PFD when driving boat onto the Trailer

[blacklab99]

fairly sure , they brought in new laws in regards to offshore PFD use, not quite sure if you can take it off after the bar crossing or PPB heads scenario

http://www.wearalifejacket.vic.gov.au/lifejacket-laws

I think your confused about other regulations
If this was the case, their would be thousands breaking the law !

Again, over 4.8m vessel, does not need to wear a pdf for offshore use, only solo or heightened risk as others have explained.
Or as an example, going through a bar situation, heightened risk, so you must wear your pdf, once clear, if you desire, you can remove it.
With the only exception being, ( as your link explains ) under 10 years old in the open area of the boat.
The graph with the link you provided states the regulations very clearly.

cheers
colin

[smile0784]

so just to clarify
I have a 5.2 mt boat so I only need to wear a life jacket if I crossing a bar, going through the PPB heads or putting the boat on the trailer and no one else is on the boat making it a sole operator?

for all the people that know Bermagui
does it technically have a bar or not?
parks and foreshore says no
waterways says yes

peoples thoughts who do the police go by?

with a vessel over 4.8mtrs you have to wear when underway at heightened risk.. So boating alone, crossing a bar, storm warning ,gale warning, broken down etc.
Re Bermy NSW waterways are the authority re life jackets , Parks or foreshore are not.

Thanks. Wasn't sure

[smile0784]

How does driving Ur boat on trailer solo fall into heightened risk group? When your no more then probably 20mt from land or pontoon
I've watch many people drive boats on trailers and they don't really move from behind the wheel and the ones that do walk around the side on the gunnels to the front of the boat is on the trailer the boat is at rest on trailer and doesn't move.

[cobby]

Solo operation is defined as heightened risk regardless of where you are in relation to land

[frozenpod]

The court case found loading your boat was not heightened risk (court case referred to in the first post).

This also sets a prescient.

[smile0784]

The court case found loading your boat was not heightened risk (court case referred to in the first post).

This also sets a prescient.

Sounds like common sense prevailed in this case. Finally lol

[cobby]

The court case found loading your boat was not heightened risk (court case referred to in the first post).

This also sets a prescient.

Precedent or not, police are still warning and fining people for that very thing. It'll take a wording change to the legislation to prevent someone else having to contest the fine in court for common sense to prevail

[smile0784]

Depends how much money you want to risk loosing to solisaters just for a 350 fine

[frozenpod]

It is up to us at this point.

Prescient has been set.

Email your local pollies, local papers ect.

[CrazyChenski]

A court case won in court is not an enacted statutory law. Instead, a court case judgement passed, it set as a "Common Law" case which future cases can refer to it when in argument in court (or between lawyers). If need to refer to it , you will need to argue in court why your situation is the same as to the case described in prior case, hence apply to your case. You might think, "Loading a boat is loading the boat". However, in Common Law's case, it can be vast and very messy.

in the situation where the police believe you not wearing a life while loading boat is heighten risk and issues with a fine, then you have to take up to the court to fight the fine.

What is the cost involved to fight the case? You will need to dispute the fine and wait for your court day, then you take a day off from work to argue your case. Here are three scenario:

1. If you argue the case yourself, providing your know how to to conduct yourself in court and cite the common law case and present the facts and figures to the judge and win, good and you don't pay for the fine, but now you wasted 1 day from work and numerous hours doing your own researches to substantiate your case. Not sure that is worth it. Maybe you won this time, you do it again, and next thing you know, you might cop from the police again, and back to court again to fight it.

2. If you argue the case yourself and somehow lost (be that either you didn't not present well or the judge take the view of police), you cops the fine still, you lost a day from work and time wasted on s\researching...... PLUS any court proceeding costs. This can mount to $1000 costs. Is it worth it ?

3. Get a lawyer to fight it: True this is the best solution to ensure winning. But the costs to engage a lawyer?


So what is the best solution ? Get the government to actually define that in the Statutory Act. But then I think wearing the vest is EASIER than get government to change law...... just my 2cent worth....