On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:22:22 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 12:51:54 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Could we agree on a compromise? Say anytime on an open deck, a PFD is
required in a recreational circumstance?

====================================

Not likely. I believe it should be a matter of personal choice or
left up to the discretion of the captain. It's true that preventable
accidents have happened (and happened to people I knew), but the
numbers are very small compared to automobile/motorcycle casualities.

Ah - so such things as seat belt laws, driving lights, air bags and
helmet laws are rational reactions to the amount of traffic deaths,
but PFDs are not a rational reaction to the stats on boating accidents
& drownings?

I'm not looking for an argument, I'm just curious.

Really.

I'm a firm believer in keeping the government out of boating to the
maximun extent possible. Every new law gives the USCG or your local
F&W enforcer another excuse to board you.

Then we shall agree to disagree on the boating PFD issue.

Later,

Tom

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message

Ah - so such things as seat belt laws, driving lights, air bags and
helmet laws are rational reactions to the amount of traffic deaths,
but PFDs are not a rational reaction to the stats on boating accidents
& drownings?

I'm not looking for an argument, I'm just curious.


Personally I think seat belt laws and helmet laws are wrong. The only people
that
get hurt by not wearing a seat belt or helmet is the person making that
choice. It's
up to them. ~ Sure their families might be "hurt" too but it's up to them.

As for air bags, I'm of mixed mind. On the one hand I believe it's up to the
consumer
to decide if they want to buy them (pay for them) and/or use them. But with
an industry as large as cars I can see the point of view that says many auto
makers
would never even offer them as an option if it wasn't the law.

Driving lights? Not sure what you mean. But driving lights being on at the
proper
times save OTHER people, not just the guy that uses/doesn't use them. So
that's
OK with me.

PDFs: I think it's the captain's & passengers choice. I've got no problem
with a
law that say's you must HAVE enough PDF for everyone. That way the person
that
want's to use one has one availiable. But why tell anyone* they have to use
one??

Now, for children, I can see & agree with laws requireing them to wear PDFs
or seat belts. The idea her is we're helping to protect children from super
stupid
parents.

PS: I wear my seat belt 98% of the time, always wore a helmet when I rode
motorcycles even in CT where not required, and almost never wear a PDF:
I wear a PDF when the conditions are bad, when I'm out on a deck where
I can easily fall, or when there is no one else on the boat. But I'm almost
never in any of those conditions.

Anyway, that's my .02



, air bags, and helmet laws are all

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 19:37:49 -0400, "Gary Warner"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message

Ah - so such things as seat belt laws, driving lights, air bags and
helmet laws are rational reactions to the amount of traffic deaths,
but PFDs are not a rational reaction to the stats on boating accidents
& drownings?

I'm not looking for an argument, I'm just curious.


Personally I think seat belt laws and helmet laws are wrong. The only people
that
get hurt by not wearing a seat belt or helmet is the person making that
choice. It's
up to them. ~ Sure their families might be "hurt" too but it's up to them.

As for air bags, I'm of mixed mind. On the one hand I believe it's up to the
consumer
to decide if they want to buy them (pay for them) and/or use them. But with
an industry as large as cars I can see the point of view that says many auto
makers
would never even offer them as an option if it wasn't the law.

Driving lights? Not sure what you mean. But driving lights being on at the
proper
times save OTHER people, not just the guy that uses/doesn't use them. So
that's
OK with me.

PDFs: I think it's the captain's & passengers choice. I've got no problem
with a
law that say's you must HAVE enough PDF for everyone. That way the person
that
want's to use one has one availiable. But why tell anyone* they have to use
one??

Now, for children, I can see & agree with laws requireing them to wear PDFs
or seat belts. The idea her is we're helping to protect children from super
stupid
parents.

PS: I wear my seat belt 98% of the time, always wore a helmet when I rode
motorcycles even in CT where not required, and almost never wear a PDF:
I wear a PDF when the conditions are bad, when I'm out on a deck where
I can easily fall, or when there is no one else on the boat. But I'm almost
never in any of those conditions.

Ah - see, that's an interesting qualification.

However, in my case, I have inflatables that I make folks wear on my
boats and that's that. I also don't allow alcohol on my boats, but
that's a whole different story. :)

Anyway, that's my .02

Good enough - it's a consistent viewpoint - fair and reasoned.

Just a difference of opinion. :)

Later,

Tom

Tom,
Have to wear a PFD on your boat AND no alcohol! Well I don't think we'll
be boating together any time soon. :-) But I respect your right to those
rules on your boat. Those rules probably make your voyage more relaxed and
enjoyable for you and that is as it should be. That's one of the things I
love most about boating, the freedom and latitude it gives you, no lines
like a road that you have to follow precisely, places to drop anchor and
just relax or spend the night. Perhaps that's why I'm against a mandatory
PFD law, it'll make boating less enjoyable due to the loss of freedom.
Paul

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
news
Ah - see, that's an interesting qualification.

However, in my case, I have inflatables that I make folks wear on my
boats and that's that. I also don't allow alcohol on my boats, but
that's a whole different story. :)

Anyway, that's my .02

Good enough - it's a consistent viewpoint - fair and reasoned.

Just a difference of opinion. :)

Later,

Tom