PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

These were culled from the article "To Wear or Not To Wear, the PFD
Mandate Debate" in the Spring issue of Paddler Dealer, about the US
Coast Guard's consideration of a mandatory-wear requirement for boats
under 21'. The article is worth searching out, thoroughly covering the
question of the pros and cons of mandated PFD use.

In 2002 there were 750 boating fatalities in the US (all types of
boats). The USCG estimates that 440 people could have been saved if
they had worn PFD's.

In 2002 drowning caused 524 of those boating fatalities. Of those more
than 75% were in small boats (under 21').

85% of those drowning deaths were not wearing PFD's.

90% of the fatalities were men.

50% of the canoeing and kayaking fatalities were fishermen.

40% of the canoe fatalities involved aluminum canoes.

Kayaker's wear-rate for PFD's is 82%

Jet skiers wear PFD's 97.5% of the time. The percentage is almost
certainly because it is mandated for operation of a personal
watercraft.

My take on those statistics: Wearing a PFD can obviously save your
life (duh). Mandating wear obviously increases the use of PFD's (duh
again).

A large percentage of the small boat fatalities tied to not wearing
PFD's involve either fishermen or folks in aluminum canoes. I'd take
that as an indication that these were not paddling enthusiasts but
simply folks in boats with paddles.

And I'd take that a step further and hazard a guess that that group is
the least likely to have a comfortable, well-designed PFD. Canoe
rental places aren't exactly passing out Lotus or Extrasports and I
doubt that many folks who buy a $300 rec boat spring for a $100 PFD.

I can't claim to wear my PFD 100% of the time. On a hot summer day on
a gentle shallow stream I probably won't. Unless it becomes the law,
and then I probably will.

That said, I'm still opposed to mandates that infringe on my personal
freedom of choice.

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

Mike McCrea wrote:
sobering statistics snipped to save bandwidth

My take on those statistics: Wearing a PFD can obviously save your
life (duh). Mandating wear obviously increases the use of PFD's (duh
again).

PFD's are like seatbelts. There's no good argument against them and the
evidence is that they save lives, but people can always manage to
rationalize not using them, if that's what they want to do. I guess the
appropriate term for this behavior is "natural selection".

A large percentage of the small boat fatalities tied to not wearing
PFD's involve either fishermen or folks in aluminum canoes. I'd take
that as an indication that these were not paddling enthusiasts but
simply folks in boats with paddles.

And I'd take that a step further and hazard a guess that that group is
the least likely to have a comfortable, well-designed PFD. Canoe
rental places aren't exactly passing out Lotus or Extrasports and I
doubt that many folks who buy a $300 rec boat spring for a $100 PFD.

Both good point, but there are others that aren't mentioned. The
majority of canoe accidents involving fishermen and rec paddlers are due
to standing in the canoe or shifting positions, probably common
occurrences when fishing.

Alcohol also plays a huge part in boating fatalities. Aside from
intoxication related problems (impaired operation, loss of balance,
increased susceptibility to hypothermia), a high percentage of guys who
die are found with their flys open, indicating that they were in the
process "recycling" their chosen adult beverages at the time of their
accident.

I can't claim to wear my PFD 100% of the time. On a hot summer day on
a gentle shallow stream I probably won't. Unless it becomes the law,
and then I probably will.

That said, I'm still opposed to mandates that infringe on my personal
freedom of choice.

I agree. It's a simple case of us not doing the right thing voluntarily
and the government stepping in to force the issue. If people would only
use their heads...

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

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.

--
Abe Elias
Diving Sparrow Paddle Co,
http://home.cogeco.ca/~aelias
"Michael Daly" wrote in message
...
On 1-Apr-2004, Brian Nystrom wrote:

PFD's are like seatbelts. There's no good argument against them and the
evidence is that they save lives, but people can always manage to
rationalize not using them, if that's what they want to do. I guess the
appropriate term for this behavior is "natural selection".

Minor nit - they don't rationalize, they justify. If they were rational,
they'd wear it. People can justify anything, even the irrational.

Mike

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

"Mike McCrea" wrote in message
om...
That said, I'm still opposed to mandates that infringe on my personal
freedom of choice.

Thanks for the statistics Mike. Part of me agrees with your last statement
but I think in the end I'll accept the regulation. I used to ride a
motorcycle. I was a kid and wore a helmet because NY had a helmet law.
It's too easy on a beautiful day, or when going on a short spin to pass on
the helmet (or pfd). The law makes us think twice. Especially the kids. I
gave up bikes when someone with good aim clocked me with a bottle from an
overpass on the Brooklyn Queens Expressway at rush hour. The helmet did
double duty there. Without the laws too many kids will be 'cool' and avoid
the hassle. Too many adults will either be fools or lazy. In the end
everyone pays. I guess it's the clash of 'individual freedom' with 'no man
is an island'. I recognize the other side of the argument though, as in
'where does it end?' Mandatory helmets while skiing or bicycling?,
Mandatory kneepads when gardening? Mandatory lipitor for baby boomers?
But mandatory use of pfd's is ok with me.
Billy Sarokin

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

Brian Nystrom wrote:

The majority of canoe accidents involving fishermen and rec paddlers
are due to standing in the canoe or shifting positions, probably
common occurrences when fishing.

When either touring or fishing in my very stable 20' canoe, I often
stand - sometimes for extended periods - even in 'easy' white water.
Paddling/poling and viewing are far more effective when standing - as
is fly casting. Whenever I'm in white water, I ALWAYS wear a pfd but
haven't needed it yet. The only time I dumped a canoe other than on
purpose, I had been sitting the entire trip. The only time I ever fell
out of a canoe other than on purpose was landing during extremely high
winds on a very rocky shore where knee- and elbow-pads would have been
of far more value than the pfd I had on. As for moving about in the
canoe, both in still and moving water, it's a matter of knowing
yourself, knowing the canoe & within limits knowing the conditions. Just
standing is no sin, nor is going without a pfd in some conditions.

Yours in the north Maine woods,
Pete Hilton (Reg. Me. Guide) aka The Ent

--
Don't ask the barber whether
you need a haircut.
D. S. Greenberg

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

William Sarokin wrote:
I recognize the other side of the argument though, as in
'where does it end?' Mandatory helmets while skiing or bicycling?,

There are already countries where that helmet law for bicycling is in
place. Living in a country where everyone has bicyles, I rarely see one,
except for mountain bikers who go ride through rough terrain.

Granted, we have seperate bicycle paths in a big part of the country,
and everyone is used to watch out for bicycles: here they have the right
of way when coming from the right, and hitting a bicyclist with a car
means that you *always* get part of the blaim as a motorist.

Mandatory kneepads when gardening? Mandatory lipitor for baby boomers?

How about mandatory guns? Isn't there a town in the U.S. where everyone
is supposed to own a gun?

But mandatory use of pfd's is ok with me.

Me too!

Same goes for a helmet when running whitewater.

IMNSHO Faceguards and elbow pads are optional for whitewater, as long as
the individual getting hurt in their face or at their elbow pays for a
decent part of the hospital costs themselves.

--
--
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/

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

The Ent wrote:
Brian Nystrom wrote:

The majority of canoe accidents involving fishermen and rec paddlers
are due to standing in the canoe or shifting positions, probably
common occurrences when fishing.

When either touring or fishing in my very stable 20' canoe, I often
stand - sometimes for extended periods - even in 'easy' white water.
Paddling/poling and viewing are far more effective when standing - as
is fly casting. Whenever I'm in white water, I ALWAYS wear a pfd but
haven't needed it yet. The only time I dumped a canoe other than on
purpose, I had been sitting the entire trip. The only time I ever fell
out of a canoe other than on purpose was landing during extremely high
winds on a very rocky shore where knee- and elbow-pads would have been
of far more value than the pfd I had on. As for moving about in the
canoe, both in still and moving water, it's a matter of knowing
yourself, knowing the canoe & within limits knowing the conditions. Just
standing is no sin, nor is going without a pfd in some conditions.

There's no doubt that standing and moving around are perfectly safe for
an experienced canoeist. I also don't mean to imply that this is
necessarily reckless or dangerous behavior. However, the statistics are
clear that these are leading causes of capsizes and falls overboard that
result in fatalities of canoeist. It seems pretty safe to conclude that
this is due to inexperience in many, if not most cases.

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

The problem is that too many people these days think that they're
entitled to personal freedom, but absolved from personal responsibility.
If we accept responsibility for our actions rather than blaming someone
or something else (the victim mentality), there is no need for such
laws. However, we've become conditioned to place blame and litigate at
the drop of a hat and such laws are a natural result. Everyone loses
except the lawyers. Personally, I'd love to see unemployment lines full
of trial attorneys, as it would indicate a return to personal
responsibility and common sense.

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

There's no doubt that standing and moving around are perfectly safe for
an experienced canoeist. I also don't mean to imply that this is
necessarily reckless or dangerous behavior. However, the statistics are
clear that these are leading causes of capsizes and falls overboard that
result in fatalities of canoeist. It seems pretty safe to conclude that
this is due to inexperience in many, if not most cases.


Sounds like the law should be against standing in a canoe....

It seems ironic that we spend so much effort on the low count but high
fatality factor and little effort on the high count low fatality factor.

e.g.

I would get on a bicycle without a helmet way before I got on one
without gloves. 90% of [my?] falls result in hands being thrust out.

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

Mike,

Good analysis. Thank you for this data. I pretty much agree with your
conclusions. The bottom line is that the ones NOT wearing PFDs are
almost universally yahoos or amateurs.

We don't need more government intrusion in our lives. A better
approach is that we need to try to educate people that wearing a PFD
(at least on most any moderate whitewater) is considered mandatory. I
have been successful in many cases with going up to people and
reminding them that the river is a dangerous place and that they
should be wearing their life vests. Most of them thank me.

Randy

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

Another article worth reading:
http://www.sailnet.com/sailing/04/full_by_0304.pdf
This appears to be another myth...

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

When I was a member of a team instructing in Mountain Walking (In the UK
) we spent a great deal of time stressing the safety aspect. The Team
Leader always gave a short address at the begining - He always started
with the same phrase - Any Fool Can Be Carried Off A Mountain - Same
applies to PFDs - Any Body Can Be Recovered.
Personally - When I coach you abide by my rules - If I wear one then so
do
you. Let someone else tell their family that they will not be coming
home. Unless it's in a wooden box. I agree life is often over regulated
but common sense or 'Sods Law' tells you that **** Happens!

Frank Healy



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

A tough, tough issue.
Someone posted that there are no arguments against seat belts. I lost
a friend, burned alive in a car while hanging upside down from his
seat belt which he could not get undone. He might argue that point if
he could.
Another friend lost his brother in a single motorcycle accident. The
Bell full-face he was wearing broke his neck when he landed in the
ditch and he suffocated by the side of the road. His family doctor
made the mistake of telling this to my friend, who had given his
brother that helmet as a birthday gift. He might be inclined to argue
for choice also.
That said, I ALWYAS wear my helmet when riding, ALWAYS wear my
seatbelt when driving, and ALWAYS wear my pfd when paddling. I've seen
and heard about too many deaths that prove the rule rather than the
exception.

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

magoo_ns wrote:

A tough, tough issue.
Someone posted that there are no arguments against seat belts. I lost
a friend, burned alive in a car while hanging upside down from his
seat belt which he could not get undone. He might argue that point if
he could.

Tough break for your friend. My sympathies. He spun the wheel and ended
up in the 1% of accidents that result in fires and the tiny % of
seatbelts that won't release. If he hadn't been wearing the seatbelt he
might have been killed outright or rendered unconscious by the impact,
which in a sad way, would have been better.

Another friend lost his brother in a single motorcycle accident. The
Bell full-face he was wearing broke his neck when he landed in the
ditch and he suffocated by the side of the road. His family doctor
made the mistake of telling this to my friend, who had given his
brother that helmet as a birthday gift. He might be inclined to argue
for choice also.

The impact with the ground broke his neck, not the helmet. I haven't
seen many family doctors who are also accident scene investigation
specialists, so I'd say the old doc is just incredibly insensitive at best.

That said, I ALWYAS wear my helmet when riding, ALWAYS wear my
seatbelt when driving, and ALWAYS wear my pfd when paddling. I've seen
and heard about too many deaths that prove the rule rather than the
exception.

Me, too. Betting your life against high odds is, IMO, foolish.

--
Steve Cramer
Athens, GA

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

I have no problem protecting personal freedoms I believe they are important
but when you want to write the cheque and ask someone else to cash it that's
a different story. If the people who choose not to wear there life jackets
want to take responsibility for their action when things go wrong then its
ok with me. Responsibility includes taking care of the rescue search and
rescue cost any air ambulance fees and so one it is different in the states
but in Canada it is a socialized system so we all pickup the hospital bills
for yahoos that throw caution to the wind. There has been some talk now of
doing what they do in the Grand Canyon as well if you choose to go down into
the canyon and can't make it back up the cost is on you. That should go to
anyone that tries an outdoor activity and doesn't take proper care and
prevention measures. Having said that I would point out there should be room
for circumstance which are out of control of those involved but there are
ways to decide that even.
You can play with statistics all you want but if something requires two
measures to make it safe why not be SMART and put in a third. Training,
experience and safe equipment(being used) make for a safe outdoor adventure.

--
Abe Elias
Diving Sparrow Paddle Co,
http://home.cogeco.ca/~aelias

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

Well said!!

"Canranger44" wrote in message
...
I have no problem protecting personal freedoms I believe they are
important
but when you want to write the cheque and ask someone else to cash it
that's
a different story. If the people who choose not to wear there life jackets
want to take responsibility for their action when things go wrong then its
ok with me. Responsibility includes taking care of the rescue search and
rescue cost any air ambulance fees and so one it is different in the
states
but in Canada it is a socialized system so we all pickup the hospital
bills
for yahoos that throw caution to the wind. There has been some talk now of
doing what they do in the Grand Canyon as well if you choose to go down
into
the canyon and can't make it back up the cost is on you. That should go to
anyone that tries an outdoor activity and doesn't take proper care and
prevention measures. Having said that I would point out there should be
room
for circumstance which are out of control of those involved but there are
ways to decide that even.
You can play with statistics all you want but if something requires two
measures to make it safe why not be SMART and put in a third. Training,
experience and safe equipment(being used) make for a safe outdoor
adventure.

--
Abe Elias
Diving Sparrow Paddle Co,
http://home.cogeco.ca/~aelias

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

In either accident, the alternative outcome in not known and not
knowable. They died with the safety feature; they might have died
without. This doesn't argue for or against.

Ok, I can add one. My cousin was broadsided a long time ago, she was
not wearing a seatbelt and was able to jump into the passenger seat at
or near impact time. She believes she would be dead had she been
wearing her seat belt.

--Chris

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

Ok, I can add one. My cousin was broadsided a long time ago, she was
not wearing a seatbelt and was able to jump into the passenger seat at
or near impact time. She believes she would be dead had she been
wearing her seat belt.


Still meaningless. She could have survived the initial impact but been
killed in subsequent car-getting-smashed-up-events.


But she didn't. I was just countering the counter of the examples of
people who didn't live but were wearing them.


Being loose in a
car is riskier than being belted in, regardless of orientation of
impact.


I am not trying to argue the issue, just giving an example.


One incident does not counter the stats for the population. She was
lucky.

I didn't mean to imply it did, I'm fully aware of statistics. And
agreed [to B].

--Chris

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

I don't want to start an argument here but when you take the topic of a PFD
it is design in the case of an emergency to keep the vital part of your body
the head a float you can look at what if and different situations but to me
it is a good safety plan if you are sea kayaking and the surf keeps pounding
you under it will bring you back up. Canoeing it allows you to stay a float
in rapids to try and guide your way through if you dump and so on it is a
useful tool one for all intensive purposes makes sense but it is your
choice. All I am saying is it makes sense to use every safety feature made
available for this sport no reflection on seatbelt or helmets and chances of
things happening. Watersports are characterized by the danger of many things
but perhaps the most prominent is getting a lung full of water. When a
person chooses to take a course of action such as forgoing a safety measure
then that person should realize they choose to take responsibility. 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.

--
Abe Elias
Diving Sparrow Paddle Co,
http://home.cogeco.ca/~aelias

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

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!

Also will end up with having to wear a pfd if we want to go swimming in
a river or lake!


--
Dave Manby
Details of the Coruh river and my book "Many Rivers To Run" at
http://www.dmanby.demon.co.uk

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

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"

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

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

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

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/

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

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.

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

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

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

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.

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

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.

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

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.

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

"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

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

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

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

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

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

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.

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

Randy Hodges wrote:
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).

Point taken. US Congress can arm-twist states through appropriations
bills. But unlike road construction and education, boating is not
highly subsidized by Federal grants to the states, so the leverage is
ouite limited. I don't see a bill coming out of congress that says
"make PFDs mandatory or we'll cut the funding for X for your state."

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.

Still true today, depending on what state's jurisdiction you're in. We
have a patchwork system of hundreds (if not thousands) of separate
jurisdictions each with it's own rules that vary by boat size and type.
Not that I'm arguing for comprehensive Federal regulation to supplant
state and local laws, but a single set of laws for the entire country
would be significantly *less* arcane.


--
//-Walt
//
// http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=63