I know this has been suggested in the past and sure,
they're only talking about commercial boats right now,
but how long till the "do-gooders" use this accident to
demand that anybody on _any_ boat be forced to wear a
life jacket at all times?

Of course this would give the aqua-cops a perfect
opportunity to hand out needless tickets (just like
seat belt laws).


South Coast Today.Com
Time to strengthen life jacket regulation

The National Transportation Safety Board has sent
investigators to Lake George in the Adirondack Mountains
this week to investigate the deaths of 20 elderly tourists
who died Sunday afternoon when a 40-foot tour boat capsized
with 49 aboard.

This accident that took the lives of older tourists, many
from the same town in Michigan, raises the issue of whether
we are doing all we can to protect tourists on similar tour
boats.

New York state and Coast Guard rules, which regulate boats
in Massachusetts, require that tour boats of this size have
enough life jackets for all passengers, but do not require
these jackets be worn while aboard. The boats typically have
the jackets in a convenient location, under seats or in a
large bin.

This accident should raise the question whether it is time
to strengthen this regulation and require that passengers
wear life jackets while on the open water.

Tour boat operators give a number of reasons for not
supporting such a requirement.

The manager of a local whalewatch and fishing charter company
said there is the problem of having jackets that properly fit
people. And there are issues of people not wanting to wear a
life jacket that may have a perfume smell or that a person may
be allergic to.

But these seem small issues when compared with the chance
that wearing a jacket might have saved some or all of the
20 tourists who perished in Lake George on a beautiful
autumn Sunday afternoon.

The issue of requiring life jackets be worn should be raised
in New York, Massachusetts and in every state that regulates
tourist boats. The same manager of a charter boat operation
who does not favor requiring life jackets be worn by passengers
also insists that his own young child wear a life jacket when
the child is on one of the company's whalewatch or fishing tour
boats.

If it's good enough for our own children, shouldn't we think
about it for our grandparents, our parents and any tourist
aboard a boat that could capsize on a clear autumn day?

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 5 Oct 2005 17:00:15 -0700, "Ed Stasiak" wrote:

I know this has been suggested in the past and sure,
they're only talking about commercial boats right now,
but how long till the "do-gooders" use this accident to
demand that anybody on _any_ boat be forced to wear a
life jacket at all times?

I think it's a great idea and should be an enforceable protocol for
marine law enforcement.

I would agree but only up to a point.
Certain craft,(such as small, open, runabouts), are greater risks than
others. Should everybody gathered around the dinner table on a
40-footer be wearing a life jacket? Probably not.

In our state, kids under 12 are required to be in life jackets on any
boat less than 19-feet in length. That's not a bad law, because the
kids lack the experience and judgment to make an informed decision to
accept the greater risk associated with doing without a PFD.
It gets a bit sticky when one tries to be philosophical about whether a
parent has the "right" to deliberately expose a kid to additional risk-
so I like the law in our state.

Certain situations, such as single handing, call for PFD as well. I
wear an inflatable pfd when I take our 36-footer out by myself. To me,
it only makes sense to do so. I don't plan on falling overboard (and
99% of the people who do fall overboard don't plan on it, either), but
if I'm by myself and fall in nobody is going to hear me holler for help
or notice that I'm gone.

Ed Stasiak wrote:
I know this has been suggested in the past and sure,
they're only talking about commercial boats right now,
but how long till the "do-gooders" use this accident to
demand that anybody on _any_ boat be forced to wear a
life jacket at all times?

Of course this would give the aqua-cops a perfect
opportunity to hand out needless tickets (just like
seat belt laws).


South Coast Today.Com
Time to strengthen life jacket regulation

The National Transportation Safety Board has sent
investigators to Lake George in the Adirondack Mountains
this week to investigate the deaths of 20 elderly tourists
who died Sunday afternoon when a 40-foot tour boat capsized
with 49 aboard.

This accident that took the lives of older tourists, many
from the same town in Michigan, raises the issue of whether
we are doing all we can to protect tourists on similar tour
boats.

New York state and Coast Guard rules, which regulate boats
in Massachusetts, require that tour boats of this size have
enough life jackets for all passengers, but do not require
these jackets be worn while aboard. The boats typically have
the jackets in a convenient location, under seats or in a
large bin.

This accident should raise the question whether it is time
to strengthen this regulation and require that passengers
wear life jackets while on the open water.

Tour boat operators give a number of reasons for not
supporting such a requirement.

The manager of a local whalewatch and fishing charter company
said there is the problem of having jackets that properly fit
people. And there are issues of people not wanting to wear a
life jacket that may have a perfume smell or that a person may
be allergic to.

But these seem small issues when compared with the chance
that wearing a jacket might have saved some or all of the
20 tourists who perished in Lake George on a beautiful
autumn Sunday afternoon.

The issue of requiring life jackets be worn should be raised
in New York, Massachusetts and in every state that regulates
tourist boats. The same manager of a charter boat operation
who does not favor requiring life jackets be worn by passengers
also insists that his own young child wear a life jacket when
the child is on one of the company's whalewatch or fishing tour
boats.

If it's good enough for our own children, shouldn't we think
about it for our grandparents, our parents and any tourist
aboard a boat that could capsize on a clear autumn day?

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

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.


It is now coming to light that a contributing factor to the tour boat
tragedy
was the boat owner attempting to get by on the cheap. He was required
to have a skipper and two crewpersons aboard- but too damn cheap to pay
for crew (or remotely possible just unable to find some) he ordered the
boat to set out short handed. Hope he's happy with the few extra bucks
he made. How many would an additional two trained crew persons have
managed to save? If even one person, the cheap arse boat owner has
blood on his wallet.

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?

All the pfd's in the world won't save people from a profiteering
******* trying to make some extra bucks by ignoring safety regulations.

I know this has been suggested in the past and sure,
they're only talking about commercial boats right now,
but how long till the "do-gooders" use this accident to
demand that anybody on _any_ boat be forced to wear a
life jacket at all times?


Unless the United States goes into complete collapse, I think it's
inevitable. In the same way that I think dogs, guns, and cars capable of
going faster than 30mph will be made illegal.


I think it's a great idea and should be an enforceable protocol for
marine law enforcement.

OlBlueEyes wrote:
Idiot.


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
And you base this on what?


He must be a liberal, after all arent' they the guys who call names?

DSK

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
One of my neighbors used to be involved in the greyhound rescue system
and he had several who could do 35.


That would be illegal on 2 counts!

They are unbelievably fast. At our local dog park, when the dogs are
running around in frantic circles, the whippets & greyhounds are running
rings around the whole pack. A friend of mine was claiming that his dog
(some kind of small shepherd breed) was faster than a whippet... not so,
the whippets ran rings around his dog too.



He must be a liberal, after all arent' they the guys who call names?


I think it was more of a reaction to the possibility of being told to
do something that apparently bothers him.

No worries.

Personally, I don't think PFDs should be made mandatory.
1- it's just welfare for PFD makers
2- there is no possibility that the world can ever be made totally
idiot-proof
3- there are plenty of other laws to keep police busy

But the gov't has to do something... just to prove it can, I guess...
and sooner or later they'll get around to making everything forbidden,
unless it's made compulsory. And of course it will change with every new
Administration.

DSK

"Ed Stasiak" wrote in message
oups.com...

Of course this would give the aqua-cops a perfect
opportunity to hand out needless tickets (just like
seat belt laws).

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.

In fact, I would support higher fines for those who dont buckle up.

What I dont get, are the motorcycle helmet laws. Why would a state, require
auto restraints, but allow bike riders to go helmetless?

Stupid.


--
-Netsock

"It's just about going fast...that's all..."
http://home.columbus.rr.com/ckg/

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?

wrote in message
oups.com...
All the pfd's in the world won't save people from a profiteering *******
trying to make some extra bucks by ignoring safety regulations.

Chuck,
Do you know the owner was a profiteering ******* who ignored safety
regulations for some extra bucks?

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 12:28:06 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:


This summer, we had the perfect case on the Connecticut River - guys
heading back in a 18 foot Aquasport, operator drunk on his ass and ran
right into the #33 can right below Portland Bridge. All thrown out of the
boat, two unconscious, one saved by buddy holding him out of the water
until one of the residents along the river got to them, other guy drowned.

I'd point out, that in this case, and the case of the two young ladies
drowning, you've cited drinking as a contributing cause. I respectfully
submit, that is already against the law. What makes you think a law
requiring wearing PFDs is any more enforceable?

I'll agree trying to keep people alive is an admirable task, but I'm an
adult. I don't want my Uncle, as in Sam, to become my Daddy. Geez, these
nitwits can't do what they were hired to do, why would you want to give
them anymore power over your life?