|
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
|
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
So you like the idea?
|
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... wrote: So you like the idea? Hey, I wear a seatbelt when I drive my car, and I'm in favor of LICENSING boat operators. And I favor lifting someone's operator's permit if they drive their boat or their car DUI. No, I have no problem with wearing a PFD when I boat. I often do, especially on my Parker when I go forward to mess with the anchor. You often do? But that means you don't *always* wear a PFD. How do you like the idea of being forced to wear one...even on those 95 degree, 80% humidity days when you're just kicking back under anchor, drowning some minnows? |
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
Fred Dehl wrote: wrote in oups.com: So you like the idea? Harry had his straitjacket retrofitted with styrofoam, so the rule wouldn't mean any changes for him. Please take your negative comments, and childish insults elsewhere. Rec.boats has once again become a decent place where you can find information about boats and boating. Also, because of the lack of nasty little insults, etc., most don't mind a little kidding. A few months ago, because it was so volatile, that would result in hundreds of negative posts. |
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... wrote: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...17/186976.html The first two paragraphs state: 'Apparently not content to confine their legislative excess to Wal-Mart and small business, Maryland Democrats now are threatening the property rights of Maryland boaters, proposing a new bill ostensibly aimed at nothing more than attempting to "protect us from ourselves." House Bill 140 is a deplorable and intrusive bit of legislation that would require every individual on a boat to wear a personal flotation device (PFD) while the boat is underway. This bill not only requires the boat's operator to wear a PFD but also specifically "prohibits an individual from operating or allowing the operation of a vessel while there is present in the vessel an individual not wearing a PFD..." and "[applies] regardless of [an individual's] age or size of the vessel." The property rights of Maryland boaters? The writer of the article is an idiot. The writer's intelligence aside... What are your thoughts on this stupid law being enacted by the Democrat-controlled legislature? MY thoughts are that because of YOUR comments, the post now belongs in a.politics. |
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net... What are your thoughts on this stupid law being enacted by the Democrat-controlled legislature? It's too early in the day for your baiting tactics. You know full well that this legislation has nothing to do with party politics. |
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... wrote: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...17/186976.html The first two paragraphs state: 'Apparently not content to confine their legislative excess to Wal-Mart and small business, Maryland Democrats now are threatening the property rights of Maryland boaters, proposing a new bill ostensibly aimed at nothing more than attempting to "protect us from ourselves." House Bill 140 is a deplorable and intrusive bit of legislation that would require every individual on a boat to wear a personal flotation device (PFD) while the boat is underway. This bill not only requires the boat's operator to wear a PFD but also specifically "prohibits an individual from operating or allowing the operation of a vessel while there is present in the vessel an individual not wearing a PFD..." and "[applies] regardless of [an individual's] age or size of the vessel." The property rights of Maryland boaters? The writer of the article is an idiot. The writer's intelligence aside... What are your thoughts on this stupid law being enacted by the Democrat-controlled legislature? MY thoughts are that because of YOUR comments, the post now belongs in a.politics. OK, lemming. But I wasn't asking for your thoughts. If I gave you a penny for *your* thoughts, I'd get change back. |
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
"Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... wrote: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...17/186976.html The first two paragraphs state: 'Apparently not content to confine their legislative excess to Wal-Mart and small business, Maryland Democrats now are threatening the property rights of Maryland boaters, proposing a new bill ostensibly aimed at nothing more than attempting to “protect us from ourselves.” House Bill 140 is a deplorable and intrusive bit of legislation that would require every individual on a boat to wear a personal flotation device (PFD) while the boat is underway. This bill not only requires the boat’s operator to wear a PFD but also specifically “prohibits an individual from operating or allowing the operation of a vessel while there is present in the vessel an individual not wearing a PFD…” and “[applies] regardless of [an individual’s] age or size of the vessel.” The property rights of Maryland boaters? The writer of the article is an idiot. The writer's intelligence aside... What are your thoughts on this stupid law being enacted by the Democrat-controlled legislature? I view it in the same light as mandatory seat-belt laws...something innocuous that will help save lives. Here's how the law should read: If you have health and life insurance, then you're free to do as you choose. If not, then you must wear seatbelt/helmet/PFD...so that the rest of society doesn't have to pay for you when things go wrong. |
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... What are your thoughts on this stupid law being enacted by the Democrat-controlled legislature? It's too early in the day for your baiting tactics. You know full well that this legislation has nothing to do with party politics. No? Then name for me a Republican-controlled legislature that is considering a similar law. |
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:13:22 -0500, Harry Krause wrote:
Actually, I've been thinking of wearing an inflatable PFD at all times on board. I don't know, Harry. We seem to always cross the line from good ideas, to good laws. Wearing a PFD is a good idea, I'm not sure it's a good law. |
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
"NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... What are your thoughts on this stupid law being enacted by the Democrat-controlled legislature? It's too early in the day for your baiting tactics. You know full well that this legislation has nothing to do with party politics. No? Then name for me a Republican-controlled legislature that is considering a similar law. That's a ridiculous thing to say, and you're in some sort of ****ed up mood. So, no. |
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... What are your thoughts on this stupid law being enacted by the Democrat-controlled legislature? It's too early in the day for your baiting tactics. You know full well that this legislation has nothing to do with party politics. No? Then name for me a Republican-controlled legislature that is considering a similar law. That's a ridiculous thing to say, and you're in some sort of ****ed up mood. LOL. So, no. crickets chirping as Doug tries to think of a similar bill being considered by a Republican-controlled legislature. |
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
"NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... What are your thoughts on this stupid law being enacted by the Democrat-controlled legislature? It's too early in the day for your baiting tactics. You know full well that this legislation has nothing to do with party politics. No? Then name for me a Republican-controlled legislature that is considering a similar law. That's a ridiculous thing to say, and you're in some sort of ****ed up mood. LOL. So, no. crickets chirping as Doug tries to think of a similar bill being considered by a Republican-controlled legislature. A bill like that is similar to those introduced to deal with child molesters. They're almost ALWAYS a response to some sort of high-visibility mishap, and are just as likely to be introduced in an Republican legislature. |
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
wrote in message ... On 17 Feb 2006 08:41:13 -0800, wrote: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...17/186976.html I can remember when Md was "the free state". I guess those days are long gone. I notice they don't have an upper limit on the size of the boat. I guess the QE 2 will never go to Baltimore. Can you imagine making all those rich people wear PFDs in the chow line and even when they are sitting in their cabins. How about the president and his party out on the sequoia? The crew of navy ships when they stray into the bay? The government is clearly out of control. Whenever I hear the phrase, the "Dumbing of America" *this* is the stuff that comes to my mind. You *will* conform, you *will* do as we say, or you *will* pay the price that *we* decide upon. RCE (back to "discussing" a few things with Sam) |
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in : "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... What are your thoughts on this stupid law being enacted by the Democrat-controlled legislature? It's too early in the day for your baiting tactics. You know full well that this legislation has nothing to do with party politics. No? Then name for me a Republican-controlled legislature that is considering a similar law. That's a ridiculous thing to say, and you're in some sort of ****ed up mood. LOL. So, no. crickets chirping as Doug tries to think of a similar bill being considered by a Republican-controlled legislature. A bill like that is similar to those introduced to deal with child molesters. They're almost ALWAYS a response to some sort of high-visibility mishap, and are just as likely to be introduced in an Republican legislature. I think you'd have fared better letting the crickets continue to chirp rather than equating boaters to child molesters. Yeah, but you know what I mean. If a kid gets killed because a toaster falls into a sink of water, and he reaches in to get it, you're gonna see legislation about toasters' cords being too long, so new ones will have a 1 foot cord instead of the 18" stupid cords some of them have now. |
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:59:00 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: thunder wrote: On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:13:22 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Actually, I've been thinking of wearing an inflatable PFD at all times on board. I don't know, Harry. We seem to always cross the line from good ideas, to good laws. Wearing a PFD is a good idea, I'm not sure it's a good law. I consider these kinds of laws in the light of my personal inconvenience. I do not find it inconvenient to wear a seatbelt in my vehicles, or a helmet when I ride a motorcycle. It isn't inconvenient for me to wear an inflatable flotation device while boating. I often agree with you Harry on a lot of issues, but this one doesn't make sense. Think of it...no pfd required while swimming...so..... You could take off your pfd and jump in the water, but then be required by law to put it back on when you get back in the boat??? It just doesn't make sense. They have the law in Massachusetts requiring children to wear pfd's, but I think it's good to stop there. John C. |
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
RCE wrote:
wrote in message ... On 17 Feb 2006 08:41:13 -0800, wrote: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...17/186976.html I can remember when Md was "the free state". I guess those days are long gone. I notice they don't have an upper limit on the size of the boat. I guess the QE 2 will never go to Baltimore. Can you imagine making all those rich people wear PFDs in the chow line and even when they are sitting in their cabins. How about the president and his party out on the sequoia? The crew of navy ships when they stray into the bay? The government is clearly out of control. Whenever I hear the phrase, the "Dumbing of America" *this* is the stuff that comes to my mind. You *will* conform, you *will* do as we say, or you *will* pay the price that *we* decide upon. RCE (back to "discussing" a few things with Sam) Totally agree that compulsion over personal stuff is wrong, but the trouble is there are so many nuff nuffs around we all suffer. When they come unstuck we all get lumbered with the bill. Whether it's hugely expensive & dangerous to the rescuers searches, often when it's well clear it's just to recover the bodies at best, so the family can feel better. Or we get stuck with the medical costs of trying to fix them. This PFD wearing seems to be the new "thing" though, this is our first season since our new law has applied (& the water police are red hot on enforcement). Here downunder the basic law is; anyone on board, any age etc Any boat underway & Under 4.6 mtrs (16ft)& while on open deck (if inside a cabin not required) Boats over 4.6 but under 12mtrs (39.3ft) don't need to wear unless certain things are happening, like crossing a bar, out in a gale warning, or on board alone etc etc there's a few of them. So mostly the laws don't bother boats bigger than a runabout & boats over 12mtrs are exempt. Here we don't have the piers, wharves, berths you have so use our dinghies lots & I can tell you having to don a jacket every time I get in the dinghie is a total pain in the arse!!! It's obviously a hot place & they're hot, really hot. At the same time they brought this law in they increased out fire extinguisher sizes (I had to get 2 X 4.5KG dry powder, expensive!!!! because fuel capacity exceeds 350ltrs) & removed the flare exemption from protected waters, bays, lakes etc. I hate intrusion as you do but if they're elected I guess that's democracy at work. No denying seat belts, crash helmets for bikes etc have saved lives (not mine) so .......................... :-( K |
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
Fred Dehl wrote: Please take your negative comments, and childish insults elsewhere. Rec.boats has once again become a decent place where you can find information about boats and boating. Also, because of the lack of nasty little insults, etc., most don't mind a little kidding. A few months ago, because it was so volatile, that would result in hundreds of negative posts. Fred: What is a ational and normal sounding persons like yourself doing here? My first post a few days ago attracted noting but one liner insults. good on mate. Bob |
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
"K. Smith" wrote in message ... No denying seat belts, crash helmets for bikes etc have saved lives (not mine) so .......................... :-( K Huh? YOU'RE DEAD? RCE |
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:13:22 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: Actually, I've been thinking of wearing an inflatable PFD at all times on board. Look at the bright side...its only a couple hours a year. __ "It's just about going fast...that's all..." http://home.columbus.rr.com/ckg/ |
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
RCE wrote:
"K. Smith" wrote in message ... No denying seat belts, crash helmets for bikes etc have saved lives (not mine) so .......................... :-( K Huh? YOU'RE DEAD? RCE Well...we always thought she 'wasn't all there'...but dead?? |
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
"Sam" wrote in message oups.com... A lot of state and federal nannies propose similar bills. All of them wail and moan about how many people drown while not wearing a PFD, but none of them mention the deleterious effects mandatory PFD use will have on men oogling women in swimsuits. Sam NOW, we are getting to the heart of the matter. RCE |
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
RCE wrote:
"K. Smith" wrote in message ... No denying seat belts, crash helmets for bikes etc have saved lives (not mine) so .......................... :-( K Huh? YOU'RE DEAD? RCE ha ha yes some days I might be:-) K |
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On 17 Feb 2006 08:41:13 -0800, wrote: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...17/186976.html It's clearly an obnoxious piece of legislation. To me, it's akin to seat belt laws - saving people from themselves. And while I've often advocated use of PFD's at all times - I wear one myself - an inflatable - it's my choice to wear one. It would seem to me that it would be more important to keep drunks off the road with zero tolerance - any alcohol while driving - zip, off to jail, license suspended for a year and vehicle confiscated. This won't pass - it's too draconian and stupid. I agree that the PFD legislation is stupid, but I agree with the seat belt laws. I have a cop friend who's been through a few hair-raising car chases. He said the only thing that kept him behind the wheel was the seat belt. We tend to think of seat belts only in terms of keeping us in the car in a crash, but they can be an important part of keeping the car under control and avoiding an accident to begin with. I could elaborate on how I've seen proof of this, but you can probably visualize this yourself. |
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
"Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 09:57:51 -0500 in rec.boats, Harry Krause penned the following thoughts: There are societal costs if you are in a car crash and not wearing a seat belt. Your injuries are likely to be more severe, if you survive, and there may well be additional uncompensated expenses for the hospital to push onto everyone else's bill if your insurance is not adequate. If you buy into this logic, then you become no more than an ant in an ant hill. Your worth and freedom are, then, determined by your contribution towards or liability detracting from the collective. I think pulling together for mutual benefit makes plenty of sense, but it can become a slippery slope, limiting or prohibiting *any* personal behavior if it could be construed a financial burden on society. I'm in favor of issuing citations to unbelted car drivers and their passengers. Society has the right to demand a modicum of responsible behavior from its participants. I've never understand the concept that mandatory use of minor safety equipment was an "intrusion" on personal rights. We live in a society. For whatever the reasons, legislators just love to pass laws, regardless of how illogical they are. Puts a *stamp* or something on their existence. If we don't watch out, all pursuits and personal freedoms will be bound by somebody's insane legislation. It may be too late though, as we are well on are way to becoming a nation of mindless Lemmings. Airplanes crash and kill people. Might as well pass a law requiring all passengers to wear a parachute. Screw the cost or incontinence. If we save just one life, it's worth it, right? How do you feel about that guy or gal with 40 hours of instruction flying around solo in a private plane over your house and property? Better pass a law against that. One that totally cracks me up is related to cars and trucks. In the US, vehicles are required to be electronically limited in terms of how fast they can go. Mind you now, the limit is not a set speed for all vehicles which would actually make more sense. Rather, it's based on a percentage of the tested maximum speed the vehicle is capable of without the rev limiter. How safe I feel now. My truck is limited to 95 mph. Good thing, because hitting a brick wall at 115 mph might be dangerous. My fun car is limited at about 160 mph. In most of Europe it has no limitation. Has nothing to do with will I really drive that fast or not. Anything over 75 is illegal here anyway. And I always thought we were the "Land of the Free". RCE |
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
"RCE" wrote in message ... Screw the cost or incontinence. If we save Had to laugh at this one as I re-read what I wrote. Spell check brain fart. Obviously, should have been, "inconvenience" RCE |
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
Gene Kearns wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:50:43 -0500 in rec.boats, Harry Krause penned the following thoughts: wrote: So you like the idea? Hey, I wear a seatbelt when I drive my car, and I'm in favor of LICENSING boat operators. And I favor lifting someone's operator's permit if they drive their boat or their car DUI. No, I have no problem with wearing a PFD when I boat. I often do, especially on my Parker when I go forward to mess with the anchor. While I agree with *this* post, since it honors free will, helmet laws, PFD laws, seat belt laws, et al, are intrusive on personal rights and are most likely driven by insurance companies.... who should have no right of access to our law making bodies... spell that PAC. Certainly, we have seen enough recent attacks by the present administration on personal freedoms excused by "wartime secrecy" that we can't allow democrats to do the same under the guise of protecting us from ourselves. Certainly, requiring a license for operation of a boat protects all concerned.... and I supposed some not concerned, but near to and situated on shore. Requiring one to wear a seat belt, on the other hand, "protects" nobody but the wearer... and no laws should govern individual behavior that does not adversely affect another. The government should never "take it's citizens to raise." A slippery slope, indeed. In a country like Canada with 'socialized medicine', it makes sense. The cheaper and faster an accident victim can be cured the lower the cost to the public taxpayer. |
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
"Don White" wrote in message ... Gene Kearns wrote: On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:50:43 -0500 in rec.boats, Harry Krause penned the following thoughts: wrote: So you like the idea? Hey, I wear a seatbelt when I drive my car, and I'm in favor of LICENSING boat operators. And I favor lifting someone's operator's permit if they drive their boat or their car DUI. No, I have no problem with wearing a PFD when I boat. I often do, especially on my Parker when I go forward to mess with the anchor. While I agree with *this* post, since it honors free will, helmet laws, PFD laws, seat belt laws, et al, are intrusive on personal rights and are most likely driven by insurance companies.... who should have no right of access to our law making bodies... spell that PAC. Certainly, we have seen enough recent attacks by the present administration on personal freedoms excused by "wartime secrecy" that we can't allow democrats to do the same under the guise of protecting us from ourselves. Certainly, requiring a license for operation of a boat protects all concerned.... and I supposed some not concerned, but near to and situated on shore. Requiring one to wear a seat belt, on the other hand, "protects" nobody but the wearer... and no laws should govern individual behavior that does not adversely affect another. The government should never "take it's citizens to raise." A slippery slope, indeed. In a country like Canada with 'socialized medicine', it makes sense. The cheaper and faster an accident victim can be cured the lower the cost to the public taxpayer. So, ban all activities that may lead to injury or illness. No smoking, no drinking of adult beverages, no vehicle that can go over 25 miles per hour, no motorcycles, nor bicycles. No rollerblades or skates. Where do you draw the line? I always wear a seatbelt, as I used to race cars, and walked away from a couple of horrendous crashes. I wear a PFD when in the boat alone. Is both smart, and gets points with the wife. But is not the place of government to legislate safe personal conduct. Odd that some of you are for all these good for yourself laws, but support the war on drugs. Make it simple, you have to cover your costs if you injure yourself via stupidity or you die. If you want to use drugs, fine, as long as you are 21 years old. Sell drugs to a minor, you die. Simple. |
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 20:07:12 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:
So, ban all activities that may lead to injury or illness. No smoking, no drinking of adult beverages, no vehicle that can go over 25 miles per hour, no motorcycles, nor bicycles. No rollerblades or skates. Where do you draw the line? I always wear a seatbelt, as I used to race cars, and walked away from a couple of horrendous crashes. I wear a PFD when in the boat alone. Is both smart, and gets points with the wife. But is not the place of government to legislate safe personal conduct. Odd that some of you are for all these good for yourself laws, but support the war on drugs. Make it simple, you have to cover your costs if you injure yourself via stupidity or you die. If you want to use drugs, fine, as long as you are 21 years old. Sell drugs to a minor, you die. Simple. Another argument against seems to be missing here. Many here have far more faith in the competence of our legislative bodies than I have. Years ago, I can recall, some nitwit politician wanted to put seat belts on motorcycles. Just what I want to be strapped to in an accident, a 400 lb. pile driver. Personally, I'm an adult. I don't vote for a politician to run my life, I'll do that, thank you very much. I vote for them to run the country, state, city, whatever. |
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
|
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
"RCE" wrote in message ... "RCE" wrote in message ... Screw the cost or incontinence. If we save Had to laugh at this one as I re-read what I wrote. Spell check brain fart. Obviously, should have been, "inconvenience" RCE Funny! |
PFD's for ALL boaters in Maryland.
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 22:12:49 GMT, Gene Kearns
wrote: On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 19:28:14 GMT in rec.boats, Don White penned the following thoughts: In a country like Canada with 'socialized medicine', it makes sense. The cheaper and faster an accident victim can be cured the lower the cost to the public taxpayer. I know where you are coming from and some of your points are well taken, but the same medical task under socialized medicine costs about 97% less than the US system. Make your case for having to wait for medical procedures and dealing with some bureau you don't like for making decisions related to triage...... ...however, by any standards, our system of pricing medicines and medical procedures is failing to be efficient. Lawyers to blame? Sure, to some extent, but I have friends in the health care profession and I have, with my own eyes, seen the $400/hr. telephone consultation fees and the incredible perks afforded by the drug companies... blaming layers is (at least partially) a red herring... Hey! Don't use 'herring' and 'lawyers' in the same sentence. Oh, I see, you didn't. Sorry! -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:47 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com