Would someone keeping watch have been able to warn the pilot of the
large wake in time for him to change his angle of approach?


Good question. I rode a tour boat (not the same one) in that area a few
months ago. I remember a larger boat passing by us and the captain of OUR
boat turned right into the wake until it had passed. I wondered what the
point of that was, exactly. I guess I didn't realize while I was on the
tour boat that tour boats are so easily capsized. -Dave

Red Cloud© wrote:


It's a halfway measure. OUTLAW TOUR BOATS AND RECREATIONAL BOATS
NOW!!!

rusty redcloud

Good idea Rusty! We have four or five of these monsters polluting our
downtown trying to entice guillable tourists for a land/sea sightseeing
trip.
http://www.harbourhopper.com/main.html#

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 14:02:52 GMT, OlBlueEyes wrote:

"Netsock" wrote in
:

Why would a state, require
auto restraints, but allow bike riders to go helmetless?

Strengthening the gene pool.

The fact that motorcyclists who *don't* wear a helmet are mentally imbalanced
greatly supports your assertion.

--
John H

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Ronald Reagan

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 16:39:47 GMT, "Eisboch"
wrote:


thunder wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 16:05:33 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

I will be the first to admit that my opinion is strictly based on my own
experiences over 50 some years of owning and operating boats - then
again,
sometimes that's all we have to go by.

That's enough. Look, safety devices are great ideas, I'm all for using
them. I just question the law part of it. I'm always amazed when I drive
through Connecticut, how many bikers don't wear helmets. I'm always
thinking dumbass, but it is their life, not mine.



I ride and I personally don't like wearing a helmet. I've heard all the
arguments and statistics from both sides of the fence - that helmets have
little or no effect on motorcycle fatalites to how helmets save thousands of
lives. Either way, I still don't like 'em, but wear one when required. In
MA they are required. Contrary to popular belief, Florida *does* have a
helmet law but you are permitted to ride without one if you carry proof that
you have personal medical insurance.

Eisboch


Put on a helmet. Have someone hit you up side the head with a baseball bat. Then
take the helmet off, and have the person repeat the stroke.

If you can't tell the difference, then you don't need a helmet!

--
John H

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Ronald Reagan

PocoLoco wrote in message
...


Put on a helmet. Have someone hit you up side the head with a baseball
bat. Then
take the helmet off, and have the person repeat the stroke.

If you can't tell the difference, then you don't need a helmet!

--
John H


Ok. I'll try i ...... WAIT A SECOND! ..... you trying to fool me?????

Eisboch

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 18:02:54 GMT, "Eisboch"
wrote:


PocoLoco wrote in message
.. .


Put on a helmet. Have someone hit you up side the head with a baseball
bat. Then
take the helmet off, and have the person repeat the stroke.

If you can't tell the difference, then you don't need a helmet!

--
John H


Ok. I'll try i ...... WAIT A SECOND! ..... you trying to fool me?????

Eisboch


As an MSF instructor, that's what I'd tell my students. I swear, I think a
couple actually tried it!

--
John H

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Ronald Reagan

In article says...
Big difference between life jackets and seat belts...apples and oranges.

But if you drive a car without a seat belt, you should get a
ticket...period.

A do gooder speaks. Do gooders feel their view on how society should
function must be mandated through legislation. Do gooders know what's
best for you and me. Anyone who disagrees should be fined, and fined
severely!

OlBlueEyes wrote:
Don White wrote in
:

Should be a 'federal' regulation. That way a tourist could expect a bare
minimum of protection wherever they go.

Everything the 9/11 hijackers carried onboard was legal. So much for
federal regulations providing "a bare minimum of protection".

It amazes me how many people who have utter contempt for George Bush or
Ted Kennedy want THEM dictating what we must wear on a tour boat.


Well, I certainly wouldn't want to have Ted Kennedy in
charge of my own safety on or near a body of water.

OTOH, I wouldn't want Shrub in charge of my safety
under ANY circumstances.



--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 20:10:56 -0700, Antipodean Bucket Farmer
wrote:

OlBlueEyes wrote:
Don White wrote in
:

Should be a 'federal' regulation. That way a tourist could expect a bare
minimum of protection wherever they go.

Everything the 9/11 hijackers carried onboard was legal. So much for
federal regulations providing "a bare minimum of protection".

It amazes me how many people who have utter contempt for George Bush or
Ted Kennedy want THEM dictating what we must wear on a tour boat.


Well, I certainly wouldn't want to have Ted Kennedy in
charge of my own safety on or near a body of water.

OTOH, I wouldn't want Shrub in charge of my safety
under ANY circumstances.


What d you mean? He's already proved he's willing to take a pretzel
for the team!

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Larry Bud wrote:
Should be a 'federal' regulation. That way a tourist could expect a bare
minimum of protection wherever they go.


Who's preventing a tourist from wearing a life jacket when they go on a
boat?

Not just the life jacket... how about regulating/inspecting the tour
boat/captain.

They are.