National Marine Safety Committee NATIONAL BOATING USAGE STUDY PRELIMINARY SURVEY REPORT

Transcription

1 National Marine Safety Committee NATIONAL BOATING USAGE STUDY PRELIMINARY SURVEY REPORT December 2009

2 National Marine Safety Committee National Boating Usage Study Preliminary Survey Report December 2009

3 Publication First published: December 2009 Published by the National Marine Safety Committee Inc. PO Box R1871 Royal Exchange NSW 1225 Disclaimer People using the information contained in the report should apply, and rely upon, their own skill and judgement. National Marine Safety Committee Inc. This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without the written permission of the CEO of the National Marine Safety Committee Inc. Reference to any part of this publication may be made, for academic or research purposes, provided that the exact reference is quoted. The National Marine Safety Committee Inc is an Intergovernmental committee charged with achieving uniform marine safety practices throughout Australia. It is comprised of an Independent Chair and the Chief Executive of each of the marine safety agencies in Australia. ISBN: Page 2 of 82 December 2009

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A project of this nature could not be completed without the input of many people. The analysis and preparation of this report was undertaken by Dr John Bentley, NMSC Research Manager and principal researcher for the National Recreational Boating Usage Study. This study collects a large volume of data both electronically and by hard copy. Data entry was performed by Sarah Houmaisi. All data is managed and cleansed by Maylin Tan, Data Coordinator. With the large number of individuals providing data over the extensive study period communication is an important facet of the program. The NMSC Communications Officer, Ursula Bishop, prepares the newsletters that regularly inform participants of the study s progress. Mention must also be made to the industry stakeholders who assisted with recruitment and in the provision of prizes and discounts to encourage participants to stay in the study. Many thanks to Club Marine, Yaffa publications, the marine safety agencies, boat shows and volunteer marine rescue groups who assisted with the recruitment process. Without this assistance it is unlikely the NMSC would have achieved the recruitment targets. December 2009 Page 3 of 82

5 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... 3 CONTENTS... 4 TABLES AND FIGURES... 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 9 THE NATIONAL MARINE SAFETY COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION Background METHODOLOGY Traditional Methods NMSC Approach Sample Size Recruitment Geographic Distribution ABOUT YOUR BOAT Type of Boat Length of Boat Boat Type and Length Type and Length of Boat by Jurisdiction Age of Boats Hull Material Boat Type and Construction Material Engine Types Fuel Type Engine Type and Fuel Type Engine Power Engine Power and Length of Boat Engine Power and Type of Boat Page 4 of 82

6 Communications Equipment ABOUT YOUR BOAT USAGE Main Purpose or Activity of Boating Boating Activity and Boat Length Boating Activity and Engine Power Type of Water Boat Most Operated in Operational Waters and Boat Length Operational Waters by Jurisdiction Distance Travelled in Open/Offshore Waters Distance Offshore and Boat Length Operating Time by Month Operating Time by Day Operating Time by Hour Favourite Holidays for Boating Frequency of Boat Operation Average Number of Hours Spent on Water Average Number of People on Boat People on Board and Boat Length Age of Children Carried on Boat YOUR BOATING EXPERIENCE Boat Licences Length of Time Licence Held Boat Ownership Membership of Boating Clubs or Associations Marine Qualifications Boating Education YOUR BOATING BEHAVIOUR PFD Wearing December 2009 Page 5 of 82

7 PFD Wearing and Boat Type PFD Wearing and Operational Area Circumstances when PFDs Worn Types of Safety Equipment Carried Frequency EPIRB Tested Checking Safety Equipment Expiry Dates Boating Incidents During Past Twelve Months Description of Incident Length of Time on Water Before Incident Occurred Weather Conditions at Time of Incident Incidents and Time of Day Incidents and Boat Length Injuries Sustained in Previous Twelve Months How Serious was the Injury Do You Drink Alcohol While Boating Drugs and Boating Drug and Alcohol Testing ABOUT YOU THE BOATER Participants by Gender Participants by Age Existing Medical Conditions Prescription Medication Usage Swimming Ability REFERENCES Page 6 of 82 December 2009

8 TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1: Projected and Actual Samples According to Jurisdictions Table 2: Distribution of Participants by Post Code Table 3: Type and Length of Boat by Jurisdiction Table 4: Boat Type and Construction Material Table 5: State and Territory Recreational Boat Licence Requirements Table 6: Compulsory Requirements for Wearing PFDs Australia (Dec 2008) Figure 1: Types of Recreational Vessels (By %) Figure 2: Length of Boat (By %) Figure 3: Boat Type and Length (By %) Figure 4: Age of Boats (By %) Figure 5: Hull Material (By %) Figure 6: Engine Type (By %) Figure 7: Type of Fuel (By %) Figure 8: Fuel Type on Inboard Engines (By %) Figure 9: Engine Power (By %) Figure 10: Engine Power and Length of Boat (By %) Figure 11: Engine Power and Type of Boat (By %) Figure 12: Communications Equipment (By %) Figure 13: Boating Activity (By %) Figure 14: Boating Activity and Boat Length (By %) Figure 15: Boating Activity and Engine Power (By %) Figure 16: Operational Waters (By %) Figure 17: Fatalities by Operational Waters (By %) Figure 18: Operational Waters and Boat Length (By %) Figure 19: Operational Waters and Jurisdiction (By %) Figure 20: Distance Boat Operated Offshore (By %) Figure 21: Distance Offshore and Boat Length (By %) Figure 22: Operating Time by Month (By %) Figure 23: Operating Time by Day (By %) Figure 24: Operating Time by Hour (By %) Figure 25: Operating Time by Holiday Period (By %) Figure 26: Frequency Boat Operated per Year (By %) December 2009 Page 7 of 82

9 Figure 27: Average Number of Hours Spent on the Water (By %) Figure 28: Average Number of Passengers Carried on Boat (By %) Figure 29: Average Number of Passengers by Boat Length (By %) Figure 30: Age of Children / Youth Carried on Boat (By %) Figure 31: Percentage Holding a Recreational Boat Licence (By %) Figure 32: Number of Years Boat Licence Held (By %) Figure 33: Number of Years Boat Owned (By %) Figure 34: Membership of Boating Association or Club (By %) Figure 35: Percentage Holding Another Marine Qualification (By %) Figure 36: Participation in Boating Education Courses (By %) Figure 37: PFD Wearing (By %) Figure 38: PFD Wearing and Boat Type (By %) Figure 39: PFD Wearing and Operational Waters (By %) Figure 40: Circumstances When PFDs Worn (By %) Figure 41: Types of Safety Equipment Carried (By %) Figure 42: How Frequently is EPIRB Tested (By %) Figure 43: Do You Check Safety Equipment Expiry Dates (By %) Figure 44: Participants Involved in Boating Incident (By %) Figure 45: Description of Incidents (By %) Figure 46: Number of Hours on Water When Incident Occurred (By %) Figure 47: Weather Conditions at Time of Incident (By %) Figure 48: Incidents and Time of Day (By %) Figure 49: Incidents and Boat Length (By %) Figure 50: Injuries Sustained During the Previous Twelve Months (By %) Figure 51: How Serious Was the Injury (By %) Figure 52: Do You Drink Alcohol While Boating (By %) Figure 53: Drug Use Whilst Boating (By %) Figure 54: Alcohol/Drug Tests Whilst Boating (By %) Figure 55: Boating Participants by Gender (%) Figure 56: Participants by Age (%) Figure 57: Participants and Existing Medical Conditions (By %) Figure 58: Prescription Medication Usage (By %) Figure 59: Swimming Ability (By %) Page 8 of 82 December 2009

10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recreational boating is a popular pastime in Australia with approximately 1 million recreational craft using Australian waterways. It is a pastime that is enjoyed by millions of Australians who go fishing, cruising and use boats for many other activities. The large numbers of boats operating on Australian waterways increases the potential for accidents. In the period between 1992 and Australians lost their lives in boating accidents. The National Marine Safety Committee commissioned the National Recreational Boating Usage Study to collect information about recreational boating that can be used to provide an evidence base upon which to develop better marine safety policies and education programs. The study began recruiting in June 2008 and recruited recreational boaters from across Australia. Approximately 3800 individuals registered to take part in the study which includes a survey questionnaire and an online trip diary. This report presents the data collected from the preliminary survey. In total 2818 individuals completed the survey. 1. YOUR BOAT The most popular types of boats are the cuddy/half cabin cruiser and open runabouts with 29% and 26% of responses. 57% of respondents indicated they had a boat between 5 and 9.9 metres in length. 3 of respondents indicated they operated a boat less than 5 metres in length. Almost half of participants have a boat less than 5 years old. The most common building material for boats is aluminium with 39% of responses. The next most common construction material is plastic (including glass reinforced plastic) with 34% of responses. 68% of participants have a boat with an outboard motor. 84% of boats use petrol as a fuel source. 51% of boats less than 5 metres in length have an engine rated at less than 50 horsepower; 38% of boats between 5 and 9.9 metres in length have an engine rated between 100 and 150 horsepower; 51% of boats between 10 and 14.9 metres in length have an engine rated less than 50 horsepower; and 54% of boats greater than 15 metres in length have an engine rated in excess of 151 horsepower. The mobile phone is used as a communication device by 82% of boaters. 52% of participants indicated their boat was fitted with a VHF radio. December 2009 Page 9 of 82

11 2. ABOUT YOUR BOAT USAGE Fishing is the main activity for 6 of participants. Almost half of respondents mostly operate their boats in bays and sheltered waters. Almost one third of boaters mainly operate their boats in open waters. Of the boaters who operate in open waters 54% operate more than 5 nautical miles from shore. 95% of boaters use their boats in December and January. Only one third of boaters use their boats in June and July. Weekends are the most popular times for operating a boat with 7 of boaters operating their boat on Saturdays and 83% of boaters operating their boats on Sundays. Almost half of respondents use their boats between 6am and 10am. The most popular holiday period for operating a boat is Christmas/New Year with 73% of boaters operating during the holiday period. Easter is the next most popular holiday with 48% of boaters using their boats during the holiday. Almost 4 of boaters use their boats 2 3 times per month. An additional 2 of boaters use their boats once a week. Almost half of respondents spend 3 5 hours on the water when they use their boats. 55% of boaters carry an extra 1 2 people when they go boating. Almost half of respondents indicated they had carried a child aged 6 12 years on board during the previous twelve months. 3. YOUR BOATING EXPERIENCE Only 5% of boaters indicated they did not have a recreational boat licence. 39% of boaters have held their boat licence for more than 15 years. Almost half of respondents have owned a boat for more than 15 years. Almost half of respondents are members of boating associations or clubs. 3 of boaters have some form of marine qualification in addition to a recreational boating licence. Half of the respondents indicated they have undertaken a boating education course. Page 10 of 82 December 2009

12 4. YOUR BOATING BEHAVIOUR PFDS (lifejackets) are worn occasionally by 62% of boaters. 29% of participants wear a PFD when in poor weather. A further 29% of participants have children under the age of 12 wear a PFD. PFDs are carried on board 98% of boats. More than half of boaters carry flares and extra fuel. Almost 4 of boaters never test their EPIRB; 1 of boaters test their EPIRB before each trip. Expiry dates of safety equipment are regularly checked by 94% of boaters. 5% of boaters had experienced a boating incident in the previous twelve months. 26% of these incidents involved a collision with another boat or object; 24% of the incidents involved the boat being grounded, flooded or capsizing. Almost half of these incidents occurred within the first two hours of a boating trip. Almost half of these incidents occurred in calm conditions with good visibility and little to no wind. More than three quarters of boaters had suffered cuts and lacerations whilst boating during the previous twelve months. 6% of boaters had suffered a fractured or broken bone whilst boating in the previous twelve months. Almost half of boaters had suffered an injury requiring first aid. 12% of boaters had suffered an injury requiring a visit to a GP or hospital emergency unit. Almost half of boaters occasionally consume alcohol whilst boating. Almost a quarter of boaters indicated they had known someone use or be under the influence of cannabis while boating. 61% of participants indicated they had known someone use or be under the influence of prescription drugs while boating. 85% of participants indicated they had never been tested for drugs or alcohol whilst boating. December 2009 Page 11 of 82

13 5. ABOUT YOU THE BOATER 94% of participants are male. 39% of participants are aged between 35 and 50 years. 5% of participants indicated they had diabetes and a further 4% of participants indicated they suffer from a heart condition. 37% of participants take prescription medication. More than half of respondents believed they could swim more than 200 metres. The National Recreational Boating Study Preliminary Survey Report has provided a wealth of data that will be of value to a wide variety of stakeholders including the NMSC s internal standards writers, State, Northern Territory and Commonwealth marine safety agencies, boating industry associations and recreational boat users. The second part of the study which involves the collection of exposure data through the use of a trip diary is continuing and it is anticipated this will conclude on 31 March Subsequently, a final report will be released providing details of the entire study. Page 12 of 82 December 2009

14 THE NATIONAL MARINE SAFETY COMMITTEE The National Marine Safety Committee (NMSC) was established in 1996 as part of a strategic response to a report on national marine safety undertaken for the Australian Transport Council (ATC) by Thompson Clarke. This report identified a number of deficiencies in the administration of marine safety by States and the Northern Territory. Most significantly the report highlighted the lack of consistency between the jurisdictions in the application and administration of standards for commercial vessels, and the lack of marine safety data. In June 1996 the ATC endorsed a Draft National Marine Safety Strategy and agreed to the formation of the NMSC to implement the strategy. Implementation commenced in April 1997 with the establishment of the NMSC Secretariat. The NMSC was formalised by an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) signed on the 7th of November 1997 by the Prime Minister, State Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, allowing for an initial 2-year operating period until April The committee is made up of senior executives of Australian marine safety agencies, with New Zealand having observer status. In establishing the NMSC, the members of ATC were definite in the need for there to be a greater undertaking in the area of maritime safety research. Consequently as part of its works program, the NMSC has adopted the brief to collate marine safety data and publicise the outcomes of safety programs so that a more comprehensive and proactive research approach to maritime safety is achieved in Australia. The outcome of this approach, as NMSC sees it, is a more objective approach to decision making to ensure that decisions about marine safety in Australia are relevant to the maritime industry. In recent years the NMSC has published research findings on issues such as personal flotation devices (PFD) wear rates, non-fatal and fatal injuries as well as analyses of marine industry data and marine incidents. The NMSC routinely provides a range of data for use by marine agencies and interested parties. Page 13 of 82 December 2009

15 Background INTRODUCTION Most of Australia's population lives close to the coastline consequently marine activities have, and continue to play a significant role in the Australian identity. The coastline of the Australian mainland stretches 35,877 kilometres. With the addition of the myriad islands surrounding Australia this amounts to 59,736 kilometres. 1 Boating is a central part of Australian recreational activities. Millions of Australians routinely take to the water to engage in a wide range of activities including fishing, cruising, diving, sailing and water sports. Currently there are over 800,000 boats registered throughout Australia, and many more that are not required to be registered. In recent years Australians have enjoyed a robust economy which has resulted in a surge in the number of recreational craft on Australian waterways. Between 2005 and June 2008 the number of registered recreational craft increased by more than 70,000. The strong growth in boat ownership and usage increases the potential for boating accidents, resulting in death or injury. It is currently estimated that fatalities and serious injuries resulting from boating accidents cost the Australian community in excess of $370 million each year. 2 Studies conducted by the NMSC have indicated that boating is second only to road transport as a cause of transport-related injury. The most recent studies of boating fatalities in Australia indicated that 333 people lost their lives between 1992 and A further 241 lives were lost in boating accidents between 1999 and In a parallel study of serious injuries it was estimated that between 1999/2000 and 2002/ people were admitted to hospital as a result of boating accidents. These studies have analysed the wide variety of factors contributing to boating accidents. These include issues such as alcohol and drugs, overpowered vessels, inadequate stability and buoyancy, overloading and non-use of personal flotation devices. Many boating accidents can be prevented through enhancing knowledge and attitudes about safety. Action focussed on reducing risk factors can have a major impact on reducing the boating accident rate. One method of identifying risks and improving knowledge of safety is by means of analysing exposure data. The exposure data basically consists of the number, or frequency, of trips taken by different types of vessels; and the length of time each vessel operates on the water. More advanced exposure data can include such things as the annual distance in kilometres or nautical miles and number of persons on board. Unfortunately, there is a lack of exposure information in relation to recreational boaters in Australia and internationally. This lack of data is a major challenge in the development of marine safety measures for recreational boaters at both a national and international level. The National Recreational Boating Usage Study being conducted by the NMSC is an attempt to remedy this shortcoming and provide a more solid evidence-based approach. 1 Geoscience Australia, GEODATA Coast 100k 2004, Canberra, Dr Peter O'Connor, Assessment of Fatal and Non-Fatal Injury Due to Boating in Australia, Phase 1 Report prepared for the National Marine Safety Committee, Dr Peter O'Connor, National Assessment of Boating Fatalities in Australia , report prepared for the National Marine Safety Committee, March Dr Peter O'Connor, National Assessment of Boating Fatalities in Australia , report prepared for the National Marine Safety Committee, May Page 14 of 82 December 2009

16 METHODOLOGY Traditional Methods The most common method used to collect boating exposure information is to conduct a survey asking boaters to either recall or predict their boating activity over a given period of time. In 2002 the United States Coast Guard (USCG) conducted the National Recreational Boating Survey (NRBS) using a retrospective design aimed at enhancing participants recall. 5 Survey questions covered a range of topics including boat characteristics, safety equipment and unsafe boating incidences. The data was collected using two methodologies; mail-out surveys and random telephone sampling. The responses for the survey varied according to the method of collection with mail-out surveys achieving a 49% return rate and the random telephone strategy achieving a 6 response rate. Whilst this type of approach is common, and provides a useful means of developing marine safety policy, it suffers from the inherent weakness of recall bias. The participants were asked to recall details of an event over a period of time or predict when they will go boating. Another method is to use a diary and have boaters documenting their activities immediately after the event. This would reduce the effects of recall error and provide valid, reliable information. A study conducted by the School of Population Health at the University of Western Australia during 2005/06 investigated whether it was possible and practical to develop such a diary instrument to collect exposure information among recreational boaters. This study recruited 55 boaters from boat ramps and boat shows and achieved a recruitment rate of 49%, retention rate of 73% over 6 months and completion rate of 91%. It was found that the diary was an effective method for collecting boating information and was used with ease by the boaters. NMSC Approach Both of the traditional approaches have advantages and disadvantages and can provide a wide range of good evidence and data. Since the currently available data on the Australian recreational scene tends to be rather sparse and disparate it was decided at the outset to utilise both data collection methods, that is using a questionnaire to elicit information about the boats, boaters and behaviours as well as a trip diary to collect more specific exposure data relating to how frequently and for how long Australian waterways were used. A questionnaire was designed in consultation with each State and Northern Territory marine agency. The questionnaire contains 48 questions on the following areas of interest: Your Boat Your Boat Usage Boating Experience Boating Behaviour, and The Boater. 5 United States Coast Guard, 2002 National Recreational Boating Survey Report, Strategic Research Group, Columbus, Ohio, 30 November December 2009 Page 15 of 82

17 The trip diary is designed to elicit data about how frequently and for how long boaters use Australian waterways. It asks for the type and length of the boat used, thereby allowing for boaters to use different boats. It then collects data about: the day and time of the trip number of hours spent on the water where the trip was located how the water was accessed (for example beach, boat ramp, private jetty) type of waterway (for example river, lake, open waters) how many people were on board activity on the waterway if any incidents occurred and how serious the incident was, and finally if the incident was reported. The actual data collection was designed to be done electronically. Participants were given a log on code to a website with a SQL database situated behind the front page. Participants registered their contact details and then filled in the preliminary questionnaire. Once this was submitted the questionnaire disappeared and participants could only access the trip diary section. In order to allow for a broad participation a manual process was developed to cater for those participants who did not have access to a computer. These participants, approximately one third of the sample, were sent a hard copy questionnaire and trip diary pages. The completed forms are returned to the NMSC and then manually entered. Sample Size The study aimed to use a stratified sample based on the percentage of recreational boats registered in each State and the Northern Territory and other information that was known about recreational boating in Australia. The problem of sample size was examined at length. With this being the first of its kind study in Australia a number of other research project samples were investigated. Traditionally many national studies have been based on a sample size of approximately 1000 people. When this figure was stratified (see Table 1) the model gave a potential sample of approximately 30 participants for Tasmania and Northern Territory. After some discussion with jurisdictional officers it was felt this sample size was too small to make any meaningful conclusions. Page 16 of 82 December 2009

18 Table 1: Projected and Actual Samples According to Jurisdictions Approximate No. Recreational Vessels 6 Projected Sample of 4000 Participants Actual Sample Recruited NSW (28%) QLD (27%) VIC (22%) WA (1) SA (7%) TAS (3%) NT (3%) ACT Unknown n/a 51 To get a more representative profile the potential sample was stratified for sizes of 2,000, 3,000 and 4,000 participants. Analysis of the comparative breakdowns suggested that 3,000 participants would provide a more representative sample. A previous study indicated that an attrition rate of approximately 25% could be expected. 7 With this in mind it was decided to recruit 4,000 participants. This would still provide an adequate sample after a 25% attrition rate. Recruitment In order to recruit such a large sample from across the various states and territories the study used a variety of techniques. Central to our recruitment campaign was the involvement of Club Marine who distributed registration of interest forms with their marine insurance renewals and through their Club Marine magazine. This recruitment avenue resulted in the recruitment of participants in the Australian Capital Territory thereby providing a representative sample from all states and territories. In addition to the Club Marine involvement registration forms were distributed through various Yaffa Publications, boating and volunteer rescue organisations and marine safety agencies distributed registration forms at various major boat shows. The recruitment process was undertaken over a six month period to ensure we achieved our target. The recruitment process was very successful with a considerable degree of interest from the general boating community. Table 1 illustrates the numbers of participants recruited in each jurisdiction. During the recruitment process attention was given to geographic distribution to ensure that our sample was sufficiently well distributed and that a viable sample size was achieved for each jurisdiction. In the later stages of the recruitment process additional media releases were used to encourage people in the regions that were lagging in volunteering. This resulted in additional participants in Queensland, New South Wales and Northern Territory registering for the study. 6 These figures were based on registration figures supplied by State and Northern Territory marine agencies in early Similar information was provided by the Australian Marine Industries Federation. 7 Terri J. Pikora and Heather A. Williams, Developing and Piloting a Log Book to Determine the Level of Exposure to the Risk of Injury Among Recreational Boaters, Injury Research Centre, University of Western Australia, Crawley, December 2009 Page 17 of 82

19 The effectiveness of the recruitment campaign is illustrated in Table 1. It can be seen that in the larger jurisdictions where targets were considerably higher the targets were only narrowly missed. In the smaller jurisdictions, with the exception of Northern Territory, the targets were either met or exceeded. Geographic Distribution During the recruitment phase regular analyses of the participant postcodes were conducted to ensure the study sample was distributed between city, coastal and regional areas. This widespread distribution would ensure the study had a viable sample from all type of waterways in Australia. In Table 2 it can be seen that participants were recruited from a wide range of post code regions within each state and territory. The entire sample is distributed across 1231 individual post codes across Australia. No. of Post Codes Table 2: Distribution of Participants by Post Code ACT NSW VIC QLD SA WA TAS NT Post codes were then further analysed to look for significant clusters. The study aimed to avoid having too many large clusters in a small handful of post codes regions. In the small jurisdictions such as the Australian Capital Territory, Tasmania and the Northern Territory some concentration of post code was expected due to the local demographics. In the remaining jurisdictions the proportion of the sample residing in a small number of post code areas is much smaller and conforms to the urban population densities of each jurisdiction. Page 18 of 82 December 2009

20 ABOUT YOUR BOAT Participating boat operators were first asked to provide information about the characteristics of the boat they operated. These characteristics included type and length of boat, age, construction material, types of engine, engine capacity and whether the boat was fitted with communications equipment and what type of communications equipment was fitted. Type of Boat The first question boat operators were asked was the type of boat they operated. Classifying recreational craft can be difficult due to the wide variations in classifications. Recreational vessel registrations data is collected by each jurisdiction and supplied to the NMSC for national data analysis purposes. This data set contains a large number of recreational boating classifications. In order to make analysis easier the NMSC compresses these classifications into 29 main categories. For the purposes of the National Recreational Boating Survey these classifications were further compressed into eight main classes of recreational boat. As expected the respondents (n = 2,811) indicated a large degree of variability in the types of boats being operated (see figure 1). The most common type of boat being operated was the cuddy/half cabin cruiser which was operated by 29% (n = 855) of respondents. Open runabouts represented the next most common type of boat with 26% (n = 723) of respondents operating them. The next most common boats being operated were sailing vessels and full cabin cruisers with 15% (n = 413) and 11% (n =306) of responses respectively. The remaining 19% of respondents operate a variety of recreational craft from dinghies (tinnies) to jet skis. The category of other includes a wide range of craft. These include some popular types of boats such as canoes and kayaks as well as craft not easily categorised such as pontoons, ex-ferries, houseboats, and Tasmanian Cray and US Bass fishing boats. Two percent of participants operate boats in this category. Figure 1: Types of Recreational Vessels (By %) 35% 3 25% 29% 26% 2 15% 1 5% 15% 11% 8% 6% 2% 2% 1% December 2009 Page 19 of 82

21 Length of Boat Participants were then asked for the length of their boats. In Figure 2 it can be seen that more than half of the participants (n = 1,589) who responded to the question (n = 2785) indicated they have a boat between 5.0 and 9.9m in length. A further 3 of participants (n = 841) operate a boat less than 5 metres in length. The remaining 12% of participants operate boats in excess of 10 metres in length. Figure 2: Length of Boat (By %) 6 57% % Less 5m m m > 15 m 1% According to recreational boating registration data supplied by Australian marine safety authorities in 2007 approximately 66% of registered boats are less than 5 metres in length. Only 29% of registered boats are between 5 metres and 9.9 metres. 8 The fact that more than half of our participants operate a boat in the 5.0 to 9.9 metre range may be due to a bias introduced during the recruitment phase. Club Marine kindly assisted by sending registration forms to their marine insurance clients. Many of these clients operate larger boats. It may also be due to an increasing trend towards purchasing larger boats. Boat Type and Length In Figure 3 we see the correlation between type of boat and boat length illustrated. In the case of ski boats 87% (n = 137) of operators indicated the boat was between 5 metres and 9.9 metres in length. A further 11% (n = 17) of ski boats are less than 5 metres in length. Sailing vessel operators indicated a high degree of variability in boat lengths. Four percent of respondents (n = 16) indicated they operate a boat less than 5 metres in length. Forty-six per cent of respondents (n = 190) indicated they operate a boat between 5 metres and 9.9 metres in length. Forty-six percent of respondents (n = 188) indicated they operated a boat between 10 metres and 14.9 metres in length. There was the least variability in the size of personal water craft (jet skis) with 98% (n = 65) of craft being less than 5 metres in length. Operators of open runabouts fell into two 8 This data was supplied in 2007 and does not include Victoria or Northern Territory. Page 20 of 82 December 2009

22 categories with 55% (n = 395) of respondents operating a boat less than 5 metres in length and 45% (n = 317) of respondents operating a boat between 5 metres and 9.9 metres. More than half of inflatable/semi rigid operators (n = 9) indicated the operator a craft less than 5 metres in length. A further 41% (n = 7) of respondents indicated they operate a craft between 5 metres and 9.9 metres. Interestingly, 6% of respondents indicated they operate an inflatable/semi rigid craft that is between 10 metres and 14.9 metres in length. Operators of full cabin cruisers indicated some variability but towards larger craft. More than half of the respondents (n = 176) indicated they operated a vessel between 5 metres and 9.9 metres. A further 37% (n = 114) operate a craft between 10 metres and 14.9 metres with 5% of respondents operating a vessel over 15 metres in length. By contrast dinghies (tinnies) tended to be smaller craft with 91% (n = 199) being less than 5 metres. Nine percent of respondents indicated they operated a craft between 5 metres and 9.9 metres. Operators of cuddy/half cabin cruisers fell into two groups. The main group of respondents (85%, n = 721) operated a boat between 5 metres and 9.9 metres in length. The remainder (15%) of respondents indicated they operated small craft less than 5 metres in length. December 2009 Page 21 of 82

23 Figure 3: Boat Type and Length (By %) Ski/Wake Boat 11% 87% 2% Sailing Vessel 4% 46% 46% 4% PWC / Jet Ski 98% 2% Other 28% 47% 15% 1 Open Runabout 55% 45% Inflatable /semi rigid 53% 41% 6% Full Cabin Cruiser 58% 37% 5% Dinghy (Tinnie) 91% 9% Cuddy / Half Cabin 15% 85% 5m and less 5m to 9.9m 10m to 14.9m More than 15m Page 22 of 82 December 2009

24 The above figures are indicative of Australia generally. However, Australia is a large place with major differences in weather, tides, seasonal variations, available waterways, and facilities. It is to be expected that some differences in boat ownership, usage and behaviours will exist from one location to another. The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) is a good example. The ACT is completely land locked and is situated 100km from the NSW coast. The main boating in ACT is conducted on three man-made lakes (Lake Burley Griffin, Lake Ginninderra and Lake Tuggeranong) which are variously administered by Australian Federal Police (AFP), NSW Maritime and Canberra Urban Parks and Places (CUPP). In addition to these waterways ACT boaters have, within easy travelling distance, access to coastal and estuary boating on the NSW coast as well as other lakes and rivers in areas surrounding the ACT. It is not surprising therefore that ACT boaters should choose craft that are smaller and trailerable. In Table 3 it can be seen that the 6 of ACT respondents operate a craft of less than 5 metres. The preferred craft are open runabouts (38% of operators) and cuddy/half cabin cruisers (21% of operators). Table 3: Type and Length of Boat by Jurisdiction Type of Boat ACT NSW NT QLD SA TAS VIC WA Cuddy / Half Cabin 8 (21%) Dinghy (Tinnie) 5 (13%) Full Cabin Cruiser 0 () Inflatable /semi rigid 0 () Open Runabout 15 (38%) Other 0 () PWC / Jet Ski 4 (1) Sailing Vessel 4 (1) Ski/Wake Boat 3 (8%) 186 (24%) 67 (8%) 87 (11%) 5 (1%) 229 (29%) 13 (2%) 10 (1%) 143 (18%) 50 (6%) 11 (23%) 12 (26%) 1 (2%) 0 () 17 (36%) 1 (2%) 0 () 5 (11%) 0 () 142 (26%) 59 (11%) 84 (15%) 4 (1%) 138 (25%) 11 (2%) 20 (4%) 74 (13%) 18 (3%) 165 (44%) 23 (6%) 28 (7%) 0 () 76 (2) 6 (2%) 5 (1%) 46 (12%) 29 (8%) 39 (35%) 8 (7%) 17 (15%) 1 (1%) 15 (14%) 2 (2%) 2 (2%) 27 (24%) 0 () 198 (35%) 34 (6%) 45 (8%) 5 (1%) 135 (24%) 7 (1%) 18 (3%) 79 (14%) 48 (8%) 94 (33%) 13 (5%) 41 (14%) 2 (1%) 83 (29%) 7 (3%) 6 (2%) 29 (1) 9 (3%) Length of Boat < 5 m 22 (6) m 13 (35%) m 2 (5%) > 15 m 0 () 265 (34%) 404 (52%) 103 (13%) 11 (1%) 16 (34%) 28 (6) 2 (4%) 1 (2%) 164 (3) 288 (53%) 86 (16%) 7 (1%) 123 (33%) 221 (59%) 26 (7%) 4 (1%) 20 (18%) 60 (55%) 28 (25%) 2 (2%) 154 (28%) 361 (64%) 41 (7%) 7 (1%) 64 (23%) 190 (67%) 26 (9%) 4 (1%) Page 23 of 82 December 2009

25 Type and Length of Boat by Jurisdiction Some patterns and differences can also be discerned from the remaining jurisdictions which have extensive stretches of coast from which to undertake boating activities. In Tasmania the temperature can range from nights below 10 C to days up to 38 C and the mean average is around 10.5C. The average rainfall in Tasmania for 2008 was 986mm. 9 Given this variability in weather it is to be expected that Tasmanian boaters would prefer craft that provide a measure of protection from the elements. In Table 3 it can be seen that the cuddy/half cabin cruiser is the most popular type for craft and represents 35% of our respondents. A further 15% of respondents operate a full cabin cruiser and 24% operate a sailing vessel. It can be seen that almost three quarters of the Tasmanian respondents operate some type of covered or partially covered vessel. Length of boat can also be a factor when dealing with variable and inclement weather conditions. More than 8 of Tasmanian respondents have chosen a larger, more stable craft, in excess of 5 metres in length. Only 18% operate a craft less than 5 metres in length. South Australian respondents indicated a similar preference for covered craft with 44% of respondents operating a cuddy/half cabin vessel and almost 6 of respondents operating a craft between 5.0 and 9.9 metres in length. The Northern Territory, by contrast, does not have the temperature variability of Tasmania with temperatures on average ranging from 19.1C to 32.8C. The rainfall is generally confined to the height of the monsoon period in January and February when the Top End receives an average of mm. 10 It would seen that protection from the elements is not a major factor in the choice of boat. Almost two-thirds of the Northern Territory respondents indicated they had a dinghy (tinnie) or open runabout. A further 23% of respondents operated a cuddy/half cabin cruiser. The length of the boat was an interesting factor in the Northern Territory with 94% of respondents operating a vessel less than 10 metres in length. Trailerability may be a factor due to the fact that, unlike other states where the population is generally coastally based, the population centres are along the Stuart highway between Darwin and Alice Springs. Whilst boaters residing in Darwin have easy access to the water boaters from other population centres need to transport their craft to appropriate access points. The remaining states seem to have less variability in types of craft. Cuddy/half cabin craft were the most popular with 24 35% of participants, followed by open runabouts with 25 29% of boaters. Sailing craft represented 10 18% of vessels and full cabin cruisers made up 8 15% of craft. In terms of length of craft more than half of the respondents operated a craft between 5 and 9.9 metres in length. A further 23 34% of participants operate craft less than 5 metres. Larger craft between 10 metres and 14.9 metres were operated by 7 16% of participants. Age of Boats Question three asked participants for the age of their boat. It can be seen in figure 4 that 43% of respondents indicated their craft was less than 5 years old. A further 23% of craft are aged between 5 and 10 years. Over one third of recreational vessels are older than 10 years with 24% of vessels being older than 15 years. With two thirds of recreational vessels being under ten years it tends to suggest that the recreational fleet is a relatively young one. 9 Bureau of Meteorology, Annual Climate Summary for Tasmania, Canberra, January Available online [Accessed 29 June 2009] 10 Bureau of Meteorology, Annual Climate Summary for Northern Territory, Canberra, January Available online [Accessed 29 June 2009] Page 24 of 82 December 2009

26 Figure 4: Age of Boats (By %) 5 45% 4 35% 3 25% 2 15% 1 5% 43% 23% 24% 1 < 5 years 5 10 years years > 15 years Hull Material Recreational boats are built from a variety of materials including timber, steel, ferro-cement, aluminium, fibreglass, plastics and various composites. Participants were asked which of these materials were used in the construction of their boats (see Figure 5). The most common material indicated was aluminium which represents 39% (n = 1,078) of the craft in the National Recreational Boating Usage Study. The next most common material used in boat construction was plastic, including glass reinforced plastic (GRP), which was used in 34% (n = 960) boats. Composites are widely used in modern boat building allowing craft to be lighter and stronger than many other types of materials. These composite hulls are constructed forming a laminated skin of two components: a matrix and reinforcement. Reinforcements comprising fibres such as glass, carbon or Kevlar are infused with a resin matrix such as polyester, vinylester or epoxy. Composite construction was used in 2 (n = 567) of the boats in the study. A small part of the sample (6%, n = 181) used the more traditional materials such as timber, steel, and ferro-cement. December 2009 Page 25 of 82

27 Figure 5: Hull Material (By %) 45% 4 35% 3 25% 2 15% 1 5% 39% 34% 2 3% 2% 1% Boat Type and Construction Material Comparing the construction material used in the hull and type of boat provides some interesting patterns (See Table 4). The humble dinghy (tinnie) has the least variability in construction material and is predominantly constructed of aluminium which accounts for 95% (n = 211) of the study sample. The cuddy/half cabin craft have some variability with 33% (n = 281) of boats being aluminium. A further 35% (n = 292) of craft are constructed of plastic. Composite construction was used in 27% (n = 228) of boats. The full cabin cruiser is largely constructed of plastic with 62% (n = 186) boats represented. A further 23% (n = 69) were constructed of composite materials. Timber and aluminium was used in 9% and 5% of boats respectively. This suggests that older craft are still in service. Inflatable/semi rigid craft displayed a degree of variability in construction materials. Rubber was the most common material and represented 41% of boats. Other common materials included plastic with 29% of boats, aluminium with 18% of boats and composite with 12% of craft. Open runabouts were predominantly constructed from aluminium with 75% (n = 542) of craft represented. Composites and plastic were also common and were represented in 12% of boats in each case. Half (n = 33) of all PWC/Jetski were constructed of composite materials with a further 44% (n = 29) constructed of plastic. It is interesting that 6% of respondents indicated they had a PWC/Jetski constructed of ferro-cement. However, given the weight to size ratio of ferrocement craft this seems unlikely. Sailing vessels indicated a high level of variability with vessels being constructed with most materials. The most common material was plastic which was used in the construction of 71% (n = 292) vessels. Composite materials were used in the construction of 13% (n = 52) of the Page 26 of 82 December 2009

28 boats. Timber was the next most common material and featured in 9% (n = 36) of boats. The remaining 7% of craft were variously constructed in steel, aluminium and ferro-cement. Ski/wake boats were generally built with composite or plastic and were represented by 59% (n = 93) and 3 (n = 47) respectively. It is interesting that 7% (n = 11) indicated they had a ferro-cement ski boat. Again this is unlikely due to the weight to size ratio of ferro-cement constructed craft. Table 4: Boat Type and Construction Material Aluminium Composite Ferro cement Plastic (includes GRP) Rubber Steel Timber Cuddy / Half Cabin (33%) (27%) (4%) (35%) () () (1%) Dinghy (Tinnie) (95%) () () (3%) () () (2%) Full Cabin Cruiser (5%) (23%) () (62%) () (1%) (9%) Inflatable /semi rigid (18%) (12%) () (29%) (41%) () () Open Runabout (75%) (12%) (1%) (12%) () () () Other (36%) (8%) (2%) (32%) () (11%) (11%) PWC / Jet Ski () (5) (6%) (44%) () () () Sailing Vessel (1%) (13%) (1%) (71%) () (5%) (9%) Ski/Wake Boat (2%) (59%) (7%) (3) () () (2%) Engine Types Participants were asked to identify what type of engine their boat used. More than two thirds (68%, n = 1882) of respondents indicated they had an outboard motor. A further 24% (n = 658) of respondents indicated their boat had an inboard motor. Seven percent (n = 199) of boats used a stern drive. December 2009 Page 27 of 82

29 Figure 6: Engine Type (By %) % % 2 1 7% 1% Outboard Inboard Sterndrive Other Fuel Type The type of fuel used in boating provided no surprises. Petrol was the most common fuel with 84% (n = 2,323) of respondents indicating their boat used petrol. A further 16% (n = 449) of respondents indicated they used diesel fuel. Only five participants indicated they used electric engines. Figure 7: Type of Fuel (By %) % 16% Petrol Diesel Electric Page 28 of 82 December 2009

30 Engine Type and Fuel Type There are some marine safety issues that are clustered around the relationship between engine type and fuel type. In recent years, for example, there have been a number of fires on boats due to problems with inboard petrol engines. In the boating usage study the majority of participants utilise outboard motors. Almost 10 (n = 1877) of respondents indicated their outboards used petrol. Three respondents indicated they had an outboard that used diesel fuel and a further 2 respondents indicated they used an electric outboard. The breakdown between petrol and diesel inboard engines (including stern drive) was almost even. In Figure 8 it shows that 48% (n = 412) respondents use a petrol inboard engine. In addition 52% (n = 439) of respondents use a diesel inboard engine. Figure 8: Fuel Type on Inboard Engines (By %) Petrol, 48% Diesel, 52% Engine Power Participants were asked how powerful their boat engine was. The answers were fairly evenly distributed across the four responses. The most common engine with 31% (n = 845) of respondents was rated between 0 and 50 horsepower. The next most common engine rating was between 51 and 100hp which represented 26% (n = 702) of respondents. A further 24% (n = 654) of respondents specified an engine rating between 100 and 150 horsepower. The final grouping was engines rated at greater than 151 horsepower which represented 2 (n = 544) responses. December 2009 Page 29 of 82

31 Figure 9: Engine Power (By %) 35% 3 25% 2 31% 26% 24% 2 15% 1 5% 0 50 hp hp hp > 151 hp Engine Power and Length of Boat In the NMSC s most recent fatality study the question of engine power was flagged as a matter of concern. 11 The current boating usage study provides a more significant statistical sample with more than 2700 responses to the question of engine power. It is thus useful to examine the relationship between engine power and boat length. Looking at Figure 10 it clearly indicates that 9 (n = 736) of boats less than 5 metres in length have engines rated at less than 100 horsepower. Although 1 (n = 82) boats of less than 5 metres in length have engines rated in excess of 100 horsepower this group includes ski/wake boats and PWC/Jet Skis which generally have large powerful engines. In boats ranging from 5.0 to 9.9 metres in length there is a higher degree of variability in engine power ratings. The smallest group of boats (14%, n = 222) operate with an engine rated at less than 50 horsepower. Boats with an engine rated between 51 and 100 horsepower represent 23% (n = 359) of respondents. More than a third (38%, n = 586) of boats between 5 and 9.9 metres have engines rated between 100 and 150 horsepower. Boats in the 5 to 9.9 metre range with engines rated in excess of 151 horsepower represent 26% (n = 394) of respondents. 11 Dr Peter O'Connor, National Assessment of Boating Fatalities in Australia , report prepared for the National Marine Safety Committee, May 2008, p. 16. Page 30 of 82 December 2009

32 Figure 10: Engine Power and Length of Boat (By %) % 51% 54% 4 35% 38% 3 23% 24% 25% 26% 2 14% 14% 16% 1 6% 4% 9% 6% 0 50 hp hp hp > 151 hp < 5 m m m > 15 m In contrast to the 5.0 to 9.9 metre class of boats where two-thirds of craft had engines rated in excess of 100 horsepower the 10 to 14.9 metre class indicates that almost two thirds of boats are powered by engines rated less than 100 horsepower. Indeed more than half (n = 157) of the boats between 10 and 14.9 metres in length have engines rated at less than 50 horsepower. A further 14% (n = 45) of craft have engines rated between 51 and 100 horsepower. Nine percent (n = 27) of boats between 10 and 14.9 metres in length are powered by engines rated between 100 and 150 horsepower. The last group, which constitutes 26% (n = 82) of craft have engines rated in excess of 151 horsepower. It is normally safe to assume that large vessels require large power plants. The figures in Figure 10 support this assumption with 7 of boats in excess of 15 metres in length having engines rated in excess of 100 horsepower. It can be seen that 54% (n = 20) of boats in excess of 15 metres had engines rated greater than 151 horsepower and a further 16% (n = 6) of craft had engines rated between 100 and 150 horsepower. Figure 10 also indicates that 3 (n = 11) of vessels greater than 15 metres in length had engines rated less than 100 horsepower. Although speculative, this figure is possibly due to the inclusion of craft such as sailing vessels and houseboats (other vessels) in this length class that use engines to manoeuvre rather than for power. December 2009 Page 31 of 82

33 Figure 11: Engine Power and Type of Boat (By %) Ski/Wake Boat Sailing Vessel PWC / Jet Ski Other Open Runabout Inflatable /semi rigid Full Cabin Cruiser Dinghy (Tinnie) Cuddy / Half Cabin hp % hp % hp % > 151 hp % Page 32 of 82 December 2009

34 Engine Power and Type of Boat Engine power and type of boat are often closely related factors. Ski boats and PWCs, for example, are generally expected to have a powerful engine. The ubiquitous dinghy (tinnie) on the other hand would not be expected to have a powerful engine. Figure 11 indicates the relationship between type of boat and engine power. It can be seen that ski boats conform to the general view that they have large engines. Almost three quarters of the surveyed ski boats (n = 111) have an engine rated in excess of 151 horsepower. A further 22% (n = 33) have engines rated between 100 and 150 horsepower. Only 4% (n = 5) of ski boats had engines rated below 100 horsepower. More than two thirds (n = 207) of full cabin cruisers with engines rated in excess of 151 horsepower. A further 2 (n = 60) of cabin cruisers were fitted with engines rated between 100 and 150 horsepower. Only 11% (n = 31) of cabin cruisers were fitted with engines rated less than 100 horsepower. Generally small craft PWCs (jet skis) exhibited a similar pattern with more than half (n = 34) being rated in excess of 151 horsepower. A further 3 (n = 20) of PWCs had engines rated between 100 and 150 horsepower. PWCs with engines rated between 51 and 100 horsepower represented 15% (n = 10) craft. Only 3% (n = 2) of PWC operators indicated their vessels had engines rated at less than 50 horsepower. Operators of sailing vessels indicated that 87% (n = 334) of boats were fitted with engines less than 50 horsepower. Eleven percent (n = 43) of sailing craft were fitted with engines rated between 51 and 100 horsepower. Only 2% (n = 8) of sailing boats had engines rated in excess of 100 horsepower. Dinghies/tinnies similarly exhibited a large proportion of craft with engines rated less than 50 horsepower. This group represented 88% (n = 195) of responses. A further 9% (n = 19) of dinghies/tinnies had engines rated between 50 and 100 horsepower. Three percent (n = 6) had engines rated in excess of 100 horsepower. Open runabouts, inflatable/semi rigid and cuddy/half cabin boats displayed a larger degree of variability in engine sizes. The operators of open runabouts indicated that more than a third of vessels (n = 253) were fitted with engines rated at less than 50 horsepower. A further 43% (n = 308) open runabouts were fitted with engines rated between 50 and 100 horsepower. Open runabouts with engines rated between 100 and 150 horsepower represented 17% (n = 125) of craft. Only 5% (n = 36) of open runabouts were fitted with engines rated in excess of 151 horsepower. Almost half of inflatable/semi rigid craft (n = 8) had engines rated at less than 50 horsepower. A further 18 % (n = 3) had engines rated between 50 and 100 horsepower. Twelve percent (n = 2) of inflatable/semi rigid craft had engines rated between 100 and 150 horsepower. Almost a quarter (n = 4) of inflatable/semi rigid craft with engines rated in excess of 151 horsepower. With the sample of cuddy/half cabin cruisers only a small number (4%, n = 32) were fitted with engines rated at less than 50 horsepower. Almost one third of craft (n = 275) were fitted with engines rated between 50 and 100 horsepower. A further 47% (n = 400) cuddy/ half cabin cruisers were fitted with an engine rated between 100 and 150 horsepower. Seventeen percent (n = 141) of cuddy/half cabin cruiser operators indicated their boats were fitted with engines rated in excess of 151 horsepower. The last group, other, is possibly the most difficult to analyse. This group is made up of quite disparate types of boats such as canoes/kayaks, party pontoons, houseboats, as well as a collection of converted ferries, cray and fishing vessels. Within this grouping participants indicated that 35% (n = 14) vessels were fitted with engines rated at less than 50 Page 33 of 82 December 2009

35 horsepower. A further 37% (n = 15) operators indicated their boats were fitted with engines rated between 50 and 100 horsepower. Fifteen percent (n = 6) of vessels in the category other were fitted with engines rated between 100 and 150 horsepower. The remaining 13% of craft in this category were fitted with engines rated in excess of 151 horsepower. Communications Equipment The final question in the section About Your Boat asked participants what communications equipment they used on their boats. This was a question that allowed the 2806 respondents to nominate more than one type of communications equipment. Figure 12 indicates their responses across the range of choices provided. It can be readily seen that mobile phones have a significant presence in recreational boating and reflects the high take up of mobile phones in Australian society. The figure indicates that 82% (n = 2300) of participants use mobile phones. The next most common communications equipment that is used is the VHF radio with 52% (n = 1470) of participants indicating they use this equipment. Figure 12: Communications Equipment (By %) % 52% 37% 6% 4% MOBILE PH CB HF VHF NONE The CB radio is the third most common piece of communications equipment with 37% (n = 1027) of participants indicating they use this equipment. Only 6% (n = 173) of participants use HF radios on their boats. Those participants who indicated they used VHF or HF radios were then asked if they had licences or qualifications to operate this equipment. Of the 1479 participants who responded to this question 51% (n = 761) indicated they were licensed or had qualifications to operate the equipment. The remaining 49% (n = 718) respondents indicated they operated the equipment without a licence or qualification. Page 34 of 82 December 2009

36 ABOUT YOUR BOAT USAGE This section of the questionnaire asked participants to indicate how they used their boat. The responses provide a baseline data set against which the data collected in the trip diaries can be compared to judge retrospective data captured in the questionnaire with live data collected by the trip diary. This set of questions covers the purpose of the boat usage, operational areas, and the preferred operating time, for example time of day, days and months. The participants were also asked to indicate the number of people that would usually be on the typical boating trip. This includes the number of adults on the trip as well as the number and age of any children travelling on the boat. Main Purpose or Activity of Boating When participants were asked to describe the main activity they were engaged in while boating 6 (n = 1685) indicated they were engaged in recreational fishing. Slightly more than a quarter (27%, n = 741) of respondents were engaged in pleasure cruising. An additional 7% (n = 195) of respondents indicated they were engaged in water skiing activities. A further 4% (n = 107) of respondents used their boats for competitive racing activities. Diving activities represented 1% (n = 40) of boating activities surveyed. Finally 1% of respondents indicated they actually lived on board their boats. Figure 13: Boating Activity (By %) % 2 1 7% 4% 1% 1% Fishing Cruise Water Ski Racing Diving Live aboard Boating Activity and Boat Length A comparison of the length of boat to the activity results in some interesting trends. In fishing, which is the most popular activity, the preferred boat length is up to 9.9 metres with 57% (n = 950) of respondents operating a boat in the 5.0 to 9.9 metre category. A further 41% (n = 678) of recreational fishing is undertaken on a boat less than 5 metres in length. December 2009 Page 35 of 82

37 Cruising is the next most common activity and the trend is away from boats less than 5 metres in length, which represents 13% (n = 97) of respondents and towards the larger boats. More than half of the respondents (n = 388) indicated they cruised on a boat between 5 and 9.9 metres in length. Almost a third of respondents (n = 233) indicated they cruised on a boat between 10 and 14.9 metres in length. It would appear that the majority of water skiing/towing is undertaken on boats between 5 and 9.9 metres in length with this category representing 79% (n = 155) respondents. A further 18% (n = 34) respondents indicated they undertake water skiing/towing on a boat less than five metres in length. The responses for diving indicated an almost identical pattern to water skiing/towing. Almost three quarters (n = 15) of respondents who lived on board indicated they did so on a boat between 10 and 14.9 metres in length. A further 14% (n = 3) of respondents lived on a boat in excess of 15 metres in length. Surprisingly, a small group of respondents (14%, n = 3) indicated they lived on a boat between 5 and 9.9 metres in length. This is probably rather small for the activity. Racing produced a higher degree of variability with boats of all lengths being used competitively. Almost half of respondents (n = 51) raced a boat between 5 and 9.9 metres ion length. A further 28% (n = 30) raced boats in the 10 to 14.9 metre range. An additional 2 (n = 21) of respondents raced boats less than 5 metres in length. Figure 14: Boating Activity and Boat Length (By %) % 53% 32% 18% 78% 41% 57% 2% 2% 2% 2% 14% 72% 14% 2 48% 28% 18% 79% 4% 1% 2% Cruising Diving Fishing Live Aboard Racing Water Skiing/Towing a< 5 m b m c m d> 15 m Boating Activity and Engine Power A similar comparison can be made of boating activity and engine power. In the most popular activity of fishing engines are almost evenly spread between 0 and 150 horsepower. According to the respondents 28% (n = 466) had an engine less than 50 horsepower with a further 34% (n = 563) of respondents indicating they had an engine rated between 51 and 100 horsepower. An additional 27% (n = 459) of respondents indicated they had an engine Page 36 of 82 December 2009

38 between 101 and 150 horsepower. Only 11% (n = 179) of respondents indicated they had an engine rated above 151 horsepower. Cruising was the next most common activity and respondents were clustered around small engines of less than 50 horsepower (39%, n = 283) or large powerful engines in excess of 151 horsepower (32%, n = 232). The remaining 29% (n = 209) of respondents had engines rated between 51 and 150 horsepower. Water skiing/towing was the third most popular activity and this is the domain of the big powerful engines over 151 horsepower. This category represented more than half (n = 108) of respondents. A further 32% (n = 60) of respondents had engines rated between 101 and 150 horsepower. Only 1 (n = 19) of respondents indicated they had an engine less than 100 horsepower. In contrast to water skiing/ towing racing was the domain of the small engine, less than 50 horsepower. This represented 83% (n = 71) of respondents. The remaining 17% (n = 15) of respondents had engines rated above 50 horsepower. Seventy percent (n = 28) of respondents who were engaged in diving activities indicated they had engines rated above 101 horsepower. A further 18% (n = 7) of respondents had engines rated between 51 and 100 horsepower. An additional 12% (n = 5) of respondents indicated they had engines rated less than 50 horsepower. Almost half (n = 9) of the respondents who live aboard their boats indicated they had an engine rated at less than 50 horsepower. A further 24% (n = 5) of respondents indicated they had engines rated between 51 and 100 horsepower. The remaining 33% (n = 7) of respondents indicated they had engines rated at more than 101 horsepower. Figure 15: Boating Activity and Engine Power (By %) % % 15% 14% 32% 12% 18% % 34% 27% 11% 43% 24% 19% 14% 8% 9% 6% 3% 1% Cruising Diving Fishing Live Aboard Racing Water Skiing/Towing 32% 58% 0 50 hp hp hp > 151 hp December 2009 Page 37 of 82

39 Type of Water Boat Most Operated in Participants were then asked what type of water they mostly operated their boats on. Respondents indicated that bays or sheltered waters was the most common type of water and this represented 43% (n = 1189) of boating operations. In addition, a further 3 (n = 847) of participants indicated they boated on open waters. A further 7% (n = 196) of participants primarily boat on estuaries. Figure 16: Operational Waters (By %) 45% 4 35% 3 25% 2 15% 1 5% 43% Bay / Sheltered Waters 3 13% 7% 7% Estuary Lake /Dams Open Waters River / Creek This heavy utilisation of coastal waterways is not surprising given the normal pattern of population distribution in Australia. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as at 30 June 2001, 84.7% of Australia's population lived within 50 kilometres of the coastline, and 64% of Australians live in Capital cities. 12 Looking at inland waterways Figure 16 indicates that 13% (n = 354) of participants operate their boats on rivers and creeks with a further 7% (n = 204) boat on lakes and dams. The NMSC has previously published a fatality study which illustrated fatalities according to different types of waterway being used. 13 In Figure 17 it can be seen that 39% of fatalities between 1999 and 2004 occurred on inland waters. This is over represented when compared to the Boating Usage Study responses which indicate only 2 of boaters use inland waters. The reasons for this disparity are unclear and further work on identifying causality is needed. In open waters the trend is slightly blurred due to different classifications. In the fatality study this category was divided into offshore and inshore waters, which accounts for approximately 45% of fatalities. In the Boating Usage Study we have been more specific and divided it into open waters, bay and sheltered waters and estuaries. This classification system takes into account variations in jurisdictional definitions. Although this makes direct comparisons problematic it is apparent that there are no indicative trends towards over representation. 12 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Census of Population and Housing: Population Growth and Distribution, Australia, 2001, Canberra, Dr Peter O'Connor, National Assessment of Boating Fatalities in Australia , report prepared for the National Marine Safety Committee, May Page 38 of 82 December 2009

40 Figure 17: Fatalities by Operational Waters (By %) Offshore waters 15% Inland waters 39% Inshore waters 3 Enclosed waters 16% Operational Waters and Boat Length In Figure 18 the relationship between operational waterway and boat length is indicated. Open waters are a potentially high risk area of operations due to the highly exposed and deep waters. With wind and water conditions able to change with little to no warning open water can provide unfriendly conditions in a short time. It is reasonable to suggest that preference would be given to larger more stable boats for operations in open waters. The responses to the preliminary survey tend to support this assumption with 67% (n = 566) of respondents operating a boat in open waters between 5 and 9.9 metres in length. A further 14% (n = 115) of respondents operate a boat between 10 and 14.9 metres in length. An additional 2% (n = 18) respondents operate a boat in excess of 15 metres in length. It is surprising that 17% (n = 144) of respondents operate on open waters in a boat less than 5 metres in length. In bays or sheltered waters which offer a degree of protection from the elements the percentage of small boats increases with 28% (n = 336) of respondents operating a boat less than 5 metres in length. More than half (57%, n = 669) of respondents operate in bay or sheltered waters with a boat between 5 and 9.9 metres in length. A further 14% (n = 161) of respondents operate a boat between 10 and 14.9 metres in length. Only 1% (n = 14) of respondents operate a boat in bays and sheltered waters with a length exceeding 15 metres. The responses for estuaries reveal a very different picture with 61% (n = 117) of respondents indicated they operated a boat less than 5 metres in length. A further 36% (n = 69) of respondents operated in estuary waters with a boat between 5 and 9.9 metres. Only 4% (n = 6) of respondents operated in estuaries with boats larger than 10 metres in length. On lakes and dams the situation is evenly divided between operators of boats less than 5 metres in length (48%, n = 96) and operators of boats between 5 and 9.9 metres in length (48%, n = 96). December 2009 Page 39 of 82

41 More than half (51%, n = 178) of respondents boating on rivers and creeks operate a boat between 5 and 9.9 metres in length. A further 42% (n = 147) of respondents operate a boat less than 5 metres in length. Six per cent (n = 20) of respondents indicated they boated on rivers and creeks in boats between 10 and 14.9 metres in length. Only 1% (n = 5) of respondents indicated they operated boats in excess of 15 metres in length. Figure 18: Operational Waters and Boat Length (By %) % 57% 61% 36% 48% 48% 67% 51% 42% 17% 14% 14% 3% 4% 6% 1% 1% 2% 1% Bay or Sheltered Waters Estuary Lake or Dam Open Waters River or Creek < 5 m m m > 15 m Operational Waters by Jurisdiction Examining the operational waters by jurisdictional responses indicates some interesting regional variations. In Figure 19 it is clear that open waters are preferred by boaters in Western Australia (62%, n = 173), South Australia (45%, n = 170), Northern Territory (36%, n = 17) and the Australian Capital Territory (37%, n = 14). The case of the Australian Capital Territory is particularly interesting. The Australian Capital Territory is entirely landlocked and whilst boaters have the choice of several lakes and rivers it is clear the majority of boaters (71%, n = 27) prefer to trailer their boats approximately 150 kilometres to the coast. Lakes or dams were the least preferred area for boating in Western Australia (1%, n = 2), South Australia (1%, n = 2), Queensland (5%, n = 26) and Northern Territory (4%, n = 2). Estuaries were the least preferred boating areas in Victoria (6%, n = 36) and New South Wales (1, n = 76). Rivers or creeks were the least preferred waterway in the Australian Capital Territory (5%, n = 2, whilst in Tasmania the least preferred waterway was an equal tie between rivers and creeks (5%, n = 5) and estuaries (5%, n = 5). Page 40 of 82 December 2009

42 Figure 19: Operational Waters and Jurisdiction (By %) WA 1% 7% 15% 15% 62% VIC 9% 9% 6% 13% 63% TAS 5% 6% 5% 27% 57% SA 1% 3% 17% 34% 45% QLD 5% 6% 11% 28% 5 NT 4% 7% 2 33% 36% NSW 15% 13% 1 25% 37% ACT 5% 18% 16% 24% 37% River or Creek Open Waters Lake or Dam Estuary Bay or Sheltered Waters December 2009 Page 41 of 82

43 Distance Travelled in Open/Offshore Waters Participants were asked on the occasions they use their boats in open waters how far they travelled from shore. Almost half (46%, n = 913) indicated they stay within 5 nautical miles of the shore. Almost one quarter (24%, n = 475) indicated they travelled between 5 and 10 nautical miles from shore. A further 19% (n = 374) indicated they travelled between 10 and 20 nautical miles from shore. Only 11% (n = 211) of respondents indicate they travelled more than 20 nautical miles from shore. Figure 20: Distance Boat Operated Offshore (By %) 5 45% 46% 4 35% 3 25% 2 24% 19% 15% 1 11% 5% 0 5 nm 5 10 nm nm >20 nm Distance Offshore and Boat Length A comparison between distance offshore and boat length indicates some interesting trends. Operating up to 5 nautical miles from shore the most common boat length is between 5 and 9.9 metres and represents 52% (n = 471) of respondents. The next most common boat length is less than 5 metres and represents 4 (n = 364) of respondents. A further 8% (n = 73) of respondents boating up to 5 nautical miles from shore operate boats between 10 and 14.9 metres in length. Operating between 5 and 10 nautical miles from shore the most common boat length is 5 to 9.9 metres and represents 67% (n = 317) of respondents. Twenty per cent (n = 94) of boaters operating between 5 and 10 nautical miles from shore indicated they operated a boat less than 5 metres in length. A further 13% (n = 61) of participants operating between 5 and 10 nautical miles from shore operate a boat in excess of 10 metres in length. Page 42 of 82 December 2009

44 Figure 21: Distance Offshore and Boat Length (By %) % 67% 62% 52% % 12% 8% 8% 2% 1% 1% 0 5 nm 5 10 nm nm >20 nm Less 5 m m m > 15 m 6% Three quarters of the boaters (n = 280) operating between 10 and 20 nautical miles from shore indicated they operated boats between 5 and 9.9 metres in length. A further 16% (n = 59) of participants operating between 10 and 20 nautical miles from shore operate a boat between 10 and 14.9 metres in length. Eight percent of boaters (n = 30) indicated they operated boats less than 5 metres in length between 10 and 20 nautical miles from shore. Only 2% (n = 5) of participants operating a boat less than 5 metres in length indicated they operated more than 20 nautical miles from shore. Sixty-two percent (n = 129) of participants operating more than 20 nautical miles from shore operate a boat between 5 and 9.9 metres in length. A further 3 (n = 62) of boaters operate a boat between 10 and 14.9 metres in length. Six percent (n = 13) of participants operating more than 20 nautical miles from shore operate a boat more than 15 metres in length. Operating Time by Month In order to gauge peak and non-peak usage periods on Australian waterways participants were asked which months of the year they operate their boats. It is generally accepted that most boating in Australia is conducted over the summer period and the least amount of boating is conducted in the colder winter months. Figure 22 indicates the responses to this question. Taking the summer months it is clear this period is a peak period for recreational boating usage. Figure 22 clearly indicates that December and January, the early months of summer are a major holiday period, enjoying high levels of boating usage. In each of these months boating usage is at its highest level and accounts for 95% (December n = 2675; January n = 2679) of the boating operations. Interesting there is a significant drop in boating usage during February, the last month of summer. At this time boating usage drops to 61% (n = 1709). This drop may coincide with the end of the summer school holidays which is a heavy usage period. December 2009 Page 43 of 82

45 In the autumn months boating usage continues to decline. In March boating usage is similar to the February total at 6 (n = 1690) then declines through April at 55% (n = 1562) and then to May at 45% (n = 1263). The colder winter months represent the lowest period of boating usage and tapers to approximately one third of boat users. In June boating usage dropped to 35% (n = 991). In June only 31% (n = 887) of participants went boating. In August there is a slight rise with 33% (n = 925) of participants using their boats. Figure 22: Operating Time by Month (By %) Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Sep May Aug Jun Jul During the spring months boating usage continues its slow rise. In September 44% (n = 1226) of participants use their boats. In October this figure has increased to 55% (n = 1561) and by November the figure has risen to 6 (n = 1702) of participants. As mentioned previously this is followed by a 35% jump to the peak December figure. Operating Time by Day Participants were then asked which days of the week they normally operated their boats. Not surprisingly the weekends figured prominently in responses (see Figure 23). The most popular day for boating is Sunday with 83% (n = 2327) of participants indicating this was their favourite day. The next most popular day is Saturday with 7 (n = 1985) of participants indicating they operate their boats on this day. The next most popular days for boating activities were Monday and Friday. Over one third (34%, n = 960) of participants indicated they used their boats on Friday. A further 28% (n = 779) of participants indicated they used their boats on Monday. The mid-week period indicates very little variability and is generally less than 2 of participants. Tuesday and Thursday are both preferred by 16% (Tuesday n = 452 and Thursday n = 463) of respondents. There is a slight rise on Wednesday with 18% (n = 517) of participants using their boats. Page 44 of 82 December 2009

46 Figure 23: Operating Time by Day (By %) % 7 28% 34% 16% 18% 16% Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Operating Time by Hour The most common time of day for operating a boat was the period between 6 am and 10 am and it accounted for 47% (n = 1286) of recreational boating. The period between 10 am and 2 pm was the next most common time for operating a boat with 35% (n = 967) of participants indicating they boated during this period. A further 9% (n = 251) of participants indicated they boated between the hours of 2 pm and 6pm. The hours of darkness were not popular times for boating and only a small proportion of participants indicated they used their boats after 6 pm. Only 2% (n = 50) of participants indicated they boated during the period from 6 pm to 12am. A slightly larger proportion of participants (7%, n= 183) use their boats between 12 am and 6am. It is possible this slightly higher proportion is due to boaters getting an early start on the day and beginning their activities in the hours just prior to 6 am. December 2009 Page 45 of 82

47 Figure 24: Operating Time by Hour (By %) 6am 10am am 6am am 2pm 6pm 12am 2pm 6pm Favourite Holidays for Boating One of the questions presented to participants related to which holiday periods they preferred to use their boats (see Figure 25). In line with the popularity of the summer period for recreational boating 73% (n = 2062) of participants indicated they used their boats over the Christmas/New Year holiday period. Almost half (48%, n = 1356) of participants indicated they used their boats over the Easter holiday period. The Queen s Birthday and Labour Day holidays also proved to be popular with boaters. Thirty percent (n = 836) of respondents indicated they used their boats on this holiday. A further 29% (n = 827) indicated they operated their boats on Labour Day. The school holiday periods also proved to be popular boating periods with 37% (n = 1039) of participants boating on the various school holidays. Accepting that some states had specific designated public holidays participants were given the choice of other and then asked to specify which holiday they used their boats. The results were difficult to analyse but accounted for almost 3 of responses. Other public holidays, such as Anzac day, Australia day and Melbourne Cup day, accounted for 2% (n = 62) responses. Days off work which included rostered days off and annual leave accounted for 6% (n = 182) of responses. Two percent (n = 59) of participants indicated they boated on non-peak periods. Almost 1 in 5 participants (19%, n = 525) indicated they boated on other holidays but did not specify the holiday. Page 46 of 82 December 2009

48 Figure 25: Operating Time by Holiday Period (By %) % % % 3 29% 19% 1 6% 2% 2% Frequency of Boat Operation Participants were asked on average how frequently they operated their boats over a twelve month period. Figure 26 indicates the most common response, which accounted for 39% (n = 1079) of responses, and which was 2 3 times per month. Once a month was the next most common frequency and represented 21% (n = 581) of responses. A further 2 (n = 556) of boat operators indicated they operated their boats once a week. Only 12% (n = 326) of boat operators used their boats more frequently and indicated they used their boats 2 or more times per week. At the other end of the operational spectrum 6% (n = 164) of respondents indicated they used their boats once every 2 3 months. A further 2% (n = 68) of respondents indicated they used their boats less frequently. December 2009 Page 47 of 82

49 Figure 26: Frequency Boat Operated per Year (By %) 45% 4 39% 35% 3 25% % 15% 1 5% 12% 6% 2% Once a week 2 or more times a week Once a month 2 3 times a month Every 2 3 months Less often Average Number of Hours Spent on Water Participants were then asked to estimate the average number of hours they spent on the water each time they went boating (see Figure 27). Almost half of participants (47%, n = 1303) operate their boats for between 3 and 5 hours per trip. A further 38% (n = 1055) of participants indicated they spent between 6 and 10 hours on the water when they went boating. Only 3% (n = 97) of participants spent less than two hours on the water. Similarly, 3% (n = 97) of participants indicated they spent between 11 and 20 hours on the water when they went boating. Interestingly, 8% (n = 221) of respondents indicated they spent in excess of 20 hours on the water each time they used their boats. Figure 27: Average Number of Hours Spent on the Water (By %) 5 45% 4 35% 3 25% 2 15% 1 5% 47% 38% 8% 3% 3% 0 2 hours 3 5 hours 6 10 hours hours Over 20 hours Page 48 of 82 December 2009

50 Average Number of People on Boat Figure 28 indicates the average numbers of people carried on the boat when operated. More than half (55%, n = 1534) of participants indicated they carried between 1 and 2 people per trip. A further 31% (n = 866) of participants indicated they carried between 3 and 4 people on board when they went boating. Only 6% (n = 166) of participants indicated they boated alone. A further 6% (n = 163) indicated they carried between 5 and 6 people per trip. In addition 2% (n = 49) indicated they carried 7 or more people on their boats when they went boating. Figure 28: Average Number of Passengers Carried on Boat (By %) 6 55% % 2 1 6% None (go boating alone) 6% 1% 1% 1 2 people 3 4 people 5 6 people 7 8 people 9 people or more People on Board and Boat Length Comparing the number of people on board boats of different lengths illustrates some interesting trends (see Figure 29). More than half of solo boaters (54%, n = 88) use boats less than 5 metres in length. A further 4 (n = 64) use boats between 5 and 9.9 metres in length. Only 6% (n = 9) of participants who boat alone do so on boats in excess of 10 metres in length. More than half the participants (51%, n = 767) who indicated they go boating with 1 to 2 passengers operate a boat between 5 and 9.9 metres. A further 38% (n = 586) of participants take 1 to 2 passengers boating on a boat less than 5 metres in length. In addition 11% (n = 171) of participants take 1 to 2 people boating on boats greater than 10 metres in length. Almost three-quarters of participants (71%, n = 611) operate a boat between 5 and 9.9 metres in length with 3 to 4 passengers. A further 17% (n = 149) participants take 3 to 4 passengers boating on a boat less than 5 metres in length. A further 11% (n = 92) of participants take 3 to 4 passengers boating on boats between 10 and 14.9 metres in length. Only 1% (n = 12) of participants take 3 to 4 passengers boating on boats greater than 15 metres in length. December 2009 Page 49 of 82

51 Figure 29: Average Number of Passengers by Boat Length (By %) None (go boating alone) 6% 4 54% 9 people or more 5% 19% 28% 48% 7 8 people 43% 57% 5 6 people 2% 6% 23% 69% 3 4 people 1% 11% 17% 71% 1 2 people 1% 1 38% 51% > 15 m m m < 5 m Similarly, 69% (n = 113) participants indicated they carried 5 to 6 people onboard boats between 5 and 9.9 metres in length. A further 23% (n = 36) of participants go boating with 5 to 6 people on boats between 10 and 14.9 metres in length. In addition 2% (n = 4) of participants carried 5 to 6 people onboard boats in excess of 15 metres in length. Only 6% (n = 10) of participants indicated they carried 5 to 6 extra people on boats less that 5 metres in length. Participants who took 7 to 8 people boating operated boats between 5 and 14.9 metres in length. More than half (57%, n = 16) carried their passengers on boats between 5 and 9.9 metres in length. The remaining 43% (n = 12) carried 7 to 8 passengers on boats between 10 and 14.9 metres in length. The majority of participants who indicated they took 9 or more people boating operated boats in excess of 5 metres in length. Almost half (48%, n = 10) of participants carried 9 or more people on boats between 5 and 9.9 metres. More than a quarter of participants (28%, n = 6) carried more than 9 people on boats in excess of 15 metres. A further 19% (n = 4) carried more than 9 people on boats between 10 and 14.9 metres in length. Surprisingly, one participant (5%) indicated they took 9 or more people boating on a boat less than 5 metres in length. Page 50 of 82 December 2009

52 Age of Children Carried on Boat When asked if children were carried on board the boat in the previous 12 months more than half (58%, n = 1638) of the 2797 participants who answered the question indicated they had had children on board. Participants were then asked for the ages of the children carried on board (see Figure 30). The 6 to 12 years age bracket is the most common age of children carried on recreational boats and represents 47% (n = 758) of responses. Twenty-seven per cent (n = 436) of respondents indicated they carried children aged between 1 and 5 years of age. Almost one quarter (24%, n = 379) of respondents indicated they carried children aged between 12 and 18 years. Only 2% (n = 32) of respondents indicated they carried children aged less than 1 year old. Figure 30: Age of Children / Youth carried on Boat (By %) 5 45% 47% 4 35% 3 25% 2 15% 1 27% 24% 5% 2% 0 1 year 1 5 years 6 12 years years December 2009 Page 51 of 82

53 YOUR BOATING EXPERIENCE This section asked study participants about their boating experience. It asked questions relating to whether they held a boating licence and for how long. It asked about whether they had done formal training and how long they had owned a boat. Boat Licences Each State and Territory within Australia has different laws regarding recreational boat licences. The requirements for obtaining a licence can be seen in Table 5. Some states require a simple theory test while others have a practical competency requirement as part of their requirements. Table 5: State and Territory Recreational Boat Licence Requirements Licence Required Vessel Type QLD Yes Engine >6hp Licence Requirements Boatsafe Course (with approved training provider) NSW Yes Capable of >10 knots Three Requirements: Licence Boat Safety Course (online or through approved training provider) Complete logbook (minimum of 3 trips) Licence knowledge test. VIC Yes Boat with motor SA Yes Boat with motor WA Yes Engine >6hp TAS Yes Engine >4hp Licence theory test. Licence theory test. Recreational Skippers Course. Logbook (with 20 hours experience), or Practical training course. NT No N/A N/A Source: State and Territory Marine Safety Authorities (Requirements correct as at 31 July 2009) Responses indicated that 95% (n = 2665) of participants have a recreational boat licence. Only 5% (n = 133) of participants indicated they did not have a boat licence (see Figure 31). This figure would include participants from the Northern Territory where recreational boat licences are not required. Page 52 of 82 December 2009

54 Figure 31: Percentage holding a recreational boat licence (By %) Yes, 95% No, 5% Length of Time Licence Held When asked how long the boating licence had been held 39% (n = 1036) of participants indicated they had held the licence in excess of 15 years. At the other end of the spectrum almost one third (3, n = 781) of participants indicated they had held their licence for less than 5 years. A further 22% (n = 571) of participants had held their boating licence for between 5 and 10 years. Finally, 9% (n = 248) of participants had held their boat licences for between 11 and 15 years. Figure 32: Number of Years Boat Licence Held (By %) 45% 4 35% 3 25% 2 15% 1 5% 39% 3 22% 9% <5 yrs 5 10 yrs yrs >15 yrs December 2009 Page 53 of 82

55 Boat Ownership In addition to being asked how long participants had held a boat licence they were asked how long they had owned a boat (see Figure 33). Almost half (44%, n = 1223) of participants had owned a boat for more than 15 years. A quarter (n = 698) of participants had owned a boat for less than 5 years. A further 2 (n = 559) of participants had owned a boat for between 5 and 10 years. Ten per cent (n = 279) of participants had owned a boat for between 11 and 15 years. Figure 33: Number of Years Boat Owned (By %) 5 45% 44% 4 35% 3 25% 2 25% 2 15% 1 1 5% <5 Years 5 10 Years 11 15Years >15 Years Membership of Boating Clubs or Associations Boating is a popular activity in Australia so not surprisingly there are a vast number of boating clubs and associations around Australia catering to all boating needs and activities. Whether your activity is canoeing/kayaking, fishing, power boating, sailing, water skiing or cruising there is a club or association to cater for the specific needs of the activity. In addition there are various marine rescue and volunteer coastguard groups aimed at boating safety. These various clubs and associations are not just a social outlet but frequently run courses and training programs aimed at improving boating skills and safety. The participants in the Boating Usage Study were asked if they were members of boating clubs or associations (see Figure 34). More than half (58%, n = 1588) of participants indicated they were not members of any boating club or association. The remaining 42% (n = 1159) of respondents indicated they were members of boating clubs and associations. Page 54 of 82 December 2009

56 Figure 34: Membership of Boating Association or Club (By %) Yes, 42% No, 58% Marine Qualifications In addition to the question asking if participants held a boating licence participants were asked if they held a formal marine qualification (see Figure 35). Almost one third (3, n = 834) of respondents indicated they held a formal marine qualification. A further 7 (n = 1924) indicated they did not hold any formal marine qualifications. Figure 35: Percentage Holding Another Marine Qualification (By %) Yes 3 No 7 Boating Education The final question in this section asked participants if they had undertaken a formal boating education course and which training provider they undertook the course with (see Figure 36). Half of the respondents (n = 1340) indicated they had not done any formal training. Looking at the participants (n = 1353) who indicated they had undertaken formal boating education 12% (n = 335) indicated they had taken a course with the local volunteer rescue December 2009 Page 55 of 82

57 organisation. A further 12% (n = 325) of respondents indicated they had taken a course with a commercial training provider. In addition 8% (n = 204) of respondents had undertaken a course provided by the State marine safety authority and a further 4% (n = 102) respondents had taken part in the National Powerboat Scheme (TL3) conducted by the Australian Yachting Federation. Fourteen percent (n = 387) of respondents indicated they had undertaken a course with an agency not listed. This group were then asked to specify where they had done the course. This is a difficult group to analyse since the 240 respondents who provided details gave almost 200 different answers. In order to get some sense of where training was being sourced these responses were grouped as closely as possible. From this it was possible to ascertain that education and training was gained from: Military organisations (such as army and navy) Government organisations (such as Police, Fisheries and Customs) TAFEs and the Australian Maritime College, and Sailing Clubs (conducting boat handling and Australian Yachting Federation sailing courses). This tends to support the conclusion that a large number of boat operators are sourcing education and training from an extremely wide variety of providers. Figure 36: Participation in Boating Education Courses (By %) % 12% 12% 8% 4% No Other Volunteer Rescue Organisation Commercial Course Marine Safety Authority National Powerboat Scheme (TL3) Page 56 of 82 December 2009

58 YOUR BOATING BEHAVIOUR This section asked participants a range of questions relating to their boating behaviour. It included questions about the uses of personal floatation devices (PFDs), the carriage and testing of safety equipment and whether participants had been involved in incidents. Those who acknowledged involvements in incidents were then asked a range of questions about the incident and its severity as well as the treatment of any injuries. Further questions were asked about participants use of alcohol while boating and whether they had known someone to use drugs whilst boating. PFD Wearing In Australia the wearing of Personal Flotation Devices (PFDs), or lifejackets, is regulated by the marine safety authorities in each state and/or territory. Consequently there is a wide variation in these requirements from state to state. Table 6 illustrates the current PFD regulations in force (as at December 2008) in Australian States and Territories. It can be seen that the strictest PFD regulations are in force in Tasmania and Victoria. In Tasmania regulations require all persons on board a powered recreational craft less than 6 metres in length to wear an approved PFD whilst the vessel is under way. In Victoria, when new regulations came into force on 1 December 2005, persons on board a powered recreational craft measuring up to and including 4.8 metres in length must wear an approved PFD at all times the vessel is underway and the person is on an open deck of the vessel. In addition persons onboard a recreational vessel in excess of 4.8 metres in length must wear an approved PFD during situations of heightened risk. These situations include operating at night, bad weather, crossing a designated bar or operating in other hazardous conditions. South Australia and Western Australia have no mandatory PFD wear regulations covering recreational vessels except for PWCs. South Australia does however have regulations covering people being towed or using canoes, kayaks, sailboards or other small unpowered craft. In New South Wales and Queensland PFD regulations cover people operating recreational vessels in certain situations of heightened risk. All States require operators of PWCs to wear approved PFDs. In October 2007 the NMSC released its Personal Flotation Device Wear Rate Study 2007 in which it was established that PFD wear rates were generally low and varied from 22% to 6% NMSC, Personal Flotation Device Wear Rate Study 2007, Sydney, October December 2009 Page 57 of 82

59 Table 6: Compulsory Requirements for Wearing PFDs in Australia (December 2008) Situation NSW Tas Vic Qld WA SA NT Commercial vessels Commercial PWCs Power driven recreational vessels to 4.8m (when in open area of vessel when underway) Power driven recreational vessels <6m (when in open area of vessel when under power) Yes PWC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Sailboard >400m from shore Yes >400m from shore (if <400m may not wear PFD if wearing wetsuit > 3mm thick) Kite surfing >400m from shore (if <400m may not wear PFD if wearing wetsuit > 3mm thick) Canoe/kayak >400m from shore Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Off the beach sailing vessels Yes small unpowered vessels Recreational tenders Yes >1500m from shore Pedal boats/fun boat/row boat Yes When being towed or on a craft being Yes when being water skiers when slalom Yes water Page 58 of 82 December 2009

60 Situation NSW Tas Vic Qld WA SA NT towed by a vessel towed by a recreational vessel Children (when in open area of vessel when underway) <12yrs in motor boat or motor propelled tender <10yrs on hire & drive vessel, power boats <12m, PWC, recreational tenders, yachts, kite boards, sail boards, canoes, kayaks, row boats, pedal boat, fun boat <12yrs in vessels <4.8M Crossing ocean bars Yes Yes in vessels <4.8M Heightened risk situations on yachts and power boats m in length Other Exemptions races, regattas, racing shells, surf boat, inflatable boats in enclosed waters < 400m from shore Source: Supplied by Marine Safety Authorities divers in a boat displaying diver flag engaged in diving wearing inflatable diver s jacket skiing or skijumping races/regattas Surfski, racing shell skiers December 2009 Page 59 of 82

61 When Boating Usage Study participants were asked if they wore a PFD 16% (n = 441) indicated they wore a PFD at all times (see Figure 37). A further 62% (n = 1750) of participants indicated they wore a PFD sometimes. Twenty-one percent (n = 576) of participants indicated they never wore a PFD. These results tend to support previous studies of PFD wear rates which showed that less than 1 in 5 boat operators wear PFDs. Figure 37: PFD Wearing (By %) % % 21% 1 Always Sometimes Never Unsure 1% PFD Wearing and Boat Type Figure 38 indicates the PFD wear rates on different types of recreational boats. On ski/wake boats almost two-thirds of participants (64%, n = 100) indicated they wear a PFD some of the time. A further 2 (n = 33) indicated they never wear a PFD. In addition 15% (n = 23) of participants indicated they always wear a PFD. One participant responded that they did not know or were unsure if they wore a PFD whilst operating a ski/wake boat. More than three-quarters of participants (n = 318) who operate a sailing vessel indicated they wear a PFD sometimes. A further 12% (n = 52) of participants always wore a PFD while operating a sailing vessel. Only 1 (n = 39) of participants never wore a PFD while operating a sailing vessel. Operators of PWC/Jetskis had the highest wear rates with 98% (n = 64) of participants indicating they always wore a PFD. Only one participant indicated they only wear a PFD sometimes whilst operating a PWC/Jetski. Almost two-thirds of open runabout operators (64%, n = 457) indicated they sometimes wore a PFD. A further 17% (n = 120) of participants indicated they always wore a PFD. In addition 19% (n = 138) of participants indicated they never wore a PFD whilst operating an open runabout. Page 60 of 82 December 2009

62 Figure 38: PFD wearing and boat type (By %) Ski/Wake Boat 1% 2 15% 64% Sailing Vessel 1 12% 78% PWC / Jet Ski 2% 98% Other 2% 29% 21% 48% Open Runabout 19% 17% 64% Inflatable /semi rigid 18% 35% 47% Full Cabin Cruiser 1% 4% 31% 64% Dinghy (Tinnie) 3 22% 48% Cuddy / Half Cabin 22% 12% 66% Never Don't know / Unsure Sometimes Always Almost half (47%, n = 8) of participants who operated an inflatable/semi rigid boat always wore a PFD. An additional 35% (n = 6) of participants sometimes wore a PFD while operating an inflatable/semi rigid boat. Eighteen per cent (n = 3) of participants indicated they never wore a PFD while operating an inflatable/semi rigid boat. Operators of full cabin cruisers generally wear PFDs infrequently. Almost two-thirds of participants (64%, n = 192) indicated they wore PFDs sometimes. Only 4% (n = 11) of participants indicated they always wore a PFD while operating a full cabin cruiser. In addition 31% (n = 94) participants indicated they never wore a PFD on a full cabin cruiser. Two participants indicated they did not know if they wore a PFD while operating a cruiser. The responses by participants operating cuddy/half cabin cruisers were similar to the responses from full cabin cruiser operators. Sixty-six per cent (n = 555) of participants indicated they sometimes wore a PFD while operating a cuddy/half cabin cruiser. The percentage of participants who always wore a PFD was higher than full cabin cruiser with 12% (n = 103) participants indicating they always wore a PFD when operating a cuddy/half cabin cruiser. In addition 22% (n = 188) of participants indicated they never wore a PFD whilst operating a cuddy/half cabin cruiser. December 2009 Page 61 of 82

63 PFD Wearing and Operational Area An examination of PFD wearing in the various operational waterways indicates that more than half of participants who operate on each type of water occasionally wear PFDs (See Figure 39). In open waters 12% (n = 100) of participants always wear a PFD. A further 65% (n = 540) of participants sometimes wear a PFD. Almost a quarter (n = 196) of participants indicated they never, or were unsure if they, wore a PFD. In bays/sheltered waters 17% (n = 203) of participants indicated they always wore a PFD. A further 65% (n = 770) of participants indicated they sometimes wore PFDs. Almost 1 in 5 participants (n = 208) indicated they never wore a PFD. In estuaries 21% (n = 41) of participants always wore a PFD when boating. A further 57% (n = 111) of participants indicated they sometimes wore a PFD. Twenty-two per cent of participants (n = 43) stated they do not wear a PFD when boating. Twenty-two per cent (n = 45) of participants operating boats on lakes and dams indicated they always wore a PFD when boating. In addition 61% (n = 123) of participants indicated they occasionally wore a PFD when boating. Only 17% (n = 35) of participants stated they never wore a PFD when boating. Inland rivers and creeks had the highest percentage of boaters who did not wear a PFD being 27% (n = 94). Fourteen per cent (n = 50) of participants indicated they always wore a PFD when boating on rivers and creeks. A further 58% (n = 206) of participants indicated they occasionally wore a PFD when boating on rivers and creeks. Page 62 of 82 December 2009

64 Figure 39: PFD Wearing and Operational Waters (By %) % 57% 61% 65% 58% % 18% Bay or Sheltered Waters 21% 22% 22% 17% 12% 23% 14% 27% 1% 1% Estuary Lake or Dam Open Waters River or Creek Always Sometimes Never Don't know / Unsure Circumstances when PFDs Worn Given the anticipated low wear rate for PFDs the question was then asked under what circumstances would participants or their passengers wear a PFD. Figure 40 indicates that 29% (n = 1541) of respondents would have children under the age of 12 wear a PFD. A further 29% (n = 1558) of respondents would wear their PFDs in poor weather. Swimming ability was a determinant of PFD wearing with 14% (n = 737) of respondents stating they would make non-swimmers wear a PFD. In addition 11% (n = 597) of respondents would wear a PFD if operating at night. Only 3% (n = 138) of respondents would wear a PFD if they were drinking alcohol. In order to capture data relating to the wide variability of regulations participants were given the option of other circumstances and then were asked to specify. Fourteen per cent (n = 773) of respondents indicated they would wear a PFD in other circumstances. Analysing these responses is difficult given the extreme variability amongst the more than 300 responses. The main commonalities were that PFDs would be worn when regulations demanded the wearing of PFDs, in times of heightened risk such as crossing bars, boating alone or at a great distance from shore, and when being towed. A number of respondents indicated they would make children older than 12 years of age wear a PFD. December 2009 Page 63 of 82

65 Figure 40: Circumstances When PFDs Worn (By %) 35% 3 29% 29% 25% 2 15% 1 14% 14% 11% 5% 3% Cannot Swim Other Alcohol Weather At Night Children under 12 Types of Safety Equipment Carried Safety equipment is important on any boat and can save lives. Although PFDs and communication equipment are generally well known items to carry other items such as EPIRBS (Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons) and V-Sheets, which is a fluorescent orange-red coloured sheet (1.8 x 1.2 metres) with a large black V printed in the middle, are less well known. In order to gauge what equipment was carried participants were asked to indicate which equipment they carried on their boats. Their responses are shown in Figure 41 where it can seen that 98% (n = 2756) of participants carry PFDs. A further 57% (n = 1617) of participants carry signal flares. Slightly more than half (n = 1432) of participants carry spare fuel. A v-sheet was carried by 46% (n = 1291) of participants. Only 43% (n = 1223) indicated they carried an EPIRB. Page 64 of 82 December 2009

66 Figure 41: Types of Safety Equipment Carried (By %) % % 51% 46% 43% 4 2 PFD Flares Spare Fuel Vsheet Epirb Frequency EPIRB Tested An EPIRB is the most reliable and rapid means of sending a distress message, but in order to work correctly in an emergency, EPIRBs need to be tested regularly. Participants were asked how regularly they tested their EPIRB (see Figure 42). More than one-third (37%, n = 710) of participants do not test their EPIRB. Eighteen percent (n = 343) of respondents test their EPIRB every one to six months. A further 15% (n = 281) of respondents test their EPIRB every 6 to 12 months. In addition 12% (n = 230) of respondents test their EPIRB every 12 months to 24 months. There were some respondents who indicated they tested their EPIRBS at each end of the scale with 1 (n = 199) indicating they tested their EPIRB before each trip. A further 9% (n = 164) of respondents indicated they tested their EPIRB at periods greater than every 24 months. December 2009 Page 65 of 82

67 Figure 42: How Frequently is EPIRB Tested (By %) 4 37% 35% 3 25% 2 18% 15% 1 15% 12% 1 9% 5% Never 1 6 mths 6 12 mths mths Before trips > 24 mths Checking Safety Equipment Expiry Dates The final question relating to safety equipment asked if participants checked the expiry dates on their safety equipment. In Figure 43 it can be seen that 94% (n = 2577) of respondents indicated they checked the dates when equipment expired. Only 6% (178) of respondents indicated they did not check the expiry dates of safety equipment. Figure 43: Do You Check Safety Equipment Expiry Dates (By %) Yes, 94% No, 6% Page 66 of 82 December 2009

68 Boating Incidents During Past Twelve Months Participants were asked a range of questions regarding their involvement in boating incidents during the previous twelve months (see Figure 44). The majority of participants (95%, n = 2643) had enjoyed safe boating. Only 5% (n = 141) of respondents had been involved in a boating incident during the previous twelve months. Figure 44: Participants Involved in Boating Incident (By %) No, 95% Yes, 5% Description of Incident Those participants who had acknowledged they had been involved in an incident were then asked to describe the incident (see Figure 45). The descriptions of marine incidents are taken from the categories used in the National Marine Incident Database. 15 Of the 141 respondents who indicated they had been involved in an incident 26% (n = 36) specified they had been involved in a collision with another boat or object. A further 24% (n = 34) stated they had been involved in an incident where the boat had been grounded, flooded or capsized. Six percent (n = 8) of the respondents had been involved in an incident resulting in a loss of stability of the boat with a further 6% (n = 8) being involved in incidents resulting from structural failure. Three percent (n = 4) had been involved in incidents where the boat was abandoned or lost. A further 2% (n = 3) had been involved in incidents involving a fire or explosion. Four per cent (n = 5) of respondents had been involved in incidents where one or more people had been injured. In addition 1% (n = 2) of respondents had been involved in a boating incident that resulted in one or more people being killed. Almost a quarter of the respondents (24%, n = 34) indicated they had been involved in other types of incidents not falling within the previously mentioned categories. These types of incidents mainly related to mechanical failure or running out of fuel and required the boat to be towed back to shore. Three of the respondents described their incident as a near miss. 15 NMSC s National Marine Safety Data Collection Reference Manual, Sydney, December 2009 Page 67 of 82

69 Figure 45: Description of Incidents (By %) 3 25% 26% 24% 24% 2 15% 1 5% 6% 6% 4% 4% 3% 2% 1% Length of Time on Water Before Incident Occurred The participants involved in boating incidents were then asked how long they had been on the water when the incident occurred (see Figure 46). Almost half of the respondents (47%, n = 66) indicated they had been on the water for up to 2 hours. A further 26% (n = 37) of respondents had been on the water for between 2 and 4 hours. Ten per cent (n = 13) of respondents stated they had been on the water for between 4 and 8 hours. An additional 1% (n = 2) of respondents had been on the water for between 8 and 10 hours. Surprisingly 11% (n = 16) of respondents had been on the water for more than 10 hours. Five per cent (n = 7) of respondents did not provide any details. Page 68 of 82 December 2009

70 Figure 46: Number of Hours on Water when Incident Occurred (By %) 5 45% 47% 4 35% 3 25% 26% 2 15% 1 5% 11% hours 2 4 hours Over 10 hours 4 8 hours No Details Given 5% 1% 8 10 hours Weather Conditions at Time of Incident The final question relating to the boating incident related to the weather conditions at the time of the incident. In Figure 47 it can be seen that almost half (47%, n = 63) of the incidents occurred when there were calm conditions with little to no wind. Almost one third (3, n = 43) of incidents occurred in conditions when there was a moderate swell and/or moderate wind. Only 2 (n = 28) of incidents occurred in weather conditions that were less than ideal with heavy swells or heavy wind. A further 5% (n = 7) respondents did not describe the weather conditions at the time of their boating incident. December 2009 Page 69 of 82

71 Figure 47: Weather Conditions at Time of Incident (By %) 5 45% 45% 4 35% % % 1 5% 5% Calm or little to no wind Moderate swell or moderate wind Heavy swell or strong wind No Details Given Incidents and Time of Day A comparison of incidents with time of day indicates that the twelve hour period from 6am to 6pm accounted for 95% of all incidents. Over one third (39%, n = 53) of incidents occurred between 6am and 10am. A further 37% (n = 50) of incidents occurred between the hours of 10am and 2pm. An additional 19% (n = 26) of incidents occurred between 2pm and 6pm. Only 5% (n = 5) of incidents occurred in the twelve hours from 6pm to 6am. Figure 48: Incidents and time of day (By %) 6pm 12.00am, 2% 12am 6.00am, 3% 2pm 6.00pm, 19% 6am 10.00am, 39% 10am 2.00pm, 37% Page 70 of 82 December 2009

72 Incidents and Boat Length Incidents were also compared with the length of boats to isolate trends (see Figure 49). More than half of incidents (58%, n = 82) occurred in a boat between 5 and 9.9 metres in length. A further 23% (n = 32) of incidents occurred in boats less than 5 metres in length. An additional 19% (n = 26) of incidents occurred in boats between 10 and 14.9 metres in length. Figure 49: Incidents and Boat Length (By %) m, 19% < 5 m, 23% m, 58% Injuries Sustained in Previous Twelve Months Study participants were asked if they had suffered any injuries during the previous twelve months and if so what type of injury they had sustained. The great majority of respondents (87%, n = 2207) stated they had not suffered an injury during the previous twelve months. The remaining 13% (n = 336) described the various injuries they had sustained (see Figure 50). More than three quarters (77%, n = 259) of the respondents who had suffered an injury indicated it was nothing more serious than cuts and bruises. Fractured or broken bones accounted for 6% (n = 19) of injuries. One per cent of the respondents had respectively suffered burns (n = 5), concussion (n = 3) or near drowning (n = 3). A further 14% (n = 47) had suffered other injuries which respondents specified as severe bruising to passengers. December 2009 Page 71 of 82

73 Figure 50: Injuries Sustained During the Previous Twelve Months (By %) % % 1 1% 1% Burns Concussion Cuts and lacerations 6% Fractured / broken bones 1% Near drowning Other How Serious was the Injury The respondents who had acknowledged an injury were then asked how serious the injury was. Figure 51 indicates the responses of the 316 respondents who answered the question. Almost half (48%, n = 151) indicated they only required minor first aid treatment for their injury. A further 38% (n = 119) respondents indicated they did not require any specific treatment for their injury. More significant treatment regimes accounted for 14% of injuries with 12% (n = 39) of respondents needing to visit a General Practitioner or Emergency Unit. A further 2% (n = 7) of respondents required a hospital stay in order to have their injuries treated. Page 72 of 82 December 2009

74 Figure 51: How Serious was the Injury (By %) % 4 38% % Minor needing first aid Needed a hospital stay Needed to visit GP or No treatment required treatment emergency 12% Do You Drink Alcohol While Boating The final questions in this section related to alcohol and drug use in order to get some sense of the prevalence of drugs and alcohol in boating activities. When asked if they drank alcohol while boating 54% (n = 1522) of participants indicated they never drank alcohol while boating. Those participants who sometimes drink alcohol when they go boating represented 41% (n = 1129) of participants. A further 4% (n = 111) of participants indicated they always drank alcohol when they went boating. One per cent (n = 41) of participants did not answer the question with 14 participants indicating they were unsure if they drank alcohol. December 2009 Page 73 of 82

75 Figure 52: Do You Drink Alcohol While Boating (By %) 6 54% % % 1% Never Sometimes Always No Response Don't know / Unsure Drugs and Boating Drugs are a vexed question when related to boating. It is often difficult to get any data except when undertaking a fatality study and the availability of toxicology reports provides some indication of the extent of the problem. Self reported data is often viewed with suspicion but it can provide some indicative trends. In the case of the National Recreational Boating Usage Study participants were asked if in the previous 12 months they had known someone to be under the influence of drugs while boating. The question was answered by 2339 participants with 87% (n = 2035) indicating they had not known anyone under the influence of drugs. The responses of the 304 participants who acknowledged knowing a person was boating while under the influence of drugs are shown in Figure 53. Almost two thirds (61%, n = 186) of these 304 responses acknowledge knowing about someone using prescription medications while boating. The remaining 39% of responses indicated the use of illicit drugs. Almost a quarter (n = 74) of the responses related to the use of cannabis. A further 6% (n = 17) of responses indicated knowing someone under the influence of amphetamines (including ICE). Four percent (n = 13) of respondents acknowledged knowing someone boating whilst under the influence of cocaine. In addition 2% (n = 7) of respondents indicated they knew someone boating under the influence of ecstasy. A further 2% (n = 5) of respondents indicated they knew someone boating while under the influence of Benzodiazepines (tranquillizers). Only 1% (n = 2) of the respondents knew someone under the influence of heroin. Page 74 of 82 December 2009

76 Figure 53: Drug Use Whilst Boating (By %) % % 2 1 6% 4% 2% 2% 1% Drug and Alcohol Testing The final question in this section asked participants if they had ever been drug or alcohol tested while boating or at the boat ramp (see Figure 54). Of the 2817 participants who filled in the preliminary questionaire 85% (n = 2387) indicated they had never been tested while boating or at a boat ramp. Only 13% (n = 380) of participants indicated they had been drug or alcohol tested. One percent (n = 33) of participants did not answer the question with a further 1% (n = 17) of participants indicating they did not know or were unsure if they had been tested for drugs or alcohol. December 2009 Page 75 of 82

77 Figure 54: Alcohol/Drug Tests Whilst Boating (By %) 9 85% % 1% 1% No Yes No Response Don't Know / Unsure Page 76 of 82 December 2009

78 ABOUT YOU THE BOATER The final section of the preliminary questionnaire related to the boater. It sought information about gender and age. In addition information was sought regarding general health and swimming ability. Participants by Gender The responses to the question of gender were largely as expected. Boating is generally regarded as a male pastime and this was confirmed with 94% (n = 2659) of respondents being male. Only 5% (n = 134) of respondents were female and a further 1% (n = 24) of respondents did not complete this question. Figure 55: Boating Participants by Gender (%) 10 94% % Male Female No Response 1% December 2009 Page 77 of 82

79 Participants by Age Participants were asked their ages by grouping (see Figure 56). Half of the study participants were aged over 50 years with 29% (n = 811) of participants falling in the 51 to 60 years bracket and 21% (n = 600) of participants falling in the 61 years and over group. The biggest single group was the 35 to 50 years age group which represented 39% (n = 1108) of participants. In addition 9% (n = 259) of participants were aged between 20 and 34 years. Only 1% (n = 11) of participants indicated they were younger than 20 years of age. One per cent (n = 28) of participants did not answer the question. Figure 56: Participants by Age (%) 45% 4 39% 35% 3 29% 25% 2 21% 15% 1 5% 9% 1% 1% and Over Less than 20 No Details Page 78 of 82 December 2009

80 Existing Medical Conditions In the fatality study published by the NMSC in 2008 it was found that a larger percentage of fatalities, when compared with the earlier study, had exhibited a variety of co-morbidities. 16 In order to get some idea of the general health of the boating population participants were asked if they suffered from any existing medical conditions (see Figure 57). Three quarters (n = 2172) of respondents indicated they did not suffer from any existing medical conditions. Five percent (n = 130) of participants indicated they suffered from diabetes with a further 4% (n = 100) of participants having a cardiac condition. Two per cent (n = 53) of participants have a permanent disability of some kind with a further 9 participants (this equates to 0.3%) suffering from epilepsy. A further 5% (n = 153) participants did not answer the question. The final group were those who indicated Other as a medical condition and this represents 9% (n = 264) of participants. When asked to specify their condition participants provided a wide range of answers making more detailed analysis difficult. Examination of the responses indicates that asthma and high blood pressure were the leading responses. Other medical conditions included depression, arthritis, back problems (such as spinal injury) and even several heart and/or lung transplants were specified. Figure 57: Participants and Existing Medical Conditions (By %) 8 75% % 5% 5% 4% None Other No Details Diabetes Cardiac Disease 2% Any permanent disabilities Epilepsy 16 Dr Peter O'Connor, National Assessment of Boating Fatalities in Australia , report prepared for the National Marine Safety Committee, May See also Dr Peter O'Connor, National Assessment of Boating Fatalities in Australia , report prepared for the National Marine Safety Committee, March December 2009 Page 79 of 82

81 Prescription Medication Usage Given the range of existing medical conditions prevalent through society it would be expected that participants with existing medical conditions would be taking prescription medications for these conditions. This was supported by the responses of participants when asked the question on whether they take prescription medications (see Figure 58). Almost two thirds (62%, n = 1733) of participants indicated they did not take medication. Over one third (37%, n = 1046) of participants have taken some form of prescription medication whilst boating. One percent (n = 38) of participants did not respond to the question. Figure 58: Prescription Medication Usage (By %) % % % No Yes No Details Page 80 of 82 December 2009

82 Swimming Ability According to fatality studies undertaken by NMSC 85% of boating fatalities are due to drowning. The final question in the survey asked participants how far they could swim (see Figure 59). The question is more to gauge participants perceptions of their swimming ability rather than a definitive test. More than half (n = 1466) of participants indicated they could swim more than 200 metres. Fourteen percent (n = 407) of participants indicated they could swim between 100 and 200 metres with a further 14% (n = 387) of participants who could swim between 50 and 100 metres. Seven percent (n = 211) of participants signified they could swim between 25 and 50 metres. A further 5% (n = 128) stated they could swim less than 25 metres with an additional 1% (n = 35) of participants being non-swimmers. Six percent (n = 157) of participants indicated they were unsure or did not know what distance they could swim. A further 1% (n = 26) participants did not answer the question. Figure 59: Swimming Ability (By %) % % 14% 1 7% 6% 5% 1% 1% December 2009 Page 81 of 82

83 REFERENCES Australian Bureau of Statistics, Census of Population and Housing: Population Growth and Distribution, Australia, 2001, Canberra, June Bureau of Meteorology, Annual Climate Summary for Northern Territory, Canberra, January Bureau of Meteorology, Annual Climate Summary for Tasmania, Canberra, January Dr Peter O'Connor, Assessment of Fatal and Non-Fatal Injury Due to Boating in Australia, Phase 1 Report prepared for the National Marine Safety Committee, Dr Peter O'Connor, National Assessment of Boating Fatalities in Australia , report prepared for the National Marine Safety Committee, March Dr Peter O'Connor, National Assessment of Boating Fatalities in Australia , report prepared for the National Marine Safety Committee, May Geoscience Australia, GEODATA Coast 100k 2004, Canberra, NMSC, Personal Flotation Device Wear Rate Study 2007, Sydney, October NMSC, National Marine Safety Data Collection Reference Manual, Sydney, Terri J. Pikora and Heather A. Williams, Developing and Piloting a Log Book to Determine the Level of Exposure to the Risk of Injury Among Recreational Boaters, Injury Research Centre, University of Western Australia, Crawley, United States Coast Guard, 2002 National Recreational Boating Survey Report, Strategic Research Group, Columbus, Ohio, 30 November Page 82 of 82 December 2009

84 National Marine Safety Committee Inc. PO Box R1871 Royal Exchange NSW 1225 Telephone: Facsimile: Website: ISBN: December 2009