There were 610 recreational boating fatalities in 2014, the second-lowest number of yearly boating deaths on record.
The lowest number of yearly boating deaths was 560 in 2013, according to data released by the Coast Guard.
The most boating deaths occurred in 1973, when 1,754 people died.
The Coast Guard released this information today.
Now I fully understand the difference between cause-and-affect and correlation. But it makes you wonder. What percentage of boaters were using electronic vs paper charts in 2013/4 vs 1973?
The answer is obvious. And yes, there are other factors at play here too. But as navigation has moved from throwing potatoes off the bow to integrated MFD's and autopilots, the results have been an incredible increase in safety.
One thing the CG didn't mention was the amount that boating was up over 2013 and 2014 over the previous 5 years. Those 5 years were the start of the transition to full electronics onboard. So more use with fewer fatalities. If only every analysis were so simple.
Electronic navigation doesn't make you immune from risk - no one ever claimed that. You're just less at risk the more you remove paper charts from use.
I tend to agree as I can't remember seeing, hearing or reading about any boating deaths attributed to cruising. Maybe a few about sail boats caught in high seas. I take that back....there was Zopilote that hit the rocks & and you can bet that she had a full compliment of electronics on board! I'm not counting "Concordia's" Disaster and other commercial boats that were lost.I doubt there are very many boating deaths attributed to cruising, either now or in 1973. I suspect the vast number of deaths are caused by drunks in go-fast boats and PWCs, people falling overboard, heart attacks, and so forth.
The Coast Guard released this information today.
Now I fully understand the difference between cause-and-affect and correlation. But it makes you wonder. What percentage of boaters were using electronic vs paper charts in 2013/4 vs 1973?
The answer is obvious. And yes, there are other factors at play here too. But as navigation has moved from throwing potatoes off the bow to integrated MFD's and autopilots, the results have been an incredible increase in safety.
One thing the CG didn't mention was the amount that boating was up over 2013 and 2014 over the previous 5 years. Those 5 years were the start of the transition to full electronics onboard. So more use with fewer fatalities. If only every analysis were so simple.
Electronic navigation doesn't make you immune from risk - no one ever claimed that. You're just less at risk the more you remove paper charts from use.
I understand your desire to relate the death-reduction trend to advances in navigation-- it's the business you're in.
For one willing to accept the difference between causation and correlation, you sure jump quick into making a statement of causation.
That's only because it was helping my argument!
I actually think these statistics do relate to the electronic/paper argument.
You may THINK that...but no statistician worth his "salt" SHOULD draw that conclusion, without carefully examining whether other factors are at play. It's a long journey from conjecture to compelling evidence.
This post started in the bunk on the boat about midnight on a rainy night in March while I was worrying about my GPS puck going kaput and then no nav computer. Being a long way from the slip and not having a spare I wondered if I could find my way home w/ paper charts.
Being a long way from the slip and not having a spare I wondered if I could find my way home w/ paper charts.
And now here we are solving world problems, carry on lads, y'all are awesome.
Mike
Captain, M/V Old School
I think this is an excellent synopsis of the passage we all just made.Gulf-- You were wondering about a valid situation. There are obviously a number of ways to deal with the situation as evidenced by the content of this thread.
Paper and the necessary tools and understanding to use them is one. Redundancy of electronics is another. A combination of both is still another. And the redundancy route has any number of possibilities when you include all the boat-powered and self-powered options that are available.
In this day and age I tend to agree with Jeff's basic premise that redundant electronics is the smartest way to go. The fact that some of us have been "defending" paper is not, I believe, because we feel it is superior as a backup (or primary) but that it's a viable backup IF...... the boater knows how to use them properly and likes using paper charts and doing the calculations and plotting that is necessary. Otherwise, as Jeff has correctly pointed out, they can be a real liability and put a boater in danger. Just as electronic navigation can be a liability if used improperly and without understanding.
As with most stuff having to do with anything, the only person who can determine what will work best for you is you. Whatever, if anything, you decide to do, I believe the most important thing is that what you choose as a backup navigation system or process should fit your comfort and confidence zones. So that when you wake up on a rainy night in March and think about how you're going to get home if a GPS puck craps out you'll have a solution that you have confidence in and are comfortable using.
Then you can lie there and worry about things like World Peace and who to vote for and who's going to win the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix and why licorice tastes the way it does.