| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
These were culled from the article "To Wear or Not To Wear, the PFD
Mandate Debate" in the Spring issue of Paddler Dealer, about the US Coast Guard's consideration of a mandatory-wear requirement for boats under 21'. The article is worth searching out, thoroughly covering the question of the pros and cons of mandated PFD use. In 2002 there were 750 boating fatalities in the US (all types of boats). The USCG estimates that 440 people could have been saved if they had worn PFD's. In 2002 drowning caused 524 of those boating fatalities. Of those more than 75% were in small boats (under 21'). 85% of those drowning deaths were not wearing PFD's. 90% of the fatalities were men. 50% of the canoeing and kayaking fatalities were fishermen. 40% of the canoe fatalities involved aluminum canoes. Kayaker's wear-rate for PFD's is 82% Jet skiers wear PFD's 97.5% of the time. The percentage is almost certainly because it is mandated for operation of a personal watercraft. My take on those statistics: Wearing a PFD can obviously save your life (duh). Mandating wear obviously increases the use of PFD's (duh again). A large percentage of the small boat fatalities tied to not wearing PFD's involve either fishermen or folks in aluminum canoes. I'd take that as an indication that these were not paddling enthusiasts but simply folks in boats with paddles. And I'd take that a step further and hazard a guess that that group is the least likely to have a comfortable, well-designed PFD. Canoe rental places aren't exactly passing out Lotus or Extrasports and I doubt that many folks who buy a $300 rec boat spring for a $100 PFD. I can't claim to wear my PFD 100% of the time. On a hot summer day on a gentle shallow stream I probably won't. Unless it becomes the law, and then I probably will. That said, I'm still opposed to mandates that infringe on my personal freedom of choice. |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
Mike McCrea wrote:
sobering statistics snipped to save bandwidth My take on those statistics: Wearing a PFD can obviously save your life (duh). Mandating wear obviously increases the use of PFD's (duh again). PFD's are like seatbelts. There's no good argument against them and the evidence is that they save lives, but people can always manage to rationalize not using them, if that's what they want to do. I guess the appropriate term for this behavior is "natural selection". A large percentage of the small boat fatalities tied to not wearing PFD's involve either fishermen or folks in aluminum canoes. I'd take that as an indication that these were not paddling enthusiasts but simply folks in boats with paddles. And I'd take that a step further and hazard a guess that that group is the least likely to have a comfortable, well-designed PFD. Canoe rental places aren't exactly passing out Lotus or Extrasports and I doubt that many folks who buy a $300 rec boat spring for a $100 PFD. Both good point, but there are others that aren't mentioned. The majority of canoe accidents involving fishermen and rec paddlers are due to standing in the canoe or shifting positions, probably common occurrences when fishing. Alcohol also plays a huge part in boating fatalities. Aside from intoxication related problems (impaired operation, loss of balance, increased susceptibility to hypothermia), a high percentage of guys who die are found with their flys open, indicating that they were in the process "recycling" their chosen adult beverages at the time of their accident. I can't claim to wear my PFD 100% of the time. On a hot summer day on a gentle shallow stream I probably won't. Unless it becomes the law, and then I probably will. That said, I'm still opposed to mandates that infringe on my personal freedom of choice. I agree. It's a simple case of us not doing the right thing voluntarily and the government stepping in to force the issue. If people would only use their heads... |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
I have been over this issue many times with people who won't wear their PFD
but in the end I have gone the route of natural selection if they are to stupid to wear it then maybe there is a greater reasoning involved so many people underestimate Darwin's theory but the guy who doesn't wear a helmet on a motorcycle or bicycle or a PFD in a boat might not be the type of genetic material we want lingering on. -- Abe Elias Diving Sparrow Paddle Co, http://home.cogeco.ca/~aelias "Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 1-Apr-2004, Brian Nystrom wrote: PFD's are like seatbelts. There's no good argument against them and the evidence is that they save lives, but people can always manage to rationalize not using them, if that's what they want to do. I guess the appropriate term for this behavior is "natural selection". Minor nit - they don't rationalize, they justify. If they were rational, they'd wear it. People can justify anything, even the irrational. Mike |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
"Mike McCrea" wrote in message om... That said, I'm still opposed to mandates that infringe on my personal freedom of choice. Thanks for the statistics Mike. Part of me agrees with your last statement but I think in the end I'll accept the regulation. I used to ride a motorcycle. I was a kid and wore a helmet because NY had a helmet law. It's too easy on a beautiful day, or when going on a short spin to pass on the helmet (or pfd). The law makes us think twice. Especially the kids. I gave up bikes when someone with good aim clocked me with a bottle from an overpass on the Brooklyn Queens Expressway at rush hour. The helmet did double duty there. Without the laws too many kids will be 'cool' and avoid the hassle. Too many adults will either be fools or lazy. In the end everyone pays. I guess it's the clash of 'individual freedom' with 'no man is an island'. I recognize the other side of the argument though, as in 'where does it end?' Mandatory helmets while skiing or bicycling?, Mandatory kneepads when gardening? Mandatory lipitor for baby boomers? But mandatory use of pfd's is ok with me. Billy Sarokin |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
Brian Nystrom wrote:
The majority of canoe accidents involving fishermen and rec paddlers are due to standing in the canoe or shifting positions, probably common occurrences when fishing. When either touring or fishing in my very stable 20' canoe, I often stand - sometimes for extended periods - even in 'easy' white water. Paddling/poling and viewing are far more effective when standing - as is fly casting. Whenever I'm in white water, I ALWAYS wear a pfd but haven't needed it yet. The only time I dumped a canoe other than on purpose, I had been sitting the entire trip. The only time I ever fell out of a canoe other than on purpose was landing during extremely high winds on a very rocky shore where knee- and elbow-pads would have been of far more value than the pfd I had on. As for moving about in the canoe, both in still and moving water, it's a matter of knowing yourself, knowing the canoe & within limits knowing the conditions. Just standing is no sin, nor is going without a pfd in some conditions. Yours in the north Maine woods, Pete Hilton (Reg. Me. Guide) aka The Ent -- Don't ask the barber whether you need a haircut. D. S. Greenberg |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
William Sarokin wrote:
I recognize the other side of the argument though, as in 'where does it end?' Mandatory helmets while skiing or bicycling?, There are already countries where that helmet law for bicycling is in place. Living in a country where everyone has bicyles, I rarely see one, except for mountain bikers who go ride through rough terrain. Granted, we have seperate bicycle paths in a big part of the country, and everyone is used to watch out for bicycles: here they have the right of way when coming from the right, and hitting a bicyclist with a car means that you *always* get part of the blaim as a motorist. Mandatory kneepads when gardening? Mandatory lipitor for baby boomers? How about mandatory guns? Isn't there a town in the U.S. where everyone is supposed to own a gun? But mandatory use of pfd's is ok with me. Me too! Same goes for a helmet when running whitewater. IMNSHO Faceguards and elbow pads are optional for whitewater, as long as the individual getting hurt in their face or at their elbow pays for a decent part of the hospital costs themselves. -- -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a@t dse d.o.t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations. http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
The Ent wrote:
Brian Nystrom wrote: The majority of canoe accidents involving fishermen and rec paddlers are due to standing in the canoe or shifting positions, probably common occurrences when fishing. When either touring or fishing in my very stable 20' canoe, I often stand - sometimes for extended periods - even in 'easy' white water. Paddling/poling and viewing are far more effective when standing - as is fly casting. Whenever I'm in white water, I ALWAYS wear a pfd but haven't needed it yet. The only time I dumped a canoe other than on purpose, I had been sitting the entire trip. The only time I ever fell out of a canoe other than on purpose was landing during extremely high winds on a very rocky shore where knee- and elbow-pads would have been of far more value than the pfd I had on. As for moving about in the canoe, both in still and moving water, it's a matter of knowing yourself, knowing the canoe & within limits knowing the conditions. Just standing is no sin, nor is going without a pfd in some conditions. There's no doubt that standing and moving around are perfectly safe for an experienced canoeist. I also don't mean to imply that this is necessarily reckless or dangerous behavior. However, the statistics are clear that these are leading causes of capsizes and falls overboard that result in fatalities of canoeist. It seems pretty safe to conclude that this is due to inexperience in many, if not most cases. |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
The problem is that too many people these days think that they're
entitled to personal freedom, but absolved from personal responsibility. If we accept responsibility for our actions rather than blaming someone or something else (the victim mentality), there is no need for such laws. However, we've become conditioned to place blame and litigate at the drop of a hat and such laws are a natural result. Everyone loses except the lawyers. Personally, I'd love to see unemployment lines full of trial attorneys, as it would indicate a return to personal responsibility and common sense. |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
Ah, the old pfd debate! I'm afraid that I have to disagree with all the rest of you. 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 (important point here, I am talking about sea kayaking). The Coast Guard's statistics simply reflect the percentages of people who participate in recreational boating that do and do not wear lifejackets. If you look at it from a different perspective, like whitewater boating statistics, you will see that the overwhelming majority of whitewater boating fatalities were in fact wearing pfd's! Are we then to assume that when participating in whitewater boating one will be safer without a pfd on? I mean, just look at the statistics! Very few whitewater fatalities were found without a pfd on! Of course not! Most people who do whitewater boating always wear a pfd, so it is only natural that the majority of fatalities associated with that activity will have on pfd's. I'll bet that every person reading this has gone out boating, fishing, sightseeing, whatever, any number of times while not wearing a life jacket. The simple fact of the matter is that probably at least 85% of those people who enjoy recreational boating are not wearing a lifejacket. So once again it is only natural that the fatalities should reflect that. What I find much more interesting is that 15% of the fatalities were in fact wearing their lifejackets and they died anyway. If you look a little deeper into the issue then it becomes obvious that experience, or rather lack thereof, plays a much greater roll in the fatalities then does equipment. The overwhelming majority of what are classified as sea kayaking fatalities are associated with people who have very little, if any at all, training or experience. These are precisely the kinds of people who will be inclined to paddle a rec boat and attempt to stand up in it, or paddle solo into hazardous conditions. These people are an accident looking for a place to happen and the fact that they finally got their wish while in a sea kayak is more coincident then any statement about the dangers of the sport. While these are the people who would most benefit from wearing a pfd, they are also, unfortunately, the one's who are least likely to do so. As for making the wearing of a pfd in a sea kayak a law --- I really hope not. If you really want to save lives then I believe mandatory instruction and certification would probably be much more effective, even though I am against that as well. When reviewing the sea kayaking related fatalities, once you discard the novices, then you see that what's left is a pretty even split between those who are found with their pfd's on, and those who are found to be not wearing one. So like I said at the beginning, I can see no actual evidence to suggest that pfd's are particularly effective as a safety device in your typical sea kayaking scenario. I am not trying to say that they do not have their place, but I see them to be no more or less important then any other piece of rescue and safety gear. Any piece of safety and rescue gear can save a life in the right scenario. But I believe it should be left up to the individual to choose how and when to apply it. Scott So.Cal. |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
There's no doubt that standing and moving around are perfectly safe for an experienced canoeist. I also don't mean to imply that this is necessarily reckless or dangerous behavior. However, the statistics are clear that these are leading causes of capsizes and falls overboard that result in fatalities of canoeist. It seems pretty safe to conclude that this is due to inexperience in many, if not most cases. Sounds like the law should be against standing in a canoe.... It seems ironic that we spend so much effort on the low count but high fatality factor and little effort on the high count low fatality factor. e.g. I would get on a bicycle without a helmet way before I got on one without gloves. 90% of [my?] falls result in hands being thrust out. |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
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 |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
Another article worth reading:
http://www.sailnet.com/sailing/04/full_by_0304.pdf This appears to be another myth... |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
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 |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
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. |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
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 |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
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. |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
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 |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
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 |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
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. |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
In either accident, the alternative outcome in not known and not knowable. They died with the safety feature; they might have died without. This doesn't argue for or against. Ok, I can add one. My cousin was broadsided a long time ago, she was not wearing a seatbelt and was able to jump into the passenger seat at or near impact time. She believes she would be dead had she been wearing her seat belt. --Chris |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
Ok, I can add one. My cousin was broadsided a long time ago, she was not wearing a seatbelt and was able to jump into the passenger seat at or near impact time. She believes she would be dead had she been wearing her seat belt. Still meaningless. She could have survived the initial impact but been killed in subsequent car-getting-smashed-up-events. But she didn't. I was just countering the counter of the examples of people who didn't live but were wearing them. Being loose in a car is riskier than being belted in, regardless of orientation of impact. I am not trying to argue the issue, just giving an example. One incident does not counter the stats for the population. She was lucky. I didn't mean to imply it did, I'm fully aware of statistics. And agreed [to B]. --Chris |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
I don't want to start an argument here but when you take the topic of a PFD
it is design in the case of an emergency to keep the vital part of your body the head a float you can look at what if and different situations but to me it is a good safety plan if you are sea kayaking and the surf keeps pounding you under it will bring you back up. Canoeing it allows you to stay a float in rapids to try and guide your way through if you dump and so on it is a useful tool one for all intensive purposes makes sense but it is your choice. All I am saying is it makes sense to use every safety feature made available for this sport no reflection on seatbelt or helmets and chances of things happening. Watersports are characterized by the danger of many things but perhaps the most prominent is getting a lung full of water. When a person chooses to take a course of action such as forgoing a safety measure then that person should realize they choose to take responsibility. By the way it is mandatory in Canada to have a PFD for each person, a throw bag, baling device, a sound signaling device and a visual signaling device. -- Abe Elias Diving Sparrow Paddle Co, http://home.cogeco.ca/~aelias |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
There is this strange one in France where the floatation of pfd you
don't have to wear (unless in a commercial situation) depends on what craft you are in. Bigger floatation for rafters than for canoeists and kayak paddlers. Why does it make a difference what craft you fell out of! Also will end up with having to wear a pfd if we want to go swimming in a river or lake! -- Dave Manby Details of the Coruh river and my book "Many Rivers To Run" at http://www.dmanby.demon.co.uk |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
These were culled from the article "To Wear or Not To Wear, the PFD Mandate Debate" in the Spring issue of Paddler Dealer, about the US Coast Guard's consideration of a mandatory-wear requirement for boats under 21'. The article is worth searching out, thoroughly covering the question of the pros and cons of mandated PFD use. BTW, Mike, I don't suppose you have any idea how I might get a copy of that article? Thanks, Scott So.Cal. |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
Canranger44 wrote: By the way it is mandatory in Canada to have a PFD for each person, a throw bag, baling device, a sound signaling device and a visual signaling device. Yes, you'll have to carry one (pfd , approved by CCG or DOT) for each person on board, wearing it is up to you. Common sense tells that it is a good idea to wear it, since stuffed in a hatch or under the deck lines it is no good. Reality shows a different picture. Espcl. in spring and early summer, the first warm days, you see a lot of people paddling the lakes and the coast not wearing pfd. Warm air and water temperature 10 C are a potentially deadly combination, since they lure people into ignoring the risk of cold shock and possible hypothermia after immersion . What are your chances if you get dumped into water like this to make a speedy recovery? Well, the people who know those tricks and techniques usually wear pfd and wetsuits, because they know the risks. What are your chances to hold on to paddle and boat, pull out the pfd, put it on and go from there? Good chance that coldshock (not hypothermia) will take care of that problem for you. I hate to say this, but increasing popularity of kayaking and the increasing number of beginners and unknowing "intermediate" role models will cause more fatalities in the near future. More and more people go on the water and have no idea what they are getting into. Needless to say that I will not be disappointed to see myself proven wrong, but I am afraid I this will not happen. The study mentioned before shows a larger number of canoeing fatalities than kayaking fatalities. The only reason for this is that canoeing is still much more common in cottage country than kayaking. The increasing number of recreational kayaks will likely shift the numbers in near future. In case it hasn't been mentioned befo the study was published by the American Canoe Association (ACA) under the title "Critical Judgement". Last time I checked it was on their website as a pdf file (http://www.acanet.org/sei-critical-judge.htm) Ulli On a trail in the alps there was a sign " Responsible hikers don't leave the trail, all others are required by law to do so" |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
One of our local lakes takes an interesting approach. They get
donations from local businesses and such. These businesses donate free lunches, discounts, free services, and money. They put these gift certificates or money into 100 envelopes. One of the envelopes has $1000 in it. When they see a boat where all the passengers are wearing PFDs, they go up to the boat and congratulate them and offer to let them pick an envelope. If they are not wearing PFDs they are chastised and told that they can qualify next time by wearing their PFDs. It is actually pretty effective. My neighbor got to pick an envelope when only 3 were left. The $1,000 was in one of the three but he chose the wrong one. Randy |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
Randy Hodges wrote:
One of our local lakes takes an interesting approach. They get donations from local businesses and such. These businesses donate free lunches, discounts, free services, and money. They put these gift certificates or money into 100 envelopes. One of the envelopes has $1000 in it. When they see a boat where all the passengers are wearing PFDs, they go up to the boat and congratulate them and offer to let them pick an envelope. If they are not wearing PFDs they are chastised and told that they can qualify next time by wearing their PFDs. Interesting approach! I think that positive stimulation can be a lot more effective than putting up a rule that isn't enforced. Very few people actually adhere strictly to the law if the chance of getting caught is tiny: speeding is a good example of that. -- -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a@t dse d.o.t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations. http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
The issue in my mind is not the merits of wearing/not wearing a PFD.
I would question the Coast Guard's jurisdiction in issuing a directive on the subject. Like motorcycle helmets, the states should be making this call. |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
Phil Sellers wrote:
I would question the Coast Guard's jurisdiction in issuing a directive on the subject. Like motorcycle helmets, the states should be making this call. 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. Without gettting into a lengthy discussion of inland sea law, suffice it to say that most inland lakes and rivers are not within the US Coast Guard's jurisdiction, so it would be up to each state or other governmental entity to set the rule. That's why my BS detector goes off every time I hear somebody tell me that the federal gummint is going to require PFD's everywhere. The regulatory jurisdictional boundaries simply make it impossible for it to be done with one fell swoop. If it happens, it'll happen one state at a time. So far, the score seems to be oh-for-fifty. But note that where the Coast Guard has jurisdiction, they do get to set the rules. Likewise the US Park Service gets to set rules where they have jurisdiction - and when their jurisdiction includes whitewater, sometimes they require you to wear a PFD. I don't think this is unreasonable, although I do think it's unreasonable to require PFD's on calm shallow water when the weather is nice. The question is where to draw the line. -- //-Walt // // http://tinyurl.com/2lsr3 |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
Dave Manby wrote in
: There is this strange one in France where the floatation of pfd you don't have to wear (unless in a commercial situation) depends on what craft you are in. Bigger floatation for rafters than for canoeists and kayak paddlers. Why does it make a difference what craft you fell out of! Maybe it more to do with what craft you're more likely to fall out of. |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
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. Canranger44 wrote: I have been over this issue many times with people who won't wear their PFD but in the end I have gone the route of natural selection if they are to stupid to wear it then maybe there is a greater reasoning involved so many people underestimate Darwin's theory but the guy who doesn't wear a helmet on a motorcycle or bicycle or a PFD in a boat might not be the type of genetic material we want lingering on. |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
In article ,
Michael Daly wrote: Seatbelt cutters are cheap. I keep one in my car, just like I keep a knife in my PFD. It also has a window score-and-shatter hammer end. Someone in a car magazine tested one of these devices with junkyard cars. It was not very effective. You might want to visit a junkyard and test it. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message. |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
"Martin Shell" wrote in message k.net... 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. Someone finally got to the real issue here, but it goes further than just insurance. These personal freedom folks who don't wear motorcylcle helmets, car seatbelts, PFD's, ad infinitum, fully expect the rest of society to suck up the social and actual costs of their rescues and injuries when they occur. All these rhetoric about personal freedom being a reason to not use safety devices would be fine if these same people would sign and follow some type of exculpatory agreement that the rest of society would not be burdened with rescue costs, subsequent follow up long term medical care, and most of all ligitations against the deepest pocket public agencies they or their families attorneys can find. Many, many motorcycle crash victims or others sue the state or local municipalities over road conditions or etc. Even if they loose, the legal costs to taxpayers can be huge. Personal freedom should come only with personal responcibility, but the reality is just the opposite. Fact is we all routinely give up personal freedoms every day for the greater good and smooth functioning of society. What about keeping your car in safe condition to protect other drivers ? What about conforming to a set of rules on the road so that we can all drive safely ? What about setting fires in unsafe places or discharging firearms in residential neighborhoods ? The list is endless. Te Canaille |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
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). These are areas where, constitutionally, the states should be able to make the rules. But, as long as the federal government continues to tax us at a high rate and then gives it back with strings attached, they will call the shots whenever they want to. 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. Wes****er Canyon is now inspecting life jackets before you are allowed on the river. If it does not specifically say "For Whitewater Use" or "For Paddling" or if it is faded or modified in any way, you are denied the right to float. I really think that we are better off with the federal government defending us and regulating interstate commerce (and a few other constitutionally mandated functions) and then leaving most of the other decisions to the states or to the individual. When it comes to paddling equipment, I'd like to make my own choices and I will take the consequences thank you. Randy |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
Someone finally got to the real issue here, but it goes further than just insurance. These personal freedom folks who don't wear motorcylcle helmets, car seatbelts, PFD's, ad infinitum, fully expect the rest of society to suck up the social and actual costs of their rescues and injuries when they occur. The real issue here? Personal freedom folks? Oh really? I do not consider myself to be a "personal freedom" zealot. Instead I see myself as a seeker of the truth. I have stated previously that pfd's cannot be compared to automobile seatbelts or motorcycle helmets. Both have been shown beyond any reasonable doubt to make a significant contribution towards safety on the road. But since you insist on lumping pfd's into the equation then I would very much appreciate it if you could state your sources which show the pfd to be of equal effectiveness to the automobile seatbelt or the motorcycle helmet. Ulli mentioned the report released by the American Canoe Association entitled, Critical Judgment, Understanding and Preventing Canoe and Kayak Fatalities." Although I believe they have taken some liberties with some of their conclusions, let us nonetheless take a quick peek at that report, shall we? On page 17 it is reported that; "Operator inexperience or inattention and hazardous water or weather by themselves, or combined with other factors, were the major causes of canoe and kayak fatalities. These factors accounted for 57% of all canoeing fatalities, and for 90% of all kayaking fatalities." Hmmm, no mention of a pfd there. Then on page 18 is a chart which shows that in the years from 1996 to 2000, 50% of the kayaking fatalities WERE WEARING PFD's, while 44% were not! This hardly presents a startling picture of the effectiveness of pfd's in kayaking. Yet so many of you insist that pfd's are the answer and anyone who paddles a kayak without wearing one should be punished! Why? No, really, I would like to know. Why? Since you people are so fervently adamant about pfd's then I'm certain your opinions must be based on some pretty substantial evidence which somehow I managed to overlook. So please enlighten me! I'm all ears. Scott So.Cal. |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
There isn't enough information to make any conclusion. If 90% of kyakers wear PFDs
and 50% of the fatalities were wearing a PFD, then that may be significant, but if only 50% of kyakers wear PFDs then one might question the effectivness of PFDs. (One wonders what was the status of the other 6%?) Of course one would need some additional supporting data in either case. It is kind of difficult to comprehend the set of circumstances that on average would make wearing a PFD more dangerous than not. Ki Ayker wrote: The real issue here? Personal freedom folks? Oh really? I do not consider myself to be a "personal freedom" zealot. Instead I see myself as a seeker of the truth. I have stated previously that pfd's cannot be compared to automobile seatbelts or motorcycle helmets. Both have been shown beyond any reasonable doubt to make a significant contribution towards safety on the road. But since you insist on lumping pfd's into the equation then I would very much appreciate it if you could state your sources which show the pfd to be of equal effectiveness to the automobile seatbelt or the motorcycle helmet. Ulli mentioned the report released by the American Canoe Association entitled, Critical Judgment, Understanding and Preventing Canoe and Kayak Fatalities." Although I believe they have taken some liberties with some of their conclusions, let us nonetheless take a quick peek at that report, shall we? On page 17 it is reported that; "Operator inexperience or inattention and hazardous water or weather by themselves, or combined with other factors, were the major causes of canoe and kayak fatalities. These factors accounted for 57% of all canoeing fatalities, and for 90% of all kayaking fatalities." Hmmm, no mention of a pfd there. Then on page 18 is a chart which shows that in the years from 1996 to 2000, 50% of the kayaking fatalities WERE WEARING PFD's, while 44% were not! This hardly presents a startling picture of the effectiveness of pfd's in kayaking. Yet so many of you insist that pfd's are the answer and anyone who paddles a kayak without wearing one should be punished! Why? No, really, I would like to know. Why? Since you people are so fervently adamant about pfd's then I'm certain your opinions must be based on some pretty substantial evidence which somehow I managed to overlook. So please enlighten me! I'm all ears. Scott So.Cal. |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
snip
These personal freedom folks who don't wear motorcylcle helmets, car seatbelts, PFD's, ad infinitum, fully expect the rest of society to suck up the social and actual costs of their rescues and injuries when they occur. All these rhetoric about personal freedom being a reason to not use safety devices would be fine if these same people would sign and follow some type of exculpatory agreement that the rest of society would not be burdened with rescue costs, subsequent follow up long term medical care, and most of all ligitations against the deepest pocket public agencies they or their families attorneys can find. Many, many motorcycle crash victims or others sue the state or local municipalities over road conditions or etc. Even if they loose, the legal costs to taxpayers can be huge. Personal freedom should come only with personal responcibility, but the reality is just the opposite. Fact is we all routinely give up personal freedoms every day for the greater good and smooth functioning of society. snip As one who "always" wears a seatbelt - except in very low-speed maneuvering, generally off the public roads - and "always" wears a lifejacket - except in very controlled conditions - I would be concerned with a "mandatory" life jacket rule. For starters, who would have to wear one? Fishermen? Lifeguards? Divers? When would it be allowable to remove it? Below decks? at anchor? at a dock? not underway? within XX feet of shore? just before jumping in? when changing clothes? In less than 4' of water? In still water? While peeing/pooping? while boarding/debarking? air temp over 90 degrees F? Would it depend on boat size/type? If so, what would be the rationale for requiring wear on, say 20' while exempting 21'? How do you define boat, as opposed to toy, or float? Presumably commercial/inspected vessels would be exempted - like the pontoon ferry in Baltimore, or the Duck boat (was that in Tennessee?) a couple years ago. I guess I put more trust in my judgement than in a bureaucracy's. And yes, I have seen plenty of idiots out there, including 3 adults and a big dog in a 10' jon boat with a little outboard, thick fog, heading out the mouth of a major river, a snow shovel for a paddle. I was worried for the dog - perhaps mandatory PFD's for pets should come first... Sal's Dad |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
Ki-yaker wrote :
I see myself as a seeker of the truth. I have stated previously that pfd's cannot be compared to automobile seatbelts or motorcycle helmets. Very Zen, but your pronouncement is only your opinion not a fact. I was on the ACA National BoD and sat on the Safety, Education, and Instruction Committee for 5 years. Between the two of us I'd say I have a much better feel for the ACA than you and I know of no one there that would say wearing a PFD or not should be a political statement. In fact PFD's are mandatory in ACA classes and events. What is not revealed in any stats is how many people did not drown or suffer injury because they were wearing PFD's. Many multiples of swimmers out of boats are not statistics because they wore a PFD. That's the important stat. One cannot just look at just the fatalities. There's nothing any of us can do to prevent fatalities but we should as prudent individuals practice all the prevention possible. It all about prevention Scott. My opinions were formed during several episodes rescuing people who were not wearing PFDs. It is hugely more difficult. A swimmer's chances of being pulled out by a rescuer are much better when wearing a PFD. It all about prevention Scott. Just something as simple as having shoulder straps to grab on an unconcious swimmer is a big aid in rescue. An unconcious individual without a PFD is dead weight and extremely difficult manage. Rescuing a swimmer in serious trouble in the water is a scary and impatient endeavor. Time is of the essense and a PFD gives us time. Believe me rescuers appreciate rescuees who are wearing a PFD. Many rescuers drown as a result of the stepladder action and that happens when the victim is without PFD. Not wearing a PFD may be an idealized political statement of personal freedom but it's also very selfish. I could go on but I it appears to me you've made up your mind, so to answer your questions remember, it's all about prevention Scott. "Ki Ayker" wrote in message ... Someone finally got to the real issue here, but it goes further than just insurance. These personal freedom folks who don't wear motorcylcle helmets, car seatbelts, PFD's, ad infinitum, fully expect the rest of society to suck up the social and actual costs of their rescues and injuries when they occur. The real issue here? Personal freedom folks? Oh really? I do not consider myself to be a "personal freedom" zealot. Instead I see myself as a seeker of the truth. I have stated previously that pfd's cannot be compared to automobile seatbelts or motorcycle helmets. Both have been shown beyond any reasonable doubt to make a significant contribution towards safety on the road. But since you insist on lumping pfd's into the equation then I would very much appreciate it if you could state your sources which show the pfd to be of equal effectiveness to the automobile seatbelt or the motorcycle helmet. Ulli mentioned the report released by the American Canoe Association entitled, Critical Judgment, Understanding and Preventing Canoe and Kayak Fatalities." Although I believe they have taken some liberties with some of their conclusions, let us nonetheless take a quick peek at that report, shall we? On page 17 it is reported that; "Operator inexperience or inattention and hazardous water or weather by themselves, or combined with other factors, were the major causes of canoe and kayak fatalities. These factors accounted for 57% of all canoeing fatalities, and for 90% of all kayaking fatalities." Hmmm, no mention of a pfd there. Then on page 18 is a chart which shows that in the years from 1996 to 2000, 50% of the kayaking fatalities WERE WEARING PFD's, while 44% were not! This hardly presents a startling picture of the effectiveness of pfd's in kayaking. Yet so many of you insist that pfd's are the answer and anyone who paddles a kayak without wearing one should be punished! Why? No, really, I would like to know. Why? Since you people are so fervently adamant about pfd's then I'm certain your opinions must be based on some pretty substantial evidence which somehow I managed to overlook. So please enlighten me! I'm all ears. Scott So.Cal. |
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal
Very Zen, but your pronouncement is only your opinion not a fact. Actually, as far as I have been able to deteremine it is more fact then opinion. Between the two of us I'd say I have a much better feel for the ACA than you and I know of no one there that would say wearing a PFD or not should be a political statement. If this is true then you undoubtedly do have a much better feel for the ACA then do I. There's no argument there. However, I do not understand how this is a "political statement." As far as I am aware I am NOT attempting to make any kind of a political statement. I am just attempting to see the facts for what they are. My conclusions might be wrong. I freely admit that --- will you? Although I'm certain you will not believe this, I actually have a very open mind on this topic. It all about prevention Scott. Of course it is. So by that I gather that you ALWAYS wear a helmet every time you go paddling and you believe that every kayaker should ALWAYS wear a helmet as well? I mean, since "it's all about prevention" and all? I could go on but I it appears to me you've made up your mind, As I already have stated, unlike the rest of you, my mind is actually wide open on this topic. It would be soooooo much easier for me to just conform and accept the popular dogma. But I never accept anything on face value. I need to understand why I do what I do. And as far as pfd's go, I just cannot find the answers I need to convince me that one must always wear a pfd in a sea kayak. As far as I have been able to determine, it's just not as cut a dried as you folks would like to believe. Scott So.Cal. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:41 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com