450 a year is a statistically insignificant number.
While we are at it, why don't we factor in inexperience, suitability of the
boat to the conditions and intoxication. We will be down to "falling in the
bathtub" numbers ... but then we would have to wear helmets in the tub.
I do notice that these PFD rules always seem to exempt boats the size that
polititians own.
When the Bushes, Kerrys and Kennedys start wearing a PFD on their yachts I
will wear mine.

In article ,
(Gould 0738) wrote:



I agree completely, with one very important caveat:

Don't want to wear a helmet, a seat belt, or wear a PFD in a small, open boat?
No problem.
You shouldn't have to.


Agreed.

However, with personal freedom comes personal responsibility. No helmet, seat
belt, or PFD? Don't expect the taxpayers to search for you at public expense,
haul you to the hospital at public expense, cure you or bury you at public
expense, pay for your rehab or subsidize your survivors.


Agreed to a point.

The risks you assume when you eschew basic safety precautions should be your
risks and yours alone. Perhaps you have the right to expose your own family to
the risk of loss of a breadwinner, etc, but why should everybody in society be
asked to pay for one individual's stubborn streak or stupidity?


Unfortunately, what is deemed as "basic safety precautions" by the
government to protect the individual from a specific threat, may induce
other unecessary risks. In other words, sometimes the cure is worse than
the illness.

Lets take the motorcycle helmet. Many who argue against having to wear a
helmet cite that helmets reduce your hearing and peripheral vision,
reducing the ability of the cyclist to drive defensively. If this is
true, then it increases the wearer's risk of being involved in an
accident, so why should the operator be labeled as stubborn, or stupid,
and denied assistance because they felt the benefits do not outweigh the
risks?

BTW - Similar arguments can be said about most PFDs which hinder one's
ability to move about aboard the vessel. I would wager there are even
cases where this hinderance may affect ones ability to do what needs to be
done to reduce a threat to the vessel and/or its occupants.


"Big Daddy" not oly sets the rules, he's there to bail you out when things go
bad.
Don't want to follow the rules? OK. Just don't expect the bail out. Very
simple.


Not that simple, but I tend to agree with your argument. I too think
personal freedoms need to go hand in hand with some level personal
responsibility, but I find the absolutes imposed by the "taxpayer burden"
point of your argument lacking in this and many other insance.

The taxpayer burden argument is weak, because where do you draw the line?
Why is it that I have no choice whether or not to wear a seat belt, helmet
or PFD, but somone can go into a store and get a fifth of liquor, pack of
cigarettes, or simply supersize their happy meal day after day. Why is it
that a few people who choose not to be employed (or underemployed) get
their choice AND receive benefits that I work to pay for?

I realize that the seat belts, helmets, and PFD reduce very immediate
risks and therefore reduce very immediate cost outlays from our social
welfare system, but that actual dollar ammount my be less than chronic
care for a heart, liver, sugar, or respitory problems brought about by
years of personal neglect. Couple this potentially higher cost with the
ammount of people who choose to indulge in these risky behaviours and I'll
say that our government has some really screwed up priorities when it
comes to saving lives and social welfare costs.

I believe in personal responsibility, but I also wish to live in a
civilized society. As such, I tend to favorably acknowledge, most of the
systems in place to care for those who make the "wrong decisions". I
understand that there are those who will abuse those systems, but will
hope that the vast majority others will behave responsibly and only use
those systems as a last resort.

In the absolute terms I'm reading, it seems like every individual who
doesn't goose step to the law is completley responsible for their actions
and unworthy of any type of government assistance. As a person who
accepts personal responsibility, I can understand this, but then I sure as
hell better be paying A LOT less in taxes :^)

Bob Dimond

The logical, irrefutable conclusion is that banning recreational boating
all together will save 750 lives a year. Thus under the prevailing "if even
one life is saved, we must do it" theory, recreational boating must go!

After all there is no public benefit in enjoying oneself. That must be the
opinion of those pushing these rules. I'm sure if you ask anyone who
doesn't wear a PFD on board (according to the article, that's almost
everyone) they have concluded that they have a more enjoyable time not
wearing it. I don't wear mine, but I keep it close at hand. That's the
choice I've made.

I do other things to mitigate the risk which I would be willing to bet are
much more important statistically in saving lives than wearing a PFD at all
times. I don't drink, I maintain control of the vessel, keep a constant
lookout, educate my passesengers, follow the rules of the road, give every
one a wide berth, slow down in unfamilar waters and do don my PFD in rough
conditions. If I do screw up, I'll take responsibility. I have millions of
dollars of insurance both for others (liability) and myself and family
(health, disability and if all else fails, life insurance).

According to the National Safety Council, in 2001, 734 people died from a
"Fall involving bed, chair, other furniture." see
http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm
If every bed, chair and other furniture had a seat belt, no doubt most of
these deaths could be avoided. Call it absurb, but there is absolutely no
logical distinction between this and the boat situation. And both would be
just as a ridiculous intrusion on my freedom. Stay out of my living room
and off my boat!!

The "taxpayer burden" is probably the dumbest argument in this whole issue. If
you fall out of your boat and drown it is probably the cheapest way for you to
die from a tax burden standpoint. Certainly a lot cheaper than the typical
10-15 years of illness that constitutes "natural causes".
People drowning before they reach 61.5 is probably the optimal situation if you
are really worried about the poor taxpayer. You paid into FICA/Medicare for 40+
years and didn't take a dime.

"NOYB" wrote in message ...
"Gould 0738" wrote in message
news:20040701201925.10996.00001027@mb-
Coast Guard statistics show that 750 boaters died in 2002. Eighty-five
percent
of those who drowned were not wearing PFDs

Which means what exactly? *Most* people don't wear life jackets. So it's
probably accurate to say that most people who get into any accident will not
be wearing a life jacket when they get into that accident. Why doesn't the
Coast Guard thus claim that life jackets prevent accidents? Because it
would be an absurd conclusion! Just as it's absurd to assume that those 85%
died *because* they weren't wearing their life jackets.

The only statistic that would be meaningful would be one that looks at the
fatality/non-fatality ratio of boaters who *were* wearing their life-jackets
at the time of death. Then we'd know if a mandatory PFD law will save any
lives.

Surely you aren't so dimwitted that you don't think PFD's save lives, are you?

Coast Guard statistics show that 750 boaters died in 2002. Eighty-five
percent
of those who drowned were not wearing PFDs

Surely you aren't so dimwitted that you don't think PFD's save lives, are
you?

It didn't do much for 112 of them.
Making 60 million people wear PFDs *might* save 450 lives (based on the
government estimate). That sure sounds like a lot of government intrusion for
very little benefit.
They would do a lot better if they made passengers in cars wear helmets. Try to
get that law passed

In article ,
(Greg) wrote:

Coast Guard statistics show that 750 boaters died in 2002. Eighty-five
percent
of those who drowned were not wearing PFDs

Surely you aren't so dimwitted that you don't think PFD's save lives, are
you?

It didn't do much for 112 of them.
Making 60 million people wear PFDs *might* save 450 lives (based on the
government estimate). That sure sounds like a lot of government intrusion for
very little benefit.
They would do a lot better if they made passengers in cars wear helmets. Try
to
get that law passed

How many people were saved by PFDs? Forget the governments estimate.
We'll never know, because most of them simply climbed out of the water
and went about their business and never reported the incident. I'll bet
it was FAR more than 450 in any given year.

I wrecked my Harley years ago, split my helmet in two pieces, on
Interstate 35 at 70+. I walked away, pushing my hog, and never reported
it either.

Two years ago my neighbor was driving his Suburban down our county road,
unbelted. Based on the investigation, he got his right side tires into
the bar ditch, compensated by steering left, crossing the one lane paved
road into the left side bar ditch. The small jostling of the vehicle in
the left bar ditch ejected him out his driver's side window, where he
struck a mesquite tree at 55 miles per hour, then fell to the ground. He
died instantly. The Suburban continued down the county road for two
hundred and fifty yards before crossing back across the blacktop to the
right and continuing through a five strand barb-wire fence and brush for
another 100 yards before coming to a stop in thick brush. The vehicle
was undamaged except for minor cosmetic damage. A helmet did him no good.

My mother is a triage nurse in California. I once asked her what the
most disturbing thing she ever saw was. She told me of a young man who
dropped his motorcycle on the freeway. Before he could get up he was
struck by a car and dragged for several hundred feet. He was wearing his
helmet, but he was face down while being dragged. The helmet kept his
face in contact with the asphalt, removing his face, entirely. He
survived, unfortunately.

PFDs work, so do helmets and seat belts, but they are NOT a panacea for
accidents. **** happens.

PFDs work, so do helmets and seat belts, but they are NOT a panacea for
accidents. **** happens.

Exactly! If NTSB wants a law that works, require that PFDs are kept accessible
and in good condition. That's enough.
I am the first one to say that when you are in imminent danger you should put
on your PFD but it is stupid to tell me I need to wear one when I an putting
around the back bay at the state mandated "slow speed" in 4 feet of water (or
less). In most of the Estero Bay you can walk ashore if the boat sunk.

I am the first one to say that when you are in imminent danger you should put
on your PFD

Do you suppose most of the folks who fall overboard had enough warning that
they could have put on a PFD?

Except for suicides, 100% of the people who drown on a given day had no
intention of doing so. If they had even 10 seconds warning, most would either
change their activity, don a PFD, or both.

Accidents are tough to foresee.

Maybe the answer to wear *some* type of PFD, (even one of the belt packs), even
if not CG approved and have an approved PFD at ready hand. There's no easy
answer to this that will please everybody, which is why the topic goes round
and round, year after year.

Coast Guard statistics show that 750 boaters died in 2002. Eighty-five
percent
of those who drowned were not wearing PFDs







According to NTSB statistics, 100% of passengers killed in commercial airline
crashes were not wearing parachutes.

I guess we should be looking into that....