South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com
90% of those in Florida boating accidents never took safety course
The leading cause of death is drowning and could be averted by simply
wearing a life jacket.

By Arelis R. Hernández, Orlando Sentinel

December 29, 2010


Experience is what Arlen Gastineau said saved him last month when his
boat capsized 20 miles out in the Gulf of Mexico and left him and two
friends clinging to the overturned vessel for more than 18 hours. The
69-year-old fisherman has logged hundreds of hours on the brine, but he
admitted he may have missed a few things.

Gastineau is one of the many Floridian boaters who have never taken a
boating education course. They rely on their time-tested expertise to
navigate state waters safely.

Yet statistics show these boaters make up the bulk of recreational
boating fatalities and accident victims in Florida. Nearly 90 percent of
boaters involved in accidents between 2004 and 2009 never have taken a
safety course in Florida.

"I suspect it's an attitude similar to people who don't wear helmets on
their motorcycles," Gastineau said.

People lose their lives at a steady rate on the state's waterways due to
carelessness, a refusal to wear life jackets and a lack of basic boating
knowledge, data shows. Despite efforts to raise safety awareness,
enhanced legislation and stepped-up safety checks, authorities remained
concerned people are dying needlessly.

"Boating is seen as such a pleasurable recreational activity, that
people don't think about how dangerous it is," said Officer Chad Weber
of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission as he patrolled
Lake Harris in Lake County. "We don't want 'search and rescue' missions
to turn into 'search and recovery.' "

Boat trips ended tragically for 97 people who died on Central Florida's
waterways since 2004, according to FWC's latest available statistics.
About 350 people were injured during that time. Polk and Orange counties
had the highest death tolls in the region.

Florida's 2009 data shows that more than 60 percent of operators in
fatal accidents had more than 100 hours of experience. The victims
drowned 70 percent of the time. Statewide, more than 400 people died and
2,400 others were injured between 2004 and 2009.

Law-enforcement agencies try to enforce common sense, but Florida
continues to rank high in boating accidents, injuries and fatalities
nationwide. Meanwhile, the number of registered boats in the state keeps
increasing.

FWC's Weber said he regularly issues tickets to boat owners who lack
basic equipment such as life jackets and fire extinguishers. He
frequently stops people who think it's safe to ride on the bow of
high-speed boats, he said.

Last year, the state Legislature required that anyone born on or after
Jan. 1, 1988, must complete an approved safety course before operating a
boat.

FWC Maj. Paul Ouellette said he hopes the law will build a generation of
safe boaters but conceded it does little to change the mentality of
old-timers.

"These are the guys who say they don't need education because their dads
taught them how to operate a boat," Ouellette said. "Well, I learned a
lot of what my dad taught me was not good."

The laws stop short of making education mandatory for everyone or
placing more stringent regulations on life jacket and alcohol use — two
things that can most prevent or cause boating casualties.

"You don't want to make the barrier of entry too high for boaters and
discourage them with overregulation," said Mike Anderson, director of
the American Boating Association in Massachusetts.

Instead, the marine industry is trying to make safety more accessible
with new technology.

"The days when the personal flotation devices were big dorky orange
things are gone," Anderson said.

Life-preservers have become more comfortable, lightweight and practical.
Some inflate on contact with water, while others are activated by a
ripcord. They can even be worn as a fanny pack.

Along with working flares, boating safety organizations also recommend
fisherman carry water-activated emergency radio beacons — devices that
emit a traceable signal with the distressed boater's location.

The approved safety classes also are available online for a fee through
different web sites.

Cost can be an issue for some. Inflatable life jackets can run between
$70 and $200. Emergency transmitters cost as much as $800. Classes can
be free, but some organizations, such as the U.S. Power Squadrons, offer
books and a training course for $55.

"But, how expensive is your life?" Anderson said. "If you spent the
money on the fishing equipment and the boat, don't scrimp on safety.
That's not where you want to cut the budget."

After his ordeal, even an old sailor decided he could use some help.

Gastineau said he was giving himself an emergency transmitter for Christmas.

- - -

I'd bet the same is true of boating accidents everywhere, not just
florida...uneducated boaters.

On Jan 2, 2:04*pm, W1TEF wrote:
On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 11:55:41 -0500, Harryk
wrote:

South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com
90% of those in Florida boating accidents never took safety course
The leading cause of death is drowning and could be averted by simply
wearing a life jacket.

I'll bet that 50% of the accidents involved alcohol too.

and 75% of the non-alcohol related accidents involved no or lack of
any common sense.

"W1TEF" wrote in message ...

On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 11:55:41 -0500, Harryk
wrote:

South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com
90% of those in Florida boating accidents never took safety course
The leading cause of death is drowning and could be averted by simply
wearing a life jacket.

I'll bet that 50% of the accidents involved alcohol too.


Not really. some 60% of drowned fishermen have their fly open. Peeing off
the back of a small boat can be hazardous to your health. Maybe they were
peeing because of the beer.

On Jan 2, 9:04*pm, I am Tosk wrote:
In article ,
says...





"W1TEF" *wrote in messagenews:cgm1i6hha4jlp8m1lk2484hcmf17bl0p61@4ax .com...

On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 11:55:41 -0500, Harryk
wrote:

South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com
90% of those in Florida boating accidents never took safety course
The leading cause of death is drowning and could be averted by simply
wearing a life jacket.

I'll bet that 50% of the accidents involved alcohol too.

Not really. *some 60% of drowned fishermen have their fly open. *Peeing off
the back of a small boat can be hazardous to your health. *Maybe they were
peeing because of the beer.

I heard that figure here and there so I asked my bud once... He said in
fact it was true. His job was rescue swimmer for the USCG of Galveston
TX...

--
Rowdy Mouse Racing - Pain is temporary, Glory is forever!

yes to you and Bill.

Did I mention something about a lack of common sense?

"W1TEF" wrote in message ...

On Sun, 2 Jan 2011 18:35:49 -0800, "Califbill"
wrote:

"W1TEF" wrote in message
.. .

On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 11:55:41 -0500, Harryk
wrote:

South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com
90% of those in Florida boating accidents never took safety course
The leading cause of death is drowning and could be averted by simply
wearing a life jacket.

I'll bet that 50% of the accidents involved alcohol too.


Not really. some 60% of drowned fishermen have their fly open. Peeing off
the back of a small boat can be hazardous to your health. Maybe they were
peeing because of the beer.

LOL!!!

I was just going to say - it was the beer that caused the drowning
from whizzing off the stern. :)


Reply:
I break the law on my skiff. Pee in a jug and pour overboard. Illegal to
pour overboard, but legal to pee directly overboard. Wasn't it in Boston
where the EPA said they could not dump the snow from the street cleanup in
to the harbor. Couple years ago. But legal to let melt and run off in to
the harbor. Common sense is not so common. Especially in government.

On Mon, 3 Jan 2011 13:16:40 -0800, "Califbill"
wrote:

I break the law on my skiff. Pee in a jug and pour overboard. Illegal to
pour overboard, but legal to pee directly overboard. Wasn't it in Boston
where the EPA said they could not dump the snow from the street cleanup in
to the harbor. Couple years ago. But legal to let melt and run off in to
the harbor. Common sense is not so common. Especially in government.

Especially in the EPA - too much education, not enough intelligence -
but very good at preserving their jobs.

On 1/3/11 5:48 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jan 2011 13:16:40 -0800, "Califbill"
wrote:

I break the law on my skiff. Pee in a jug and pour overboard. Illegal to
pour overboard, but legal to pee directly overboard. Wasn't it in Boston
where the EPA said they could not dump the snow from the street cleanup in
to the harbor. Couple years ago. But legal to let melt and run off in to
the harbor. Common sense is not so common. Especially in government.

Especially in the EPA - too much education, not enough intelligence -
but very good at preserving their jobs.


There probably are good regulations against dumping snow in harbors and
rivers, and for good reasons. As an aside, the winter I lived in the
Albany, N.Y., area, we had a lot of snow. The plow-equipped dump trucks
pushed the snow down the main street in Albany, a street that ended at
the Hudson River. One overzealous driver pushed his mountain of plowed
snow right into the river (actually, a lot of drivers did that), but
apparently forgot where he was on the space-time continuum. Yup. The
snow, the plow, the truck and the driver...right into the Hudson. The
driver was rescued.

"Harryk" wrote in message ...

On 1/3/11 5:48 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jan 2011 13:16:40 -0800, "Califbill"
wrote:

I break the law on my skiff. Pee in a jug and pour overboard. Illegal
to
pour overboard, but legal to pee directly overboard. Wasn't it in Boston
where the EPA said they could not dump the snow from the street cleanup
in
to the harbor. Couple years ago. But legal to let melt and run off in
to
the harbor. Common sense is not so common. Especially in government.

Especially in the EPA - too much education, not enough intelligence -
but very good at preserving their jobs.


There probably are good regulations against dumping snow in harbors and
rivers, and for good reasons. As an aside, the winter I lived in the
Albany, N.Y., area, we had a lot of snow. The plow-equipped dump trucks
pushed the snow down the main street in Albany, a street that ended at
the Hudson River. One overzealous driver pushed his mountain of plowed
snow right into the river (actually, a lot of drivers did that), but
apparently forgot where he was on the space-time continuum. Yup. The
snow, the plow, the truck and the driver...right into the Hudson. The
driver was rescued.


Reply: Why would there be a regulation against pushing snow in the river to
get rid of it? The same snow as water will flow in to the river with the
same contaminants and maybe a few cars also,

On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 17:56:35 -0500, Harryk
wrote:

On 1/3/11 5:48 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jan 2011 13:16:40 -0800, "Califbill"
wrote:

I break the law on my skiff. Pee in a jug and pour overboard. Illegal to
pour overboard, but legal to pee directly overboard. Wasn't it in Boston
where the EPA said they could not dump the snow from the street cleanup in
to the harbor. Couple years ago. But legal to let melt and run off in to
the harbor. Common sense is not so common. Especially in government.

Especially in the EPA - too much education, not enough intelligence -
but very good at preserving their jobs.


There probably are good regulations against dumping snow in harbors and
rivers, and for good reasons. As an aside, the winter I lived in the
Albany, N.Y., area, we had a lot of snow. The plow-equipped dump trucks
pushed the snow down the main street in Albany, a street that ended at
the Hudson River. One overzealous driver pushed his mountain of plowed
snow right into the river (actually, a lot of drivers did that), but
apparently forgot where he was on the space-time continuum. Yup. The
snow, the plow, the truck and the driver...right into the Hudson. The
driver was rescued.

With all due respect, the people of Albany know very little about snow
and ice. I grew up near the south shore of Lake Ontario in Upstate
NY in a town that gets between 200 and 300 inches of show a year.

Typical winter Lake Ontario shore scenery:

http://www.lakeshoreimages.com/images12/lakeice2a.jpg

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/68287/68287,1153348436,28/stock-photo-a-wave-breaks-the-ice-along-the-coast-of-lake-ontario-near-lake-ontario-1568690.jpg

http://celebratecanada.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/ice-piles-on-lake-ontario.jpg?w=800&h=531

Trucks pushed snow and ice into the river and lake all the time, and
the remainder eventually melted and ended up there anyway.

On Jan 3, 5:04*pm, "Califbill" wrote:
"Harryk" *wrote in ...

On 1/3/11 5:48 PM, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 3 Jan 2011 13:16:40 -0800, "Califbill"
*wrote:

I break the law on my skiff. *Pee in a jug and pour overboard. *Illegal
to
pour overboard, but legal to pee directly overboard. *Wasn't it in Boston
where the EPA said they could not dump the snow from the street cleanup
in
to the harbor. *Couple years ago. *But legal to let melt and run off in
to
the harbor. *Common sense is not so common. *Especially in government.

Especially in the EPA - too much education, not enough intelligence -
but very good at preserving their jobs.

There probably are good regulations against dumping snow in harbors and
rivers, and for good reasons. As an aside, the winter I lived in the
Albany, N.Y., area, we had a lot of snow. The plow-equipped dump trucks
pushed the snow down the main street in Albany, a street that ended at
the Hudson River. One overzealous driver pushed his mountain of plowed
snow right into the river (actually, a lot of drivers did that), but
apparently forgot where he was on the space-time continuum. Yup. The
snow, the plow, the truck and the driver...right into the Hudson. The
driver was rescued.

Reply: *Why would there be a regulation against pushing snow in the river to
get rid of it? *The same snow as water will flow in to the river with the
same contaminants and maybe a few cars also,

Who knows, there might accidently be a tire in the pile, or a
bicycle... or corpse.