Here come the Feds

[timebandit]

Feds Impose Mandatory Life Jacket Requirements on California LakeBy: Log News Service | Wednesday, June 08, 2011 3:21:00 PMLast updated: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 3:21:00 PMSACRAMENTO (LOG NEWS SERVICE) -- As part of a multi-year study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a mandatory life jacket wear regulation is in effect until Oct. 31 for most boaters and some swimmers at Pine Flat Lake, 35 miles east of Fresno.

Photo by: Catherine FrenchJacket Required – It is now mandatory for most boaters at California’s Pine Flat Lake to wear life jackets, until Oct. 31. The requirement was imposed for a safety study being conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers at three U.S. lakes.
During the enforcement period, which went into effect April 1, life jacket wear will be required for everyone:

* Swimming more than 100 feet from shore;

* Aboard all non-motorized vessels, regardless of length, at all times;

* Aboard motorized vessels up to 16 feet in length at all times; and

* Aboard motorized vessels 16 feet in length or larger when the vessel is under way, under main propulsion. Passengers in fully-enclosed cabins (in houseboats, for example), are not required to wear life jackets. However, life jackets are required for pilots or passengers in any exposed area of the vessel when the vessel is under way under main propulsion. Life jackets are not required when the vessel is stationary or powered by a trolling motor.

In 2007, the Army Corps of Engineers, which is the nation’s largest provider of recreation on federal public lands, undertook a study to determine the benefits and impacts of establishing a policy that would require mandatory life jacket wear for any recreational user of Corps-managed waters.

Mandatory life jacket tests have been under way by the Corps at recreation areas in Pennsylvania and Mississippi since 2009. Those results, combined with the findings at Pine Flat Lake, will be used to for a final recommendation on life jacket wear.

The Corps of Engineers is one of a number of public and private agencies that recently endorsed the latest Strategic Plan of the National Recreational Boating Safety Program (2012-2016).

The mission of the Boating Safety Program is to ensure that the public has a safe, secure and enjoyable recreational boating experience by implementing programs designed to minimize the loss of life, personal injury and property damage.

The plan -- which was drafted by a team consisting of members of the National Boating Safety Advisory Council (an advisory panel to the Coast Guard) -- includes “increase adult life jacket wear rates nationwide” as one of its 11 stated objectives. One of the strategies the council has recommended to reach this goal is to “continue to evaluate and assess the benefits and feasibility of mandatory life jacket wear regulations that target the at-risk population(s).”

Officials of the Marine Retailers Association of America have voiced their opposition to making life jacket wear mandatory for adults -- and the MRAA has urged its members to let their congressional representatives know of their opposition to any such move by the Coast Guard or any other federal agency.

The 2012-2016 NBSAC plan is posted on the Coast Guard Boating Safety Division website, at uscgboating.org.

 

[Don S/V ILLusion]

Until you've experienced the process of dragging a dead, bloated body out of the water, perceptions about requirements such as might be reserved for those of us who have...

 

[timebandit]

Ya can's stop stupid.

And yes, my father drowned in his own bath tub.

 

[Roger Long]

Anybody want to start a pool on when this will be universal?

I'll open at July1, 2016.

 

[oreana123]

This is a philosophical question. No one questions the value of a PFD. The question is: should the federal government force the wearing of a PFD? If you do not wish to pull bloated bodies out of the water, then find another form of employment.

This kind of regulation is one more way to allow law enforcement individuals to board your craft. If you resist, will the LE idiot use deadly force? So let's see: law enforcement will kill you to save your life. This is about as silly as it gets.

 

[Faris]

This kind of regulation is one more way to allow law enforcement individuals to board your craft. If you resist, will the LE idiot use deadly force? So let's see: law enforcement will kill you to save your life./quote]

How do you make this leap? Mandatory PFDs = people getting shot?

Alrighty then ...

Before people get too bent out of shape, let's think about this. Look, I always wear a PFD, and don't like being told I have to any more than the next guy. But, is this ANY different from helmet or seat belt laws? Both of these had similar reactions by people, sure it would lead to the end of civil liberties as we know them, yet all they've led to is improved medical outcomes.

But, as Oreana mentioned, no one is disputing the efficacy of PFDs, nor that it is a good idea to wear them. Let's look at this, then, from a purely fiscal angle. Responding to accidents is VERY time-consuming and expensive. I worked in emergency response and the ER for years and I'm sure the public does not realize how expensive it is. Rarely are the costs covered by the victims. I would say they are never completely recouped. In other words, if Joe Boater doesn't wear a PFD, it costs me money.

Most dangerous activity does. I'm willing to accept that. That is, people shouldn't have to walk around 24x7 in protective gear, but at the same time, if my neighbor is in need of help (for whatever reason), I want to provide that help - if not in person, in the form of tax dollars. That's what civilized people do.

So, in this age of deep fiscal cuts, we have two options pertaining to this issue: reduce emergency services or encourage increased personal responsibility. Again, I would not accept the former, as I care about people - even the stupid ones.

But, one thing we know about people is they won't do anything, no matter how slight (such as dawning a PFD), if they don't have to or want to.

Then, the question remains, how to get people to want to do this? I think that making it mandatory is the least creative solution, but it is quick and relatively inexpensive compared to programs that incentivize. I would prefer to see people step up and take more responsibility for their own personal safety through improved boating practices, but how would you make this happen? I mean, EVERYONE knows that wearing a PFD is a good idea and it is cheap and easy. Yet, MANY (most?) people don't do it.

Again, I think that making it the law is not a creative solution, but it is a solution.

People, in my opinion, ought to stop complaining about government regulations, and start thinking more about personal regulation. One thing that history has shown us is that, in this country, normally the government doesn't step in and regulate something that is already well self-regulated. Industry knows this. They form trade organizations to come up with viable self-regulation to avoid problems that the government would need to come in and control with less palatable measures. It is when industries fail to control themselves to the detriment of the public good - this is when the government steps in.

This issue is really no different. Despite being well-informed about PFDs, the public continues to not use them, and this costs tax-payers money. I agree that the government has no right to protect individuals from themselves, but they have a shared duty to protect the citizenry from individuals. This measure accomplishes both, however unpalatable the solution may be.

My advice, if you don't want this regulation:

• Always wear a PFD when there is any reasonable chance you could fall in and not be safe.
• Encourage others to do the same. Make it part of the normal boating culture.
• Boat more safely and be more self-sufficient. Reduce the likelihood that a government agency would need to come rescue you or recover your body. Encourage other to do the same.
• Create or support programs that accomplish the above.
• When a vote for a tax increase to support emergency services in your area comes up, vote "Yes".
• Get involved in the process early. Find out what concerns agencies have, and offer better solutions to the problems.
• And most of all ... If you haven't done much of the above, don't complain about the outcome. Democracy is not a spectator sport.

 

[Don S/V ILLusion]

This is a philosophical question. No one questions the value of a PFD. The question is: should the federal government force the wearing of a PFD? If you do not wish to pull bloated bodies out of the water, then find another form of employment.

This kind of regulation is one more way to allow law enforcement individuals to board your craft. If you resist, will the LE idiot use deadly force? So let's see: law enforcement will kill you to save your life. This is about as silly as it gets.

I think you summed it up perfectly in the last sentence.

 

[timebandit]

Caution
The Surgeon General has determined that water is hazardous to your health.

 

[Knuttle]

Caution
The Surgeon General has determined that water is hazardous to your health.

If all of these regulation were doing any good we would not have any deaths because of accidents. Each safety device on car was suppose to reduce the death rate by 10%, With the hundreds of safety devices required we do not have any traffic deaths.

Another example is the billions of dollar dumped on the education system. The bottom line it has done nothing, the parents are still not trained their children to learn. In Indianapolis with the millions on education we have school with a 30% graduation rate.

The point being government can not regulate safety any more than they can regulate that a gasoline engine become more efficient.

The only thing this type of regulations do is make the people who are proposing or enforcing the regulations feel like they are doing something constructive. The bottom line they are accomplishing nothing and wasting a lot of money trying to change human nature.

The only effective safety device is the HUMAN MIND and government regulation does not permanently effect it.

 

[Hippie Sailor]

It is sad when people need laws to try and get them to do the smart thing. We aren't lacking in laws, we are lacking in something else. Most laws, this one included, have more to do with revenue than safety. Will they spend the revenue on public education? Doubtful. Most revenue of this sort is spent on more enforcement for more revenue. We have our priorities upside-down. Education makes safety.

Also, if the quote is correct it is written stupidly. Taken by the letter, it stipulates that I am to wear a pdf if I'm sitting in the cockpit of my sailboat sipping a sundowner in the harbor. That's just plain asinine.

 

[MrBill_FLL]

IMHO, mandatory wearing of PFD's are like the Helmet laws... personal freedom. use at your own risk....

I dread the day the government decides what activities are too dangerous for me.

 

[oreana123]

How do you make this leap? Mandatory PFDs = people getting shot?

We live in a society that makes its decisions through fear. This society has over-empowered the law enforcment community, giving them the power to interrupt a private citizens life until they are satisfied about any suspicion. If you fail the "attitude" test, law enforcement WILL arrest you and make an example. If you resist arrest, law enforcement WILL ratchet up their response up to and including lethal force.

Whether it is for the WAR on drugs, the WAR on terrorism, the WAR on legal American citizens, you had better believe that your own life is in danger from overzealous law enforcement employees. I am old enought to have seen the pendulum swing both ways: when I was young (1960s) law enforcement routinely pulled over cars and searched the car and the persons in the car. New laws prohibited these searches through the 70-90s. Now we have the so- called patriot act (and who ins't a patriot?) that gives law enforcement the powers that were taken away from them like unreasonable search and seizure.

So yes, I can envision a person who feels strongly about having judgement enough to determine for themselves when a PFD is necessary, a Sherriff deciding to board that person's boat, and the entire incident ratcheting up to deadly force.

 

[patrickfarley]

Every law is enforced at the point of a gun.

 

[Carolyn1964]

I suppose I am in a minority as all on my boat wear their PFD. It just makes sense to me. One advantage of a law like this that it might help protect children from stupid parents. Here where I live we have a great number of rivers and every year some young child drowns while rafting or tubing or boating in the water. Earlier this year a 13 year old boy drowned when the power boat he was fishing in was overturned or swamped ( the story is pretty unclear but the boat ended up swamped and two people drowned... ) no PFD's on board, just seat cushions. And I am sure everyone knows of the two recent events on macs that ended in drownings.
I don't like being told what to do, not when it was my mother telling me and not when the government tells me and I wish we could all count on othres to make good sensible choices, but it is obvious that we can't. In the end I am in favor of mandatory PFD's.

Carolyn

 

[justsomeguy]

It is sad when people need laws to try and get them to do the smart thing. We aren't lacking in laws, we are lacking in something else. Most laws, this one included, have more to do with revenue than safety. Will they spend the revenue on public education? Doubtful. Most revenue of this sort is spent on more enforcement for more revenue. We have our priorities upside-down. Education makes safety.

Also, if the quote is correct it is written stupidly. Taken by the letter, it stipulates that I am to wear a pdf if I'm sitting in the cockpit of my sailboat sipping a sundowner in the harbor. That's just plain asinine.

I read "Life jackets are not required when the vessel is stationary or powered by a trolling motor." Drink up. But, you're right about the fact that we aren't lacking in laws at all.

 

[FourPoints]

here is a copy of the email I sent to Boat US's Govt Affairs dept (GovtAffairs@BoatUS.com) regarding the proposed national manditory life jacket policy being considered.

Mandating the use of life jackets for every (applicable) boater in the country, for the sake of 71 lives a year is ABSOLUTLY ABSURD! I am absolutely in favor of mandatory wear for children under 16 while the vessel is underway, and the mandate that there must be a life jacket for every person onboard the vessel. But living is hazardous to your life, and it is NOT the government’s place, right, or authority to try to legislate all danger out of American’s lives. Education on safe boating is important, and needs to be stepped up, as does enforcement of things like safe passing, 200ft separations, and power boat wake responsibility, but trying to pass laws to force people to wear life jackets is just absurd.

PLEASE help put a stop to overreaching government oversight into peoples personal lives, and let’s try to keep these laws meaningful, reasonable, and useful. You don’t prevent death and injury by passing laws, you do it through education.

 

[Freedom77]

Corps of Engineers? Aren't these the same folks who design the "flood control" and levies along the Mississipi? Stomping around on a twenty five foot boat in a 15 kt wind is hard enough without a having to wear a straight jacket. Every year here on Lake Mead people drown. Mainly from alcohol mixed with stupidity. I love the rights and freedom we used to enjoy. Ben Franklin said something to the effect that if you are willing to givi up a little freedom for a little security, you deserve neither. As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is Us." God Bless George Bush and the "Patriot Act??":cussing: It's open season on boaters. Seig Hiel!! Fair Winds and Full Sails.

 

[Hippie Sailor]

I read "Life jackets are not required when the vessel is stationary or powered by a trolling motor." Drink up. But, you're right about the fact that we aren't lacking in laws at all.

* Aboard all non-motorized vessels, regardless of length, at all times;

The exemption is for powerboats over 16 feet. Sailboats aren't considered powerboats in most cases, even if they have an auxiliary.

 

[thomasgoodmaniii]

just like seatbelts, good idea anyways but if your going to complain do it in the company of sombody that can actually change the situation. pfds are always good when under sail lots of moving parts that don't care. i usually don't wear one when motoring in familiar waters without lots of traffic.

 

[dparilla]

I will be damned if I wear one at night in the cabin of my sailboat. Or at the pier. You can't fix stupid. 300 people drowned last year without life jackets including 4 here in DC who drowned in swimming pools. Incidentally none of the 4 knew how to swim.