Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
New Jersey operator licensing
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|