Canranger44 wrote:

By the way it is mandatory in Canada to have a PFD for each person, a throw
bag,
baling device, a sound signaling device and a visual signaling device.


Yes, you'll have to carry one (pfd , approved by CCG or DOT) for each person on
board, wearing it is up to you. Common sense tells that it is a good idea to
wear it, since stuffed in a hatch or under the deck lines it is no good.
Reality shows a different picture. Espcl. in spring and early summer, the first
warm days, you see a lot of people paddling the lakes and the coast not wearing
pfd. Warm air and water temperature 10 C are a potentially deadly combination,
since they lure people into ignoring the risk of cold shock and possible
hypothermia after immersion .
What are your chances if you get dumped into water like this to make a speedy
recovery? Well, the people who know those tricks and techniques usually wear
pfd and wetsuits, because they know the risks.
What are your chances to hold on to paddle and boat, pull out the pfd, put it on
and go from there? Good chance that coldshock (not hypothermia) will take care
of that problem for you.

I hate to say this, but increasing popularity of kayaking and the increasing
number of beginners and unknowing "intermediate" role models will cause more
fatalities in the near future. More and more people go on the water and have no
idea what they are getting into. Needless to say that I will not be
disappointed to see myself proven wrong, but I am afraid I this will not happen.

The study mentioned before shows a larger number of canoeing fatalities than
kayaking fatalities. The only reason for this is that canoeing is still much
more common in cottage country than kayaking. The increasing number of
recreational kayaks will likely shift the numbers in near future.
In case it hasn't been mentioned befo the study was published by the American
Canoe Association (ACA) under the title "Critical Judgement". Last time I
checked it was on their website as a pdf file
(http://www.acanet.org/sei-critical-judge.htm)

Ulli

On a trail in the alps there was a sign " Responsible hikers don't leave the
trail, all others are required by law to do so"

One of our local lakes takes an interesting approach. They get
donations from local businesses and such. These businesses donate
free lunches, discounts, free services, and money. They put these gift
certificates or money into 100 envelopes. One of the envelopes has
$1000 in it.

When they see a boat where all the passengers are wearing PFDs, they
go up to the boat and congratulate them and offer to let them pick an
envelope. If they are not wearing PFDs they are chastised and told
that they can qualify next time by wearing their PFDs.

It is actually pretty effective. My neighbor got to pick an envelope
when only 3 were left. The $1,000 was in one of the three but he
chose the wrong one.


Randy

Randy Hodges wrote:

One of our local lakes takes an interesting approach. They get
donations from local businesses and such. These businesses donate
free lunches, discounts, free services, and money. They put these gift
certificates or money into 100 envelopes. One of the envelopes has
$1000 in it.

When they see a boat where all the passengers are wearing PFDs, they
go up to the boat and congratulate them and offer to let them pick an
envelope. If they are not wearing PFDs they are chastised and told
that they can qualify next time by wearing their PFDs.

Interesting approach! I think that positive stimulation can be a lot
more effective than putting up a rule that isn't enforced.

Very few people actually adhere strictly to the law if the chance of
getting caught is tiny: speeding is a good example of that.

--
--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a@t dse d.o.t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

The issue in my mind is not the merits of wearing/not wearing a PFD.

I would question the Coast Guard's jurisdiction in issuing a directive on
the subject. Like motorcycle helmets, the states should be making this
call.

Phil Sellers wrote:

I would question the Coast Guard's jurisdiction in issuing a directive on
the subject. Like motorcycle helmets, the states should be making this
call.

Were the US Coast Guard to issue such a regulation (and I am unaware of
anything actually pending) it would apply only where the Coast Guard has
jurisdiction. Without gettting into a lengthy discussion of inland sea
law, suffice it to say that most inland lakes and rivers are not within
the US Coast Guard's jurisdiction, so it would be up to each state or
other governmental entity to set the rule.

That's why my BS detector goes off every time I hear somebody tell me
that the federal gummint is going to require PFD's everywhere. The
regulatory jurisdictional boundaries simply make it impossible for it to
be done with one fell swoop. If it happens, it'll happen one state at a
time. So far, the score seems to be oh-for-fifty.

But note that where the Coast Guard has jurisdiction, they do get to set
the rules. Likewise the US Park Service gets to set rules where they
have jurisdiction - and when their jurisdiction includes whitewater,
sometimes they require you to wear a PFD. I don't think this is
unreasonable, although I do think it's unreasonable to require PFD's on
calm shallow water when the weather is nice. The question is where to
draw the line.

--
//-Walt
//
// http://tinyurl.com/2lsr3

Dave Manby wrote in
:

There is this strange one in France where the floatation of pfd you
don't have to wear (unless in a commercial situation) depends on what
craft you are in. Bigger floatation for rafters than for canoeists and
kayak paddlers. Why does it make a difference what craft you fell out
of!

Maybe it more to do with what craft you're more likely to fall out of.

I always wear my PFD. I always wear seatbelts in a car. The personal
freedom argument against regulation is appealing, to a point. Part of
the cost of my auto, health and life insurance is the cost of risk
pooling because others are going to be "benefitting" from their
stupidity, at everyone's expense. Rescue resources, and insurance
benefits come out of everyone's pocket. If we don't mandate, let's
formalize the notion that if you suffer harm because of the lack of
seatbelt, PFD, etc. you lose (all, most, some?) of your insurance coverage.

Canranger44 wrote:

I have been over this issue many times with people who won't wear their PFD
but in the end I have gone the route of natural selection if they are to
stupid to wear it then maybe there is a greater reasoning involved so many
people underestimate Darwin's theory but the guy who doesn't wear a helmet
on a motorcycle or bicycle or a PFD in a boat might not be the type of
genetic material we want lingering on.

In article ,
Michael Daly wrote:
Seatbelt cutters are cheap. I keep one in my car, just like
I keep a knife in my PFD. It also has a window score-and-shatter
hammer end.

Someone in a car magazine tested one of these devices with junkyard
cars. It was not very effective. You might want to visit a junkyard
and test it.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

"Martin Shell" wrote in message k.net...
I always wear my PFD. I always wear seatbelts in a car. The personal
freedom argument against regulation is appealing, to a point. Part of
the cost of my auto, health and life insurance is the cost of risk
pooling because others are going to be "benefitting" from their
stupidity, at everyone's expense. Rescue resources, and insurance
benefits come out of everyone's pocket. If we don't mandate, let's
formalize the notion that if you suffer harm because of the lack of
seatbelt, PFD, etc. you lose (all, most, some?) of your insurance coverage.

Someone finally got to the real issue here, but it goes further than just insurance. These personal freedom folks who don't wear
motorcylcle helmets, car seatbelts, PFD's, ad infinitum, fully expect the rest of society to suck up the social and actual costs of
their rescues and injuries when they occur. All these rhetoric about personal freedom being a reason to not use safety devices would
be fine if these same people would sign and follow some type of exculpatory agreement that the rest of society would not be burdened
with rescue costs, subsequent follow up long term medical care, and most of all ligitations against the deepest pocket public
agencies they or their families attorneys can find. Many, many motorcycle crash victims or others sue the state or local
municipalities over road conditions or etc. Even if they loose, the legal costs to taxpayers can be huge. Personal freedom should
come only with personal responcibility, but the reality is just the opposite.

Fact is we all routinely give up personal freedoms every day for the greater good and smooth functioning of society. What about
keeping your car in safe condition to protect other drivers ? What about conforming to a set of rules on the road so that we can all
drive safely ? What about setting fires in unsafe places or discharging firearms in residential neighborhoods ? The list is endless.

Te Canaille

Walt wrote in message

Were the US Coast Guard to issue such a regulation (and I am unaware of
anything actually pending) it would apply only where the Coast Guard has
jurisdiction.

Just because the government has no jurisdiction does not meant that it
won't try to impose its will on the states. Look at the 55 MPH speed
limit, seat belt laws, and education (to name a few areas). These are
areas where, constitutionally, the states should be able to make the
rules. But, as long as the federal government continues to tax us at
a high rate and then gives it back with strings attached, they will
call the shots whenever they want to.

The worst part is that any such regulation is likely to be pretty
arcane. For example, there was a time when rafts (and other boats of
a particular size) had to carry a "Throwable Flotation Device," an air
horn, and a fire extinguisher. Wes****er Canyon is now inspecting
life jackets before you are allowed on the river. If it does not
specifically say "For Whitewater Use" or "For Paddling" or if it is
faded or modified in any way, you are denied the right to float.

I really think that we are better off with the federal government
defending us and regulating interstate commerce (and a few other
constitutionally mandated functions) and then leaving most of the
other decisions to the states or to the individual. When it comes to
paddling equipment, I'd like to make my own choices and I will take
the consequences thank you.

Randy