as for Lees-Galloway’s egregious politicising of the death of So’saia Paasi and his son Tio? Damned shame for the family and damned poor from L-G.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. rouppe (852 comments) says:

    I have sympathy for mikenmild’s comment. Seatbelts get in the way of lying on the back seat and having a snooze on a long trip…

    Having said that I’d like to see movement on licencing of boat skippers first. I was quite taken aback after nearly being run down by a boat speeding 50m from shore that the maritime Police decided to ‘take an educational approach’. Huh? The fucker nearly killed me! Would you take an educational approach if I drove past a school at 100kph?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. immigant (950 comments) says:

    This will only lead to more and more highspeed boat chases, with jumping over warfs, smashing into other boats and explosions, as teh water police try to chase down the perps in a Mami Vice style fashion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. rg (190 comments) says:

    I am glad Stephen Joyce has seen sense, in the first term as transport minister he banned cellphones and increased the age of driving.
    He is a control freak, you wait and see, he will be worse than HC.
    Less government is better than more government and National are as guilty as anyone of regulating and stifling and smothering the economy. RMA, ETS, environmental court, EPA, Waitangi Tribunal, etc etc
    Right at the moment they are changing the Dairy Industry law, why is there a law? If farmers want to form into a co op and sell their milk what has it got to do with the Government?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Brian Smaller (3,915 comments) says:

    I think that a life jacket should be kept at hand but not necessarily worn. Inside a capsized boat with a life jacket on means you cannot get out. More than a few kids have drowned that way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. hmmokrightitis (1,458 comments) says:

    So, mikeenmild, when your car is parked, engine off, do you have your seatbelt on?

    No, thought not. Dumbarse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. YesWeDid (1,003 comments) says:

    Times a bit tough hmmokrightitis? Sleeping in your car again?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. hmmokrightitis (1,458 comments) says:

    Which car? Do try and be specific, theres a good lad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. trout (865 comments) says:

    Even if the lifejacket wearing was made compulsory there would likely be 10+ drownings (considering the large number of boaties, 10 is probably less than the stupidity quotient. The idea that a new rule would save the 10 lives is a stretch. Just more of the ‘save people from themselves’ syndrome that afflicts the left.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. davidp (3,325 comments) says:

    So if Labour were in government… People would be able to swin 20m off the shore of a lake without a life jacket, but someone sitting in (or on) a kayak in the same area in the same conditions would have to wear one? How does that make sense?

    But the bit that really annoys me is the enforcement aspect. You don’t have to drive far in NZ to discover that the country is full of amateur law enforcers plodding along at 100km/hr in the overtaking lane, ringing the police to dob in other drivers for imaginery crimes, and trying to cut off people when two lanes merge. You just know that this law would create an industry of busybodies ready to dob in anyone boating safely but against Labour’s laws.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. m@tt (535 comments) says:

    “Oh my God, I can’t believe that Labour wants to have water police motoring around and fining people for not having a life jacket on at all times.”
    Why would you need water police motoring around? Labour have not said that anywhere and you seem to be the only person advocating it would be necessary. It seems a bit extreme that you would want to increase police numbers to enforce this.

    Did National create a new police division when they made non-handsfree cellphone use in cars illegal? Do we have air police flying around checking on the multitude of laws a pilot must adhere to?

    Making life jacket wearing compulsory, without preventing people going for a swim, would not be hard and wouldn’t require a single extra person to enforce. Simply make the master in charge of the vessel responsible and in the event there is a tragedy, culpable. Don’t like it… don’t get on the boat. Someone wants to get on your boat but refuses to wear one, guess they’re out of luck.

    Not hard and it would save lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. JeffW (303 comments) says:

    Too many babies are dying when sharing a bed with parents (parents roll over and suffocate them). We should have bed police in all bedrooms with young babies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. OTGO (457 comments) says:

    A nice excuse to have another layer of little Hitlers running around fining people for not wearing life jackets similar to the pool fence inspectors that we pay $90 to every couple of years to inspect our pool fence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Chuck Bird (4,415 comments) says:

    I live on a river and do not need a fence. In any case it would not be practical at the river goes up a down considerably. Of course not being practical would not stop some bureaucrat trying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. adamsmith1922 (879 comments) says:

    Labour, Iain Lees-Galloway = pillock

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. adam2314 (377 comments) says:

    I would like to know if ALL members of the NZ NAVY can swim..

    They could not when I transfered into it in the late 50′s..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Manolo (12,636 comments) says:

    Darwin IS always right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. wat dabney (3,462 comments) says:

    When is Labour going to do something about people who run with scissors?

    Or don’t they care about people?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. mikenmild (8,888 comments) says:

    adam

    I believe passing a swimming test is a recruitment requirement. I think the days when sailors were superstitious about the ability to swim are long gone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (2,306) Says:

    June 25th, 2012 at 5:38 pm
    I live on a river and do not need a fence

    Well Chuck never get a cow, or you’ll have to fence the lot just ike all our cockies around here

    Councils are allowed open drains full of water in town where kids drown but you can’t have cow shit in the river, we are fucked

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

    Our David is merely running true to form. If one could wind back the clock he probably would have been one of those who that thought the new-fangled automobile would never replace the trusty steed!

    Let’s fact it, our default setting is to bridle at sensible measures aimed at both protecting ourselves and others whose lives depend on our decisions, and society from the expense of our own stupidity, and objections are usually subjective nonsense, based on personal anecdote.

    The above from DPF is a representative sample of such objections, but in the end, we accept the introduction of such laws, and eventually marvel at how many could have been so stupid as to oppose them (often conveniently forgetting our own resistance to change).

    Such is life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. wreck1080 (3,526 comments) says:

    Same with bike helmets … we should reverse that dumb law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. profile (13 comments) says:

    Same with speeding tickets, passive smoking… we should reverse those dumb laws. Swimming and boating is way more dangerous but we don’t seem to have demerit points etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. kowtow (6,717 comments) says:

    Every passenger on Air New Zealand planes has a life jacket……….

    every boatie should have a parachute.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. adam2314 (377 comments) says:

    Milkenmild @ 6:58.

    Sailors superstitious ??.. Hahaaa.. Go whistle up a wind..

    So… Why not make it compulsory for All Public servants to be able to swim.. Just incase they have to board a water born vessel in their duties ??..

    Absolute BOLLOCKS.. Live and let die..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. toad (3,654 comments) says:

    So how about we abandon compulsory car seat belts, compulsory motorcycle helmets, oh, and FFS let anyone fly a commercial jetliner even if they have no qualifications and licence to do so and let everyone drive a car however pissed they are?

    Bring on the free market!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. RightNow (6,348 comments) says:

    Lay off the booze toad

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. big bruv (12,380 comments) says:

    Hey Toad, it’s been a while.

    So, how are you going with the tax payer funded petition? …you know, the petition that seeks to overturn the mandate that your government received from the people of NZ to sell those assets.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. toad (3,654 comments) says:

    big bruv 10:20 pm

    Going well, Bruv. Over a third of the way there.

    BTW, the Greens’ public finance contribution to the campaign – a few people being paid to offer New Zealanders the chance to sign the petition – is around $75,000.

    The Nats have fronted $120 million of public money to facilitate the asset sales. Bruv, you might want to ask who that is going to and what is being returned to the Nats for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. big bruv (12,380 comments) says:

    Not interested in your silly conspiracy theories Toad.

    What I want to know is how you can reconcile the blatant misuse of public funds for this political purpose.?

    Of course this is not the first time your lot have done something like this, remember how you ripped off the list system to get Wuss into the house so he could campaign using my money?…Remember how the Greens were caught ripping off the tax payer with your housing rort?

    Oh…and as our PM mentioned this morning on TV, this is the same Green party who said they could not afford to supply the useless Moonbat Mathers with the equipment she “needs” to do her job (although given she is a scum list MP I am not sure who she is actually representing)

    As for your tax payer funded petition, do you imagine that there might be more than a few of us who will enjoy the howls of faux outrage when the Nat’s ignore your efforts?, remember how the Greens rammed through the anti smacking bill against the wishes of 87% of the population?

    He who laughs last Toad……

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    So, you want to keep that loop-hole’ open so you can go swimming. Fine. But you should be prosecuted for breaking the law if you do. I think life-jacket wearing should be made compulsory. Same way I think seat belts should and motorbike helmets should. Same applies to texting and drinking while driving. You take five kids out in a boat and they die because you didn’t take responsibility for their safety you should face manslaughter charges. No loop-holes, no ‘oh we took them off to have a swim’ etc. As far as ‘the police’ are concerned, I’d like to see more of them prosecuting people who don’t follow the law. To reduce this to some kind of picky argument about ‘personal liberty’ is just inane. I’m sure those kids that recently died if they had their chance again would be grateful that their individual choice had been so ‘policed’.

    As far as I’m concerned this ‘flip-flop’ is no victory for ‘choice’ it is moral cowardice. Otherwise, why aren’t we arguing for repealing seatbelt, texting and helmet laws, on the basis that occasionally one of us ‘enjoys’ the ‘freedom’ to not observe it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. nzd.gbp (130 comments) says:

    We’re both right. Lee C, toad and all the other lefties know their constituents. They know that they’ll look to apportion blame if they’re left to their own wits and find themselves under-equipt. They’ll look to their rulers for an explanation. On the other hand, the rest of us adults who don’t give a flying fark what these busy bodies have to say won’t even think to blame them for our own misfortunes. It wouldn’t even occur to us to hold these losers responsible for decisions that we are more capable of making ourselves.

    The answer therefore is clear. If you vote left, you need permission to do stuff, and rightly so because you are retarded. You are old enough to vote but too stupid to take responsibility. If you vote right you can do what you will as long as you harm no one else but yourself. Don’t worry, lefties, we won’t come crying to you for a cuddle if the shit goes down. It’d be the last thing we’d think of doing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. mikenmild (8,888 comments) says:

    nzd.gbp
    Your argument is one against any legislated safety standards. I presume you are a committed libertarian and feel that no laws can be justified that might interfere with personal feedom.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. nzd.gbp (130 comments) says:

    mikenmild – yep I’m a libertarian, of course, but I understand it’s not for everyone. Some people really do want to be ruled by the likes of ian lees-galloway. They LOVE it when he tells them they’ve been naughty and gives them boundaries so they feel safe and when he tells off the bad people who think they’re sooo mature and think they can put alcohol where ever they like or smoke or go without life jackets and stuff. It’s just not my thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Its not the safety standards that is the problem its the infrastructure to enforce compliance
    Compulsory lifejackets will need to be enforced. New water police created new registration required to pay for it cost @ say $100 per boat of this most will be eaten by useless drones in the back office and flash cubicals for them to live in. The result on idiots will be low they will still go and drown meanwhile everyone else will be paying to decrease their freedoms. The law already says that life jackets must be carried and the skipper is responsible for the safety of all on board. There is no need to enforce this on the responsible and let Darwin take the idiots.
    Even my dog has a lifejaket and is required to wear it when its rough or we are offshore by more than five miles!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    …’let Darwin take the idiots’ and their children too, I suppose?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. nasska (9,541 comments) says:

    …”and their children too”….

    The socialists’ battle cry…….”but thiiiiink of the childrrren!”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    I have been boating my whole life. I have sunk 0 boats been rescued 0 times and carry full appropriate safety equipment- including near to cat one in my gamefishing tinny. This boating includes about two hundred bar crossing trips taking trailer boats fifty plus miles offshore and as far north as the three kings
    I know idiots who have been rescued many times and or sunk more than one boat in Auckland harbour :sad:
    Yes Darwin sorts them out and saves us from the next generation as well

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. nasska (9,541 comments) says:

    Griff

    I sold my last boat about five years ago. I’ve always been a bit of a safety freak around water & kept everything up to scratch which included auxiliary, radio, flares…the works! There were always lifejackets for everyone on board & the grandkids were given their own as birthday or Xmas presents. As far as the kids were concerned it was wear a jacket or stay at home.

    What gets up my nose is having some wanky, socialist control freak TELLING me what I should do & passing their petty little laws to ensure that they get their patronising way.

    As an aside I’ve always found it near impossible to work in a life jacket & as I swim about as well as a concrete fence post I definitely needed some sort of aid to floatation. I found it in a “Stormy Seas” inflatable life vest which works with a CO2 cannister. If you go over you pull the cord & a ring around the back of the neck & chest pocket floats inflate. I tested it (in shallow water) a couple of times & it worked well. Apparently they are worn on the crab boats operating off Alaska.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Inflatable life jackets are so munch better
    I have a rule every time we cross a bar we stop just before evaluate the conditions call coast guard for a TR and put on lifejakets this happens even if its flat calm. The inflatable life jackets are so comfortable that often people continue to wear them all day The old styles just get in the way and are invariably removed. Its imposable to wear a game harness with a old school jacket on. If they every try to enforce a lifejaket rule they will not be looking ten plus miles offshore and after twelve they would not have jurisdiction anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. E. Campbell (85 comments) says:

    Yeah, and let us ditch seatbelts in cars too!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.