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.

"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

snip
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.

snip

As one who "always" wears a seatbelt - except in very low-speed maneuvering,
generally off the public roads - and "always" wears a lifejacket - except in
very controlled conditions - I would be concerned with a "mandatory" life
jacket rule.

For starters, who would have to wear one? Fishermen? Lifeguards? Divers?

When would it be allowable to remove it? Below decks? at anchor? at a
dock? not underway? within XX feet of shore? just before jumping in? when
changing clothes? In less than 4' of water? In still water? While
peeing/pooping? while boarding/debarking? air temp over 90 degrees F?

Would it depend on boat size/type? If so, what would be the rationale for
requiring wear on, say 20' while exempting 21'? How do you define boat, as
opposed to toy, or float?

Presumably commercial/inspected vessels would be exempted - like the pontoon
ferry in Baltimore, or the Duck boat (was that in Tennessee?) a couple years
ago.

I guess I put more trust in my judgement than in a bureaucracy's. And yes,
I have seen plenty of idiots out there, including 3 adults and a big dog in
a 10' jon boat with a little outboard, thick fog, heading out the mouth of a
major river, a snow shovel for a paddle. I was worried for the dog -
perhaps mandatory PFD's for pets should come first...

Sal's Dad

Martin Shell wrote:
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.

Absolutely. I'm all for insurance companies having a freer hand to
dictate coverage terms and to price coverage according to what terms the
insured is willing to accept. If you want to ride a motorcycle without a
helmet, drive a car without wearing seatbelts, or paddle without a PFD,
you should be willing to pay for the increased risk you pose to an
insurer. This is already done with some factors, premiums being based on
age, physical condition and whether a person smokes or not. Why
shouldn't use of safety equipment be part of the equation? If someone
lies in order to get a lower rate, the insurance company should not have
to pay if they get hurt or die, or at least they should be allowed to
pay a reduced benefit. Fair is fair.