"jamesgangnc" wrote in message
...
On Jun 22, 9:29 pm, W1TEF wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:09:42 -0400, Wayne.B

wrote:
Tragic:

http://www.newschannel9.com/news/cre...-capsized.html

Even more so...

"None of the people in the fishing boat were wearing life jackets at
time of accident."

Sad.

It's not likely that a life jacket would have saved someone run over
by a bunch of barges and a tug. That's the problem I have with those
statistics, the "pro life jacket" people always want to assume that
wearing a life jacket would have saved the victim. And that is not
always the case. We don't wear life jackets while recreational
boating. I only ask people to wear one if they are very young or
can't swim. Wearing a life jacket is a situation by situation call.

It's hard to imagine tht these three guys could have all missed seeing
this bearing down on them. I can understand how the tug operator
might have missed seeing them.

reply: It takes a very long distance to turn or stop these aquatic freight
trains. Unless the barges ran right over the person, pressing them
underwater for a long time, they would have had a much better chance of
floating around it like a bobbing cork with a life jacket on. Boating
without a life jacket while under way is a personal call for each person. I
got knocked off a drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico. I had one on. I
have no doubt it saved my life. To each his own. It's not an assumption
that wearing a life jacket will save your life automatically. Just like it
is not an assumption that a seat belt will save your life in a car crash.
It's a statistic that is proven by millions of episodes. You have a better
chance if you have some safety equipment on.

Just the facts, maam.

Steve

visit my blog at http://cabgbypasssurgery.com

A fool shows his annoyance at once, but a prudent man overlooks an insult.