PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

Martin Shell wrote:
I always wear my PFD. I always wear seatbelts in a car. The personal
freedom argument against regulation is appealing, to a point. Part of
the cost of my auto, health and life insurance is the cost of risk
pooling because others are going to be "benefitting" from their
stupidity, at everyone's expense. Rescue resources, and insurance
benefits come out of everyone's pocket. If we don't mandate, let's
formalize the notion that if you suffer harm because of the lack of
seatbelt, PFD, etc. you lose (all, most, some?) of your insurance
coverage.

Absolutely. I'm all for insurance companies having a freer hand to
dictate coverage terms and to price coverage according to what terms the
insured is willing to accept. If you want to ride a motorcycle without a
helmet, drive a car without wearing seatbelts, or paddle without a PFD,
you should be willing to pay for the increased risk you pose to an
insurer. This is already done with some factors, premiums being based on
age, physical condition and whether a person smokes or not. Why
shouldn't use of safety equipment be part of the equation? If someone
lies in order to get a lower rate, the insurance company should not have
to pay if they get hurt or die, or at least they should be allowed to
pay a reduced benefit. Fair is fair.

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

Absolutely. I'm all for insurance companies having a freer hand to
dictate coverage terms and to price coverage according to what terms the
insured is willing to accept.


My father and older brother work in insurance, and so did I for a while. I
hate to tell you this, but insurance is ALL about statistics. And the current
statistics DO NOT support mandatory use of a pfd in a sea kayak.
Besides, if the insurance company did have that kind of power then what
would be next? They may decide, based on the statistics, that every paddler
must wear a drysuit. Now your paddling in Florida and the air temp is 110
degrees and the water is 80 degrees. To have to wear a drysuit would be
ludicrous! But you get into trouble and need assistance. To bad! Your insurance
is canceled because you didn't have on a drysuit at the time as dictated by the
insurance company. Is that really what you want?

Scott
So.Cal.

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

On 08 Apr 2004 12:49:51 GMT, (Ki Ayker) wrote:

Absolutely. I'm all for insurance companies having a freer hand to
dictate coverage terms and to price coverage according to what terms the
insured is willing to accept.


My father and older brother work in insurance, and so did I for a while. I
hate to tell you this, but insurance is ALL about statistics. And the current
statistics DO NOT support mandatory use of a pfd in a sea kayak.
Besides, if the insurance company did have that kind of power then what
would be next? They may decide, based on the statistics, that every paddler
must wear a drysuit. Now your paddling in Florida and the air temp is 110
degrees and the water is 80 degrees. To have to wear a drysuit would be
ludicrous! But you get into trouble and need assistance. To bad! Your insurance
is canceled because you didn't have on a drysuit at the time as dictated by the
insurance company. Is that really what you want?

Just as a useless data point, I live in Florida and I'm pretty sure we
didn't break into triple digit temperatures all last year. Sure, the
humidity gets pretty high, and the temperatures in the summer are in the
high 90s, but it seems to get the really high temperatures you have to go
someplace like Kansas or New York. That was one thing I noticed after
moving here, that it gets real humid, the bugs get bad and it feels hot,
but it doesn't get beastly hot here, not like in Texas or Arizona anyway.

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
We are the CroMagnon of the future

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

Randy Hodges wrote:
Walt wrote in message

Were the US Coast Guard to issue such a regulation (and I am unaware of
anything actually pending) it would apply only where the Coast Guard has
jurisdiction.

Just because the government has no jurisdiction does not meant that it
won't try to impose its will on the states. Look at the 55 MPH speed
limit, seat belt laws, and education (to name a few areas).

Point taken. US Congress can arm-twist states through appropriations
bills. But unlike road construction and education, boating is not
highly subsidized by Federal grants to the states, so the leverage is
ouite limited. I don't see a bill coming out of congress that says
"make PFDs mandatory or we'll cut the funding for X for your state."

The worst part is that any such regulation is likely to be pretty
arcane. For example, there was a time when rafts (and other boats of
a particular size) had to carry a "Throwable Flotation Device," an air
horn, and a fire extinguisher.

Still true today, depending on what state's jurisdiction you're in. We
have a patchwork system of hundreds (if not thousands) of separate
jurisdictions each with it's own rules that vary by boat size and type.
Not that I'm arguing for comprehensive Federal regulation to supplant
state and local laws, but a single set of laws for the entire country
would be significantly *less* arcane.


--
//-Walt
//
// http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=63

PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
 

Well, I dont't know about insurance issues, but don't like the idea of more
restrictive legislation.....

I used to enjoy the Willamette as my backyard when I lived in Oregon. We'd
swim in the river all day and watch the tubers go down (you know, like the
fat guy in a tube with a three-year-old on his belly heading for the I-5
rapids).

Didn't often see the River Police, but one day I was out in my boat w/o PFD
and was ticketed. Passed the police boat and waved. They motioned me back so
I beat upriver to see what they wanted. Got a lecture on the dangers of
boating without personal flotation. I pointed out the swimmers and tubers in
the same area to no avail. Apparently there is something inherently
dangerous about being in a boat.

Anyway, I got the citation. Seems like a warning would have been in order. I
wasn't a wise guy about the whole thing, and didn't argue about the validity
of the law........

I use PFD and helmet when I think it's prudent. Don't like laws that protect
me from myself. I already have a mother.


Bill (now in NC)