On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:13:22 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


Actually, I've been thinking of wearing an inflatable PFD at all times
on board.

Look at the bright side...its only a couple hours a year.
__

"It's just about going fast...that's all..."

http://home.columbus.rr.com/ckg/

RCE wrote:
"K. Smith" wrote in message
...



No denying seat belts, crash helmets for bikes etc have saved lives (not
mine) so .......................... :-(

K



Huh? YOU'RE DEAD?

RCE



Well...we always thought she 'wasn't all there'...but dead??

"Sam" wrote in message
oups.com...

A lot of state and federal nannies propose similar bills. All of them
wail and moan about how many people drown while not wearing a PFD, but
none of them mention the deleterious effects mandatory PFD use will
have on men oogling women in swimsuits. Sam


NOW, we are getting to the heart of the matter.

RCE

RCE wrote:
"K. Smith" wrote in message
...



No denying seat belts, crash helmets for bikes etc have saved lives (not
mine) so .......................... :-(

K



Huh? YOU'RE DEAD?

RCE


ha ha yes some days I might be:-)

K

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On 17 Feb 2006 08:41:13 -0800, wrote:

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/colu...17/186976.html

It's clearly an obnoxious piece of legislation. To me, it's akin to
seat belt laws - saving people from themselves. And while I've often
advocated use of PFD's at all times - I wear one myself - an
inflatable - it's my choice to wear one.

It would seem to me that it would be more important to keep drunks off
the road with zero tolerance - any alcohol while driving - zip, off to
jail, license suspended for a year and vehicle confiscated.

This won't pass - it's too draconian and stupid.

I agree that the PFD legislation is stupid, but I agree with the seat belt
laws. I have a cop friend who's been through a few hair-raising car chases.
He said the only thing that kept him behind the wheel was the seat belt. We
tend to think of seat belts only in terms of keeping us in the car in a
crash, but they can be an important part of keeping the car under control
and avoiding an accident to begin with. I could elaborate on how I've seen
proof of this, but you can probably visualize this yourself.

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 09:57:51 -0500 in rec.boats, Harry Krause penned
the following thoughts:

There are societal costs if you are in a car crash and not wearing a
seat belt. Your injuries are likely to be more severe, if you survive,
and there may well be additional uncompensated expenses for the hospital
to push onto everyone else's bill if your insurance is not adequate.


If you buy into this logic, then you become no more than an ant in an
ant hill. Your worth and freedom are, then, determined by your
contribution towards or liability detracting from the collective. I
think pulling together for mutual benefit makes plenty of sense, but
it can become a slippery slope, limiting or prohibiting *any* personal
behavior if it could be construed a financial burden on society.

I'm in favor of issuing citations to unbelted car drivers and their
passengers. Society has the right to demand a modicum of responsible
behavior from its participants.

I've never understand the concept that mandatory use of minor safety
equipment was an "intrusion" on personal rights. We live in a society.



For whatever the reasons, legislators just love to pass laws, regardless of
how illogical they are.
Puts a *stamp* or something on their existence. If we don't watch out, all
pursuits and personal freedoms will be bound by somebody's insane
legislation. It may be too late though, as we are well on are way to
becoming a nation of mindless Lemmings.

Airplanes crash and kill people. Might as well pass a law requiring all
passengers to wear a parachute. Screw the cost or incontinence. If we save
just one life, it's worth it, right? How do you feel about that guy or gal
with 40 hours of instruction flying around solo in a private plane over your
house and property? Better pass a law against that.

One that totally cracks me up is related to cars and trucks. In the US,
vehicles are required to be electronically limited in terms of how fast they
can go. Mind you now, the limit is not a set speed for all vehicles which
would actually make more sense. Rather, it's based on a percentage of the
tested maximum speed the vehicle is capable of without the rev limiter. How
safe I feel now. My truck is limited to 95 mph. Good thing, because
hitting a brick wall at 115 mph might be dangerous. My fun car is limited
at about 160 mph. In most of Europe it has no limitation. Has nothing to
do with will I really drive that fast or not. Anything over 75 is illegal
here anyway.

And I always thought we were the "Land of the Free".

RCE

"RCE" wrote in message
...

Screw the cost or incontinence. If we save

Had to laugh at this one as I re-read what I wrote. Spell check brain fart.

Obviously, should have been, "inconvenience"


RCE

Gene Kearns wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:50:43 -0500 in rec.boats, Harry Krause penned
the following thoughts:


wrote:

So you like the idea?


Hey, I wear a seatbelt when I drive my car, and I'm in favor of
LICENSING boat operators. And I favor lifting someone's operator's
permit if they drive their boat or their car DUI.

No, I have no problem with wearing a PFD when I boat. I often do,
especially on my Parker when I go forward to mess with the anchor.




While I agree with *this* post, since it honors free will, helmet
laws, PFD laws, seat belt laws, et al, are intrusive on personal
rights and are most likely driven by insurance companies.... who
should have no right of access to our law making bodies... spell that
PAC. Certainly, we have seen enough recent attacks by the present
administration on personal freedoms excused by "wartime secrecy" that
we can't allow democrats to do the same under the guise of protecting
us from ourselves.

Certainly, requiring a license for operation of a boat protects all
concerned.... and I supposed some not concerned, but near to and
situated on shore. Requiring one to wear a seat belt, on the other
hand, "protects" nobody but the wearer... and no laws should govern
individual behavior that does not adversely affect another. The
government should never "take it's citizens to raise." A slippery
slope, indeed.


In a country like Canada with 'socialized medicine', it makes sense.
The cheaper and faster an accident victim can be cured the lower the
cost to the public taxpayer.

"Don White" wrote in message
...
Gene Kearns wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:50:43 -0500 in rec.boats, Harry Krause penned
the following thoughts:


wrote:

So you like the idea?


Hey, I wear a seatbelt when I drive my car, and I'm in favor of LICENSING
boat operators. And I favor lifting someone's operator's permit if they
drive their boat or their car DUI.

No, I have no problem with wearing a PFD when I boat. I often do,
especially on my Parker when I go forward to mess with the anchor.




While I agree with *this* post, since it honors free will, helmet
laws, PFD laws, seat belt laws, et al, are intrusive on personal
rights and are most likely driven by insurance companies.... who
should have no right of access to our law making bodies... spell that
PAC. Certainly, we have seen enough recent attacks by the present
administration on personal freedoms excused by "wartime secrecy" that
we can't allow democrats to do the same under the guise of protecting
us from ourselves.

Certainly, requiring a license for operation of a boat protects all
concerned.... and I supposed some not concerned, but near to and
situated on shore. Requiring one to wear a seat belt, on the other
hand, "protects" nobody but the wearer... and no laws should govern
individual behavior that does not adversely affect another. The
government should never "take it's citizens to raise." A slippery
slope, indeed.


In a country like Canada with 'socialized medicine', it makes sense.
The cheaper and faster an accident victim can be cured the lower the cost
to the public taxpayer.

So, ban all activities that may lead to injury or illness. No smoking, no
drinking of adult beverages, no vehicle that can go over 25 miles per hour,
no motorcycles, nor bicycles. No rollerblades or skates. Where do you draw
the line? I always wear a seatbelt, as I used to race cars, and walked away
from a couple of horrendous crashes. I wear a PFD when in the boat alone.
Is both smart, and gets points with the wife. But is not the place of
government to legislate safe personal conduct. Odd that some of you are for
all these good for yourself laws, but support the war on drugs. Make it
simple, you have to cover your costs if you injure yourself via stupidity or
you die. If you want to use drugs, fine, as long as you are 21 years old.
Sell drugs to a minor, you die. Simple.

On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 20:07:12 +0000, Calif Bill wrote:


So, ban all activities that may lead to injury or illness. No smoking, no
drinking of adult beverages, no vehicle that can go over 25 miles per
hour, no motorcycles, nor bicycles. No rollerblades or skates. Where do
you draw the line? I always wear a seatbelt, as I used to race cars, and
walked away from a couple of horrendous crashes. I wear a PFD when in
the boat alone. Is both smart, and gets points with the wife. But is not
the place of government to legislate safe personal conduct. Odd that some
of you are for all these good for yourself laws, but support the war on
drugs. Make it simple, you have to cover your costs if you injure
yourself via stupidity or you die. If you want to use drugs, fine, as
long as you are 21 years old. Sell drugs to a minor, you die. Simple.

Another argument against seems to be missing here. Many here have far
more faith in the competence of our legislative bodies than I have. Years
ago, I can recall, some nitwit politician wanted to put seat belts on
motorcycles. Just what I want to be strapped to in an accident, a 400 lb.
pile driver. Personally, I'm an adult. I don't vote for a politician to
run my life, I'll do that, thank you very much. I vote for them to run
the country, state, city, whatever.