Seat belts, motorcycle helmets... now PFDs?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

John Gajdos

Helmet/seatbelt laws

I've always felt that I am responsible for my own decicions. If the safety equipment is available and I choose not to use it, then it's my bad. I would like to see legislation that says that if YOU decice not the wear the approproiate safety gear, and are injured in an accident, you would receive whatever emergency care is necessary to get you to a hospital. At that point IF you have insurance, that take over. No insurance, you will be kept comfortable and as pain free as possible but no major expensive mediacl treatment that public funds would me used to cover. Basically. if you decide not to use safety equipment and are injured, that's your decision and your responsiblilty.
 
T

Tomteagle

no.. let God sort out the fools

Most of these fools are either drunk or on jet skis or both. Its natural selection.
 
G

Gato Gordo

less empire building

Having worked in civil service for 21 years I recognize this proposed law as the first step in building a bigger gov't service. First the law, then the request for more manpower to enforce the law and a means to generate revenue to support the increased manpower (ticketing}. I believe it has very little to do with life jackets. It's pretty natural for humans to want to grow their business and civil servants are no different. We all want more people to supervise so we can ask for higher salaries. If a civil servant takes a conservative taxpayers stance bad things happen to his/her career. So what can we do besides complain to each other? Well here is the only secret I know; Gov't budgets are run by statistics(numbers. If people use a service ,ie call for aid or demand that the gov't should "do something" then that org can eventually turn in bigger numbers and get more budget. My only solution is: DON"T USE THE GOV'T. And vote no on any special levies. When you vote down their levy they first try to cut your favorite thing like school sports, or close a fire station but eventually they have to reduce the non productive staff that does all the "gov't mandated" busy work.Sorry for the cynicism. I guess I've seen too much.
 
L

larry baswick

Punish all

When I was a teacher, I tried never to punish the whole class for the antics of a few. Remember when everyone had to stay in after school because the teacher couldn't isolate those few who were talking or throwing erasers. That's the way governments operate. One fool drives without insurance and everyone has to pay. Two idiots push over the outhouse at the ballpark so they remove them. Instead of allowing people to act freely and suffer the individual consequences of their actions, government tries to legislate intelligence. Of course, if they didn't have an excuse to legislate, why would we need them? Let us drown if we wish!
 
S

SEA TOY

Seamanship?

It seems like this is another example of the Feds trying to legislate common sense and good seamanship. No doubt the legistation will come with a zillion pages of definitions and requirements regarding the types of flotation as well. I've been boating (power and sail) for over 30 years. There have been times when putting a life vest on was the prudent thing to do. On a dry, windless day there should be little need for a PFD. Maybe it makes sense if you are in a storm or at high speed at night or in a small boat. But that would be a measure of good seamanship and people using common sense. How many of the incidents involved alchol? Another USCG report a few years ago mentioned that over 80% of the men recovered from MOB incidents had their flies open! Is the answer to burden everyone with PFDs, or crack down on drunken boaters?
 
E

Ed

Gato: I'm a Federal civil servant and...

I'm opposed to PFD legislation. Not all civil servants are for 'bigger' government. Most of us are in favor of 'smarter' government, which includes doing the jobs we're given effectively and efficiently. Some of us are tasked with developing regulations and enforcement of those regulations which support enacted laws. Unlike private citizens, we're not allowed to lobby Congress on any pending or enacted legislation. We can offer our personal opinion, but we must make it clear it's our opinion and not necessarily the opinion of our Agency or Department. In other words, some of us really are here to "serve and protect". :^) ~ Happy sails to you ~ _/) ~
 

abe

.
Jan 2, 2007
736
- - channel islands
I also heard Big Brother considering passing a law

that we are wear PFDs in the bathtub in case we fall asleep or fall and drown.
 
E

Ed

Fred

Thanks. The work is tedious, but sometimes rewarding. In a few years, I'll move onto the life of leisure and just sail away, but for now I've got to get back to feeding the gerbles that keep the wheels of government running. Oops! Another one just died! Did I feed it too much or not at all? Next gerble, if you please. ;^) ~ Happy sails to you ~ _/) ~
 
B

Brian Blevins s/v Sindarin

REGULATIONS or EDUCATION

I think that the U.S. Coastguard and all other waterway big brother agencies have enough to contend with with other things far more important than life jacket laws.Educate boaters about safety,right of way on the water,chanel markers,manatee zones and how to avoid and see manatee and other obsticles in the water that could be hazardous to the animals or to your boat(depending on the obsticle),how to properly call for help on the radio or to use signal flares.Me personally,if Im headed for open water(ocean),not only am I wearing a PFD,I am tethered to the boat(and so is every one on board) because you just dont know whats going to happen out there(and its my boat).Maybe education before registration should be mandatory for all new boaters.
 
M

Mackid

Safety is important

Rember to all! PFDs will save your life. That's just how it is folks.
 
B

Bob

To many Dead . . .

I am sorry about your friends. The reason we got autoinflatables is for that very reason you state. If we got knocked out and over *boom comes to mind), the autoinflatables wold not only inflate but also keep our heads above water. But this is a personal choice. I still cannot convince my bride to wear her inflateable * ALL * the time. Most of the boaters I know, some with 30+ years of sailing experience * WILL NOT * monitor VHF on Ch 16, because it is just so much noise! Recent released statistics: in 2003 there were 23,200 deaths due to automobile accidents. 55% were in SUV's that rolled over AND most of the occcupants were not wearing seat belts. In a society where seatbelts are mandated by most states, and yes, now in Massachusetts drivers who appear not to have their seatbelts on may be stopped by police. (Most likely to boost the states' coffers with yet more fees.) I think I recall signs in CT and NC saying the same. It would seem counter intuitive that in an industry to heavily regulated, licensed, controlled, insured, that the same industry has so many traffic deaths. Here in Mass is a "new" class of driver. Illegal Aliens who cannot get drivers licenses and drunks who lost their licenses. It would seem, based on this, that the more boating becomes regulated, and fees climb eer higher, and more and more law enforcemen get hired to keep up with the marine scofflaws, that we can expect the number of boating deaths to rise also ? Bob
 
A

Alan

Big brother is watching...AGAIN

Wearing PFD's is common sense. That said, big brother has no right to tell lame (or otherwise) people whether or not to do stupid things. The government has the right to enforce laws for the 'common good' NOT the individual. Seat belts, helmets, PFD's are things that should be an individual choice. Why does the government care if you drown or not. If they care that much then alcohol and smoking should be illegal. The numbers don't add up!!!
 
D

Don

Safety first

To Andy (of the world) Thank you so much for resopnding to "a LIFE in-VEST-ment" in such a personal manner. Now I do have a couple of comments on your 2 cents worth. You say that people don PFD's when appropriate. When would that be? Is that just before the accident that puts them overboard occurs, or just after thre're in the water. I realize that that is an inflamitory question, but it is not met to be. It is intended to demonstrate my point. The accident properly prepared for can be survived. That's not to say that you wouldn't survive otherwise. There is a good chance you would. But wouldn't you like to stack the odds in your favor to that end. Accidents are just that accidents. They're not something that is planned for or expected. But we can prepare for them and a PFD, when on the warter, is a proven method. (There I go on my soapbox again) Would I save you if I could? Yes! As a fellow boater you should bite your keyboard in suggesting otherwise. PFD or not I'd be there before you hit the water. But what I would forever resent is, that if, through lack of preparedness on your part, you put myself and family in danger while attempting a potentially unnecessary rescue. There is no substitute for being prepared. (Now I sound like a boy scout. Not such a bad thing) ps. Your right about missing the issue. This is really about government regs which we already have more than enough of.
 
Dec 6, 2003
295
Macgregor 26D Pollock Pines, Ca.
Follow the money...

What I want to know is, where and how did this proposal come to be? Was it started by the CG or was it brought forth by someone in the legislature? I'd be willing to bet you dollars to donuts that some lobbyist representing a boating equipment manufacturers organization put a bit of money in the right persons pockets to get the ball rolling, all with the hope of increasing profits from the sale of PFDs, especially the more expensive and comfortable models. Money and power are the two things that are sought by all who govern us, and it seems that, generally speaking, they have few qualms about how they come to get it. A few people have said that they feel it is okay for mandatory PFD usage for children, and I would tend to agree, as their decision making ability is not yet fully developed and they must therefore count on adults to make some decisions for them. The thing is, government views all of us as children, in their minds they are superior to us and therefore they must watch over us. This is evident in the vast majority of laws that now affect our everyday lives, we're not at the start of a 'slippery slope', we're in the middle of it! What's really sad is the fact that it is entirely our own fault, for not only have we allowed this to happen but we have fostered and promoted this mind-set and behavior by letting it occur in little steps. Slowly but surely, our Constitution has been eroded in so many ways that it only exists now as a reminder of the way that our founding fathers had hoped we would live our lives, responsibly and free. Just look at few examples; the McCain/Feingold bill essentially eliminated the First Ammendment, all of the abuse suffered by the Second Ammendment, your right to be free from the government meddling in your personal affairs is overwritten by the IRS, the list just goes on and on. Mandatory use of PFDs is just one more small step towards the ultimate goal of 'virtual enslavement' of the people of our country, and that goal is a lot closer at hand that you may think. Each generation has been conned into going along with a bit more infringement on their God-given rights, always with a promise of greater 'safety' , which of course never quite happens. Is there anything we can do to stop this abuse and undo the harm that has already been done? Probably not, as it has been allowed to go on for so long that reversing the process would be impossible, and there are few amongst us with the desire and fortitude for another revolutionary war. We've grown accustommed to the 'bread and circuses' that they give us and will blindly and begrudgingly continue to trade our freedoms for more of the same. So, enjoy what freedoms the government still allows you to have and know that your children and their children will likely not be so fortunate, as there is still a good bit of room on the 'slippery slope'.
 
T

Tom S

Don, The question really is

At what extent do we take all precautions, all of the time. At what point do we stop living ? Taking your biased logic, then why don't we put a bubble around ourselves. It is prudent and the facts show that it would save MILLIONS of lives a year. Just think how many people wouldn't die of AID's or 2nd hand smoke or get the Flu and die. Your logic strongly suggests we MANDATE use of condoms 100% of the time, at the very least. Why aren't you pushing for that? Lets not even go into the millions that die of overweight problems (FACT), lets legislate that people can't eat too much. If a cop see's a fat person at a Wendy's or Mc'Donalds I say we handcuff them and ship them off to prison. (Your logic suggests this - we could save a lot of people) Yeah sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it. But thats what you are advocating. Christ Don, did you EVEN LOOK AT THE FACTS? Only 10-12 people on an auxiliary Sailboat died in 2001. We don't even know if a a PFD could have saved thier lives. Yeah anyone could be knocked off a boat and fall in the water - and you could be hit by a bus also (BTW the chances of you being hit by a bus is many many (!!) times greater than you have of dieing on a Sailboat) The bottom line is WHY SHOULD IT BE LEGISLATED to "overprotect" those who make choices ? Living in the great state of New Hampshire I would have expected a bit more "yankee independance" and "Live Free or Die" attitude. But I guess the creeping socialism has made its way from Massachusets into southern NH. Tell ya what...that whole original comment about "saving anyone" is lame. Even if you did retract it now. It doesn't help make your point. But I will PERSONALLY give you the ok of not putting yourself out in case there is that 1 in a trillion chance I go in and you are nearby. ok. feel better now ?
 
T

Tom S

Jeff M.... AMEN ... :(

Sad state of affairs isn't it. I think it IS the governements responsibility to hold manufacturers to minimum safety standards on products, and they have afforded us better chances for safety in our daily lifes. But to **force** us in all aspects to use them is where I have a problem. For instance I fully stand by the law of having a proper PFD on board every boat for every person and I fully stand by the law of having seatbelts put into auto's. But when they **force** me to wear it is when I have an issue. If that is true then they should **force** you to stop smoking (and other dangerous activities) because the likelyhood & rate of you dieing or being a burden to society is MUCH higher. It isn't fair - it isn't balanced -- and we are an easy target for "feel good" legislation
 
E

Ed

Interesting factoids.

Did you know if you buy a car that was not originally equiped with seatbelts or head restraints, you are not required to install them? If the car came without a catalytic converter, you don't have to put one on. Perhaps it would be smart to install these items, but the new owner is not obligated to do so. My point is there are exceptions to many safety rules. Today's cars have seatbelts, yet folks don't always use them, and sometimes they're better off not wearing them (i.e., a car driven into a body of water, etc.). As others have pointed out, there are circumstances where wearing a PFD is actually less safe than not wearing one. It seems to me, mandating there be at least one properly sized PFD for each person aboard is adaquate. Mandating their use can lead to law suits from loved-ones who find a laywer making the case the PFD caused the fatality. The last thing we need is yet another reason to get lawyers involved. :^( ~ Happy sails to you ~ _/) ~
 
Status
Not open for further replies.