In article ,
says...


On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 20:02:08 -0400, in message

Larry wrote:

Someone gave me their grandfather's South Carolina driver's "tag". Yes, it
isn't a license at all! It's a metal tag, similar to a dog tag. It has
just your driver's number on it. SC, backwards to a fault, used it into
the 1950's.

My EU driver's license, issued in Bavaria in the eighties, has no
expiry date. Just like my boating card.

My EU driver's license, issued in Vienna in 1971, likewise has no expiry date.
But that's Europe, not a revenue hungry US state. The EU license cuts no ice
in this country unless you are merely renting a car. The cops made it plain
that the whole idea of a driver's license is to keep track of you and nothing
at all to do with driving skill, since my EU license was ample proof of the
latter.

There's a flap going on here in Maine over a number of folk killed by
drivers with revoked licenses. The cops are sitting out there with
cars hooked to computers that can identify the owners of cars and they
still can't keep these people off the road. It isn't going to work on
the water either.

--

Roger Long



"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 09:51:47 -0400, Gogarty
said:

The cops made it plain
that the whole idea of a driver's license is to keep track of you
and nothing
at all to do with driving skill

The purpose of any licensing scheme is so the license can be
revoked.

Roger Long wrote:
....

What constitutes dangerous weather in an aircraft is very different
than for a boat. People routinely fly "recreationally" in conditions
that would be comparable to sailing from Boston to Portland in a late
season northeaster. That really skews the numbers. In good weather
and simple airplanes, the death rate is about the same as in canoes.
....

This comment hung with me for a while so finally I had to look up some
real numbers. Here's some stats for "General Aviation," which is not
the same as recreational boating, but close, sort of.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviation/Table10.htm

As you can see, the fatality number has been decreasing, but is still
only a bit lower than recreational boating, which has come down from
about 800 a year to 676 in 2004. Although you could claim a better
"passenger mile" rate for flying, the number of hours is only 24
million. Given that there are 12 million registered boats (and how
many unregistered canoes, etc?) I think we can speculate that flying
small planes is significantly more dangerous than traveling by small
boat, when measured by the hour.

And while weather may be a major factor in aviation accidents (36% of
all fatal accidents), roughly half of boating fatalities were in calm
water, and under 20% specified strong winds or rough seas, and weather
was cited as the primary case in about 6%. Weather or hazardous
waters was only listed as a contributing cause in under 20% of all
accidents.

And one more thing - there were almost 100 deaths in canoes and kayaks
in 2004, making this the second largest category, after "open
powerboats." PWCs and rowboats were roughly tied for third place with
about 55 deaths each.

http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2004.pdf

It should be noted that only a small number of accidents actually get
reported, though almost all fatalities are included. However,
fatalities not directly related to boating, such as while swimming
from a moored boat, are not included. While I would love to be able
to show that powerboats are more dangerous than sailboats, the real
evidence is that most deaths are drowning, and 90% of those were not
wearing PFDs; and 70% of fatalities occurred where the operator had
received no training. One the other hand, lack of rules knowledge,
lack of lookout, mechanical failure, etc. were pretty low on the list
- general stupidity (recklessness, inattention, inexperience,
excessive speed, alcohol) was pretty high.

"Jeff" wrote in message
...

As you can see, the fatality number has been decreasing, but is
still only a bit lower than recreational boating, which has come
down from about 800 a year to 676 in 2004. Although you could
claim a better "passenger mile" rate for flying, the number of
hours is only 24 million. Given that there are 12 million
registered boats (and how many unregistered canoes, etc?) I
think we can speculate that flying small planes is significantly
more dangerous than traveling by small boat, when measured by
the hour.

Excellent references Jeff. Many thanks.

I note we're talking 1.5 fatalities per 100,000 hours flying, and
6 or so per 100,000 boats registered. It's difficult to take the
leap between the number of boats registered to the number of hours
boats are used, but lets be heroic and assume 12 hours per boat
per year average.

Per hour that makes planes three times more likely to kill.

--
JimB
http://www.jimbaerselman.f2s.com/
for opinions comparing Greek cruising areas

Peter Wiley wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

You seem to be saying that the law should be administered on a
case-by-case
wherein we decide in the case of every individual boater whether or not
they
have the pre-existing skills and experience to just get out of having
the take the class.

Seems ridiculous to me and I just don't see what the big deal is. You
say the 8-hour
course is "a burden on my time that I do not have now," but then
describe yourself
(stating the obvious) as a recreational sailor, so this would be the
equivalent of one good
day on the water you might have to give up. I still don't think the
burden is that onerous.

Maybe you're just saying that there should be a distinction made
between sailors and
power-boaters. I don't know that I disagree vehemently with that, I
think the licensing is
an excellent idea for pwc'ers and all other power-boaters, and the
proof is in the pudding in
the accident statistics states where these laws have already been
booked. Lives have been
saved, the water is safer overall in those places, I think it's well
worth it.

If we just passed a law prohibiting any recreational power vessel from
exceeding 10 knots, the problem (and PWC's) would go away. Accident
stats would show a huge drop.

Hey, Rich, if it saves one life, it's worth it......


I don't really see this "slippery slope" type argument. Seems to me
there is a difference between outlawing any activities (which you
sarcastically suggest here), which no one is talking about here, and
trying to assure that people who do them have been instructed in the
basics of doing them safely for the benefit of everybody sharing the
waters.

BTW, did you ever figure out what kinetic energy was, and why a PWC was
a lot more dangerous than a 16' sailing dinghy? No?


What do you mean, I already conceded that sailboats are far less
dangerous than power boats.

Hey do any of you guys have anything against the pwc's that are
frequently used as the vessel of choice by law enforcement deams in
rescue operations, as in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and in
many other cases.

Anybody read the article in the last Boat US issue about pwcs' place in
the boating world these days? Old prejudicial stereotypes against
these types of boats and their operators are going to continue to go by
the wayside fast. Park after national park are pulling back on
restricitve bans against pwc as results from environmental impact
analyses come in and confirm that pwc's are as clean and quiet and
non-intrusive to the environment, as any other kind of powerboat being
made, and more so than most; accident, violation and injury statistics
will continue to fall as more areas insist on education new entrants to
the sport (or recreational hobby) - and in areas where only pwc'ers
have to get certified, well, they'll be among the most informed (and
probably best-attituded) group among newbie boaters.

I know it's all baloney and can't let myself get upset over the
anti-pwc comments (although it's tough) because I know I'm on the water
every weekend eight months of the year and encounter NONE of that nasty
insulting attitude or comments except right here on usenet.

richforman

PDW

The one thing that does make me a bit sympathetic to basic training
requirements for boating is the right of way rules. It would be nice
if everyone out there knew them and I wouldn't have had my one boating
accident (hole on the port side).

I agree and that is the main reason I favor these kinds of rules.
Everybody should
know the right of way stuff and how to interpret navaids, and the
basics of how
to interpret lights on boats, read charts, stuff like that, and if they
make everyone
take eight hours out of their lives to sit through the course, then
they'll know it, and
WE'LL ALL BE SAFER. It's not even like driving cars where you've had
exposure to
the basics and probably know all the rules just from having sat in a
vehicle and watched
your parents do it for sixteen years before you get behind the wheel.
Newcomers to boating
might know nothing of the basics, so it's just a good idea, it seems to
me, that we REQUIRE
them to learn it. If someone already knows it I have no problem with
them just taking the course,
getting the cert without having to sit through a class, although I
think it shows a better attitude
if you're willing to take it anyway with the idea that maybe you'll
still learn something anyway!

richforman

Peter Wiley wrote:
If we just passed a law prohibiting any recreational power vessel from
exceeding 10 knots, the problem (and PWC's) would go away. Accident
stats would show a huge drop.

Hey, Rich, if it saves one life, it's worth it......

....

New Hampshire considered and then rejected a bill that would set a 45
MPH daytime speed limit, 25 MPH at night. They would rather Live Free
and Die.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...3/1221/48HOURS

Dave wrote:

I think you're conceding too much here, Doug. There's no reason it shouldn't
be a case by case determination, but with a "case" arising only when a
boater is stopped for BWI, reckless behavior or other unlawful behavior.

so employing this logic, we don't need to license people to drive cars
either, and then only apply controls to each individual after they have
killed or maimed themselves and/or others or caused property damage?

wrote:

I know it's all baloney and can't let myself get upset over the
anti-pwc comments (although it's tough) because I know I'm on the water
every weekend eight months of the year and encounter NONE of that nasty
insulting attitude or comments except right here on usenet.

you don't "encounter" the nasty comments because your PWC is so friggin
loud you can't hear us sailors swearing at you when you fly into the
quiet anchorage we've found...and then hang around...and do circles
around us...over and over again....ahhh what fun! and when we give you
that special wave, you know the one that says "you're Number 1"...you
still don't leave...must be the exhaust fumes

Dave wrote:

On the contrary. I told anyone who was interested what a waste it was to
spend 8 hours listening to somebody tell me some small portion of what I'd
learned about boating over the last 40 years. I have better things to spend
my time on. The only reason for sitting through the course was that I didn't
want to take a day off to drive to the one place in CT where one had to go
to test out of the requirement. And I don't recall hearing a single thing in
the course that I didn't already know.

You're missing the point entirely. Licensing has little to do with
safety and everything to do with a chain of "accountability" in the
event of an accident. It isn't about "corrupt politicians" out to get
your money...good god what drivel -I know- you didn't write that. It's
about the insurance companies! Who has to pay when someone gets
injured/killed/sued. No license=No insurance=personal liability