Propeller Deaths and Injuries: Another “Inconvenient Truth

For years, printed publications dedicated to covering the boating industry have provided minimal coverage of the danger of propellers. One of them is actually misleading those in the industry. We will explain why this is happening.

• Boating Trade Magazines Coverage of Propeller Issues
• Boating Consumer Magazines Coverage of Propeller Issues
• Local and Destination Boating Magazines
• How One Boating Trade Magazine Responded to the Inconvenient Truth
• In Closing
• Feedback

Initially published online 16 March 2007

Boating Trade Magazines Coverage of Propeller Issues

Power Boating is a relatively small industry in comparison with the automobile industry. As a result, there are relatively few industry trade publications (those targeting people employed in the industry). Four major boating trade magazines address the U.S. market:

• Soundings Trade Only – published by Soundings Publications
• Boating Industry – published by Ehlert
• Boat & Motor Dealer – published by Preston Publications
• Innerport – a National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) member publication

Most of these publications also maintain some sort of an online presence.

One related publication, “Professional Boatbuilder” tends to focus more on “how to” than on industry issues and concerns.

Boating trade magazines are supported by the industry (those working in the industry subscribe to them and those selling products and services to the industry advertise in them). The industry (those manufacturing boats, drives, propellers, etc) does not want to acknowledge the existence of the propeller problem, and certainly not let others know they acknowledge it, so the problem is typically only mentioned by the industry media in passing when covering proposed regulations or results of legal cases. If they do mention the issue, proposed solutions are often slammed. Recently, one trade magazine significantly understated U.S. Coast Guard data on the number of propeller deaths and injuries and refused to acknowledge the truth when it was called to their attention. That incident is addressed in the bottom half of this page.

A brief analysis of some of the major coverage of propeller dangers by boating trade publications over the last decade follows:

Soundings Trade Only has covered the propeller safety issue with feature stories a few times over the last decade, with two of those articles being published about 10 years ago. Among them:

• “Industry Critics Say Kill Switch Rule is Overkill” by Melanie Winters, Soundings Trade Only. October 2006. Pgs. 52-53.
  Reports some think the current discussion promoting mandatory installation of kill switches to turn the boat off if the operator is flung overboard is unneeded. This article appears to have been triggered by the recent formation of a Product Interface Committee by the ABYC.
• Prop Guards: Do They Work, Are They Safe? by Jim Flannery. Soundings Trade Only. June 1997. Pgs. 58-59.
  This article tended to be a more encompassing and objective than often seen in the boating media.
• Emilio’s Mom Revives Prop Guard Debate. Soundings. July 1996.
  Discusses efforts by the Mother of Emilio Cruz, a propeller victim and her formation of SPIN, a propeller safety advocacy group.

Boat & Motor Dealer has mentioned the propeller issue at least three times in columns by Ralph Lambrecht

 
• “Prop Guards Are a Subject That Seems to Live Forever” by Ralph Lambrecht, Boat & Motor Dealer. Sept/Oct 2006. Pgs. 6 & 8.
  Mr. Lambrecht tells us how prop guards radically effect the performance of planing boats, create drag and hurt fuel efficiency while other protective devices are already in place (ignition cut off switches). He then belittles the use of proximity sensors to detect people in the water wearing electronic tags near the boat (Virtual Lifeline from MariTech) claiming the tags would shutdown other boats near the people in the water that were using the same system (is that really bad?). He doesn’t like the swim ladder switch approach, saying it would require operator education. Mr. Lambrecht opens the article with an understatement of U.S. Coast Guard propeller death and injury statistics, and ends it with a slam at lawyers. We discuss his article in depth near the bottom of this page.
• Propeller Guards, Again. Boat & Motor Dealer. Marine Service Technicians Corner. Ralph Lambrecht. Jan/Feb 2003. Pgs. 33 & 37.
  This article is a follow up to his 1999 article and references the recent Mercury Marine v. Sprietsma law suit. Mr. Lambrecht seems to think the various guard designs proposed in the past have flaws and problems and does not see them being implemented in the future as a result of the case. He does not mention our Virtual Propeller Guard concept. He goes on to wonder what people were doing when they were thrown from the boat and does not anticipate individuals eventually winning these suits for injuries / deaths. He says, “No one has been able to repeal the laws of physics or mechanics to design a low-drag propeller guard that is soft, fat and strong regardless of claims.” He goes on to state “According to boating accident statistics for the year 2000 (the most recent available) of the 701 fatalities of record, seven fatalities were related to being “Struck by motor or propeller” which is about the average number per year in the five year period from 1996-2000. The average number of injuries per year attributed to the same cause was 104.” This is the birth of the understated data he presents again in 2006.
• Propeller Guards: A Few Answers. Ralph Lambrecht. Marine Service Technical Corner. Boat & Motor Dealer. Sept. 1999. Pg.39.
  He recounts typical objections to the use of propeller guards, focusing heavily upon the drag issue of conventional guards. When the article came out, I emailed him a link to our web site on the use of “Virtual Propeller Guards” to sense people in the water near the propeller (at that time we called it a “Stealth Propeller Guard”).

Boating Industry magazine mentioned the propeller safety issue in response to potential regulations in:
“Prop Guard Regulation May Be Coming”. Bob Duke. Boating Industry. June 2000. Pgs. 36-39.

Boating Consumer Magazines Coverage of Propeller Issues

There are dozens of Boating Consumer Magazines that run the gauntlet as seen below:

Similarly, Consumer Boating Magazines make their money on subscriptions from boaters and potential boaters and from boating companies advertising in their magazines. Strong text calling attention to propeller safety issues could drive off subscribers, offend advertisers, and even reduce the pool of potential future boaters, effectively flushing their own publication down the toilet. Not a good thing from their perspective.

Coverage of the issue in these publications is rarer than hen’s teeth. I do recall a few mentions, most of them from Trailer Boat magazine.

• Safety First, Performance Last. Jeff Hemmel. Boating. Vol.76 No.5. (May 2003) Pg.142. Advises on selection and use of propeller guards.
• “Prop Guard Ruling is Bad News for Everyone; Dock Talk”. Trailer Boats. February 2003. Report on the Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine ruling.
• Propeller Safety Tips; Boating Safety. Trailer Boats. April 1994. Lists several propeller safety tips from Underwriters Laboratories.
• “Propellers Turning Up Lawsuits” Trailer Boats. Feb. 1994. Pg. 30. Recounts several recent lawsuits.
• “Prop-Mate” Trailer Boats. January 1994. Evaluation / review of the Prop-Mate propeller guard by Jim Barron. They tested the polypropylene ring guard on a 24-foot outboard powered pontoon boat. The guard has been said to improved boat handling at low and moderate speeds. They found it rather dramatically improved steering control on this pontoon boat, but resulted in a 2.7 mph loss of top speed (28.3 mph with out it, 25.6 mph with it) and some increased fuel consumption. The article repeatedly points out the device is being marketed as a handling improver, NOT as a safety device.

Local & Destination Boating Publications

In addition to the well known regional boating magazines listed in the Consumer Boating Magazine Section, there are hundreds of smaller local publications.

Many large outdoor recreational areas where boating is strong have their own local newspapers and outdoor publications. Even some major lakes here in Oklahoma have monthly newsletters talking about local events and activities.

Strong talk about the dangers of boating would mean less business for their communities, which means less business for their advertisers (fewer advertising dollars for them) and fewer people picking up their publications which starts a death spiral for their business.

As a result, local boating accidents are often ignored by these publications. In searching for information on propeller accidents in boating and regional tourist destinations, we typically find more (or the only) coverage from media outlets in the major cities of that state.

General Comments

Publications in these three groups (Industry Trade Magazines, Boating Consumer Magazines, and Local & Destination Boating Publications) have no incentive to cover propeller dangers. Actually they have very strong reasons to avoid covering them (don’t want to scare away boaters, potential boaters, or tourism dollars).

Its easy to see why boating publications generally avoid the propeller issue like the plague.

We do appreciate the limited coverage they have given to the risks of propellers, and encourage them to cover the issue more frequently and more in depth in the future.

How One Boating Trade Magazine Responded to the Truth

We recently had a “run in” with a boating trade magazine and present the details below as an example of how one magazine responded to the “Inconvenient Truth” of propeller deaths and injuries by understating the data. You certainly should not assume their methods and attitude is representative of the methods and attitude of other publications, but previous experience has taught us the same attitude is certainly out there in pockets of the industry.

The article that prompted our exchange was:

Prop Guards Are a Subject That Seems to Live Forever
by Ralph Lambrecht
Boat & Motor Dealer.
Sept/Oct 2006. Pgs. 6 & 8.

We scanned the magazine masthead and the first paragraph of the article . A brief summary of the entire article is in the boating trade media section above.

Boat & Motor Dealer cover header

Incorrect Propeller Injury Statistics by Ralph Lambrecht

In this article, Mr. Lambrecht, a long time column editor for the Boat & Motor Dealer, greatly understates the annual number of boating propeller deaths and injuries, citing a U.S. Coast Guard reports as the source of his data. U.S. Coast Guard reported accidents include approximately 30 to 45 people were killed annually and approximately 185 to 265 were injured per year from 2001 to 2004. Mr. Lambrecht states the same report indicates only about 7 deaths and 100 injuries per year due to being struck by motor or propeller. The actual USCG reported deaths are about 5 TIMES larger than what he said they reported.

Relatively fresh off having written our Propeller Accident Statistics page I suspected he had confused what the Coast Guard calls “Event 1” data with the total number of people being killed or injured. A much more detailed explanation of their data methods is available from our Propeller Accident Statistics page, but basically the Coast Guard logs accidents as a series of up to three events (such as Event 1 – boat hits another boat, Event 2 – person falls overboard, and Event 3 – person injured by motor or propeller. Their full database can be used to find how many people were injured by the motor as an Event 1, or Event 2, or as an Event 3. The total number of people killed or injured is the sum of those killed or injured by each of the three events (such as Total Deaths = Event 1 deaths + Event 2 deaths + Event 3 deaths). Propeller deaths and injuries are typically reported as the 2nd or 3rd event because often, something happens to get the person in the water or to get a boat near them.

The Coast Guard tends to prominently report Event 1 deaths and injuries from each of many causes (including being struck by motor or propeller) in their annual summary of boating accidents. It usually takes a little study of the document to find the total number of people killed or injured by a specific type of accident.

We do not think Mr. Lambrecht set out to deceive the public, but suspect from this and his earlier articles that he has been drinking the industry’s Kool-Aid for so long he doesn’t recognize the truth when he sees it. That became painfully obvious in one of our email exchanges.

The actual text of the first paragraph of Mr. Lambrecht’s article reads:

Prop Guards Are a Subject That Seems to Live Forever
by Ralph Lambrecht
Boat & Motor Dealer
Sept/Oct 2006. Pgs. 6 & 8

“About twice a year, at the Miami Boat Show in February and the IBEX Marine Trade Show in October, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) sponsors a meeting of interested parties to consider ideas and advancements that have been made toward the reduction of propeller and lower unit strike injuries to people, who for whatever reason are in the water around the stern of the boat when the propeller is turning. In the USCG’s annual listing of boating accident statistics, there are about seven fatalities and 100 injuries attributed to being “struck by a motor or propeller.”

Okay, here we go – the emails of my exchange with Mr. Lambrecht are listed below, exactly as they were written with the exception of XXX’ing some email addresses, one injured person’s name, and the phone numbers. Our current comments are in italics.

Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:44:49 +0000 (GMT)
From: Gary Polson To: XXX@aol.com
Subject: Propeller Guard article

From: Gary Polson
Propeller Guard Information Center

Hello!

I read your ” Prop Guards Are A Subject That Seems to Live Forever” article in the Sept/Oct 2006 Boat & Motor Dealer this morning. Thank you for bringing a broad update to many dealers on this topic. Great article, but we have ONE problem with it.

You open the article stating the USCG annual stats indicate about 7 fatalities and 100 injuries to being “struck by motor or propeller”

We continue to see article after article doing this. The Coast Guard data is presented as a sequence of three events such as
Event 1 – Boat strikes and object or another boat
Event 2 – Someone falls overboard
Event 3 – That person is hit by the propeller

The Coast Guard annual reports often put the Event 1 data in a nice table for everyone to read and they think that is the total number of fatalities or injuries for a specific type of accident. It is not.

We have very extensive coverage surround all aspects of propeller injuries at Propeller Guard Information Center
http://rbbi.com/pgic

and one page specifically on statistics at
Propeller Accident Statistics
http://rbbi.com/pgic/padata/padata.htm

You will see from it, that the Coast Guard data is more on the order of 30 to 45 people killed annually and approximately 185 to 265 injured in recent years.

The USCG report for 2005 is now online by them at http://www.uscgboating.org/statistics/Boating_Statistics_2005.pdf

Adobe page count #25 has table at the top of it that lists the various kinds of accidents. Struck by Motor/Propeller is the next to last one on the list. It indicates 31 fatalities and 239 accidents total. (note sometimes more than one person is injured in a propeller accident). The sentence immediately below that table provides a discussion of Event 1,2,3 accidents using propeller injury data as an example.

PLUS – by the Coast Guard’s own admission, boating accidents are very under reported. They offer a guess of only 10 percent of them actually being reported, but follow that with a line they are not sure how that is distributed across accident types. Meaning one type of accident may be near fully reported and another type just barely reported. They do think most of the fatal accidents are reported.

Bottom line, is while informing your readers of many things going on in this area they may not have been aware of, you inadvertently gave them the wrong concept of the annual number of injuries and deaths as reported by the USCG. We would appreciate it you could very briefly mention the correct stats in a future column.

More info – We do maintain a list of propeller accidents being reported in the media. Many are not listed there, but you can rapidly see in our 2006 page over 15 U.S. fatalities have already been reported by the media this year. Just see the red “D”s to the left of the reports for U.S. fatalities.

Propeller Accidents Blog
http://rbbi.com/pgic/propacc/propacc.htm

We also discuss the under reporting issues and some estimates of it by others on about the bottom third of our Accident Statistics Page
http://rbbi.com/pgic/padata/padata.htm

In closing, thanks for the great article, thanks for reading my note, and please publish a brief correction with the proper USCG statistics.

Have a Nice Day!

Gary Polson
Polson Enterprises
Propeller Guard Information Center

I tried to really stay on topic and focus purely on reported accidents per the report he cites. His response came a few days later.

Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:24:19 EST
From: XXX@aol.com
To: polsong@virtualpet.com
Subject: Re: Propeller Guard article

I wrote the article before I received the latest USCG boating accident report (2005) by E-mail about a month ago. I’ll take a look at that in the light of what you say is actually happening out there. I have some personal experience on what some proposed prop guard designs do to planing boat performance and handling going back 40 years, having worked on a dozen ot more accident cases involving propeller strike injuries and fatalities including the one in which XXXXXXXX lost her arm and her husband and the fishing guide driving the boat were killed when ejected from the boat. Prop guards offer some protection for displacement boat speeds but they will never be successful on planing boats. You can’t repeal the laws of hydrodynamics.
Ralph Lambrecht

I appreciated his response and willingness to follow up on my comments at this time. But I hoped he wasn’t quoting these inaccurate stats when he was an expert witness in those “dozens or more accident cases”. Plus he totally ignored the 15 U.S. deaths already individually reported by the media this year (2006) listed on our site. Also note his attitude, “they will never be successful on planing boats.”

Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 20:37:15 +0000 (GMT)
From: Gary Polson To: XXX@aol.com
Subject: Re: Propeller Guard article

> I wrote the article before I received the latest USCG boating
> accident report (2005) by E-mail about a month ago. I’ll take
> a look at that in the light of what you say is actually happening
> out there.

Hello!

They sent me one too. The 2005 report is also online on the USCG site per my earlier email at

http://www.uscgboating.org/statistics/Boating_Statistics_2005.pdf

Adobe page count #25 has table at the top of it that lists the various kinds of accidents. Struck by Motor/Propeller is the next to last one on the list. It indicates 31 fatalities and 239 accidents total. (note sometimes more than one person is injured in a propeller accident). The sentence immediately below that table provides a discussion of Event 1,2,3 accidents using propeller injury data as an example.

Adobe page count #5, the second paragraph (starts out labeled as “1.”) states “We believe that only a small fraction of all non-fatal boating accidents occurring in the United States are reported to the Coast Guard, State, or local law enforcement agencies.”

**********
Thank you for your response and for you willingness to take some time to review the data.

Again, would you please review the Coast Guard report and include a brief correction in one of your future columns. If you have any questions or need any assistance in finding anything else to make sure you are confident of the values of current reported statistics for U.S. recreational boating propeller injury accidents, please drop me a note or give me a call.

If you feel I may be trying to lead you astray, you can contact Bruce Schmidt at the USCG office of Boating Safety and get the data straight from them.

Have a nice day and thanks again for trying to bring some coverage to the issue of propeller safety.

gary polson
Propeller Guard Information Center
http://rbbi.com/pgic

(XXX) XXX-XXXX

Once again, I really tried to stay on topic and focus purely on the Coast Guard data. Plus I referred him again to the exact lines in the Coast Guard report. His response came a few days later.

Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 14:17:07 EST
From: XXX@aol.com
To: polsong@virtualpet.com
Cc: XXX@boatmotordealer.com
Subject: Re: Propeller Guard article

I have reviewed the report. For some reason the copy I printed out does not agree with yours as to page numbering.

I do note that on my page 27 it shows the number of fatalities for 2005 due to “Struck by motor or propeller” was 6; for 2004, 5; for 2003, 6; for 2002 5; for 2001, 5. This adds up to a total of 27 for five years.

On page 2 of the report under “USE OF STATISTICS”, no.1, it states “We believe that only a small fraction of all non-fatal boating accidents occuring in the United States are reported to the Coast Guard, State or local law enforcement agencies. However we believe that NEARLY ALL FATAL RECREATIONAL BOATING ACCIDENTS OCCURING IN THE UNITED STATES ARE INCLIDED IN THIS REPORT” (capitals added for emphasis). So the number of fatalities from this cause is very likely correct at 5-7 per year.

The article referred to seven as the number of fatalities, not the total of injuries and fatalities. 100 injuries were also listed. As such, no correction is required. I picked up the numbers of 7 and 100 from an article I wrote on the same subject some years back, of which there have been 2 or 3 in the past 15 years or so.

I do find it confusing that the table in the report on my page 22 shows a total number of fatalities in which motor/propeller strikes were involved as 31, in which the strike was “Event No. 1, No. 2 or No. 3” in the accident sequence of a total of 239 accidents. What were the other events? Falling overboard? Being unconscious form carbon monoxide? Collision with another boat? It could be any one or two of a dozen or more events on the list above motor/propeller strike. 100 of the 239 apparently involved a motor/propeller strike as the first event in the sequence.

Does the plaintiffs bar Trial Lawyers Association fund the Propeller Guard Information Center?
Ralph Lambrecht

Of the 31 fatalities only 6 appear to be counted as fatalities due to the motor/propeller strike according to the page 27 table, with 97 injuries. This would infer that of the 239 incidents involved (page 22) only 103 resulted in death or injury as a result of the motor/propeller strike. As I said, a little confusing.

Interesting, I tried to anticipate possible page numbering confusion (Adobe Page Number vs. Page number written on the page) in my earlier email and called them out specifically as Adobe Page count numbers, but he did not understand that part either.

Then he picks up on the under reporting comments by the Coast Guard where they say they think they do record almost all the fatalities and wields that in defense of his understated numbers (he is only using Event 1 data).

Most interesting was his comment, “I do find it confusing that the table in the report on my page 22 shows a total number of fatalities in which motor/propeller strikes were involved as 31.” (he is being confused by the truth – he’s drank so much industry Kool-Aid over the years he can’t see the truth when its right in front of him in a U.S. Coast Guard document.)

So I sent one last message to him (see below) which he never responded to. Once again I tried to stay on topic and focus on the Coast Guard data.

Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 00:41:53 +0000 (GMT)
From: Gary Polson To: XXX@aol.com
Subject: Re: Propeller Guard article

> I have reviewed the report. For some reason the copy I
> printed out does not agree with yours as to page numbering.

Hello!

That is why I said I was using the Adobe Acrobat page numbers. I was viewing the document online and using the numbers at the bottom of the screen that may not be the same as page numbers (sometimes the writer does not count title pages, etc)

> I do note that on my page 27 it shows the number of fatalities for
> 2005 due to “Struck by motor or propeller” was 6; for 2004, 5;
> for 2003, 6; for 2002 5; for 2001, 5. This adds up to a total of
> 27 for five years.

Okay, your page 27 (Adobe Pg. 30) has the stats for EVENT 1, just like I explained earlier. These are deaths in which the being “Struck
by a motor or propeller” was entered as being the first event.

If someone fell overboard and was then “struck by motor or propeller” they would not be included in this number. It ONLY includes deaths from EVENT 1. Being struck by a propeller is typically an Event 2 or Event 3. (People fall overboard first, boats are in collisions first, then they are later struck by the motor or propeller)

Bottom line is these numbers (numbers you are picking up off your Page 27) do NOT include all the reported accidents in which someone was “Struck by motor or propeller” and died.

> On page 2 of the report under “USE OF STATISTICS”, no.1, it
> states “We believe that only a small fraction of all non-fatal
> boating accidents occurring in the United States are reported to
> the Coast Guard, State or local law enforcement agencies. However
> we believe that NEARLY ALL FATAL RECREATIONAL BOATING
> ACCIDENTS OCCURING IN THE UNITED STATES ARE INCLIDED
> IN THIS REPORT” (capitals added for emphasis).

Yes, that is what they believe.

> So the number of fatalities from this cause is very likely correct
> at 5-7 per year.

No, you are once again reverting to Event 1 data. Many more people are killed during Event 2 and Event 3.

> The article referred to seven as the number of fatalities, not the
> total of injuries and fatalities. 100 injuries were also listed.

Yes, those numbers are in the range of the recent number of fatality accidents and injury accidents resulting from being struck by motor or propeller Event 1 accidents.

> As such, no correction is required.

Wrong, a correction is required. You only give the data for Event 1 accidents. You are not including deaths that occur as Event 2 (such as Event 1 somebody fell overboard and Event 2 they were struck by the propeller, this would be an Event 2 fatality accident) or those that occur as Event 3 (such as Event 1 another boat collides with mine, Event 2 someone falls overboard, Event 3 they are struck and killed by the propeller.)

> I picked up the numbers of 7 and 100 from an article I wrote on
> the same subject some years back, of which there have been 2
> or 3 in the past 15 years or so.

I am trying to say this as politely as possible, but that article was incorrect too. It only included injury and fatal Event 1 accidents. It left out Event 2 and Event 3 accidents.

> I do find it confusing that the table in the report on my page 22
> shows a total number of fatalities in which motor/propeller strikes
> were involved as 31, in which the strike was “Event No. 1,
> No. 2 or No. 3” in the accident sequence of a total of 239
> accidents.

Amen, that is what I have been trying to get across. In 2005, the USCG reports 31 fatalities from motor/propeller strikes. These occurred either as Event 1, Event 2, or Event 3 during the sequence of events of the accident.

> What were the other events? Falling overboard? Being
> unconscioius form carbon monoxide? Collision with another boat?
> It could be any one or two of a dozen or more events on the list
> above motor/propeller strike. 100 of the 239 apparently involved a
> motor/propeller strike as the first event in the sequence.

Yes, as I was saying above, per your table on your page 22, there were 103 reported accidents in which being “struck by motor or propeller” was the second event and there were 36 reported accidents in which being “struck by motor or propeller” was the third event. In both those situations (being struck by motor or prop as second or third event, any number of things could have been the first event).

As you mentioned, six deaths were reported from accidents reported in which being “struck by motor or propeller” was Event 1. You also quote the sentence on page 22 that shows 31 total deaths from propeller strikes in reported accidents. That means 31 minus 6 = 25. Twenty five deaths occurred from accidents in which being “struck by motor or propeller” was listed as Event 2 or Event 3.

On one hand, I want to say the Event 1 data is worthless, but on the other hand I understand why the USCG tries to collect the sequence of events. For example if almost all the propeller accidents were Event 2 accidents and in almost all those cases collision with another vessel was listed as Event 1, that would hint that if they could reduce the number of collisions with other vessels, then the number of prop strikes would go to near zero. The sequence is being recorded so they can try to stop the chain of events before it occurs.

> Does the plaintiffs bar Trial Lawyers Association fund the Propeller
> Guard Information Center?

No, we are a mom and pop on our own trying to reduce the number and severity of propeller injuries. One thrust of our approach is trying to make sure the media properly reports accident statistics. That is what we are doing in this exchange of emails.

> Of the 31 fatalities only 6 appear to be counted as fatalities
> due to the motor/propeller strike according to the page 27 table,
> with 97 injuries.

All 31 are motor/propeller strike fatalities. Six of them occurred as the 1st Event, the remainder of the fatalities (all involving death by being struck by motor or propeller) occurred as the second or third event.

> This would infer that of the 239 incidents involved (page 22)
> only 103 resulted in death or injury as a result of the motor/propeller
> strike. As I said, a little confusing.

103 is the number of reported accidents in which being “struck by motor or propeller” was the 2nd Event (such as they fell overboard, and were then struck by the motor or propeller).

Yes, it certainly is a little confusing. That is why we created a separate page to deal with Propeller Accident Statistics.
http://rbbi.com/pgic/padata/padata.htm

Thank you very much for your willingness to listen to us. I very much understand how you might not trust us and could think we are trying to lead you astray. Again, I suggest you contact Bruce Schmidt at the U.S. Coast Guard Office of Boating Safety. He is the person that puts these stats together. He can explain how they should be interpreted.

Bruce Schmidt is at: (XXX) XXX-XXXX

Again, thank you for visiting with us and for the time you have spent in trying to follow up on our points. Please continue to study this out and visit with Bruce Schmidt about it so you become confident how the data is actually to be read. Then please run a brief correction in a future column so more people do not continue to be unintentionally led astray.

Have a great day!

Gary Polson
Polson Enterprises
Propeller Guard Information Center
http://rbbi.com/pgic

Its now (March 2007) four months later with no response from Mr. Lambrecht and no indication of our conversations in his monthly Boat & Motor Dealer column, so we posted our email exchange conversation on this page as an example of our frustration with them to truthfully report the USCG data.

I am not on a vendetta against Mr. Lambrecht. In this past, I have enjoyed dozens of his columns on the history of outboards, outboard technologies, his days at OMC, and related topics. I am sure tens of thousands of boaters should be indebted to him for his work with outboards at OMC. Because of him and other pioneers like him, the boating industry is enjoying the success it has today.

I wish him the best. All I want is a correction printed in the magazine that corrects both his Sept/Oct 2006 article and his Jan/Feb 2003 article (full citations near top of this page). Even with a correction, this data will perpetuate itself as others use it as a source. But, with a printed correction, at least we will have some evidence to point those to who use his understated stats in the next round of discussions and publications.

I liked it better when boating publications stuck their head in the sand and avoided the propeller issue, or just slammed potential solutions. Now one of them has found a way around the “Inconvenient Truth” of propeller dangers by printing death and injury stats that are about a factor of 5 lower than the Coast Guard data they claim to represent. What will the Kool Aid kids try against the “Inconvenient Truth” next?

In late August 2007 I was going back through some piled up magazines and found a brief “sort of” recognition of our demand to Mr. Lambrecht to print a correction. The April 2007 issue of Boat and Motor Dealer has a column by him titled, “Bumping into People in the Water”. The lead paragraph acknowledges prop accidents do occur more than half a dozen times a year (but no numbers are provided), then talks about the confusion surrounding Coast Guard reporting based on Event sequence, and that’s it! They never directly contacted us about that article or any other public efforts to respond to the issues we raised. A scan of the relevant portions of that article are below. Its about as weak an acknowledgment of our challenge to his propeller accident statistics in his earlier article as you can imagine. We have since given up our quest to get them to print the actual Coast Guard statistics. They are (you fill in the blank).

Propeller Accidents Lambrecht

In Closing

If anybody still thinks its me “cooking the books” on prop strike data instead of Mr. Lambrecht, I suggest you:

• Go to the U.S. Coast Guard’s boating accident stats online, Boating Statistics – 2005 and flip forward to the page that has the PRINTED PAGE NUMBER 22 at the bottom of it (NOT Adobe Acrobat page 22, but the page with 22 written on the bottom of it) of it and read the paragraph immediately below the large table. It doesn’t get much plainer that that.
• View the annual U.S. Coast Guard propeller death and injury stats compiled in the first large table on our Propeller Accident Statistics page.
• Read the 2002 data from the first paragraph of “Propeller Injury Intervention” an article previously published on the U.S. Coast Guard site at http://www.uscgboating.org/articles/boatingview.aspx?id=67 indicated (47 deaths and 239 injury accidents in 2002 vs. his 5 to 7 deaths and 100 injuries).
• If you don’t trust our compilation above, you can dig all the stats out yourselves for the last several years from the USCG annual accident reports (be sure to total them from all three Events). (a link was provided to the reports but it is no longer valid)
• If you work in the industry and still don’t believe our data, contact the U.S. Coast Guard Office of Boating Safety and ask them. If you are unable to reach them, contact us and we will help you contact them.

Thanks for listening and don’t drink the Kool Aid.

Gary Polson
Propeller Guard Information Center

Feedback

If you have any comments about this article or situation, please contact us. We would especially welcome comments from Boat & Motor Dealer magazine and from Mr. Lambrecht. We posted this document Friday 16 March 2007 and emailed a link to it to Mr. Lambrecht and to the editor of Boat & Motor Dealer magazine as soon as it was posted. We are still waiting for a response.