In either accident, the alternative outcome in not known and not
knowable. They died with the safety feature; they might have died
without. This doesn't argue for or against.

Ok, I can add one. My cousin was broadsided a long time ago, she was
not wearing a seatbelt and was able to jump into the passenger seat at
or near impact time. She believes she would be dead had she been
wearing her seat belt.

--Chris

Ok, I can add one. My cousin was broadsided a long time ago, she was
not wearing a seatbelt and was able to jump into the passenger seat at
or near impact time. She believes she would be dead had she been
wearing her seat belt.


Still meaningless. She could have survived the initial impact but been
killed in subsequent car-getting-smashed-up-events.


But she didn't. I was just countering the counter of the examples of
people who didn't live but were wearing them.


Being loose in a
car is riskier than being belted in, regardless of orientation of
impact.


I am not trying to argue the issue, just giving an example.


One incident does not counter the stats for the population. She was
lucky.

I didn't mean to imply it did, I'm fully aware of statistics. And
agreed [to B].

--Chris

I don't want to start an argument here but when you take the topic of a PFD
it is design in the case of an emergency to keep the vital part of your body
the head a float you can look at what if and different situations but to me
it is a good safety plan if you are sea kayaking and the surf keeps pounding
you under it will bring you back up. Canoeing it allows you to stay a float
in rapids to try and guide your way through if you dump and so on it is a
useful tool one for all intensive purposes makes sense but it is your
choice. All I am saying is it makes sense to use every safety feature made
available for this sport no reflection on seatbelt or helmets and chances of
things happening. Watersports are characterized by the danger of many things
but perhaps the most prominent is getting a lung full of water. When a
person chooses to take a course of action such as forgoing a safety measure
then that person should realize they choose to take responsibility. By the
way it is mandatory in Canada to have a PFD for each person, a throw bag,
baling device, a sound signaling device and a visual signaling device.

--
Abe Elias
Diving Sparrow Paddle Co,
http://home.cogeco.ca/~aelias

There is this strange one in France where the floatation of pfd you
don't have to wear (unless in a commercial situation) depends on what
craft you are in. Bigger floatation for rafters than for canoeists and
kayak paddlers. Why does it make a difference what craft you fell out
of!

Also will end up with having to wear a pfd if we want to go swimming in
a river or lake!


--
Dave Manby
Details of the Coruh river and my book "Many Rivers To Run" at
http://www.dmanby.demon.co.uk

These were culled from the article "To Wear or Not To Wear, the PFD
Mandate Debate" in the Spring issue of Paddler Dealer, about the US
Coast Guard's consideration of a mandatory-wear requirement for boats
under 21'. The article is worth searching out, thoroughly covering the
question of the pros and cons of mandated PFD use.

BTW, Mike, I don't suppose you have any idea how I might get a copy of that
article?

Thanks,

Scott
So.Cal.

Canranger44 wrote:

By the way it is mandatory in Canada to have a PFD for each person, a throw
bag,
baling device, a sound signaling device and a visual signaling device.


Yes, you'll have to carry one (pfd , approved by CCG or DOT) for each person on
board, wearing it is up to you. Common sense tells that it is a good idea to
wear it, since stuffed in a hatch or under the deck lines it is no good.
Reality shows a different picture. Espcl. in spring and early summer, the first
warm days, you see a lot of people paddling the lakes and the coast not wearing
pfd. Warm air and water temperature 10 C are a potentially deadly combination,
since they lure people into ignoring the risk of cold shock and possible
hypothermia after immersion .
What are your chances if you get dumped into water like this to make a speedy
recovery? Well, the people who know those tricks and techniques usually wear
pfd and wetsuits, because they know the risks.
What are your chances to hold on to paddle and boat, pull out the pfd, put it on
and go from there? Good chance that coldshock (not hypothermia) will take care
of that problem for you.

I hate to say this, but increasing popularity of kayaking and the increasing
number of beginners and unknowing "intermediate" role models will cause more
fatalities in the near future. More and more people go on the water and have no
idea what they are getting into. Needless to say that I will not be
disappointed to see myself proven wrong, but I am afraid I this will not happen.

The study mentioned before shows a larger number of canoeing fatalities than
kayaking fatalities. The only reason for this is that canoeing is still much
more common in cottage country than kayaking. The increasing number of
recreational kayaks will likely shift the numbers in near future.
In case it hasn't been mentioned befo the study was published by the American
Canoe Association (ACA) under the title "Critical Judgement". Last time I
checked it was on their website as a pdf file
(http://www.acanet.org/sei-critical-judge.htm)

Ulli

On a trail in the alps there was a sign " Responsible hikers don't leave the
trail, all others are required by law to do so"

One of our local lakes takes an interesting approach. They get
donations from local businesses and such. These businesses donate
free lunches, discounts, free services, and money. They put these gift
certificates or money into 100 envelopes. One of the envelopes has
$1000 in it.

When they see a boat where all the passengers are wearing PFDs, they
go up to the boat and congratulate them and offer to let them pick an
envelope. If they are not wearing PFDs they are chastised and told
that they can qualify next time by wearing their PFDs.

It is actually pretty effective. My neighbor got to pick an envelope
when only 3 were left. The $1,000 was in one of the three but he
chose the wrong one.


Randy

Randy Hodges wrote:

One of our local lakes takes an interesting approach. They get
donations from local businesses and such. These businesses donate
free lunches, discounts, free services, and money. They put these gift
certificates or money into 100 envelopes. One of the envelopes has
$1000 in it.

When they see a boat where all the passengers are wearing PFDs, they
go up to the boat and congratulate them and offer to let them pick an
envelope. If they are not wearing PFDs they are chastised and told
that they can qualify next time by wearing their PFDs.

Interesting approach! I think that positive stimulation can be a lot
more effective than putting up a rule that isn't enforced.

Very few people actually adhere strictly to the law if the chance of
getting caught is tiny: speeding is a good example of that.

--
--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a@t dse d.o.t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

The issue in my mind is not the merits of wearing/not wearing a PFD.

I would question the Coast Guard's jurisdiction in issuing a directive on
the subject. Like motorcycle helmets, the states should be making this
call.

Phil Sellers wrote:

I would question the Coast Guard's jurisdiction in issuing a directive on
the subject. Like motorcycle helmets, the states should be making this
call.

Were the US Coast Guard to issue such a regulation (and I am unaware of
anything actually pending) it would apply only where the Coast Guard has
jurisdiction. Without gettting into a lengthy discussion of inland sea
law, suffice it to say that most inland lakes and rivers are not within
the US Coast Guard's jurisdiction, so it would be up to each state or
other governmental entity to set the rule.

That's why my BS detector goes off every time I hear somebody tell me
that the federal gummint is going to require PFD's everywhere. The
regulatory jurisdictional boundaries simply make it impossible for it to
be done with one fell swoop. If it happens, it'll happen one state at a
time. So far, the score seems to be oh-for-fifty.

But note that where the Coast Guard has jurisdiction, they do get to set
the rules. Likewise the US Park Service gets to set rules where they
have jurisdiction - and when their jurisdiction includes whitewater,
sometimes they require you to wear a PFD. I don't think this is
unreasonable, although I do think it's unreasonable to require PFD's on
calm shallow water when the weather is nice. The question is where to
draw the line.

--
//-Walt
//
// http://tinyurl.com/2lsr3