> > > Indeed, in 22 years of living here, I don't
> > > remember there ever being a storm (or similar severe weather) without
> > > warning. I don't know if that qualifies as "never" for you, but I can
> > > certainly see how that might lead someone here to perceive the risk
> > > of getting caught in bad weather different from you...and to ask if
> > > indeed the risks are different.
> > OK the risk of getting caught in a storm may be a lot less where you
> > but there's next to nothing any of us can do to change local
> > risks [except maybe sign up to the Kyoto Agreement ;-) ]. The risk of
> > drowning *if* the boat gets swamped remains much the same wherever you
> > By increasing built-in buoyancy, that risk can be very greatly reduced.
> Agreed. But, please note that next to last sentence is irrelevant
> to the question of whether and/or how boats should be required to
> be made more bouyant, while the first part of the first sentence--
> the point of my post--is relevant.
So to paraphrase, if I may - "it'll never happen to me". As Jeremy Fagan's
already pointed out, the freak storm that started this was unforecast and
was the worst storm seen for over 30 years. I have to admit, that until Leo
Blockley's death, I had hardly ever seriously considered boat buoyancy
issues. I mean, rowing's not dangerous is it? Let's ignore the risks,
perhaps they'll go away.
[snip daft duck hunting analogy - although I know there are clubs in the UK
where rowers *have* been shot at!]
A more apposite analogy might be car seat belts. They cost virtually
nothing to install. Occupy hardly any space. Do not restrict your ability
to drive a car. Most responsible manufacturers fitted them as standard even
before they were compulsory (or think about airbags - every manufacturer
fits them now, because they perceive them as a commercial essential). Most
(sensible) drivers and passengers wore them before it became compulsory.
And in an accident, they could just save your life. I wear mine not because
the Law requires me to, or because I expect to have an accident (who does?),
but because I want to minimise my chance of serious injury or worse *if* an
accident happens. And I would unhesitatingly recommend that every other
driver always wears a seat belt. If there's a simple, cheap and effective
means to reduce the severity of a risk (e.g. serious injuries in a car crash
/ drowning in a swamped boat), then you need a very good reason *not* to
implement it. "It won't happen to me" just isn't good enough - IMVHO of
> Please also note that I have not now, or ever, commented directly
> to the question of whether and/or how boats should be made more
> bouyant. I got into this discussion to suggest that the person who
> started this thread was asking a reasonable question and deserved
> reasoned responses rather than ridicule...and then continued to
> counter any implication (unintentional for all I know) that the
> differences in risk that was being asked about was irrelevant to
> the question of bouyancy requirements.
I fail to see what in my reply to your original post could possibly be
considered as "ridicule" (but I offer you my grovelling apologies for
whatever it is I said that has upset you - was it the Kyoto reference? Did
you miss the smiley? ;-) ). You make a reasonable point, and if you are
happy to live with your perception that the risk of swamping (and its
consequences) is tolerably small where you are, despite the evidence that
these freak events do happen and that people do die as a result, then fair
enough, it's your call. But I think you're wrong.
I trust this is a sufficiently reasoned response.