Seat belts, motorcycle helmets... now PFDs?

[Ward Niffenegger]

legislate where the numbers are

Every year there are nearly 3500 drowning deaths in the USA (not including boating incidents). Less than 1% of these were wearing PFD's. In fact More children under the age of 5 are drowned in bathtubs, buckets and toilets than people are killed in boating accidents.Residential swimming pools seems to be the biggest killer. I suggest we remove all swimming pools from the politicians back yards and favorite resorts and that should substantially increase our safety.Sorry!!!! I subscribe to Darwin on this subject. Natural selection will take care of the problem. Not Legislation.Ward

 

[ex-admin]

Sail magazine reports that the US Coast Guard is seriously pushing a lawmaking the wearing of PFD's mandatory for at least some boats. According to Capt. Scott Evans of the Coast Guard, they estimate that 85% of boating fatalities due to drownings occur on vessels under 21 feet where the boater was not wearing a life jacket.What's your opinion? Do you think the wearing of PFD's should be made mandatory? How about just on smaller boats? Share your views and be sure to vote in the quiz on the bottom of the home page.(Quiz by Gary Wyngarden)

 

[Fred Ficarra]

Hmmmm, what did it cost society to get them

into that boat and to later recover the bodies? Are we worse, or better off?

 

[Bill]

Cost to society

If cost to society justifies it on economic terms, I'm for it. Though one of the costs to include is obviously enforcement. Not sure that the Coast Guard is going to be able to convince the new boss (Tom Ridge) to increase funding for enforcement.I've been riding motorcycles since the 60s, when helmet law was debated where I lived at the time. The logic that convinced me there was more at stake than "freedom" was the suggestion of a friend that all who did not want to wear a helmet could be allowed our choice if we signed a waiver imposing on ambulances the obligation to leave us on the side of the road if we crashed. Older and less dummer now, I wouldn't think of riding without the helmet. And don't have a problem with helmet laws.I'm thinking that I'd get the same familiairy with a PFD. Maybe even on big boats. I dunno.

 

[Bill]

Divide and Conquer

In typical fashion the goverment will mandate that PFD be worn on smaller boats, after which, yeas later they will increase the size of the boat which requirers PFD until it includes all boats recreational boats. Just like with the seatbelts, "we won't stop you for not wearing a seatbelt," yea, OK, enough people swallowed that lie to get it pasted, not that wearing seatbelts is a bad thing. What ever it takes get get a law past, we'll modify it later. Divide and conquer. Why can't people accept responsibility, why do people want to be told what to do & how to do it. If their intent is to require PFD, why just on recreational boats, why not include all boats, ships ect. How many lbs must a boat displace before someone won't fall off of it? I love the image of a cruise ship with 2000 people wearing big, fat, orange PFD.Cost to society? There are a whole lot of more important and high impact lists which effect society than PFD.

 

[B Noble]

Protect those that aren’t bright enough to protect

Being landlocked in Nebraska may bias my views, but after seeing what happens on the weekends, I tend to agree PDF’s should be mandatory, along with blood alcohol and IQ testing! I’ve ridden motorcycles for over thirty years and even before mandatory helmet laws were in effect, I always had a brain bucket on. Protect the important things.

 

[Dennis]

Good idea!

I also use to ride motorcycles, and always thought the helmet laws were a good idea! I too think the PFDs are a good idea, as even the best of swimmers can get into alot of trouble on short notice! If they save even one person from drowning, then they are worth it! I do think though, they should style them better, as that is one of the reasons no one wants to wear them. Most of them are kind of bulky!

 

[Dale I]

Where do you draw the line?

Do you enforce that law at the point of stepping onto the dock?...or the boat while still tied up or on the trailer at the ramp? Why not put it on prior to buckling your seat belt enroute to the marina...you never know when you might drive off a bridge. Our dock has an in-house requirement for children under the age of 8 or 10 to wear a PFD on the dock...which is blatently ignored by both members and those wannabe dock-walkers every weekend walking their young'uns. I think the probability of some landlubber or overindulged boater who was weekending and tied up to the dock or working on the boat AT the dock is more likely to trip and fall---over a dock line,power cord or dislodged dock plank than the responsible boater out on the water.At some point we americans need to take responsiblity for our own actions and quit looking for someone to impose the blame. Today, as a former motorcycle owner, I would likely weigh the distance and density of traffic in order to determine whether or not to wear a helmet....just as I weigh the weather factors and other hazzards to determine whether or not to apply a PFD.I always wear a safety belt as I can seldom choose my purposeful destination in an automobile

 

[FlyBri737]

No way

If we start trying to justify something that should be about self responsibility because it might save the governemnt (tax payers) money, we are definitely starting down a slippery slope. Maybe we should lower the speed limit to 35mph again.. think of all the lives that would save, ambulance rides, hospital bills etc... What do you mean you don't want to drive 35mph... saves money and lives right all for a little inoconvenience?The difference between wearing a PFD, seatbelt, or a helemt on cycle and drinking and driving (drugs whatever) is that if I don't wear a PFD and fall off a boat I am "typically" not affecting anyone elses safety or their rights. It may cost the authorities a few more bucks to find my body, but that it is about it.If I drink and drive, I am not only increating an unreasonable risk to myself, but to others as well so the government has the responsbility to try and prevent me from affecting you life, property and liberty.Kids are a different story. They may or may not have the wisdom to make an informed decision about PFD's, seatbelts, etc and since their parents may have the same lack of wisdom so we as a society have to take some responsiblity there.I hope we don't get to the point in the future where we judge each of our freedom's based on the attached price tag... I mean think about it.. why have recreational boating at all since people are going to die whetehr they wear PFD's or not.. Maybe restrictions on what type of weather we can sail in since deaths tend to happen in winds over 15kts.. saves money right?Off the soap box now.Brian

 

[Paul]

Mandatory PFD

I can't believe anyone on this forum would want the government deciding that they must wear a PFD. It makes me crazy to see you saying this. The person who thinks that that a law is worth having because it might "save even one life" needs to think that statement through very carefully. If you want the government to legislate every law that might save even one life than I can tell you, in one year you will not be able to leave your house, let alone go sailing. By the way a number of sailors were killed last year after being struck by out of control booms. I firmly believe that sailing helmets would save at least "just one life". I think I will drop my congressman an email, he lives for new laws.Please think twice before giving up any more freedoms. Take care of yourself.Paul

 

[Jack]

Goodby marine industry.

If you think that the luxury tax was hard on the marine industry, this could eliminate it completely. Maybe their lobby had better jump on this before it gets any sillier. By the way, staying home isn't something the government can let you do either as most accidents happen there.

 

[Tom]

People are idiots need laws

But we need to change priorities. most preventable deaths in the US are caused by smoking cigarettes!!!! Why is the government sooo interested in protecting boaters???? Mybe a law preventing boaters from smoking would be a more effective way to save lives...  There is absolutely no doubt that boaters are idiots. As are people in general. My only question might be if people are idiots and governments are groups of people wishing to control other people....aren't governments idiots. Maybe governments are more idiotic than most people.... I can balance my checkbook!!!! I do like the rule of preemption... now I can kill my wife if I think she might someday cheat on me... or maybe even if she might be thinking about maybe someday cheating on me.  Shoot my neighbors dog if it has the potential to maybe someday bite my child... God I love preemption...  Anyway we need more laws I can't wipe my a** without a law to tell me the proper technique. This idea of freedom keeps interfereing with the proper exercise of government. Maybe we should declare war on tooth decay and give the goverment special war time powers to to take control of every aspect of human life. Hve a office of dental hygiene that can monitor every home in america and detain anyone who might someday contribute to tooth decay... And since people rarely brush their teeth on boats this would give the gov unlimited powers to control any and every aspect of leisure activity. Heck more people die from falls than drown. Make people get certified to climb a ladder. Make them register ladders and pay a yearly fee to keep a ladder. Maybe special neighborhood lock up facilities to prevent the unauthorised use of ladders... Heck the need for government contol of our lives is endless... You know some people even cross the street without a proper cross walk????

 

[Chris Burti]

Dumb Idea.

Typical of bureaucratic thinking. As other commenters have noted, enforcement problems and costs will greatly outweigh the benefits.Answer the question "Why do people refuse to wear PFD's?" and you will find a far better solution.Take a small fraction of the enforcement cost of the proposed legislation and invest it in R&D to develop an inexpensive, comfortable and reliable PFD. Then you won't have to shove this bureaucratic idiocy down our throats.

 

[Jim]

Once again, the tiny few control the masses

Let me start off by stating I always wear my PFD when solo, cold weather/water, when I have to put the first reef in, or when I am with an inexperienced crew. Maybe it’s common sense or just pure fear, I don’t know which.I read somewhere that last year around 700 – 800 deaths occurred while boating. You have to believe most of those were not wearing a PFD, but would those little donut neck ringers that we have on our boat to just meet CG requirements help??? Maybe, Maybe not. Having government regulation over mandatory usage is the wrong way to go. Maybe some common sense or pure fear in all of us would avoid these tragedies and need for regulation.I have made an effort to upgrade my PFD’s into 2 categories: The SOSuspenders for comfort and the baggy unconscious orange cruise ship types if we have to abandon ship. Yes, it cost money, but I feel one less thing to stress over.

 

[robert taylor]

insurance companies

insurance companies and boating supply stores are behind this. i read an article on it a few weeks ago. insurance companies save money (without reducing premiums) and boat us and west marine make a killing on sales. no one really cares a flip about who dies on a boat...it is all about money, votes, and greed.my vote is no more laws...i have a right to drown if i so choose.

 

[MW]

Tell the goverment to go Blank itself!

I thought that we live a "FREE" country, maybe it's time for a reality check!Our goverment tells us where we can travel and where we can not and now it's adding what we can wear or not and when. It's about time for our goverment to stop interfearing in the private lives of its citizens. The last thing we need is the goverment trying to protect us from each other especially since the goverment is not doing a great job of protecting us from others who are "angry" with our goverment but not its citizens.

 

[ex-admin]

Boating supply stores??

Do you have any idea what a low-end PFD costs? Probably costs more to ship one.

 

[Dave]

Not an idiot!

I am perfectly capable of assessing the risks associated with my sailing decisions. Indeed, sailors frequently make decisions that reduce the risks associated with sailing. For example, why do many sailors bring all their lines aft? Convenience? Certainly. Saftey? Definitely! Are some sailors more comfortable with risks than others? Obviously because some choose to go forward to drop their main, and some still run their jib up the forestay. On a cost-benefit basis, there are benefits from mandating PFD use (i.e., enhanced safety and hence lower risk of injury or death). But there are also costs from mandating their use (e.g., less enjoyment of the sailing experience and yes these types of intangibles can be quantified and should be considered when determining costs; enforcement costs; monetary expense, etc.) I contend that adults are perfectly capable of weighing these costs and benefits on their own. If government bureaucrat believes that some sailors are misinformed as to the risks of not using a PFD, then educate them as to true risks, don't mandate a solution. Individual sailors make different decisions as to the use of PFD's because they weigh the expected costs and the benefits differently. Why should we impose the preferences of the most risk averse on the rest of society? Let each sailor draw their own conclusions as to the net benefits of wearing a PFD. I know, I sound like an economist. Wait, I am an economist! I'll have to use this example in class.Dave Clarks/v Hakuna Matata

 

[Russell Egge]

Try this on for size.

Out on Nantuckett we were moored and having a quiet evening when the local environmental police stoped by because my 8 year old didn't have on a pfd. We were all sitting in the cockpit (she can't go forward by herself even at a dock, dads rule) We got to talking and it turned out that not only does she need to have her pfd on in the cockpit, but also down below!. I was joking that "do you expect her to sleep in it also?" They became very serious and let me know that in no uncertain terms she was REQUIRED to have it on at all times while in MA water!So does the US Coast Guard plan to require all of us to sleep in our PFD's?God gave us a brain to make our own decisions.Russell

 

[Tom S]

*box Oh Puuhhleeze !!. Lets look at some FACTS

Instead of all this emotional BS supplyed by "feel gooders" trying to 'save' us.Out of the 681 fatalities in 2001 , 306 were in motorboats (mostly open motorboats - 256 of them) and 141 in canoes/kayaks/rowboats.Do we see a trend here -- small easily flippable boats and 'speed' are more likely the problem.There were 10 deaths in Auxilary Sailboats. In fact 2 were wearing PFD's. (Who even knows whether wearing a PFD would have even saved the other 8?)And here is another FACT to consider, out of all the drownings/deaths on board 149 people were wearing PFD and **still** died. Just remember its not a panacea.http://www.uscgboating.org/statistics/boating_statistics_2001.pdf Mandating that I have to wear a PFD going 5 mph on a beautiful day on LI Sound is absolutely ^$#@!%! ludicrous !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Hell -- Lets start mandating IQ tests for people having children first. MANY, MANY more people die each year because of outright stupidity.If you want to mandate pfd's for little children (which the USCG has done) then ok (grudgingly). They are too young and need to be protected from their idiot parents. If you want to mandate pfd's for Canoes and Kyacks (are they in most states??) then *maybe* I might agree.What happened to enforcing the laws to keep speeding boaters off the water and severly fined? THEY are the ones killing the most people.ps I'm also a motorcyclist and I too feel more comfortable wearing a helmet, but its false to think that mandating riders wearing one is 'better' for society. The reality is if anyone gets in a bad crash without a helmet, he's most likely dead, but if he had a helmet he would probably survive, but have $100,000 worth of medical bills and still be very debilitated & be a burden to society and his family for the rest of his days.We need laws to protect others, WE DON'T NEED LAWS TO PROTECT US FROM OURSELVES.ok -- off *box