Dave Manby wrote in
:

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!

Maybe it more to do with what craft you're more likely to fall out of.

I always wear my PFD. I always wear seatbelts in a car. The personal
freedom argument against regulation is appealing, to a point. Part of
the cost of my auto, health and life insurance is the cost of risk
pooling because others are going to be "benefitting" from their
stupidity, at everyone's expense. Rescue resources, and insurance
benefits come out of everyone's pocket. If we don't mandate, let's
formalize the notion that if you suffer harm because of the lack of
seatbelt, PFD, etc. you lose (all, most, some?) of your insurance coverage.

Canranger44 wrote:

I have been over this issue many times with people who won't wear their PFD
but in the end I have gone the route of natural selection if they are to
stupid to wear it then maybe there is a greater reasoning involved so many
people underestimate Darwin's theory but the guy who doesn't wear a helmet
on a motorcycle or bicycle or a PFD in a boat might not be the type of
genetic material we want lingering on.

In article ,
Michael Daly wrote:
Seatbelt cutters are cheap. I keep one in my car, just like
I keep a knife in my PFD. It also has a window score-and-shatter
hammer end.

Someone in a car magazine tested one of these devices with junkyard
cars. It was not very effective. You might want to visit a junkyard
and test it.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee
Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome.
No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.

"Martin Shell" wrote in message k.net...
I always wear my PFD. I always wear seatbelts in a car. The personal
freedom argument against regulation is appealing, to a point. Part of
the cost of my auto, health and life insurance is the cost of risk
pooling because others are going to be "benefitting" from their
stupidity, at everyone's expense. Rescue resources, and insurance
benefits come out of everyone's pocket. If we don't mandate, let's
formalize the notion that if you suffer harm because of the lack of
seatbelt, PFD, etc. you lose (all, most, some?) of your insurance coverage.

Someone finally got to the real issue here, but it goes further than just insurance. These personal freedom folks who don't wear
motorcylcle helmets, car seatbelts, PFD's, ad infinitum, fully expect the rest of society to suck up the social and actual costs of
their rescues and injuries when they occur. All these rhetoric about personal freedom being a reason to not use safety devices would
be fine if these same people would sign and follow some type of exculpatory agreement that the rest of society would not be burdened
with rescue costs, subsequent follow up long term medical care, and most of all ligitations against the deepest pocket public
agencies they or their families attorneys can find. Many, many motorcycle crash victims or others sue the state or local
municipalities over road conditions or etc. Even if they loose, the legal costs to taxpayers can be huge. Personal freedom should
come only with personal responcibility, but the reality is just the opposite.

Fact is we all routinely give up personal freedoms every day for the greater good and smooth functioning of society. What about
keeping your car in safe condition to protect other drivers ? What about conforming to a set of rules on the road so that we can all
drive safely ? What about setting fires in unsafe places or discharging firearms in residential neighborhoods ? The list is endless.

Te Canaille

Walt wrote in message

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.

Just because the government has no jurisdiction does not meant that it
won't try to impose its will on the states. Look at the 55 MPH speed
limit, seat belt laws, and education (to name a few areas). These are
areas where, constitutionally, the states should be able to make the
rules. But, as long as the federal government continues to tax us at
a high rate and then gives it back with strings attached, they will
call the shots whenever they want to.

The worst part is that any such regulation is likely to be pretty
arcane. For example, there was a time when rafts (and other boats of
a particular size) had to carry a "Throwable Flotation Device," an air
horn, and a fire extinguisher. Wes****er Canyon is now inspecting
life jackets before you are allowed on the river. If it does not
specifically say "For Whitewater Use" or "For Paddling" or if it is
faded or modified in any way, you are denied the right to float.

I really think that we are better off with the federal government
defending us and regulating interstate commerce (and a few other
constitutionally mandated functions) and then leaving most of the
other decisions to the states or to the individual. When it comes to
paddling equipment, I'd like to make my own choices and I will take
the consequences thank you.

Randy

Someone finally got to the real issue here, but it goes further than just
insurance. These personal freedom folks who don't wear
motorcylcle helmets, car seatbelts, PFD's, ad infinitum, fully expect the
rest of society to suck up the social and actual costs of
their rescues and injuries when they occur.


The real issue here? Personal freedom folks? Oh really? I do not consider
myself to be a "personal freedom" zealot. Instead I see myself as a seeker of
the truth. I have stated previously that pfd's cannot be compared to automobile
seatbelts or motorcycle helmets. Both have been shown beyond any reasonable
doubt to make a significant contribution towards safety on the road. But since
you insist on lumping pfd's into the equation then I would very much appreciate
it if you could state your sources which show the pfd to be of equal
effectiveness to the automobile seatbelt or the motorcycle helmet.
Ulli mentioned the report released by the American Canoe Association
entitled, Critical Judgment, Understanding and Preventing Canoe and Kayak
Fatalities." Although I believe they have taken some liberties with some of
their conclusions, let us nonetheless take a quick peek at that report, shall
we?
On page 17 it is reported that;

"Operator inexperience or inattention and hazardous water or weather by
themselves, or combined with other factors, were the major causes of canoe and
kayak fatalities. These factors accounted for 57% of all canoeing fatalities,
and for 90% of all kayaking fatalities."

Hmmm, no mention of a pfd there. Then on page 18 is a chart which shows that in
the years from 1996 to 2000, 50% of the kayaking fatalities WERE WEARING PFD's,
while 44% were not! This hardly presents a startling picture of the
effectiveness of pfd's in kayaking. Yet so many of you insist that pfd's are
the answer and anyone who paddles a kayak without wearing one should be
punished! Why? No, really, I would like to know. Why? Since you people are so
fervently adamant about pfd's then I'm certain your opinions must be based on
some pretty substantial evidence which somehow I managed to overlook. So please
enlighten me! I'm all ears.

Scott
So.Cal.

There isn't enough information to make any conclusion. If 90% of kyakers wear PFDs
and 50% of the fatalities were wearing a PFD, then that may be significant, but if
only 50% of kyakers wear PFDs then one might question the effectivness of PFDs.
(One wonders what was the status of the other 6%?) Of course one would need some
additional supporting data in either case. It is kind of difficult to comprehend
the set of circumstances that on average would make wearing a PFD more dangerous
than not.

Ki Ayker wrote:

The real issue here? Personal freedom folks? Oh really? I do not consider
myself to be a "personal freedom" zealot. Instead I see myself as a seeker of
the truth. I have stated previously that pfd's cannot be compared to automobile
seatbelts or motorcycle helmets. Both have been shown beyond any reasonable
doubt to make a significant contribution towards safety on the road. But since
you insist on lumping pfd's into the equation then I would very much appreciate
it if you could state your sources which show the pfd to be of equal
effectiveness to the automobile seatbelt or the motorcycle helmet.
Ulli mentioned the report released by the American Canoe Association
entitled, Critical Judgment, Understanding and Preventing Canoe and Kayak
Fatalities." Although I believe they have taken some liberties with some of
their conclusions, let us nonetheless take a quick peek at that report, shall
we?
On page 17 it is reported that;

"Operator inexperience or inattention and hazardous water or weather by
themselves, or combined with other factors, were the major causes of canoe and
kayak fatalities. These factors accounted for 57% of all canoeing fatalities,
and for 90% of all kayaking fatalities."

Hmmm, no mention of a pfd there. Then on page 18 is a chart which shows that in
the years from 1996 to 2000, 50% of the kayaking fatalities WERE WEARING PFD's,
while 44% were not! This hardly presents a startling picture of the
effectiveness of pfd's in kayaking. Yet so many of you insist that pfd's are
the answer and anyone who paddles a kayak without wearing one should be
punished! Why? No, really, I would like to know. Why? Since you people are so
fervently adamant about pfd's then I'm certain your opinions must be based on
some pretty substantial evidence which somehow I managed to overlook. So please
enlighten me! I'm all ears.

Scott
So.Cal.

snip
These personal freedom folks who don't wear
motorcylcle helmets, car seatbelts, PFD's, ad infinitum, fully expect the
rest of society to suck up the social and actual costs of
their rescues and injuries when they occur. All these rhetoric about
personal freedom being a reason to not use safety devices would
be fine if these same people would sign and follow some type of
exculpatory agreement that the rest of society would not be burdened
with rescue costs, subsequent follow up long term medical care, and most
of all ligitations against the deepest pocket public
agencies they or their families attorneys can find. Many, many motorcycle
crash victims or others sue the state or local
municipalities over road conditions or etc. Even if they loose, the legal
costs to taxpayers can be huge. Personal freedom should
come only with personal responcibility, but the reality is just the
opposite.

Fact is we all routinely give up personal freedoms every day for the
greater good and smooth functioning of society.

snip

As one who "always" wears a seatbelt - except in very low-speed maneuvering,
generally off the public roads - and "always" wears a lifejacket - except in
very controlled conditions - I would be concerned with a "mandatory" life
jacket rule.

For starters, who would have to wear one? Fishermen? Lifeguards? Divers?

When would it be allowable to remove it? Below decks? at anchor? at a
dock? not underway? within XX feet of shore? just before jumping in? when
changing clothes? In less than 4' of water? In still water? While
peeing/pooping? while boarding/debarking? air temp over 90 degrees F?

Would it depend on boat size/type? If so, what would be the rationale for
requiring wear on, say 20' while exempting 21'? How do you define boat, as
opposed to toy, or float?

Presumably commercial/inspected vessels would be exempted - like the pontoon
ferry in Baltimore, or the Duck boat (was that in Tennessee?) a couple years
ago.

I guess I put more trust in my judgement than in a bureaucracy's. And yes,
I have seen plenty of idiots out there, including 3 adults and a big dog in
a 10' jon boat with a little outboard, thick fog, heading out the mouth of a
major river, a snow shovel for a paddle. I was worried for the dog -
perhaps mandatory PFD's for pets should come first...

Sal's Dad

Ki-yaker wrote :

I see myself as a seeker of
the truth. I have stated previously that pfd's cannot be compared to automobile
seatbelts or motorcycle helmets.

Very Zen, but your pronouncement is only your opinion not a fact.

I was on the ACA National BoD and sat on the Safety, Education, and Instruction Committee for 5 years. Between the two of us I'd
say I have a much better feel for the ACA than you and I know of no one there that would say wearing a PFD or not should be a
political statement. In fact PFD's are mandatory in ACA classes and events. What is not revealed in any stats is how many people did
not drown or suffer injury because they were wearing PFD's. Many multiples of swimmers out of boats are not statistics because they
wore a PFD. That's the important stat. One cannot just look at just the fatalities. There's nothing any of us can do to prevent
fatalities but we should as prudent individuals practice all the prevention possible. It all about prevention Scott.

My opinions were formed during several episodes rescuing people who were not wearing PFDs. It is hugely more difficult. A swimmer's
chances of being pulled out by a rescuer are much better when wearing a PFD. It all about prevention Scott. Just something as simple
as having shoulder straps to grab on an unconcious swimmer is a big aid in rescue. An unconcious individual without a PFD is dead
weight and extremely difficult manage. Rescuing a swimmer in serious trouble in the water is a scary and impatient endeavor. Time is
of the essense and a PFD gives us time. Believe me rescuers appreciate rescuees who are wearing a PFD. Many rescuers drown as a
result of the stepladder action and that happens when the victim is without PFD. Not wearing a PFD may be an idealized political
statement of personal freedom but it's also very selfish.

I could go on but I it appears to me you've made up your mind, so to answer your questions remember, it's all about prevention
Scott.


"Ki Ayker" wrote in message ...

Someone finally got to the real issue here, but it goes further than just
insurance. These personal freedom folks who don't wear
motorcylcle helmets, car seatbelts, PFD's, ad infinitum, fully expect the
rest of society to suck up the social and actual costs of
their rescues and injuries when they occur.


The real issue here? Personal freedom folks? Oh really? I do not consider
myself to be a "personal freedom" zealot. Instead I see myself as a seeker of
the truth. I have stated previously that pfd's cannot be compared to automobile
seatbelts or motorcycle helmets. Both have been shown beyond any reasonable
doubt to make a significant contribution towards safety on the road. But since
you insist on lumping pfd's into the equation then I would very much appreciate
it if you could state your sources which show the pfd to be of equal
effectiveness to the automobile seatbelt or the motorcycle helmet.
Ulli mentioned the report released by the American Canoe Association
entitled, Critical Judgment, Understanding and Preventing Canoe and Kayak
Fatalities." Although I believe they have taken some liberties with some of
their conclusions, let us nonetheless take a quick peek at that report, shall
we?
On page 17 it is reported that;

"Operator inexperience or inattention and hazardous water or weather by
themselves, or combined with other factors, were the major causes of canoe and
kayak fatalities. These factors accounted for 57% of all canoeing fatalities,
and for 90% of all kayaking fatalities."

Hmmm, no mention of a pfd there. Then on page 18 is a chart which shows that in
the years from 1996 to 2000, 50% of the kayaking fatalities WERE WEARING PFD's,
while 44% were not! This hardly presents a startling picture of the
effectiveness of pfd's in kayaking. Yet so many of you insist that pfd's are
the answer and anyone who paddles a kayak without wearing one should be
punished! Why? No, really, I would like to know. Why? Since you people are so
fervently adamant about pfd's then I'm certain your opinions must be based on
some pretty substantial evidence which somehow I managed to overlook. So please
enlighten me! I'm all ears.

Scott
So.Cal.

Very Zen, but your pronouncement is only your opinion not a fact.

Actually, as far as I have been able to deteremine it is more fact then
opinion.

Between the two of us I'd
say I have a much better feel for the ACA than you and I know of no one there
that would say wearing a PFD or not should be a
political statement.

If this is true then you undoubtedly do have a much better feel for the ACA
then do I. There's no argument there. However, I do not understand how this is
a "political statement." As far as I am aware I am NOT attempting to make any
kind of a political statement. I am just attempting to see the facts for what
they are. My conclusions might be wrong. I freely admit that --- will you?
Although I'm certain you will not believe this, I actually have a very open
mind on this topic.

It all about prevention Scott.

Of course it is. So by that I gather that you ALWAYS wear a helmet every
time you go paddling and you believe that every kayaker should ALWAYS wear a
helmet as well? I mean, since "it's all about prevention" and all?

I could go on but I it appears to me you've made up your mind,

As I already have stated, unlike the rest of you, my mind is actually wide
open on this topic. It would be soooooo much easier for me to just conform and
accept the popular dogma. But I never accept anything on face value. I need to
understand why I do what I do. And as far as pfd's go, I just cannot find the
answers I need to convince me that one must always wear a pfd in a sea kayak.
As far as I have been able to determine, it's just not as cut a dried as you
folks would like to believe.

Scott
So.Cal.