Mike,

Good analysis. Thank you for this data. I pretty much agree with your
conclusions. The bottom line is that the ones NOT wearing PFDs are
almost universally yahoos or amateurs.

We don't need more government intrusion in our lives. A better
approach is that we need to try to educate people that wearing a PFD
(at least on most any moderate whitewater) is considered mandatory. I
have been successful in many cases with going up to people and
reminding them that the river is a dangerous place and that they
should be wearing their life vests. Most of them thank me.

Randy

Another article worth reading:
http://www.sailnet.com/sailing/04/full_by_0304.pdf
This appears to be another myth...

When I was a member of a team instructing in Mountain Walking (In the UK
) we spent a great deal of time stressing the safety aspect. The Team
Leader always gave a short address at the begining - He always started
with the same phrase - Any Fool Can Be Carried Off A Mountain - Same
applies to PFDs - Any Body Can Be Recovered.
Personally - When I coach you abide by my rules - If I wear one then so
do
you. Let someone else tell their family that they will not be coming
home. Unless it's in a wooden box. I agree life is often over regulated
but common sense or 'Sods Law' tells you that **** Happens!

Frank Healy



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

A tough, tough issue.
Someone posted that there are no arguments against seat belts. I lost
a friend, burned alive in a car while hanging upside down from his
seat belt which he could not get undone. He might argue that point if
he could.
Another friend lost his brother in a single motorcycle accident. The
Bell full-face he was wearing broke his neck when he landed in the
ditch and he suffocated by the side of the road. His family doctor
made the mistake of telling this to my friend, who had given his
brother that helmet as a birthday gift. He might be inclined to argue
for choice also.
That said, I ALWYAS wear my helmet when riding, ALWAYS wear my
seatbelt when driving, and ALWAYS wear my pfd when paddling. I've seen
and heard about too many deaths that prove the rule rather than the
exception.

magoo_ns wrote:

A tough, tough issue.
Someone posted that there are no arguments against seat belts. I lost
a friend, burned alive in a car while hanging upside down from his
seat belt which he could not get undone. He might argue that point if
he could.

Tough break for your friend. My sympathies. He spun the wheel and ended
up in the 1% of accidents that result in fires and the tiny % of
seatbelts that won't release. If he hadn't been wearing the seatbelt he
might have been killed outright or rendered unconscious by the impact,
which in a sad way, would have been better.

Another friend lost his brother in a single motorcycle accident. The
Bell full-face he was wearing broke his neck when he landed in the
ditch and he suffocated by the side of the road. His family doctor
made the mistake of telling this to my friend, who had given his
brother that helmet as a birthday gift. He might be inclined to argue
for choice also.

The impact with the ground broke his neck, not the helmet. I haven't
seen many family doctors who are also accident scene investigation
specialists, so I'd say the old doc is just incredibly insensitive at best.

That said, I ALWYAS wear my helmet when riding, ALWAYS wear my
seatbelt when driving, and ALWAYS wear my pfd when paddling. I've seen
and heard about too many deaths that prove the rule rather than the
exception.

Me, too. Betting your life against high odds is, IMO, foolish.

--
Steve Cramer
Athens, GA

Someone posted that there are no arguments against seat belts.

Another friend lost his brother in a single motorcycle accident.


Actually, what I said was,

" Pfd's cannot be compared to automobile seatbelts or motorcycle helmets. Both
the seatbelts and motorcycle helmets have been proven to reduce the severity of
injuries and save lives. There is no such evidence regarding pfd's in sea
kayaks,"

which is a far cry from claiming that "there are no arguments against
seatbelts," or motorcycle helmets.
What I AM saying is that I believe that the effectiveness of pfd's in your
typical sea kayaking scenario is greatly over stated. You may quote me on that,
but let's try to get it right this time, shall we? I no more feel that I must
ALWAYS wear my pfd then I do my helmet. Nevertheless I will wear my pfd and my
helmet when I feel it is the prudent choice. If it makes you happy to be fully
expedition equipped for a leisurely harbor paddle in warm protected water, then
knock yourself out. I for one do not feel that need.

Scott
So.Cal.

I have no problem protecting personal freedoms I believe they are important
but when you want to write the cheque and ask someone else to cash it that's
a different story. If the people who choose not to wear there life jackets
want to take responsibility for their action when things go wrong then its
ok with me. Responsibility includes taking care of the rescue search and
rescue cost any air ambulance fees and so one it is different in the states
but in Canada it is a socialized system so we all pickup the hospital bills
for yahoos that throw caution to the wind. There has been some talk now of
doing what they do in the Grand Canyon as well if you choose to go down into
the canyon and can't make it back up the cost is on you. That should go to
anyone that tries an outdoor activity and doesn't take proper care and
prevention measures. Having said that I would point out there should be room
for circumstance which are out of control of those involved but there are
ways to decide that even.
You can play with statistics all you want but if something requires two
measures to make it safe why not be SMART and put in a third. Training,
experience and safe equipment(being used) make for a safe outdoor adventure.

--
Abe Elias
Diving Sparrow Paddle Co,
http://home.cogeco.ca/~aelias

Well said!!

"Canranger44" wrote in message
...
I have no problem protecting personal freedoms I believe they are
important
but when you want to write the cheque and ask someone else to cash it
that's
a different story. If the people who choose not to wear there life jackets
want to take responsibility for their action when things go wrong then its
ok with me. Responsibility includes taking care of the rescue search and
rescue cost any air ambulance fees and so one it is different in the
states
but in Canada it is a socialized system so we all pickup the hospital
bills
for yahoos that throw caution to the wind. There has been some talk now of
doing what they do in the Grand Canyon as well if you choose to go down
into
the canyon and can't make it back up the cost is on you. That should go to
anyone that tries an outdoor activity and doesn't take proper care and
prevention measures. Having said that I would point out there should be
room
for circumstance which are out of control of those involved but there are
ways to decide that even.
You can play with statistics all you want but if something requires two
measures to make it safe why not be SMART and put in a third. Training,
experience and safe equipment(being used) make for a safe outdoor
adventure.

--
Abe Elias
Diving Sparrow Paddle Co,
http://home.cogeco.ca/~aelias

With apologies Scott, I may have responded to the wrong part of this
thread. I was actually quoting my good friend Brian who said "PFD's
are like seatbelts. There's no good argument against them".
There are indeed good arguments against compulsory seat belt, helmet
and pfd use. As I said, I don't happen to support those arguments,
but it doesn't help the issue to dismiss all arguments from the other
side.
I wear 'em, you don't. As you say, "knock yourself out."

Glenn




(Ki Ayker) wrote in message ...
Someone posted that there are no arguments against seat belts.

Another friend lost his brother in a single motorcycle accident.


Actually, what I said was,

" Pfd's cannot be compared to automobile seatbelts or motorcycle helmets. Both
the seatbelts and motorcycle helmets have been proven to reduce the severity of
injuries and save lives. There is no such evidence regarding pfd's in sea
kayaks,"

which is a far cry from claiming that "there are no arguments against
seatbelts," or motorcycle helmets.
What I AM saying is that I believe that the effectiveness of pfd's in your
typical sea kayaking scenario is greatly over stated. You may quote me on that,
but let's try to get it right this time, shall we? I no more feel that I must
ALWAYS wear my pfd then I do my helmet. Nevertheless I will wear my pfd and my
helmet when I feel it is the prudent choice. If it makes you happy to be fully
expedition equipped for a leisurely harbor paddle in warm protected water, then
knock yourself out. I for one do not feel that need.

Scott
So.Cal.

You can play with statistics all you want but if something requires two
measures to make it safe why not be SMART and put in a third. Training,
experience and safe equipment(being used) make for a safe outdoor adventure.

Absolutely! But my question is - just where does one draw the line? It seems
to be a common rally cry in this sport to "always wear your pfd!" I believe
that at least as far as the sport of sea kayaking is concerned this is the
result of misinformation and a general misinterpretation of the statistics. But
to those of you who do believe that the pfd is so important to safety in a sea
kayak that it should always be worn you seem to insist on taking it one step
further and require that everybody must conform to your rules despite the fact
that you cannot produce any significant evidence to support your beliefs.
So what's next? If safety is really the issue here then shouldn't we
consider ALWAYS wearing a helmet as well? What about bulkheads verses airbags?
Paddlefloats, pumps, bailers, VHF radios, Epirbs, drysuits, wetsuits - and the
list goes on and on. Apparently if YOU feel strongly enough about a particular
piece of equipment then all the rest of us are irresponsible, or not as smart
as you, for not relying on it as well. At the very least you will accept that
we disagree, but I will not be invited to paddle with you since my presence
would be allegedly risking the well being of your group. Gee, isn't this
getting awfully close to the same argument that Timmy makes about his sponsons?

BTW, the "YOU" refereed to in this post is intended to be generic in nature
and is NOT pointed at Abe or any other particular individual on the list. I am
simply attempting to explore the other side of the pfd debate.

Scott
So.Cal.