|
Yet Another Tragic Case......
This time it was three guys from NJ.
Apparently they thought the primary purpose of having PFD aboard a small boat was to palacate the USCG in case of inspection. What a shame. Considering wives, kids, friends, coworkers, employers, employees, and family members there are maybe hundreds of people affected by each of these deaths, so it isn't entirely or solely a personal decision. We can only hope their possibly needless deaths will serve as instructional examples ************************** Boat capsizes off NJ coast, killing 3; second fatal fishing accident since Wednesday AP Posted: 2007-11-29 20:04:19 ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. (AP) - A boat capsized about five miles from shore, killing the three fishermen on board, authorities said Thursday. The 25-foot pleasure boat carrying the men was reported missing by a friend Wednesday night when they didn't return. The Coast Guard searched through the night for the men using boats, a helicopter and a plane. A helicopter crew member using night-vision goggles spotted the boat early Thursday and the bodies of Mark Stroud and Danny Pavic, both of Galloway. A salvage crew sent to recover the boat found the body of Jerry Berwick, 64, of Philadelphia, inside the cabin Thursday afternoon, the Coast Guard said. Coast Guard Spokesman Nyx Cangemi said that there were life jackets on the boat, but that the men were not wearing them. The water temperature was about 50 degrees, he said. Officials were waiting for a medical examiner to identify the body. The men launched from Oyster Creek and were headed for Little Egg Inlet, which is about 10 miles north of where their boat was found. The search follows another fishing accident Wednesday in which a 72- year-old man was killed after being trapped underneath a capsized boat in Maurice River Township. Two others survived. .. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Fri, 30 Nov 07, Chuck Gould wrote:
A boat capsized about five miles from shore, killing the three fishermen on board, authorities said No word on what caused the boat to capsize??? |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Nov 30, 12:34 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 07, Chuck Gould wrote: A boat capsized about five miles from shore, killing the three fishermen on board, authorities said No word on what caused the boat to capsize??? The usual suspects will blame it on 1. Stupidity 2. Alcohol 3. Ignorance All without any evidence of such. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
wrote in message
... On Nov 30, 12:34 pm, wrote: On Fri, 30 Nov 07, Chuck Gould wrote: A boat capsized about five miles from shore, killing the three fishermen on board, authorities said No word on what caused the boat to capsize??? The usual suspects will blame it on 1. Stupidity 2. Alcohol 3. Ignorance All without any evidence of such. Not totally without evidence of #1 or #3. If NJ has been anything like upstate NY during the past week, it may've been caused by insane wind surprises, although they shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone who checks the weather reports. At this time of year, any time we're blessed with a warm front for a day or two, it's ALWAYS followed by raucous wind as the cold front follows, and we end up with falling tree limbs & other surprises. Perhaps those guys didn't pay attention to the weather reports. I mean, *something* caused the boat to capsize. What theories could you suggest? |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Nov 30, 10:15�am, wrote:
On Nov 30, 12:34 pm, wrote: On Fri, 30 Nov 07, Chuck Gould wrote: A boat capsized about five miles from shore, killing the three fishermen on board, authorities said No word on what caused the boat to capsize??? The usual suspects will blame it on 1. Stupidity 2. Alcohol 3. Ignorance All without any evidence of such. There is nothing in the story to indicate alcohol was a factor. Stupidity? Ignorance? Maybe extreme........but carelessness can be inferred from the fact that they were out in a small boat in the North Atlantic, during late November, and not a single one of them thought to put on a PFD. The jackets were apparently all aboard, just as *required* by the USCG... They may or may not have survived had they been wearing pfd. In 50 degree water, the major challenges would include: 1) remaining conscious after hitting the water. It's not tough to imagine getting a conk on the head as the boat turns over, and there is a lot of evidence that many people go into cardiac arrest as a result cold water immersion. If three guys go in wearing PFD, and one gets conked out, the other two have a better chance of grabbing him and keeping his face out of the water than if they're using every bit of strength available just to try to keep themselves afloat. 2) avoiding hypothermia. Almost impossible without a survival suit or getting out of the water. If the boat was still floating, upside down, wearing a pfd *might* provide just the extra flotation and lift needed to haul out onto the wreckage instead of remaining in the water. The cold air will also result in hypothermia, but it takes longer for 40 degree air to cool the body than 50 degree water, particularly if any portion of the clothing is dry. 3) summoning help. Options are pretty limited if you don't have a personal ebirb attached to the PFD, but whatever the options are they will be better if the boater is conscious and afloat. Hopefully the small boat was rigged with a ditch bag, and that should be floating somewhere nearby with a portable VHF, a couple of flares, and some basic survival stuff. Retrieving the ditch bag will be much easier if any sort of cold water "swim" to its location is assisted by PFD |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
... On Nov 30, 10:15?am, wrote: On Nov 30, 12:34 pm, wrote: On Fri, 30 Nov 07, Chuck Gould wrote: A boat capsized about five miles from shore, killing the three fishermen on board, authorities said No word on what caused the boat to capsize??? The usual suspects will blame it on 1. Stupidity 2. Alcohol 3. Ignorance All without any evidence of such. There is nothing in the story to indicate alcohol was a factor. Stupidity? Ignorance? Maybe extreme........but carelessness can be inferred from the fact that they were out in a small boat in the North Atlantic, during late November, and not a single one of them thought to put on a PFD. The jackets were apparently all aboard, just as *required* by the USCG... ++++++++++ Next week's news: Families of 3 fishermen suing CG, boat mfr and the Atlantic Ocean for negligence. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Nov 30, 1:35 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:15:23 -0800 (PST), wrote: On Nov 30, 12:34 pm, wrote: On Fri, 30 Nov 07, Chuck Gould wrote: A boat capsized about five miles from shore, killing the three fishermen on board, authorities said No word on what caused the boat to capsize??? The usual suspects will blame it on 1. Stupidity 2. Alcohol 3. Ignorance All without any evidence of such. Well... They were from New Jersey! True, true! |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Nov 30, 1:56Â*pm, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 30, 10:15�am, wrote: On Nov 30, 12:34 pm, wrote: On Fri, 30 Nov 07, Chuck Gould wrote: A boat capsized about five miles from shore, killing the three fishermen on board, authorities said No word on what caused the boat to capsize??? The usual suspects will blame it on 1. Stupidity 2. Alcohol 3. Ignorance All without any evidence of such. There is nothing in the story to indicate alcohol was a factor. Stupidity? Ignorance? Â*Maybe extreme........but carelessness can be inferred from the fact that they were out in a small boat in the North Atlantic, during late November, and not a single one of them thought to put on a PFD. You know, everyone takes a risk once in awhile, and it doesn't make them necessarily careless. Do you walk around all of the time with a radioactive proof suit on in case of nuclear fallout? Do you wear steel toed boots all of the time in case someone or yourself drops something on your foot? |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Nov 30, 12:58Â*pm, wrote:
On Nov 30, 1:56Â*pm, Chuck Gould wrote: On Nov 30, 10:15�am, wrote: On Nov 30, 12:34 pm, wrote: On Fri, 30 Nov 07, Chuck Gould wrote: A boat capsized about five miles from shore, killing the three fishermen on board, authorities said No word on what caused the boat to capsize??? The usual suspects will blame it on 1. Stupidity 2. Alcohol 3. Ignorance All without any evidence of such. There is nothing in the story to indicate alcohol was a factor. Stupidity? Ignorance? Â*Maybe extreme........but carelessness can be inferred from the fact that they were out in a small boat in the North Atlantic, during late November, and not a single one of them thought to put on a PFD. You know, everyone takes a risk once in awhile, and it doesn't make them necessarily careless. Do you walk around all of the time with a radioactive proof suit on in case of nuclear fallout? Do you wear steel toed boots all of the time in case someone or yourself drops something on your foot?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I would indeed wear a radiation suit if working around nuclear waste. I would wear steel toed boots if working in an industrial environment where heavy objects were being hoisted about. And I would wear a PFD in a 25-foot boat bouncing around in 50-degree ocean water in November, (at least an inflatable or maybe a float coat) as would nearly almost all professional mariners. What is the "upside" of the risk assumed by eschewing the PFD? Sustaining a more "macho" appearance? How fricking macho do these guys look stretched out on a slab in the morgue, fer crissake? Then there's the old "it's my life, I'll risk it" BS. Unfortunately, society doesn't work that way. I'd be OK with a system where the guy who chooses not to wear a motorcyle helmet or a pfd agrees that in any situation where his choice to avoid mitigating his personal risk develops into an emergency the paramedics, USCG, etc can elect *not* to respond. That's what taking the risk means. As it is now, the people who refuse to take basic safety precautions not only risk their own lives, but they cost the rest of us $$$$$$$$$$ in S&R costs, publicly subsidized medical care, welfare and Social Security payments made to orphaned children, etc. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message ... I'd be OK with a system where the guy who chooses not to wear a motorcyle helmet or a pfd agrees that in any situation where his choice to avoid mitigating his personal risk develops into an emergency the paramedics, USCG, etc can elect *not* to respond. That's what taking the risk means. As it is now, the people who refuse to take basic safety precautions not only risk their own lives, but they cost the rest of us $$$$$$$$$$ in S&R costs, publicly subsidized medical care, welfare and Social Security payments made to orphaned children, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, following that logic emergency services should be optional for anyone involved in an accident while driving a car in inclement weather, after midnight (might get sleepy), or on busy highways at rush hour. Not wearing a PFD while boating in rough seas is stupid, I agree. I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the arguements about beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased insurance premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny. Sorry. Eisboch |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:
I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the arguements about beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased insurance premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny. Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the opinion that if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational that it will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets should also be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle riders. The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons, but the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety" statistics. The same basic stats apply that MC riders use to validate their claim, by extrapolation, can be used for automobiles. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :) |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the arguements about beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased insurance premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny. Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the opinion that if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational that it will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets should also be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle riders. The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons, but the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety" statistics. Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people ejected from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive? |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the arguements about beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased insurance premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny. Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the opinion that if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational that it will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets should also be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle riders. The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons, but the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety" statistics. Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people ejected from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive? If I were a betting man, I would say, proportionally, about the same as a motorcycle rider's. However, the more important question is how many major accidents result in ejection? Probably about the same number as high speed motorcycle accidents. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the arguements about beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased insurance premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny. Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the opinion that if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational that it will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets should also be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle riders. The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons, but the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety" statistics. Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people ejected from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive? My best Navy buddy didn't when he flipped his car on the DC loop and it cut his legs off. He was 21. That's when I started wearing a belt. Aside from that, I found the belt holding me tight behind the wheel gave me a better sense of control when maneuvering hard. Not that I did much of that, but a hard corner can move you off center, especially with a bench seat. --Vic |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
... On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the arguements about beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased insurance premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny. Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the opinion that if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational that it will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets should also be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle riders. The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons, but the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety" statistics. Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people ejected from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive? My best Navy buddy didn't when he flipped his car on the DC loop and it cut his legs off. He was 21. That's when I started wearing a belt. Aside from that, I found the belt holding me tight behind the wheel gave me a better sense of control when maneuvering hard. Not that I did much of that, but a hard corner can move you off center, especially with a bench seat. --Vic Losing my legs would not fall under my personal definition of survival. But, I'm funny that way. YMMV |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
Chuck Gould wrote in news:98b13773-
: If the boat was still floating, upside down, Of course, we COULD force "them" to build boats that SELF-RIGHT like a monohull sailboat, couldn't we? That's not rocket science to do with a little scrap iron. Maybe if we weren't so set on making the damned boats so light and thin and cheap-as-possible with some old iron in the keel so it COULDN'T stay upside down for more than an instance...these guys and hundreds to thousands like them over the years would still be alive. Forget it. Brunswick profits is all that matters. Just look in any hull made in the last 40 years..... Larry -- Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you you're downloads threaten their networks...... .....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems? http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
Chuck Gould wrote in news:0b23b105-
: Then there's the old "it's my life, I'll risk it" BS. Unfortunately, society doesn't work that way. It does or we'd bust anyone's ass that was caught with beer or wine or other booze not sealed away in the trunk.....just like we do to CARS. We'd **** on the boat dealers' feet by making them all take a competency boat DRIVERS LICENSE test BEFORE we allowed them to drive off in a 55 ton Hatteras with 1500 HP diesels. Just having money isn't a competency test, but that's all we got now. At least SOME of the drivers on the road don't do the really stupid things boaters do, like driving drunk on booze, for fear of losing that LICENSE TO DRIVE. I know lots of boaters who drink and wouldn't do so if they lost that Boat Driver's License, or stood a chance of losing it... Of course, if we really cared, we'd say: NO PFD....NO BOATING But, a thousand yachties will come to that aid. Larry -- Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you you're downloads threaten their networks...... .....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems? http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
|
Yet Another Tragic Case......
HK wrote:
wrote: On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:42:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the arguements about beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased insurance premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny. Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the opinion that if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational that it will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets should also be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle riders. The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons, but the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety" statistics. Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people ejected from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive? If I were a betting man, I would say, proportionally, about the same as a motorcycle rider's. However, the more important question is how many major accidents result in ejection? Probably about the same number as high speed motorcycle accidents. FAR more people suffer tramatic brain injury or death from head injuries in cars than on motorcycles. If you aren't wearing a helmet when in a car, you are simply asking for it! I always urge all rightwingers everywhere to ride their motorcycles in as macho a fashion as possible and without helmets or other protective gear, and, whenever possible, to make sure at least one of their fertile family members is on the back seat. Oh. And make sure a handgun is in the saddlebag. Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While I disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious viewpoints, I know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you are not reflective of most people I have meet. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote: wrote: On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:42:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the arguements about beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased insurance premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny. Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the opinion that if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational that it will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets should also be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle riders. The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons, but the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety" statistics. Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people ejected from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive? If I were a betting man, I would say, proportionally, about the same as a motorcycle rider's. However, the more important question is how many major accidents result in ejection? Probably about the same number as high speed motorcycle accidents. FAR more people suffer tramatic brain injury or death from head injuries in cars than on motorcycles. If you aren't wearing a helmet when in a car, you are simply asking for it! I always urge all rightwingers everywhere to ride their motorcycles in as macho a fashion as possible and without helmets or other protective gear, and, whenever possible, to make sure at least one of their fertile family members is on the back seat. Oh. And make sure a handgun is in the saddlebag. Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While I disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious viewpoints, I know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you are not reflective of most people I have meet. Nice try, a**hole. No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible righties here. But nice try. Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: HK wrote: wrote: On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:42:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the arguements about beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased insurance premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny. Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the opinion that if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational that it will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets should also be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle riders. The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons, but the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety" statistics. Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people ejected from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive? If I were a betting man, I would say, proportionally, about the same as a motorcycle rider's. However, the more important question is how many major accidents result in ejection? Probably about the same number as high speed motorcycle accidents. FAR more people suffer tramatic brain injury or death from head injuries in cars than on motorcycles. If you aren't wearing a helmet when in a car, you are simply asking for it! I always urge all rightwingers everywhere to ride their motorcycles in as macho a fashion as possible and without helmets or other protective gear, and, whenever possible, to make sure at least one of their fertile family members is on the back seat. Oh. And make sure a handgun is in the saddlebag. Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While I disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious viewpoints, I know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you are not reflective of most people I have meet. Nice try, a**hole. No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible righties here. But nice try. Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you. What makes someone a responsible righties? |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While I disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious viewpoints, I know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you are not reflective of most people I have meet. Nice try, a**hole. No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible righties here. What is your definition of a "responsible rightie?" Why are you afraid of calling out SWS and Eisboch when they express the same views as others that you choose to attack because of their same views? But nice try. Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"Larry" wrote in message
... Chuck Gould wrote in news:0b23b105- : Then there's the old "it's my life, I'll risk it" BS. Unfortunately, society doesn't work that way. It does or we'd bust anyone's ass that was caught with beer or wine or other booze not sealed away in the trunk.....just like we do to CARS. We'd **** on the boat dealers' feet by making them all take a competency boat DRIVERS LICENSE test BEFORE we allowed them to drive off in a 55 ton Hatteras with 1500 HP diesels. Just having money isn't a competency test, but that's all we got now. At least SOME of the drivers on the road don't do the really stupid things boaters do, like driving drunk on booze, for fear of losing that LICENSE TO DRIVE. I know lots of boaters who drink and wouldn't do so if they lost that Boat Driver's License, or stood a chance of losing it... Of course, if we really cared, we'd say: NO PFD....NO BOATING But, a thousand yachties will come to that aid. Larry Larry, about 54% of the population is permanently stupid, and that will never change. People in that category will never be able to tell the difference between a day when they can keep the PFD nearby, and a day when things are weird and they should be wearing one. On a calm day in July, when it's 90 degrees, I doubt you wear a PFD. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: HK wrote: wrote: On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:42:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the arguements about beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased insurance premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny. Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the opinion that if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational that it will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets should also be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle riders. The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons, but the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety" statistics. Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people ejected from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive? If I were a betting man, I would say, proportionally, about the same as a motorcycle rider's. However, the more important question is how many major accidents result in ejection? Probably about the same number as high speed motorcycle accidents. FAR more people suffer tramatic brain injury or death from head injuries in cars than on motorcycles. If you aren't wearing a helmet when in a car, you are simply asking for it! I always urge all rightwingers everywhere to ride their motorcycles in as macho a fashion as possible and without helmets or other protective gear, and, whenever possible, to make sure at least one of their fertile family members is on the back seat. Oh. And make sure a handgun is in the saddlebag. Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While I disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious viewpoints, I know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you are not reflective of most people I have meet. Nice try, a**hole. No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible righties here. But nice try. Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you. What makes someone a responsible righties? You'll find the answer you seek by bending over, putting your head between your knees and looking up. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
BAR wrote:
HK wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While I disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious viewpoints, I know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you are not reflective of most people I have meet. Nice try, a**hole. No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible righties here. What is your definition of a "responsible rightie?" Why are you afraid of calling out SWS and Eisboch when they express the same views as others that you choose to attack because of their same views? But nice try. Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you. You'll find the answer you seek by bending over, putting your head between your knees and looking up. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
HK wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: HK wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: HK wrote: wrote: On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:42:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the arguements about beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased insurance premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny. Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the opinion that if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational that it will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets should also be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle riders. The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons, but the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety" statistics. Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people ejected from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive? If I were a betting man, I would say, proportionally, about the same as a motorcycle rider's. However, the more important question is how many major accidents result in ejection? Probably about the same number as high speed motorcycle accidents. FAR more people suffer tramatic brain injury or death from head injuries in cars than on motorcycles. If you aren't wearing a helmet when in a car, you are simply asking for it! I always urge all rightwingers everywhere to ride their motorcycles in as macho a fashion as possible and without helmets or other protective gear, and, whenever possible, to make sure at least one of their fertile family members is on the back seat. Oh. And make sure a handgun is in the saddlebag. Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While I disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious viewpoints, I know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you are not reflective of most people I have meet. Nice try, a**hole. No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible righties here. But nice try. Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you. What makes someone a responsible righties? You'll find the answer you seek by bending over, putting your head between your knees and looking up. Harry, I just want to join the club of responsible righties, and was wondering what the membership requirements are. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: HK wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: HK wrote: wrote: On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:42:14 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:32:55 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:51:03 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote: I *do* have a problem with mandatory helmet laws. All the arguements about beoming a burden to society due to medical costs and increased insurance premiums for all just don't hold up under close scrutiny. Not to take this in a different direction, but I'm of the opinion that if I am required to wear a seatbelt under the dubious rational that it will "save" my life and reduce medical costs, then helmets should also be required along with full leathers and body armor for motorcycle riders. The stated rational for seatbelts is BS for a number of reasons, but the most important is that seatbelt use is over stated and over reported in vehicle accidents resulting in skewed "safety" statistics. Let's consider the opposite: In the subset consisting of people ejected from their vehicles during an accident, what percentage survive? If I were a betting man, I would say, proportionally, about the same as a motorcycle rider's. However, the more important question is how many major accidents result in ejection? Probably about the same number as high speed motorcycle accidents. FAR more people suffer tramatic brain injury or death from head injuries in cars than on motorcycles. If you aren't wearing a helmet when in a car, you are simply asking for it! I always urge all rightwingers everywhere to ride their motorcycles in as macho a fashion as possible and without helmets or other protective gear, and, whenever possible, to make sure at least one of their fertile family members is on the back seat. Oh. And make sure a handgun is in the saddlebag. Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While I disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious viewpoints, I know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you are not reflective of most people I have meet. Nice try, a**hole. No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible righties here. But nice try. Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you. What makes someone a responsible righties? You'll find the answer you seek by bending over, putting your head between your knees and looking up. Harry, I just want to join the club of responsible righties, and was wondering what the membership requirements are. You'll find the answer you seek by bending over, putting your head between your knees and looking up. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in
: On a calm day in July, when it's 90 degrees, I doubt you wear a PFD. We wrote a law for jetskiiers. ON a warm day in July when it's 90, the jetskiiers better have their PFDs on. We can easily extend this law to include drunken sailors and bassboat alcoholics. It would be a fine tool to get the stupids off the waterways, to the benefit of the rest of us. So wouldn't boater licensing. Larry -- Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you you're downloads threaten their networks...... .....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems? http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"Larry" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in : On a calm day in July, when it's 90 degrees, I doubt you wear a PFD. We wrote a law for jetskiiers. ON a warm day in July when it's 90, the jetskiiers better have their PFDs on. We can easily extend this law to include drunken sailors and bassboat alcoholics. It would be a fine tool to get the stupids off the waterways, to the benefit of the rest of us. So wouldn't boater licensing. Larry Wouldn't letting them drown be more effective? :-) |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Larry" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in : On a calm day in July, when it's 90 degrees, I doubt you wear a PFD. We wrote a law for jetskiiers. ON a warm day in July when it's 90, the jetskiiers better have their PFDs on. We can easily extend this law to include drunken sailors and bassboat alcoholics. It would be a fine tool to get the stupids off the waterways, to the benefit of the rest of us. So wouldn't boater licensing. Larry Wouldn't letting them drown be more effective? :-) Ahhh...another Libertarian! |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Dec 1, 11:29 am, Larry wrote:
Larry -- Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you you're downloads threaten their networks...... ....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems?http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v I remember the phone companies telling us they could not boost the speed of our dialups because there was copper wire running from our homes, to the poles and they could not take the speed. Then cable came, and dsl, and guess what, for dsl they did not have to replace any of the wiring from my pole out front to the modem,,, hummmmmm... |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
wrote:
On Dec 1, 11:29 am, Larry wrote: Larry -- Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you you're downloads threaten their networks...... ....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems?http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v I remember the phone companies telling us they could not boost the speed of our dialups because there was copper wire running from our homes, to the poles and they could not take the speed. Then cable came, and dsl, and guess what, for dsl they did not have to replace any of the wiring from my pole out front to the modem,,, hummmmmm... Let's talk about "conditioned" vs. "unconditioned" lines. Unconditioned lines could not be used for data transmission above 1200 baud but, a conditioned line could go above 1200 baud. What is the difference between the two? You paid more for a conditioned line. What happened in 1984 that as soon as ATT was broken up undonditioned lines could now support up to 56Kbps? Absolutely nothing. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
Don White wrote:
"HK" wrote in message . .. Nice try, a**hole. No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible righties here. But nice try. Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you. Boy... JohnH & Waylon sure act like the Bobsy twins. They are desperate to drag the more moderate posters into their foolishness. Maybe they need someone to hold their hands while they do their instigating, facilitating etc. Don't you just love it when they play, "Who, me?" |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Dec 1, 11:54 am, BAR wrote:
wrote: On Dec 1, 11:29 am, Larry wrote: Larry -- Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you you're downloads threaten their networks...... ....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems?http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v I remember the phone companies telling us they could not boost the speed of our dialups because there was copper wire running from our homes, to the poles and they could not take the speed. Then cable came, and dsl, and guess what, for dsl they did not have to replace any of the wiring from my pole out front to the modem,,, hummmmmm... Let's talk about "conditioned" vs. "unconditioned" lines. Unconditioned lines could not be used for data transmission above 1200 baud but, a conditioned line could go above 1200 baud. What is the difference between the two? You paid more for a conditioned line. What happened in 1984 that as soon as ATT was broken up undonditioned lines could now support up to 56Kbps? Absolutely nothing.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yep, I got that. The phone and cable companies have been doing this for a long time so they could bring in services as "extras" or upgrades and charge more. When we had DSL in one location, I knew a guy that worked at the local NOC where our line met the others. He went down the street one day and "flipped a switch" and our DSL went ballistic with speed, anything we could throw at it;) |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Dec 1, 12:18 pm, wrote:
On Dec 1, 11:54 am, BAR wrote: wrote: On Dec 1, 11:29 am, Larry wrote: Larry -- Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you you're downloads threaten their networks...... ....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems?http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v I remember the phone companies telling us they could not boost the speed of our dialups because there was copper wire running from our homes, to the poles and they could not take the speed. Then cable came, and dsl, and guess what, for dsl they did not have to replace any of the wiring from my pole out front to the modem,,, hummmmmm... Let's talk about "conditioned" vs. "unconditioned" lines. Unconditioned lines could not be used for data transmission above 1200 baud but, a conditioned line could go above 1200 baud. What is the difference between the two? You paid more for a conditioned line. What happened in 1984 that as soon as ATT was broken up undonditioned lines could now support up to 56Kbps? Absolutely nothing.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yep, I got that. The phone and cable companies have been doing this for a long time so they could bring in services as "extras" or upgrades and charge more. When we had DSL in one location, I knew a guy that worked at the local NOC where our line met the others. He went down the street one day and "flipped a switch" and our DSL went ballistic with speed, anything we could throw at it;)- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Oh yeah, all of this with the same delivery hardware from pole to house they years earlier told us would not support faster than 1200 ;) |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"HK" wrote in message . .. Nice try, a**hole. No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible righties here. But nice try. Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you. Boy... JohnH & Waylon sure act like the Bobsy twins. They are desperate to drag the more moderate posters into their foolishness. Maybe they need someone to hold their hands while they do their instigating, facilitating etc. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
"HK" wrote in message . .. BAR wrote: HK wrote: Reginald P. Smithers III wrote: Is that directed towards SWF? I think he would be considered a rightwinger? He is definitely right of my political views. While I disagree with many individual's politics and/or religious viewpoints, I know I would wish ill will on them. I am glad you are not reflective of most people I have meet. Nice try, a**hole. No, it is not directed at SW, Eisboch, or any of the other responsible righties here. What is your definition of a "responsible rightie?" Why are you afraid of calling out SWS and Eisboch when they express the same views as others that you choose to attack because of their same views? But nice try. Oh. Whatever your politics, it is directed at you. You'll find the answer you seek by bending over, putting your head between your knees and looking up. That'd be an inprovement from what greets him in the mirror every morning! |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Nov 30, 7:35�pm, Larry wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote in news:0b23b105- : Then there's the old "it's my life, I'll risk it" BS. Unfortunately, society doesn't work that way. It does or we'd bust anyone's ass that was caught with beer or wine or other booze not sealed away in the trunk.....just like we do to CARS. We'd **** on the boat dealers' feet by making them all take a competency boat DRIVERS LICENSE test BEFORE we allowed them to drive off in a 55 ton Hatteras with 1500 HP diesels. �Just having money isn't a competency test, but that's all we got now. At least SOME of the drivers on the road don't do the really stupid things boaters do, like driving drunk on booze, for fear of losing that LICENSE TO DRIVE. �I know lots of boaters who drink and wouldn't do so if they lost that Boat Driver's License, or stood a chance of losing it... Of course, if we really cared, we'd say: NO PFD....NO BOATING But, a thousand yachties will come to that aid. Larry -- Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you you're downloads threaten their networks...... ....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems?http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v In my state, as in most others (over 40 states now) you are required to pass a basic boating knowledge test. The requirement applies to everybody by age group, and over the next few years the bracket expands to include everybody born after 1955. We old geezers literally get "grandfathered" in. :-) A new boat buyer has 90 days, by law, to complete the education course. Yes, one could argue "But look at all the damage that guy could do in 90 days!" The tests are probably so simple that they are almost meaningless. You can take one "on-line", and I can't imagine what would prevent you from simply swtiching back and forth between the test page and some page with answers on it, or looking everything up in Chapman's as you go. The downside of that is that Boobus Americanus and his two brothers may decide, "Well, that's all we will ever have to know about boating safety. We met all the qualifications. Didn't take two long, either. What do you say we take the runabout and a couple of cases of beer out to that island in the middle of the lake?" The biggest controlling factor discouraging unqualified operators isn't actually a law at all. It's the free enterprise system. Most people purchasing a large boat like you use in your example will either be financing a portion of it (which will require insurance), or if they have been smart, thrifty, and lucky enough to arrange their personal finanaces to allow them to pay cash they are likely to have other and substantial assets that they will want to protect by insuring the boat. Can't say about where you live, but around here the insurance companies get pretty restrictive with first time operators buying a big boat, or even a case where somebody steps up from a 22-footer to a 48. The insurance companies typically issue only a temporary, conditional binder that can be converted to a permanent policy only *after* the new owner gets professional instruction from a licensed master and (if he or she has never done so) completes a USCGA or USPS class. The neophyte who buys that 50-foot yacht will need to have a licensed captain aboard for his first few cruises, at least if he expects to have insurance in place. |
Yet Another Tragic Case......
On Nov 30, 7:28�pm, Larry wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote in news:98b13773- : If the boat was still floating, upside down, Of course, we COULD force "them" to build boats that SELF-RIGHT like a monohull sailboat, couldn't we? �That's not rocket science to do with a little scrap iron. Maybe if we weren't so set on making the damned boats so light and thin and cheap-as-possible with some old iron in the keel so it COULDN'T stay upside down for more than an instance...these guys and hundreds to thousands like them over the years would still be alive. Forget it. �Brunswick profits is all that matters. �Just look in any hull made in the last 40 years..... Larry -- Isn't it ironic that the same ISPs that are telling you you're downloads threaten their networks...... ....are testing 100Gbps TV to sell on the SAME systems?http://tinyurl.com/27qx3v Yeah, you're right........assuming noboby want's to go more than 7-8 knots. Stick a big old keel on the bottom, pour in enough lead, maintain a low superstructure- and joila, you've got a self-righting boat. The guys who want to go fishing 60 miles off shore at sunrise will simply have to get underway shortly after dinner the night before. :-) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com