"News f2s" wrote

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

I looked into this quite a bit in my early flying years. You have to
take into account that the boating we are talking about is strictly
recreational where as GA flying includes a lot of business use. A
huge pie chart section of the aviation fatalities is doctors, lawyers,
and salesmen pressing on to get to meetings in weather they have no
business continuing to fly in.

The weather that kills pilots is a lot more common than the weather
that is equally dangerous to boats. If boating was a year round
activity and being used by 60% of boaters to get to places they really
needed to be, I am sure that the statistics would look very different.

When you look at just the aviation segment that is analogous to most
boating, duffing around in nice weather and returning to your home
port, the fatality rates get a lot closer.

--

Roger Long

prodigal1 wrote:
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

I'd agree that lack of personal responsibility is a big part
of the problem... and requiring a license isn't going to
restore that.

Instead, let's just enforce existing laws to the full extent.

Rule 1 has always been 'don't screw up.' That means, learn
how before you start... pay attention to what you're doing...
But we have several generations of Americans wandering
around loose who genuinely expect the world to be a
no-skill-required place, and "learning how" is an alien concept.

For example, driving drunk... bad idea. But simply driving a
car while intoxicated is not the problem, the problem is
that drunks cause wrecks. So instead of setting the cops to
chase drunks, have them & the courts maximally punish drunks
who cause wrecks... along with every other driver who has a
wreck too. And (here's the important part) publicize the
results, so that everybody *knows* that if you have a wreck,
drunk or not, it's your ass in a sling in a big way... no
maybes, no excuses, no "we'll let you off this time because
you're remorseful." That would focus the mind of every
driver, drunk or sober, on driving carefully & defensively.

But hey, what a crazy idea... try ing to teach people to be
responsible for their actions... it'll never work.

DSK

DSK wrote:
prodigal1 wrote:

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


I'd agree that lack of personal responsibility is a big part of the
problem... and requiring a license isn't going to restore that.

Instead, let's just enforce existing laws to the full extent.

Rule 1 has always been 'don't screw up.' That means, learn how before
you start... pay attention to what you're doing...
But we have several generations of Americans wandering around loose who
genuinely expect the world to be a no-skill-required place, and
"learning how" is an alien concept.

For example, driving drunk... bad idea. But simply driving a car while
intoxicated is not the problem, the problem is that drunks cause wrecks.
So instead of setting the cops to chase drunks, have them & the courts
maximally punish drunks who cause wrecks... along with every other
driver who has a wreck too. And (here's the important part) publicize
the results, so that everybody *knows* that if you have a wreck, drunk
or not, it's your ass in a sling in a big way... no maybes, no excuses,
no "we'll let you off this time because you're remorseful." That would
focus the mind of every driver, drunk or sober, on driving carefully &
defensively.

But hey, what a crazy idea... try ing to teach people to be responsible
for their actions... it'll never work.

DSK

Florida is currently considering a law that would require repeat DUI
offenders to have a DUI-XXX license plate on their car.
krj

Roger Long wrote:
"News f2s" wrote


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


I looked into this quite a bit in my early flying years. You have to
take into account that the boating we are talking about is strictly
recreational where as GA flying includes a lot of business use. A
huge pie chart section of the aviation fatalities is doctors, lawyers,
and salesmen pressing on to get to meetings in weather they have no
business continuing to fly in.

In other words, they were in a hurry to get to where the big fish
were? Hmmmmm ...



The weather that kills pilots is a lot more common than the weather
that is equally dangerous to boats. If boating was a year round
activity and being used by 60% of boaters to get to places they really
needed to be, I am sure that the statistics would look very different.

Its true that weather seems to be a bigger factor in planes, but its
still under 40% of the accidents. I don't think removing that makes
that big of a change. And fair weather brings out the stupid boaters
that cause the vast majority of boating accidents.


When you look at just the aviation segment that is analogous to most
boating, duffing around in nice weather and returning to your home
port, the fatality rates get a lot closer.


Sure, but what if pilots drank as much as boaters?

BTW, a new annual ritual for my 10 y/o daughter and I has been taking
a flight with these guys:
http://www.biplanemv.com/index.shtml
Great Fun!

Wayne.B wrote:
On 3 Apr 2006 21:46:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

So I take it your view is that unless a boater has committed a crime for
which he can be imprisoned, he should be free to continue serial episodes of
boating while drunk?

Not at all, just enforce the existing laws. Serial DUI is a felony in
many jurisdictions.

I see an inconsistency in your argument. If you believe that
government should institute and enforce laws against drunk boating,
then you grant that they should have a role and be able to make
restrictions. You concede that government should be able to step in
and prevent a drunk from getting on the water (and lock him up to make
sure of it). This isn't qualitatively different, it seems to me, from
reuiring that in order to have the privilege of operating a power
vehicle on the water (I already conceded that it might be different for
sailboats, I'm not sure), one must not only stay sober, but also be
able to prove that they've had basic safety instructions. In either
case, we both agree that the government rightfully can be involved in
restricting your "rights" and freedoms.

I guess I'm a loony leftist, in that I think it's okay for the
government to be involved in deciding who can own guns, who can drive
cars and boats, and potentially restrict some people from doing those
things and others. Not everything, but I don't think it's a slippery
slope where, as was sarcastically suggested earlier, next I'll need a
license to swim.

I DO however, see a slippery slope situation, wherein if you let
environmentalists pan pwc's from any public waterways, they'll be
coming after your bigger powerboat next!

richforman

Jeff wrote:

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.

Up here it's usually the fishermen with their smaller outboard open
boats.. or young people overloading boats heading to parties on quiet
islands. Almost always, no PFD worn. Although we are surrounded by salt
water with over 4000 km of coastline, most deaths occur on lakes.
note... in majority of cases...no PFD worn.

On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 17:08:36 +0100, "News f2s"
wrote:

12 hours per boat
per year average.

???

That sounds way low to me. The real number is probably between 50 and
100 hours/year, and those are just engine hours, not total usage.

Not at all, just enforce the existing laws. Serial DUI is a felony in
many jurisdictions.


wrote:
I see an inconsistency in your argument.

Not really.

... If you believe that
government should institute and enforce laws against drunk boating,
then you grant that they should have a role and be able to make
restrictions. You concede that government should be able to step in
and prevent a drunk from getting on the water (and lock him up to make
sure of it). This isn't qualitatively different, it seems to me, from
reuiring that in order to have the privilege of operating a power
vehicle on the water (I already conceded that it might be different for
sailboats, I'm not sure), one must not only stay sober, but also be
able to prove that they've had basic safety instructions.

Well, let's see... are these two things the same?

1- a person has proven that they have bad judgement and
their actions are hazardous to others, so action is taken to
prevent their exercise of bad judgement in the future (and
dissuade others from making the same poor choices).

2- It is assumed that all people will make poor choices and
furthermore will not take the initiative to learn how to
make good choices.

Umm yeah, those two are the same or even close??!?




I guess I'm a loony leftist

So far I have not figured you for either a "rightist" or
"leftist" but you may label yourself whatever you like.



.... in that I think it's okay for the
government to be involved in deciding who can own guns, who can drive
cars and boats, and potentially restrict some people from doing those
things and others.

Sure. But here's the problem... in this country it is
assumed that gov't's authority is derived from the people.
WE are the ultimate authority.

Secondly, there are things the gov't can not do. For
example, the government could not stop people from drinking
alcohol. They tried and spent millions and all it did was
increase organized crime, and feed corruption. In fact
people drank more than ever!

Can the gov't stop murder? Speeding? Robbery?

No.

They can slow it down, and laws against those things should
be vigorously enforced.

Is dangerous boating already illegal?

Yes.

Are those laws being enforced?

Not very effectively.

So what is the logical argument for claiming that more laws
& more gov't intervention, with no stronger attempt to
actually enforce laws currently in place, will improve the
situation? And furthermore, why pass laws that are punitive
to a section of the boating public that IS NOT CAUSING ANY
PROBLEMS AT ALL?



I DO however, see a slippery slope situation, wherein if you let
environmentalists pan pwc's from any public waterways, they'll be
coming after your bigger powerboat next!


So?

Actually, it might be a good idea to ban pleasure powerboats
altogether. It would save fuel and reduce our dependence on
politically hazardous oil-exporting countries, and also
delay our descent down the far side of the Hubbert Peak.

DSK

You and me both. I've got a 10 year old and when i think back on what I did
and was like then...
I grew up in a small town in AZ where we where in summer and weekend, we
kids got together and folks didn't see us until dark!
As far as the training, my folks would never have let me or my sibs loose
with anything that could hurt us or others (like shotguns, motorcycles, etc)
without making sure we knew what we were doing. Maybe I'm "old school" or
just plain dumb, but that's the way I look after my kid too.
But then, I believe parenting is more than just breeding.
MMC
"Peter Wiley" wrote in message
. ..
In article , MMC
wrote:

Every time I hear of a kid killed on a jet ski I think mandatory
training is
a good idea.

That's worked wonderfully well for motorcycles and the same age cohort.
Not.

Every time I hear of anyone killed on a jet ski, I think of evolution
in action. Yeah, I do have kids. If one died thru preventable stupidity
as a result of their own bad judgement, I'd be heartbroken, but not
real surprised. I remember some of the stupid things I did at the same
age.

PDW

Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2006 17:08:36 +0100, "News f2s"
wrote:


12 hours per boat
per year average.


???

That sounds way low to me. The real number is probably between 50 and
100 hours/year, and those are just engine hours, not total usage.

Yes, I was guessing I must do at least 100 hours underway, maybe 200
or 300 if I'm daysailing a lot. Of course I also have a dinghy and a
kayak which probably only get a few dozen hours, but are probably more
dangerous. My brother (on a small lake) has a fishing boat which gets
a fair amount of use (though underway hours might be low), a small
sailboat which only gets a few hours, and two canoes that probably
only get used once or twice a year.

On the other hand, I don't think any of these boats are actually
registered with any state.