Drowning in simple-mindedness

Every accidental death raises the same simple-minded cry

by Andrew Coyne on Wednesday, August 19, 2009 5:00pm - 46 Comments

Drowning in a sea of simple-mindednessIn a typical year, somewhere around 450 Canadians will die by drowning. As it happened, in the first week of August this year, eight Canadians drowned—about the number one would expect in any given week, except that, on this particular week, all the victims met their end in Ontario. Or more precisely, within the catchment area of the Toronto Star.

In an instant, an entirely probable series of tragic accidents was transformed into an epidemic, with a single cause and a universal remedy. “Drownings prompt calls to reform boating laws,” the paper’s front page headline blared. “A shocking spate of drownings on Ontario’s lakes and rivers,” the story reported, “has officials demanding all boaters be required to wear life jackets.”

Of course, the drownings themselves “prompted” no such demands. The prompting was all the Star’s. Moreover, as the story airily conceded, “not all these deaths involved boats.” No, indeed. Three of the dead drowned while cliff-jumping at Moon River Falls. Two more died trying to save a little girl down the river at Bala Falls. Note the addresses.

Of the three boating deaths, one involved a tunnel-hull speedboat that, as the same story reported, “was travelling at high speed when it cartwheeled end over end.” The driver died in hospital. The second was at least a drowning: the victim, whose dinghy capsized, was reportedly a non-swimmer. The third was a man, also a weak swimmer, who went canoeing with a friend sometime after midnight. Again, I’ll quote the Star story: “Police believe alcohol was involved.”

To most readers, the lessons to be drawn from this catalogue of misfortune might be apparent. Don’t jump into waterfalls. Don’t go sailing if you can’t swim. Don’t get into a canoe drunk after dark. To the Star, the only appropriate response is federal legislation requiring all of Canada’s estimated 10 million boaters to wear a life jacket at all times.

The Star’s leap to judgment is all the more bizarre when you look at the broader picture. Contrary to the story’s premise, Canada’s lakes and rivers have not suddenly turned into foaming maelstroms of death. According to figures compiled by the Lifesaving Society, the number of drownings nationwide has been falling steadily for the past two decades: from 683 in 1990 to 433 in 2004 (though it spiked back to 492 in 2005, the last year for which it has figures). For all we know, 2009 may come in lower still.

About one-third of drowning victims each year are boaters. Of these, 12 per cent or more go to their watery graves wearing their life jackets. So we are looking at 120 or so deaths a year that could conceivably be prevented by such a law. But drill further into the data, and other risk factors come into view.

According to the Lifesaving Society, 60 per cent of boating drownings occur in water that is colder than 10° C. Where the victim’s swimming ability is known, two-thirds are listed as weak or non-swimmers. At least a third of the time, alcohol is involved.

Even allowing for some overlap in these figures, that suggests the number of preventable drownings among what I’d guess is the vast majority of the boating population—sober, warm-weather swimmers—is somewhere south of 40: about the same number of people, literally, that drown every year in the bathtub.

Presumably the Star does not want a law requiring us to wear a life jacket in the bath. Yet it’s not clear the risk of drowning is any greater for the millions of boaters it would forcibly clap in synthetic foam. Even if we include the drunken non-swimmers who go boating in winter, it’s about one in 70,000.

Bookmark and Share
  • Gary

    As citizens we want a vote in our society, but can't be bothered to exercise it. We elect representatives, who don't represent us but a small group called a party. Once every now and then, begrudingly, about half of us trudge down to the polls to elect representatives not to represent us. Then we forget them. One segment of society, the NC's, stumbled on the simple fact that if they yell enough, loud enough, often enough, the representatives will represent them simply for the votes, pensions, patronage, and perks they can confer. Everytime the NC's feel threatened, and believe me they feel threatened a great deal, they demand a law against that which threatens. Sometimes the stars align, idiotic law gets passed, millions is spent enforcing it, and lawyers get rich. The Charter should contain a clause that no adult Canadian need obey any law, regulation, or bylaw that can not pass the "common sense" test as applied by a majority of 13 people polled by telephone at random over the supper hour.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Tidewaters Chrystal Ocean

    Love it. And the primary point of all those new regs with their licence fees: a cash grab.

  • wafer

    You hit the nail right on the head. The fact is if one were to examine the evidence of any of these cries for regulations, warnings or gov't intervention we would invariably find them to be groundless. The other smell test is of course to follow the money. I heard a good example just an hour ago. Apparently the State of North Caroline (I think) is issuing a public bulletin because some bonehead decided to bury himself in sand at the beach and when the tide came in people had to scramble to keep him from drowning. And we need a public bulletin why? Is this a recurring problem? What we really need is a law against the idiots that claim they want the gov't out of their lives and then demand a rule or regulation for every obscure occurence that they see as a problem. The fact that this issue was concocted by a newspaper only serves to convince us that the print media is totally out of control. It is time for the media to do some internal policing.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

    "And when my case is heard, I will appeal, not to the freedom of speech or religion, but to the sacred and inalienable right to be left the hell alone."

    From your keyboard to God's ears.

  • geonarcissa

    "You can't legislate against stupidity."

  • Anon

    Stop complaining Coyne. If this stuff didn't exist, you'd have nothing say at all.

  • Dot

    Let me ask you the obvious question before anyone else does.

    Were you wearing your seatbelt when the cop ran the red light and left you "spread-eagled on the road" which you describe in your earlier column?:

    I bought a car and it nearly killed me
    A man of a certain marital status, age, self-consciousness is not simply buying a car. He is telling the world how he sees himself.
    http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/06/18/i-bought-a-car…

    If you were, faux machismo.

    • scf

      You call that an obvious question?

      • Dot

        Not really, just a segue. Shall I consider myself busted?

  • Craig O

    Loved the article until the last line. No one has the right to be left alone when they're doing something in public – if that were the case, I'd be suing every bum/Greenpeace activist/scientologist who approaches me on the street asking for cash. I'm fully in support of the right to not be punished due to others' blatant stupidity though!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/janicemaerose janicemaerose

    Hey, any time someone dies, the bereaved and those who would benefit from the legislation become an interest group and regulations are created based on emotions not logic or any kind of cost-benefit analysis.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

    Andrew, this is Canada. You do not have the right to be left the hell alone. Look it up.

    Sorry to break it to you.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/craigola craigola

      I'm alone right now, in my home, and everyone appears to be leaving me that way. I don't expect it to last, which makes me extra thankful for every moment that it does. I have to be thankful for small things like that because I don't have a boat of my own, or a summer place at which to enjoy it.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

        That luxury you currently enjoy is not an enshrined right in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So indeed, enjoy it while you can.

  • Troy

    Where is Dalton when you need him? I am sure he is at home right now dreaming of this legislation!

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

      Sorry Troy, It is Minister John Baird & co (federal, transport) of the faux conservatives in Ottawa who is "reviewing" the idea.

  • Foresight

    Simple minds indeed.
    Perhaps if Coyne and his cohort (in their bid to ”be left the hell alone” ) could have a Do Not Rescue or Recover sticker on their boats then the fine members of the OPP Underwater Recovery Unit (shown gathered on the rocky shore in the accompanying photo) could just move on and continue risking their lives trying to return *someone else’s* body to their loved ones.
    It is hugely disrespectful of Coyne to twist drowning statistics to serve his conservative “tone” when his column inches could have been better spent actually helping out.
    It is apparently more cool to be snarky rather than smart these days but I’m afraid the freedom fighter argument against mandatory wear just doesn’t rise above the water. The gasp reflex of sudden cold-water immersion, the disorientation of an unexpected capsize, the panic of a friend or child disappearing in a wave have rapidly and silently taken the lives of many thousands of Canadians.
    The issue of lifejacket wear is not of the Star’s making, nor of the OPP, nor of the Lifesaving Society, nor the Red Cross, nor the Canadian Safe Boating Council, nor the Coast Guard, nor did it just arrive on the table at Transport Canada. Everyone who has ever taught a swimming or boating or lifesaving class or dragged a lake has told Mr. Coyne to wear a lifejacket. The issue has been thoroughly studied. It is the standard of care as established by the experts for decades now (check the wording of the approval label on a PFD) and yet because of the attitude and immaturity of a vocal minority the recommendation continues to be largely ignored.
    I think the line should be drawn in a different place than Mr. Coyne. I imagine a responsible government regulation that serves to intelligently inform the public in much the same way that a yellow light turns to red and thousands of lives have been saved by seatbelts.

    • Lord Kitchener's Own

      Or, we could just let Darwin do his job.

      There should be no regulation requiring people to wear PFDs while boating. There are too many people on the planet as it is.

      I support thinning the herd (even if only by a tiny amount… baby steps…).

      • kruegerh

        right on the mark…!

    • Mike T.

      Absolutely. Requiring people to wear lifejackets is every bit as justifiable as requiring seatbelts (which is good, by the way). I actually thought it was the law already, and I always wear a life preserver when boating.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/jasonhickman jasonhickman

        "I actually thought it was the law already, and I always wear a life preserver when boating"

        Would you have *not* worn a life preserver if you dind't think "it was the law already"?

  • Kaplan

    Is it just plain silly to point out that had the drowning cases Coyne points out been wearing lifejackets, they'd all probably be alive today? Or is that just limp-wristed liberal defeatist talk? Are we letting the waves win by bowing to their evil machinations?

    • Max

      Yes, it is plain silly to point that out. Two of the drowning victims were trying to save other swimmers. Kind of a difficult taske, more so if you're wearing a life jacket.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

    Does anyone know what happened to the little girl at Bala Falls? Coynes was not his usual forthcoming self.

  • muldrewlaker

    Yes the boater exam is a farce and a cash grab, but if you've been out on a lake lately you know it is getting busy. More people are getting into boats with out a clue. A very small comfort is now they have at least browsed some of rules of the road.
    When boating I don't wear a life jacket. I used to be made to wear one when I was younger. Couldn't wait to be older so i didn't have to. And now, i put one on my daughter when we go out for a cruise. Odd.

    • Mike T.

      If you and your daughter are ever in a boating accident together the likelihood of your being able to offer effective assistance to her will be markedly higher if you are wearing a lifejacket. You aren't just improving your own odds of getting out unharmed, but hers as well.

  • baldygirl

    Excellent article. Thank you for shedding some light on these rather misleading statistics.

  • Bert

    Big Brother rules to keep the bureaucrats in their jobs. A waste of tax payers dollars. Time for a revolt. Cut provicial and fereral bureaucracies by 60%. Put them all on the dole. Would save us all a lot of tax dollars in the long run.

  • hosertohoosier

    Unfortunately we live in a welfare state which makes private decisions to smoke, to eat junk food and to use a motorboat also decisions with public implications (since taxpayers must pay for the healthcare costs of those making stupid decisions). Liberty involves a complex and interrelated phenomena, not a series of either-or propositions.

  • james

    Thoroughly enjoyed reading this article, including the last line. Though having read it, I can now picture the author yelling at the neighbourhood kids to get off his lawn. :)

    • Mulletaur

      'Gran Torino' was certainly Eastwood's best movie.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/pady pady

    Interesting! But should we not look how we educate childrens in this continent. We always says “it's ok“ and “you learn with your mistacke“ and “it's a kids, you know“ etc…HELLOOO! You get what you teach! Ask each kids to think before doing something and ask the same to teenager. May be we will not pay the price for Dummies in search for smart (oups wrong word) activity to bring them adrenaline to the top. Stop to the over law that refrain brain activity and reflex. Stop to the mashamallow brain that the gov build.

  • Tom

    I think it was an awesome article and I agree with it completely. We have lsot enough freedoms now. What is the point of going out in the boat if you have to be uncomfortable in a jacket. I don't swim in one but I do ski in one for safety. I like the feel of the wind on me and the color I get in the boat and I hope this never happens. I also agree the license is a joke and just a cash grab. i know kids who have never been in a boat who got their license. One of them is 8 years old!!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/bawbee2 bawbee2

    We have lived aboard our sailboat for ten years and find the idea of mandatory lifejackets absolutely ludicrous. We fully respect and understand the possiblilites inherent in our lifestyle and naturally do all that we can to keep ourselves safe. BUT, I will not be forced to wear a lifejacket. I expect they will want me to sleep in it too?
    As for the so called operators card, what a farce! They make sure you pass the so called test but that doesn't mean you can actually operate a boat it just means you were a dull little sheep and spent the money to get one. STUPID AND LAME. The next thing you know they will be putting up gates at all the marinas and telling us when THEY thing it is SAFE enough for us to go out on the water. Big Brother is not a friend of mine!

  • Sunstone

    Excellent article Mr Coyne. Well said.

  • Tax payer

    I like the "Do Not Rescue" registration for adults. That should be extended to smokers, risk takers etc. Just register and sign the card, you'll save the society a load of TAX. However, "Do not recover" is not viable as the body will pollute the planet. The goverment agency can waste more money creating the registry so either way, citizen loose.

  • Art Digout

    I just came across this article. You had me until the end when you started sounding like a survivalist / paramilitary wingnut / selfish jerk.

From Macleans