There is yet another initiative to try and mandate (require by law) PFD use by paddlers. I am personnally opposed, but very interested in the discussion. For this reason, I have outlined my main concerns and am interested in what others have to say about the subject.
For those of you really motivated to educate yourselves on the subject, check out the ACA’s longitudinal study of paddling fatalities. Its available on their website as a PDF (
www.acanet.org) and is called Critical Judgement and Critical Judgement II. I have also attached two short summaries of boating safety provided by the Lifesaving Society in Canada.
Here’s what we know (based on Canadian and US research)(references upon request):
• Approx 75% of all fatalities were associated with canoes.
• Approx 80% of all canoeing fatalities were not wearing a PFD at the time.
• At least 25% of all canoeing fatalities are believed to have consumed alcohol
If we take a very conservative set of numbers and assume there are approximately 5000 canoes and kayaks being used on any given spring/summer weekend in Canada, then there are 5000 boats*34 weekend paddling days = 170 000 paddler days each year when paddlers are at risk. The average number of water related deaths in Canada involving canoes/kayaks is 8 (based on figures from 1996-2000, which are the latest figures I have). This means there is a fatality rate of approximately .000047, or 4.7 fatalities per 100 000 user days. I should also note this is an extremely conservative figure assuming only 5000 canoers/kayakers on the water on any given spring/summer weekend. Similar stats for the US put the figure slightly higher at 8 deaths per 100 000 paddler days, but the US stats assumed you could paddle every weekend of the year. (numbers drawn from the 2003 National Boating Fatalities Report 2003 by the Lifesaving Society and Critical Judgement from the ACA). In fact, the Life saving society puts the figure slightly lower at 3 deaths per 100 000 boats.
Further numbers from the Boating Fatalities Report
• % change in canoeing fatalities from 1998 – 2003 = -21% - in other words, number of deaths have actually fallen by 20% over that time.
• The same report clearly indicates that PFD use is on the rise and that fatalities where PFDs were not worn has also fallen.
Both the ACA and Paddle Canada have opposed mandatory PFD use for paddle craft. As far as I can find out, the Canadian Lifesaving Society supports education, but has not taken a public position on mandatory PFD use. In other words, the organizations with a clear vested interest in representing recreational paddlesports in Canada are not supporting mandatory PFD regulations. Arguments against mandatory PFD use for recreational boaters basically fall into two categories:
• Evidence-based
• Philosophical
Evidence-Based
There is very little empirical evidence about trends in paddlesports fatalities in Canada. What evidence exists is based on gross numbers, and does not consider overall rates of participation and growth in paddlesports, because these numbers just don’t exist. In other words, regulators should justify expanding legislative frameworks. Do paddlers die? Yes. Were many of them not wearing PFDs? Yes. Is this a growing problem requiring new regulatory initiatives? No one knows for sure, and what evidence we do have points to a decline.
Furthermore, regulators need to demonstrate that the proposed regulations will actually have a positive impact on paddlesports fatalities. In other words, will requiring PFD use actually reduce the number of fatalities. The answer is not clear. Again, based on the evidence, there has been an overall decline in the number of paddlesports fatalities AND the number of fatalities where a PFD was not worn. I would argue, that whatever it is we are doing now actually seems to be working – SO WHY DO WE NEED NEW AND MORE REGULATIONS?
There is clear evidence that many regulations in and of themselves have little impact on behavior. Instead there is evidence to support education. Perhaps the most telling and best researched field is automotive safety. Gerald Wilde has made this case most powerfully in his original book. Target Risk and its follow up Target Risk 2. In a nut shell, Dr Wilde clearly shows that the only real tool we have for lowering overall accident and fatality rates is education. This is what the Canadian government has used to date. What evidence we do have seems to show that it is working. Below is an extended quote from Dr Wilde’s most recent book, pg 64.
“… This takes us to a remarkable inference: one and the same accident countermeasure may improve safety per km driven and contribute to an increase in the accident rate per head of population! As other researchers have put it: ‘making an activity safer may increase mortality.’ The apparent paradox in this statement is due to the fact that making an activity such as driving safer per km of mobility may attract more people to it so that more people will die in that activity. Thus, the provision of more crashworthy cars and forgiving roads may lead to a reduction in the death rate per km driven, to no change in the death rate per hour of exposure to traffic, and to a higher death rate per head of population.”
I cite this quote, because many advocates for PFD use (and other regulations) point to traffic statistics to justify additional regulatory burdens, when in fact the statistics clearly show your actual likelihood of dying in a car accident has in fact increased. To put this into paddling language, while the deaths per M paddled may fall, the deaths per 100 000 paddlers might actually go up! I am not saying this will in fact be the case, only that the evidence is unclear and contrary. As I stated above, we should either prove ourselves, or ask regulators to prove that regulations will actually have a positive impact on boating fatalities. Witness the success/failure of the safe boating program and certification.
Philosophical
Recreational paddling is a voluntary activity, done outside work as private citizens. As such, risk is voluntarily assumed. As a society we should be very careful about what we ask regulators to do for our safety in the daily private conduct of our lives. A clear, and measurable public good should be demonstrated before we ask for additional regulations. The philosophical question is this: What do we give up in terms of freedom when we voluntarily ask regulators to restrict our behavior? Much has been justified in the name of “public safety” over the years, and we only have to look at current curtailments of civil liberty in the name of “safety” to answer this question.
In this case, the implied public good is some 8-12 less deaths a year, and associated costs of search and rescue, and medical support. Clearly, there are more urgent and pressing issues that would serve a wider public and have greater reductions in cost. For example, far greater numbers of citizens are injured and killed in powered pleasure craft every year (75 on average). It makes more sense, in terms of the greatest good for the greatest number, to require these folks to wear PFDs before going after paddlesports.
Regulations need to be followed up by education and enforcement. Clearly TC and the RCMP do not have additional resources to enforce new regulations. TC has stated such privately to me that they have no additional funding for enforcement. If this is true, then these regulations will be enforced after the fact, just like charging a drunk driver AFTER they smash into the pole, which really seems to be silly. This leaves education, which the TC is already doing.
There have been a number of initiatives over the last few years regarding improving public awareness of existing regulations and encouraging folks to educate and modify their behavior when it comes to PFD use, and other behaviours such as drinking and boating. These initiatives seem to be working. Lets let them run their course before we surrender our rights.
One of the great joys of a sport like kayaking or canoeing is the freedom it offers. Culturally, it is tied into our heritage, a symbol of independence and resilience, freedom from rules and regulations. Lets think carefully before we restrict ourselves.
The implication of this argument against PFD use is that folks will continue to die in paddlesports. Yes. First, not all deaths in paddlesports are due to improper or lack of PFD use. Second, I would argue that some deaths are inevitable, and indeed acceptable. Risk is not a zero sum game – it cannot be eliminated (unless you stop paddling!) If you paddle, you have to accept the potential you might die. The real question should be, what kinds of deaths are acceptable? The reality is, though, that paddling is very safe. We accept much greater levels of risk when we drive our cars, have unprotected sex with new partners, ride our bikes. Are we really any better off as a paddling community if government is asked to mandate PFD use?
In a professional context, it is the norm in paddlesports to require PFD use. This makes sense. Often participants in classes, on rentals, or on guided trips do not have the experience or judgement to decide if PFD use is appropriate. Indeed, they have consciously surrendered some of their decision-making and responsibility to some one else. In recognition of this, the professional paddlesports community supports mandatory use in a commercial context. In this case, mandatory PFD use reflects community norms, and does not try to shape it. In the recreational community, paddlers do not voluntarily surrender their judgement and responsibility. Because of this, they must accept the consequences of their actions.
The equation (Regulated PFD Use = Less Paddling Deaths) is too simple to do justice to the complex social, cultural, and psychological factors that determine how and why we engage in risky behavior. If we find the current level of risk in recreational paddling unacceptable, we need to have a more sophisticated conversation as a community about what to do about it. For example, mandatory training and licensing of paddlesports operators, licensing of vessels, buoyancy and capacity standards for all paddlesports vessels etc…
Anyway, just some thoughts. Looking forward to hearing what others have to say on the subject.
Michael
