Rosalie B. wrote:

This whole post is a cheap shot. "Bob"

is not at issue here, and neither is...
I would definitely expect a 12 yo to be at least as able to figure out...

And 0-18 years? Get real. At 0 years they aren't going
to be running around the docks and they should be capable of thought
well before 18 years.

Sounds as though you lack a basic understanding of child development.
Go to

http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/...t/piaget.shtml

for a basic tutorial and read a bit. Interesting thing about Piaget.
The idea is decades old yet, today new brain scan technology supports
all of Piaget's work. And do not forget that most of our brains are
not completely wired until about age 20.

When was the last time you went to a public swimming pool?
To follow your line of though there is no need for lifeguards at pools
because kids should know better to walk not run and will always behave
in a safe manner.

And as I said befo So when was the last time you made a mistake? I
guess you better get rid of those smoke detectors because you'll
never leave anything on the stove and boil a pot dry.

Did you raise any kids or do you get your child raising ideas Rush
Limbaugh?

Bob

Bob

"Bob" wrote:
Rosalie B. wrote:

This whole post is a cheap shot. "Bob"

is not at issue here, and neither is...
I would definitely expect a 12 yo to be at least as able to figure out...

And 0-18 years? Get real. At 0 years they aren't going
to be running around the docks and they should be capable of thought
well before 18 years.

I have a good understanding of child development and reductio ad
absurdum arguments do not cut it with me. Whether I use smoke
detectors or not is irrelevant. (Yes I do use them but I do not cook)
Not having a life guard at a pool is never something I have ever
recommended, and it has nothing to do with the need for a parent to
take care of children when they are toddlers on a dock.

I have 4 children and 11 grandchildren, I was a school teacher in
middle school for 7 years, I coached an age group swim team for 7
years and I have studied Piaget. Having formal operational reasoning
is not a pre-requisite for knowing that you can pull a cord up out of
the water without going into the water.

Yes the hazard isn't too great for public safety if the marina end of
the cord is in the water, but I don't think it is good for the
equipment (which in the instance I cited belonged to the marina and
not to the boater).

I think the main hazard that Roger cited would be to people who had a
legitimate reason to be in the water (like divers working on a prop)
and who did not know that the cord was in the water or if the cord
fell in while they were working.

We were taught to assess probability (how likely something was to
happen) and hazard (how severe the problem would be if it happened).
In this case the severity if the breakers did not trip would be very
great, but the probability would be low. You can think of almost any
scenario where there is a possibility of something happening. That
doesn't mean that it is probable. Unplugging the marina end of the
cord removes the hazard so that the probablity is almost moot.

Sounds as though you lack a basic understanding of child development.
Go to

http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/...t/piaget.shtml

for a basic tutorial and read a bit. Interesting thing about Piaget.
The idea is decades old yet, today new brain scan technology supports
all of Piaget's work. And do not forget that most of our brains are
not completely wired until about age 20.

When was the last time you went to a public swimming pool?
To follow your line of though there is no need for lifeguards at pools
because kids should know better to walk not run and will always behave
in a safe manner.

And as I said befo So when was the last time you made a mistake? I
guess you better get rid of those smoke detectors because you'll
never leave anything on the stove and boil a pot dry.

Did you raise any kids or do you get your child raising ideas Rush
Limbaugh?

We were taught to assess probability (how likely something was to
happen) and hazard (how severe the problem would be if it happened).

Well, arguing probability doesn't make a shred of sense when you're talking
about a simple situation like this one. Effectively hard-wiring a live
electrical cord on a pier is both stupid and a violation of the electrical
code, not to mention common sense. Choosing this as a foundation for
arguing logic doesn't make much sense.

"Bill Kearney" wrote:

We were taught to assess probability (how likely something was to
happen) and hazard (how severe the problem would be if it happened).

Well, arguing probability doesn't make a shred of sense when you're talking
about a simple situation like this one. Effectively hard-wiring a live
electrical cord on a pier is both stupid and a violation of the electrical
code, not to mention common sense. Choosing this as a foundation for
arguing logic doesn't make much sense.

The probability in question was for if the live end of the cord fell
into the water. Roger's scenario had someone jumping into the water
after it, and then someone going in to rescue them. I can totally
agree that people who have no skills will often try to rescue someone
and die in the futile attempt. Happens a lot, especially in confined
space accidents.

I was questioning whether, since the cord is tied down to the pier,
the cord would not be most likely pulled out of the water from the
pier without jumping in.

Yes the screwing shut the box with the cord attached is stupid and a
violation of code, but Roger fixed that by unscrewing the box and
unplugging the cord.

I don't think anything more than that is needed until such time as
someone talks to the marina and/or the boater.

The probability in question was for if the live end of the cord fell
into the water. Roger's scenario had someone jumping into the water
after it, and then someone going in to rescue them. I can totally
agree that people who have no skills will often try to rescue someone
and die in the futile attempt. Happens a lot, especially in confined
space accidents.

It doesn't take much for someone to accidentally fall into the water. Be
they drunk, incompetent, tired, disoriented from a day on the waves or just
plain unlucky. There shouldn't be the added risk of FATALITY due to someone
leaving a LIVE cord lying about.

While I'm always a fan of the saying "Being stupid should hurt" it's not
supposed to be fatal. But I'll stop one step short of using the tired "what
about risks to CHILDREN!" shrill cry...

I don't think anything more than that is needed until such time as
someone talks to the marina and/or the boater.

This is true.

"Bill Kearney" wrote:

The probability in question was for if the live end of the cord fell
into the water. Roger's scenario had someone jumping into the water
after it, and then someone going in to rescue them. I can totally
agree that people who have no skills will often try to rescue someone
and die in the futile attempt. Happens a lot, especially in confined
space accidents.

It doesn't take much for someone to accidentally fall into the water. Be
they drunk, incompetent, tired, disoriented from a day on the waves or just
plain unlucky. There shouldn't be the added risk of FATALITY due to someone
leaving a LIVE cord lying about.

I think if someone falls into the water accidentally (and I have done
that BTW and I was neither drunk, or disoriented although we will
leave incompetent TBDL*) the greatest risk is of drowning. Which is a
fatality.

While I'm always a fan of the saying "Being stupid should hurt" it's not
supposed to be fatal. But I'll stop one step short of using the tired "what
about risks to CHILDREN!" shrill cry...

I don't think anything more than that is needed until such time as
someone talks to the marina and/or the boater.

This is true.

(*When I fell in it was early November (in the marina which is off the
Potomac River), it was because I was folding the sails and
accidentally backed off the end of the dock. My first thought, as I
hit the water was "I'm going to die of hypothermia". I didn't
obviously.)

"Rosalie B." wrote in message
...
"Bob" wrote:

I think the main hazard that Roger cited would be to people who had a
legitimate reason to be in the water (like divers working on a prop)
and who did not know that the cord was in the water or if the cord
fell in while they were working.

We were taught to assess probability (how likely something was to
happen) and hazard (how severe the problem would be if it happened).
In this case the severity if the breakers did not trip would be very
great, but the probability would be low. You can think of almost any
scenario where there is a possibility of something happening. That
doesn't mean that it is probable. Unplugging the marina end of the
cord removes the hazard so that the probablity is almost moot.

What does the marina management say on this about permanently fastening the
power cord to the dock. That is a liability that if someone did get hurt,
tripping over it or badly shocked, their lawyers would make sure they got to
own the marina. I do know that our marina, they would nicely asked to remove
it or it would be removed by marina personnel and probably disappear in the
dumpster.

Leanne

"Rosalie B." wrote

I think the main hazard that Roger cited would be to people who had
a
legitimate reason to be in the water (like divers working on a prop)
and who did not know that the cord was in the water or if the cord
fell in while they were working.

Actually, I was envisioning someone leaning over to helpfully pull the
cord (which might look like a hose to a non boater) out of the water,
getting to the part that was wet with salt water, being surprised by
the tingle, and then pitching in.

--

Roger Long

Roger Long wrote:
"Rosalie B." wrote

I think the main hazard that Roger cited would be to people who had
a
legitimate reason to be in the water (like divers working on a prop)
and who did not know that the cord was in the water or if the cord
fell in while they were working.

Actually, I was envisioning someone leaning over to helpfully pull the
cord (which might look like a hose to a non boater) out of the water,
getting to the part that was wet with salt water, being surprised by
the tingle, and then pitching in.

Roger Long



Any body ever too lazy after three beers with the guy a cople boats
over and just unfurl your short arm and take a **** over the side?

ZAPppp !
OUCH !

When I am working on my boat it sure is easy to just neel down and
rinse off my hands in the water.

And then there are the steel piles the dock is connected to. Guess I
better not touch them.
Oh, the dock water supply that runs through 1/2' galvanized pipe. Guess
I can not touch that.

I guess that is purdy stpid of me to think the marina water wont kill
me.
Too many what-ifs.

Bob

Roger Long wrote:
"Rosalie B." wrote

I think the main hazard that Roger cited would be to people who had
a
legitimate reason to be in the water (like divers working on a prop)
and who did not know that the cord was in the water or if the cord
fell in while they were working.

Actually, I was envisioning someone leaning over to helpfully pull the
cord (which might look like a hose to a non boater) out of the water,
getting to the part that was wet with salt water, being surprised by
the tingle, and then pitching in.

While electrocutions are not that common, the CG accident reports
typically shows several each year from faulty shore power. The report
is not specific on what actually transpired, but they do say that
shore power vs swimmer accidents shall be included as "boating accidents."