|
New Jersey operator licensing
|
New Jersey operator licensing
Dave wrote:
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 16:43:17 -0400, DSK said: wrote: You seem to be saying that the law should be administered on a case-by-case wherein we decide in the case of every individual boater Wrong. I think you're conceding too much here, Doug. There's no reason it shouldn't be a case by case determination, but with a "case" arising only when a boater is stopped for BWI, reckless behavior or other unlawful behavior. I am saying that *I* should not have to bear the burden of *your* dangerous hobby. We're on the same page here. I think the US gov't better get busy and bring in a fairly stringent national course/testing procedure. Non compliance should result in a stiff fine and your boat impounded until you take & pass said test. You 'know it all experts' should be setting a 'good example' for newbies and hopefully the yahoo factor by cooperating fully, supporting anything that makes the waters safer for all. |
New Jersey operator licensing
Don White wrote:
I think the US gov't better get busy and bring in a fairly stringent national course/testing procedure. Non compliance should result in a stiff fine and your boat impounded until you take & pass said test. You 'know it all experts' should be setting a 'good example' for newbies and hopefully the yahoo factor by cooperating fully, supporting anything that makes the waters safer for all. I've got an excellent gov't program that will make the waters safer: http://www.tintiger.net/gallery/albu...eClose_bos.jpg Now, your job is to lure all those unsafe boaters in close enough for grape shot! DSK |
New Jersey operator licensing
Roger Long wrote:
You didn't answer my question. Are you a pilot or just spouting? Roger, there was a time in my life when I made pocket money by putting 8 and 9 year old kids into boats shoving them off into lake Ontario and yelling at them (er,, that is teaching them sailing). Not many of them actually learned to sail well but most learned how to get on and off the dock by themselves by the end of the course and no one was ever hurt badly enough to need more than a little hand holding. The day that you can get 20 preteens to take off and land small planes using the same methodology is the day that I will admit that flying is as easy and low risk as boating. Anyway, we've gotten off track here. I'm sure that flying is riskier and harder than boating (in general), but I'm willing to let you have the last word on it. The real question is, does the government have a compelling public interest in requiring licenses or training for boat operators. As a life long boater who has crossed oceans in small boats, weathered storms off shore in small boats, and completed the course and practical work for an Australian boaters license, it is my opinion that few if any lives would be saved by licensing because licensing can't teach good boating and because not many folks die boating anyway. -- Tom. Neither a pilot nor just spouting. |
New Jersey operator licensing
wrote
course and practical work for an Australian boaters license, it is my opinion that few if any lives would be saved by licensing because licensing can't teach good boating and because not many folks die boating anyway. I agree with you entirely here. Somehow, I've become the licensing advocate in this newsgroup. When I said it was strange that licenses weren't required for boating, I meant that it was strange that a society like ours hadn't already implemented it; not that I desire that it be done or that it would do any real good. Translate your experience with sail instructing into 12,000 - 20,000 pound keel boats in a busy harbor and it may look different. The most critical phase of flying is, of course, landing. The critical phase of that lasts about 5 seconds. When I soloed, I figured I had spend a grand total of less than two minutes in that critical phase of flight! By the time I had my license, it was up to about ten minutes. -- Roger Long |
New Jersey operator licensing
Gogarty wrote in
: One time fee, eh? Well, I have a 1953 Georgia driver's license here that doesn't have a photo on it, had a one time fee and is good for life with no further tests, examinations or qualifications. I'll sell it to you cheap. But just offhand, I wouldn't try driving with it today. Someone gave me their grandfather's South Carolina driver's "tag". Yes, it isn't a license at all! It's a metal tag, similar to a dog tag. It has just your driver's number on it. SC, backwards to a fault, used it into the 1950's. |
New Jersey operator licensing
Dave wrote in news:qq53321rcjf7m998m3g4r4hubj6v4cum40@
4ax.com: Let me put it bluntly, Don. WOW! This issue has got 'em all riled up! I've never seen a good brawl at the yacht club bar, before....(c; |
New Jersey operator licensing
On 3 Apr 2006 15:07:02 -0500, Dave wrote:
Do you have a problem with the principle of saying people who drive boats while stone drunk should be prevented from doing it again for some period of time? Lock them up, nobody boats from the big house, existing law is sufficient. Lack of a license will not stop BUI anymore than it stops DWI. It will however create additional levels of enforcement, taxation and harassment. My point is a very simple concept: Keep the government away from boating. When I started boating as a kid marine police were virtually unheard of, speed limits were almost unheard of, and if you got in trouble through an act of carelessness or inexperience, that was just too bad. Trust me, things were better then. Meanwhile the PeeWC was invented, along with noisy go fasts. People started to notice and say ain't it awful, there oughta be a law, etc. The rest is history. |
New Jersey operator licensing
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 20:02:08 -0400, Larry wrote:
SC, backwards to a fault, used it into the 1950's. I love South Carolina. Just received a letter from your illustrious tax department today saying that I was right all along and did not really owe tens of thousands in back taxes on my boat despite their previous outlandish claims to the contrary. Praise be, I might once again entertain the idea of returning to Charleston. On the other hand, maybe once was enough... |
New Jersey operator licensing
|
New Jersey operator licensing
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 01:41:26 GMT, in message
"Roger Long" wrote: When they get to a certain critical mass, as they may in NJ and CT, it probably could get to the point where I felt it was worth sitting through the course so that I could be sure that everyone was taking it. An otherwise intelligent friend of mine with a successful business and a PhD in engineering took a boating course after several years of powerboat ownership. He was surprised to learn that there was a reason those sailboats kept tacking back and forth. I think he is probably much less of a hazard on the water now that he knows a little more. I am entirely in favour of requiring all boaters to demonstrate a minimum level of knowledge and competence. Here you can simply take the exam and get a license for about the cost of a case of beer, and it's good for a lifetime. Scarcely a drop in the boat budget bucket of either time or money. Ryk -- NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth |
New Jersey operator licensing
In article , MMC
wrote: Every time I hear of a kid killed on a jet ski I think mandatory training is a good idea. That's worked wonderfully well for motorcycles and the same age cohort. Not. Every time I hear of anyone killed on a jet ski, I think of evolution in action. Yeah, I do have kids. If one died thru preventable stupidity as a result of their own bad judgement, I'd be heartbroken, but not real surprised. I remember some of the stupid things I did at the same age. PDW |
New Jersey operator licensing
In article .com,
wrote: You seem to be saying that the law should be administered on a case-by-case wherein we decide in the case of every individual boater whether or not they have the pre-existing skills and experience to just get out of having the take the class. Seems ridiculous to me and I just don't see what the big deal is. You say the 8-hour course is "a burden on my time that I do not have now," but then describe yourself (stating the obvious) as a recreational sailor, so this would be the equivalent of one good day on the water you might have to give up. I still don't think the burden is that onerous. Maybe you're just saying that there should be a distinction made between sailors and power-boaters. I don't know that I disagree vehemently with that, I think the licensing is an excellent idea for pwc'ers and all other power-boaters, and the proof is in the pudding in the accident statistics states where these laws have already been booked. Lives have been saved, the water is safer overall in those places, I think it's well worth it. If we just passed a law prohibiting any recreational power vessel from exceeding 10 knots, the problem (and PWC's) would go away. Accident stats would show a huge drop. Hey, Rich, if it saves one life, it's worth it...... BTW, did you ever figure out what kinetic energy was, and why a PWC was a lot more dangerous than a 16' sailing dinghy? No? PDW |
New Jersey operator licensing
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 20:02:08 -0400, in message
Larry wrote: Someone gave me their grandfather's South Carolina driver's "tag". Yes, it isn't a license at all! It's a metal tag, similar to a dog tag. It has just your driver's number on it. SC, backwards to a fault, used it into the 1950's. My EU driver's license, issued in Bavaria in the eighties, has no expiry date. Just like my boating card. Ryk -- NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth |
New Jersey operator licensing
On 3 Apr 2006 21:46:01 -0500, Dave wrote:
So I take it your view is that unless a boater has committed a crime for which he can be imprisoned, he should be free to continue serial episodes of boating while drunk? Not at all, just enforce the existing laws. Serial DUI is a felony in many jurisdictions. |
New Jersey operator licensing
"Roger Long" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote Flying is surprisingly easy. Walking the length of a foot wide board is quite easy. Put the board between two tall buildings and it suddenly becomes something different. Then add a couple other tasks to do as you walk across. Here you've touched the nub of the disagreement. You've been comparing (I suspect) easy flying with difficult sailing, and concluding that flying is easier (and, perhaps, overexpensive to insure!). In any of these 'concentration' activities, people learn the basics. Then they extend the envelope or performance level of those activities until they reach a limit. You've probably done that as a sailor, with the consequences not too dire. I certainly have. Have you done that in aviation? or were you self limited by the possibility of catastrophe? Or trained to avoid the limits? Most aviation accidents are ultimately pilot error but the things that often kill pilots are not things that you can train for. Human error, actually, not necessarily pilot. And what usually kills is not one error, but a combination of two or three errors (design error, faulty maintenance, poor operational procedure) followed by the pilot being unable to dig himself out of the hole (metaphorically). The point is that the pilot has been trained to survive most of these events - and not be killed by them - but some rare combinations escape the net of preparation. Of course, there are idiots that ignore basics and go for thrills. But that applies to any activity, sailing included. Who are these idiots who sail single handedly the wrong way round the world in boats which can't be righted when they're knocked over? Or those skiers who schuss down rock encumbered cliffs? Or flyers who do low aerobatics over the girlfriend's house? -- JimB http://www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com/ for opinions comparing Greek cruising areas |
New Jersey operator licensing
"Thomas Wentworth" wrote in message news:6ddYf.272$c_1.170@trndny04... News F2,3,4,5,................... the last time I checked; Europe SUCKED! Take a look at France ,,,,,,,,, lovely place ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, SUCKS! As for the rest of the "Continent" ................ why do you think the founding fathers wanted independence? Answer: Europe SUCKS! Attaboy! If you don't like the message, attack the messenger! Attaack the place he lives! Show everyone how intelligent your arguments are! Anyone know who this guy is? Who rattled his cage? -- JimB http://www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com/ for opinions comparing Greek cruising areas |
New Jersey operator licensing
"News f2s" wrote
Here you've touched the nub of the disagreement. You've been comparing (I suspect) easy flying with difficult sailing, and concluding that flying is easier (and, perhaps, overexpensive to insure!). That's exactly what I'm doing and it is not a disagreement. I'm not trying to say that flying is easier in general. Both flying and sailing cover a huge spectrum of difficulty and that red herring has nothing to do with my point. I'm also not saying that sailing should be licensed or more regulated. Everything we do is increasingly regulated by a society where government and the insurance companies are tuning the screws tighter and tighter. I was expressing my surprise (and unsaid thanks) that I can still do difficult sailing without doing anything except renewing my boat registration every year. If society was consistent in these matters, the sailing I do would be regulated as closely as my flying was. Thank goodness it isn't. And, to keep pounding away trying to be clear so I don't have to read any response posts with lines of all capital letters, I'M NOT SAYING BOATING SHOULD BE LICENSED OR FLYING SHOULD NOT BE. -- Roger Long |
New Jersey operator licensing
"News f2s" wrote
Anyone know who this guy is? He claims to have just bought a "BIG" boat very near to me here in Maine but provides no other details. A Google search for the "Colonial Governor's Office" in his header turns up nothing that looks like it could be in the US. I'm curious for some reason to see if he turns out to be a real person who is actually going to become a cruiser or just a troll living out his fantasies on this newsgroup. One thing for sure, if he really did buy a boat, we all know that we'll start hearing real posts about real problems pretty soon here. If we don't, it's probably time to toss him into the killfile. -- Roger Long |
New Jersey operator licensing
Roger Long wrote:
Reading more closely, it appears that you have to be able to present written proof of having taken a safe boating course somewhere just to pass through NJ. I guess my 45 year safe boating course wouldn't count because I didn't get a certificate. I'm glad I don't plan to go to NJ. The marina operators must love this. I'm just picking out of the WBM postings. Anybody actually looked into this? Good reason to avoid this hell hole. Worst place I put in ever. |
New Jersey operator licensing
|
New Jersey operator licensing
There's a flap going on here in Maine over a number of folk killed by
drivers with revoked licenses. The cops are sitting out there with cars hooked to computers that can identify the owners of cars and they still can't keep these people off the road. It isn't going to work on the water either. -- Roger Long "Dave" wrote in message ... On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 09:51:47 -0400, Gogarty said: The cops made it plain that the whole idea of a driver's license is to keep track of you and nothing at all to do with driving skill The purpose of any licensing scheme is so the license can be revoked. |
New Jersey operator licensing
Roger Long wrote:
.... What constitutes dangerous weather in an aircraft is very different than for a boat. People routinely fly "recreationally" in conditions that would be comparable to sailing from Boston to Portland in a late season northeaster. That really skews the numbers. In good weather and simple airplanes, the death rate is about the same as in canoes. .... This comment hung with me for a while so finally I had to look up some real numbers. Here's some stats for "General Aviation," which is not the same as recreational boating, but close, sort of. http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Table10.htm As you can see, the fatality number has been decreasing, but is still only a bit lower than recreational boating, which has come down from about 800 a year to 676 in 2004. Although you could claim a better "passenger mile" rate for flying, the number of hours is only 24 million. Given that there are 12 million registered boats (and how many unregistered canoes, etc?) I think we can speculate that flying small planes is significantly more dangerous than traveling by small boat, when measured by the hour. And while weather may be a major factor in aviation accidents (36% of all fatal accidents), roughly half of boating fatalities were in calm water, and under 20% specified strong winds or rough seas, and weather was cited as the primary case in about 6%. Weather or hazardous waters was only listed as a contributing cause in under 20% of all accidents. And one more thing - there were almost 100 deaths in canoes and kayaks in 2004, making this the second largest category, after "open powerboats." PWCs and rowboats were roughly tied for third place with about 55 deaths each. http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2004.pdf It should be noted that only a small number of accidents actually get reported, though almost all fatalities are included. However, fatalities not directly related to boating, such as while swimming from a moored boat, are not included. While I would love to be able to show that powerboats are more dangerous than sailboats, the real evidence is that most deaths are drowning, and 90% of those were not wearing PFDs; and 70% of fatalities occurred where the operator had received no training. One the other hand, lack of rules knowledge, lack of lookout, mechanical failure, etc. were pretty low on the list - general stupidity (recklessness, inattention, inexperience, excessive speed, alcohol) was pretty high. |
New Jersey operator licensing
"Jeff" wrote in message ... As you can see, the fatality number has been decreasing, but is still only a bit lower than recreational boating, which has come down from about 800 a year to 676 in 2004. Although you could claim a better "passenger mile" rate for flying, the number of hours is only 24 million. Given that there are 12 million registered boats (and how many unregistered canoes, etc?) I think we can speculate that flying small planes is significantly more dangerous than traveling by small boat, when measured by the hour. Excellent references Jeff. Many thanks. I note we're talking 1.5 fatalities per 100,000 hours flying, and 6 or so per 100,000 boats registered. It's difficult to take the leap between the number of boats registered to the number of hours boats are used, but lets be heroic and assume 12 hours per boat per year average. Per hour that makes planes three times more likely to kill. -- JimB http://www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com/ for opinions comparing Greek cruising areas |
New Jersey operator licensing
Peter Wiley wrote: In article .com, wrote: You seem to be saying that the law should be administered on a case-by-case wherein we decide in the case of every individual boater whether or not they have the pre-existing skills and experience to just get out of having the take the class. Seems ridiculous to me and I just don't see what the big deal is. You say the 8-hour course is "a burden on my time that I do not have now," but then describe yourself (stating the obvious) as a recreational sailor, so this would be the equivalent of one good day on the water you might have to give up. I still don't think the burden is that onerous. Maybe you're just saying that there should be a distinction made between sailors and power-boaters. I don't know that I disagree vehemently with that, I think the licensing is an excellent idea for pwc'ers and all other power-boaters, and the proof is in the pudding in the accident statistics states where these laws have already been booked. Lives have been saved, the water is safer overall in those places, I think it's well worth it. If we just passed a law prohibiting any recreational power vessel from exceeding 10 knots, the problem (and PWC's) would go away. Accident stats would show a huge drop. Hey, Rich, if it saves one life, it's worth it...... I don't really see this "slippery slope" type argument. Seems to me there is a difference between outlawing any activities (which you sarcastically suggest here), which no one is talking about here, and trying to assure that people who do them have been instructed in the basics of doing them safely for the benefit of everybody sharing the waters. BTW, did you ever figure out what kinetic energy was, and why a PWC was a lot more dangerous than a 16' sailing dinghy? No? What do you mean, I already conceded that sailboats are far less dangerous than power boats. Hey do any of you guys have anything against the pwc's that are frequently used as the vessel of choice by law enforcement deams in rescue operations, as in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and in many other cases. Anybody read the article in the last Boat US issue about pwcs' place in the boating world these days? Old prejudicial stereotypes against these types of boats and their operators are going to continue to go by the wayside fast. Park after national park are pulling back on restricitve bans against pwc as results from environmental impact analyses come in and confirm that pwc's are as clean and quiet and non-intrusive to the environment, as any other kind of powerboat being made, and more so than most; accident, violation and injury statistics will continue to fall as more areas insist on education new entrants to the sport (or recreational hobby) - and in areas where only pwc'ers have to get certified, well, they'll be among the most informed (and probably best-attituded) group among newbie boaters. I know it's all baloney and can't let myself get upset over the anti-pwc comments (although it's tough) because I know I'm on the water every weekend eight months of the year and encounter NONE of that nasty insulting attitude or comments except right here on usenet. richforman PDW |
New Jersey operator licensing
The one thing that does make me a bit sympathetic to basic training
requirements for boating is the right of way rules. It would be nice if everyone out there knew them and I wouldn't have had my one boating accident (hole on the port side). I agree and that is the main reason I favor these kinds of rules. Everybody should know the right of way stuff and how to interpret navaids, and the basics of how to interpret lights on boats, read charts, stuff like that, and if they make everyone take eight hours out of their lives to sit through the course, then they'll know it, and WE'LL ALL BE SAFER. It's not even like driving cars where you've had exposure to the basics and probably know all the rules just from having sat in a vehicle and watched your parents do it for sixteen years before you get behind the wheel. Newcomers to boating might know nothing of the basics, so it's just a good idea, it seems to me, that we REQUIRE them to learn it. If someone already knows it I have no problem with them just taking the course, getting the cert without having to sit through a class, although I think it shows a better attitude if you're willing to take it anyway with the idea that maybe you'll still learn something anyway! richforman |
New Jersey operator licensing
Peter Wiley wrote:
If we just passed a law prohibiting any recreational power vessel from exceeding 10 knots, the problem (and PWC's) would go away. Accident stats would show a huge drop. Hey, Rich, if it saves one life, it's worth it...... .... New Hampshire considered and then rejected a bill that would set a 45 MPH daytime speed limit, 25 MPH at night. They would rather Live Free and Die. http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...3/1221/48HOURS |
New Jersey operator licensing
Dave wrote:
I think you're conceding too much here, Doug. There's no reason it shouldn't be a case by case determination, but with a "case" arising only when a boater is stopped for BWI, reckless behavior or other unlawful behavior. so employing this logic, we don't need to license people to drive cars either, and then only apply controls to each individual after they have killed or maimed themselves and/or others or caused property damage? |
New Jersey operator licensing
|
New Jersey operator licensing
Dave wrote:
On the contrary. I told anyone who was interested what a waste it was to spend 8 hours listening to somebody tell me some small portion of what I'd learned about boating over the last 40 years. I have better things to spend my time on. The only reason for sitting through the course was that I didn't want to take a day off to drive to the one place in CT where one had to go to test out of the requirement. And I don't recall hearing a single thing in the course that I didn't already know. You're missing the point entirely. Licensing has little to do with safety and everything to do with a chain of "accountability" in the event of an accident. It isn't about "corrupt politicians" out to get your money...good god what drivel -I know- you didn't write that. It's about the insurance companies! Who has to pay when someone gets injured/killed/sued. No license=No insurance=personal liability |
New Jersey operator licensing
"News f2s" wrote
Per hour that makes planes three times more likely to kill. I looked into this quite a bit in my early flying years. You have to take into account that the boating we are talking about is strictly recreational where as GA flying includes a lot of business use. A huge pie chart section of the aviation fatalities is doctors, lawyers, and salesmen pressing on to get to meetings in weather they have no business continuing to fly in. The weather that kills pilots is a lot more common than the weather that is equally dangerous to boats. If boating was a year round activity and being used by 60% of boaters to get to places they really needed to be, I am sure that the statistics would look very different. When you look at just the aviation segment that is analogous to most boating, duffing around in nice weather and returning to your home port, the fatality rates get a lot closer. -- Roger Long |
New Jersey operator licensing
prodigal1 wrote:
You're missing the point entirely. Licensing has little to do with safety and everything to do with a chain of "accountability" in the event of an accident. It isn't about "corrupt politicians" out to get your money...good god what drivel -I know- you didn't write that. It's about the insurance companies! Who has to pay when someone gets injured/killed/sued. No license=No insurance=personal liability I'd agree that lack of personal responsibility is a big part of the problem... and requiring a license isn't going to restore that. Instead, let's just enforce existing laws to the full extent. Rule 1 has always been 'don't screw up.' That means, learn how before you start... pay attention to what you're doing... But we have several generations of Americans wandering around loose who genuinely expect the world to be a no-skill-required place, and "learning how" is an alien concept. For example, driving drunk... bad idea. But simply driving a car while intoxicated is not the problem, the problem is that drunks cause wrecks. So instead of setting the cops to chase drunks, have them & the courts maximally punish drunks who cause wrecks... along with every other driver who has a wreck too. And (here's the important part) publicize the results, so that everybody *knows* that if you have a wreck, drunk or not, it's your ass in a sling in a big way... no maybes, no excuses, no "we'll let you off this time because you're remorseful." That would focus the mind of every driver, drunk or sober, on driving carefully & defensively. But hey, what a crazy idea... try ing to teach people to be responsible for their actions... it'll never work. DSK |
New Jersey operator licensing
DSK wrote:
prodigal1 wrote: You're missing the point entirely. Licensing has little to do with safety and everything to do with a chain of "accountability" in the event of an accident. It isn't about "corrupt politicians" out to get your money...good god what drivel -I know- you didn't write that. It's about the insurance companies! Who has to pay when someone gets injured/killed/sued. No license=No insurance=personal liability I'd agree that lack of personal responsibility is a big part of the problem... and requiring a license isn't going to restore that. Instead, let's just enforce existing laws to the full extent. Rule 1 has always been 'don't screw up.' That means, learn how before you start... pay attention to what you're doing... But we have several generations of Americans wandering around loose who genuinely expect the world to be a no-skill-required place, and "learning how" is an alien concept. For example, driving drunk... bad idea. But simply driving a car while intoxicated is not the problem, the problem is that drunks cause wrecks. So instead of setting the cops to chase drunks, have them & the courts maximally punish drunks who cause wrecks... along with every other driver who has a wreck too. And (here's the important part) publicize the results, so that everybody *knows* that if you have a wreck, drunk or not, it's your ass in a sling in a big way... no maybes, no excuses, no "we'll let you off this time because you're remorseful." That would focus the mind of every driver, drunk or sober, on driving carefully & defensively. But hey, what a crazy idea... try ing to teach people to be responsible for their actions... it'll never work. DSK Florida is currently considering a law that would require repeat DUI offenders to have a DUI-XXX license plate on their car. krj |
New Jersey operator licensing
Roger Long wrote:
"News f2s" wrote Per hour that makes planes three times more likely to kill. I looked into this quite a bit in my early flying years. You have to take into account that the boating we are talking about is strictly recreational where as GA flying includes a lot of business use. A huge pie chart section of the aviation fatalities is doctors, lawyers, and salesmen pressing on to get to meetings in weather they have no business continuing to fly in. In other words, they were in a hurry to get to where the big fish were? Hmmmmm ... The weather that kills pilots is a lot more common than the weather that is equally dangerous to boats. If boating was a year round activity and being used by 60% of boaters to get to places they really needed to be, I am sure that the statistics would look very different. Its true that weather seems to be a bigger factor in planes, but its still under 40% of the accidents. I don't think removing that makes that big of a change. And fair weather brings out the stupid boaters that cause the vast majority of boating accidents. When you look at just the aviation segment that is analogous to most boating, duffing around in nice weather and returning to your home port, the fatality rates get a lot closer. Sure, but what if pilots drank as much as boaters? BTW, a new annual ritual for my 10 y/o daughter and I has been taking a flight with these guys: http://www.biplanemv.com/index.shtml Great Fun! |
New Jersey operator licensing
Wayne.B wrote: On 3 Apr 2006 21:46:01 -0500, Dave wrote: So I take it your view is that unless a boater has committed a crime for which he can be imprisoned, he should be free to continue serial episodes of boating while drunk? Not at all, just enforce the existing laws. Serial DUI is a felony in many jurisdictions. I see an inconsistency in your argument. If you believe that government should institute and enforce laws against drunk boating, then you grant that they should have a role and be able to make restrictions. You concede that government should be able to step in and prevent a drunk from getting on the water (and lock him up to make sure of it). This isn't qualitatively different, it seems to me, from reuiring that in order to have the privilege of operating a power vehicle on the water (I already conceded that it might be different for sailboats, I'm not sure), one must not only stay sober, but also be able to prove that they've had basic safety instructions. In either case, we both agree that the government rightfully can be involved in restricting your "rights" and freedoms. I guess I'm a loony leftist, in that I think it's okay for the government to be involved in deciding who can own guns, who can drive cars and boats, and potentially restrict some people from doing those things and others. Not everything, but I don't think it's a slippery slope where, as was sarcastically suggested earlier, next I'll need a license to swim. I DO however, see a slippery slope situation, wherein if you let environmentalists pan pwc's from any public waterways, they'll be coming after your bigger powerboat next! richforman |
New Jersey operator licensing
Jeff wrote:
It should be noted that only a small number of accidents actually get reported, though almost all fatalities are included. However, fatalities not directly related to boating, such as while swimming from a moored boat, are not included. While I would love to be able to show that powerboats are more dangerous than sailboats, the real evidence is that most deaths are drowning, and 90% of those were not wearing PFDs; and 70% of fatalities occurred where the operator had received no training. One the other hand, lack of rules knowledge, lack of lookout, mechanical failure, etc. were pretty low on the list - general stupidity (recklessness, inattention, inexperience, excessive speed, alcohol) was pretty high. Up here it's usually the fishermen with their smaller outboard open boats.. or young people overloading boats heading to parties on quiet islands. Almost always, no PFD worn. Although we are surrounded by salt water with over 4000 km of coastline, most deaths occur on lakes. note... in majority of cases...no PFD worn. |
New Jersey operator licensing
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 17:08:36 +0100, "News f2s"
wrote: 12 hours per boat per year average. ??? That sounds way low to me. The real number is probably between 50 and 100 hours/year, and those are just engine hours, not total usage. |
New Jersey operator licensing
|
New Jersey operator licensing
You and me both. I've got a 10 year old and when i think back on what I did
and was like then... I grew up in a small town in AZ where we where in summer and weekend, we kids got together and folks didn't see us until dark! As far as the training, my folks would never have let me or my sibs loose with anything that could hurt us or others (like shotguns, motorcycles, etc) without making sure we knew what we were doing. Maybe I'm "old school" or just plain dumb, but that's the way I look after my kid too. But then, I believe parenting is more than just breeding. MMC "Peter Wiley" wrote in message . .. In article , MMC wrote: Every time I hear of a kid killed on a jet ski I think mandatory training is a good idea. That's worked wonderfully well for motorcycles and the same age cohort. Not. Every time I hear of anyone killed on a jet ski, I think of evolution in action. Yeah, I do have kids. If one died thru preventable stupidity as a result of their own bad judgement, I'd be heartbroken, but not real surprised. I remember some of the stupid things I did at the same age. PDW |
New Jersey operator licensing
Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 17:08:36 +0100, "News f2s" wrote: 12 hours per boat per year average. ??? That sounds way low to me. The real number is probably between 50 and 100 hours/year, and those are just engine hours, not total usage. Yes, I was guessing I must do at least 100 hours underway, maybe 200 or 300 if I'm daysailing a lot. Of course I also have a dinghy and a kayak which probably only get a few dozen hours, but are probably more dangerous. My brother (on a small lake) has a fishing boat which gets a fair amount of use (though underway hours might be low), a small sailboat which only gets a few hours, and two canoes that probably only get used once or twice a year. On the other hand, I don't think any of these boats are actually registered with any state. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com