DSK wrote:

Not at all, just enforce the existing laws. Serial DUI is a felony in
many jurisdictions.


wrote:
I see an inconsistency in your argument.

Not really.

... 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.

Well, let's see... are these two things the same?

1- a person has proven that they have bad judgement and
their actions are hazardous to others, so action is taken to
prevent their exercise of bad judgement in the future (and
dissuade others from making the same poor choices).

2- It is assumed that all people will make poor choices and
furthermore will not take the initiative to learn how to
make good choices.

Umm yeah, those two are the same or even close??!?



From my perspective, they're similar in that they're both attempts to
reduce the number of ignorant, dangerous idiots on the waterways.
Also, getting behind the wheel of a power boat without first being
instructed in the basic rules of the road and safety procedures, shows
bad judgment right up front.




I guess I'm a loony leftist

So far I have not figured you for either a "rightist" or
"leftist" but you may label yourself whatever you like.


Well you keep bringing up the fact that you don't want government
involved in making this or that decision, so you seem to be arguing the
issue from the right, implying, it seemed to me, that anyone who favors
the certification requirements is in favor of big, intrusive
government.



.... 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.

Sure. But here's the problem... in this country it is
assumed that gov't's authority is derived from the people.
WE are the ultimate authority.


Of course, that sounds like a non-sequitor to me. Any boating-related
law or any other law should come about as result of the standard
constitutionally defined process, with the participation of the public
through their elected representatives. These types of laws I
personally support.

Secondly, there are things the gov't can not do. For
example, the government could not stop people from drinking
alcohol. They tried and spent millions and all it did was
increase organized crime, and feed corruption. In fact
people drank more than ever!


True, I agree wholeheartedly, the government can't and shouldn't
legislate against vice.
Stop people from drinking - no. Try their best to stop people from
drinking and boating - yes. It occurs to me that there is probably a
percentage of would-be new boaters who may not even be aware that
boating under the influence is illegal, but they would learn it by
taking the basic boating safety course. I'd rather have them learn
this that way than by ignorantly going out and doing it, getting
caught, probably doing a lot of damage, and being arrested. Yup, I'd
rather just make them take the course first. I don't want to stop
ANYBODY from boating. I just want to make sure that they know the
basics first.

Can the gov't stop murder? Speeding? Robbery?

No.

They can slow it down, and laws against those things should
be vigorously enforced.

Is dangerous boating already illegal?

Yes.

Are those laws being enforced?

Not very effectively.

I agree with all of the above. That's another position of generally
all of us in the pwc'ing community by the way. Strict enforcement of
existing marine laws is the best way to producing good on-water
behavior, weeding out idiots and people who just don't care, reducing
accidents and conflicts....better than arbitrary bans of any kind based
on the size and shape of the hull of any particular sub-group of boats.


So what is the logical argument for claiming that more laws
& more gov't intervention, with no stronger attempt to
actually enforce laws currently in place, will improve the
situation? And furthermore, why pass laws that are punitive
to a section of the boating public that IS NOT CAUSING ANY
PROBLEMS AT ALL?


Where's the punishment, and what "section of the boating public" do you
mean? My position is that all power boaters should be required to
learn the basics before they hit the water. Nothing punitive about it,
and all segments of the boating public should be equally subjected to
it so as not to discriminate unfairly against anyone. Sure, I wouldn't
object to some kind of grandfather clause if that's what you mean - I
don't wanna go overboard with it, as it were, but I think it'd be great
if we could insure that a generation from now, everybody boating had to
demonstrate the same very basic level of familiarity with the basics of
safety and the law, as all car drivers do now.



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!


So?


So nothing. You wouldn't care because you seem to have something
against power boats in general. (Me I don't have anything against any
kind of boater based on what kind of boat they have or what they do
with it as long as they're having fun and being safe and reasonably
sensible.) This has always been my personal position vis-a-vis
pwc's. Personally I don't wanna ever see them banned from anywhere
where other recreational power boats are allowed (because they're the
same), but if someone who hates 'em and wants to ban 'em, wants to toss
out all power boats too, then at least that's consistent within itself
and not so arbitrary, and I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.
Of course that won't ever happen because there are a lot more owners
of bigger boats than pwc's, and those owners have a lot more money!

Actually, it might be a good idea to ban pleasure powerboats
altogether. It would save fuel and reduce our dependence on
politically hazardous oil-exporting countries, and also
delay our descent down the far side of the Hubbert Peak.


It would probably be good for those things (although I don't know what
the last thing refers to, maybe I should look it up), but now it sounds
like you're much more interested in abridging and restricting people's
freedoms than I (unless you're being totally sarcastic, but you sound
sincere). Like I said, I don't want to stop anybody from boating as
long as they just know what they're doing or know the very basics to
start, and I don't think it's at all unreasonable to require that they
demonstrate that they do.

Anyway now you're being really incosistent. You don't want government
to be able to make sure that someone's taken an eight-hour boating
safety class from those know-nothing nazis at the Power Squadron or
Coast Guard Auxiliary, to make the waterways a little safer for all
your fellow boaters, but you would go along with banning all power
boats from the waterways to conserve fuel.

richforman

DSK

On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 14:27:56 GMT, "Roger Long"
wrote:

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.

No one boats, or drives, from the big house.

Lock'em up.

In article , 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.

I used to drive with a blood alcohol level way over .01 many years ago.
It wasn't illegal then, the test was the ability to control the
vehicle. Nowadays there's a BA level set because it's not subjective
judgement by a PO and based on stats that measure levels of impaired
ability with increase in BA. I used to drive more slowly & cautiously
if I'd been drinking because I knew my reaction time was down.

The only vehicle accidents I've ever had in over 30 years were when
dead sober and not paying sufficient attention to what I was doing. And
I can count them on the thumbs of both hands.

So - I agree with you, Doug. The crime isn't driving with a BA over a
certain level, it's doing that and causing an accident. I can't figure,
given human stupidity, that laws will ever make a difference, tho, as
the people most dangerous are those sure they'll never get caught.

Here in Australia (NSW) they took licences off people and cancelled
their vehicle registrations for various offences. All that happened was
an increase in unlicensed & uninsured drivers/vehicles. Predictable.
They need to confiscate the vehicles, then people may pay attention. Or
at least if they didn't, they'd have to find a new vehicle to drive.

PDW

Dave wrote:
On 4 Apr 2006 13:48:18 -0700, said:

That's another position of generally
all of us in the pwc'ing community by the way.

Can you please drop this "community" horse****? For some reason every
mealy-mouthed unctuous weasel in the world seems to insist he's speaking for
this or that "community." Have the balls to speak for yourself.

There is a pwc community, and from what I hear and read communicating
with fellow members of it every day for the last decade or so, the vast
majority of people in it, and certainly the formal organization the
represents it (AWA) support increased enformcement of marine laws, and
requiring training and certification of all power boaters. Sorry to
**** you off by saying so but it's true.

richforman

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 13:23:44 -0400, prodigal1 said:


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?


Had you read the earlier parts of the thread you would see the foolishness
of this comment.
Oh I see, _you're_ the only one who reads in here. I've pointed out a
fairly gaping hole in your argument. Feel free to fill it in with
something substantive when you can. Until then... sshhhh! Big people
are talking in here.

Dave wrote:
snip
*plonk*
-sound of arrogant worm being dropped into bozo-bin

Wow. The thread that won't die. Actually, it died a long time ago
and it's starting to smell like it.

Give it up.

--

Roger Long



"Dave" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 12:54:28 -0400, prodigal1 said:

-sound of arrogant worm

Yes. How dare I have the gall to suggest you actually read something
before
engaging the mouth.

Mys Terry wrote:
On 5 Apr 2006 11:30:04 -0500, Dave wrote:

On 5 Apr 2006 08:22:05 -0700, said:

So indeed you had the ability to be exempted from the training
requirement by demonstrating you already knew the basics! (Weren't put
through the "burden" of having to take the course, you chose to
yourself because it seemed like the less inconvenient of the options.)
So I'm not sure what, if anything, you are complaining about at this
point.

I figure the opportunity costs to me of sitting unproductively through those
8 hours was in the thousands, as the costs of taking a day off to take the
test would have been.


Right, I get it exactly. You're not really that concerned with ideas
about the extent to which government should rightfully regulate
boating, except to the extent that it personally inconveniences you.
The right solution I guess, according to you (this is what your post
sounds like) would be for the government to break down the financial
cost of "sitting unproductively through those 8 hours" on an individual
case-by-case basis and if the figure is above a certain threshold, the
person is exempt from the rule about having to demonstrate that they
know boating safety basics.

richforman

On 5 Apr 2006 11:34:09 -0700, wrote:

You're not really that concerned with ideas
about the extent to which government should rightfully regulate
boating

What gives you the idea that government should be "rightfully
regulating boating" ?

wrote:
You're not really that concerned with ideas
about the extent to which government should rightfully regulate
boating


Wayne.B wrote:
What gives you the idea that government should be "rightfully
regulating boating" ?


It also never occured to him that some of us can learn
things without sitting in a classroom and being spoon-fed;
or that some people actually take the initiative to learn
about things before jumping in with both feet...

No, that could not be, the gov't must rightfully to force
everybody to sit in a classroom...

DSK