Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() Martin Shell wrote: 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. Absolutely. I'm all for insurance companies having a freer hand to dictate coverage terms and to price coverage according to what terms the insured is willing to accept. If you want to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, drive a car without wearing seatbelts, or paddle without a PFD, you should be willing to pay for the increased risk you pose to an insurer. This is already done with some factors, premiums being based on age, physical condition and whether a person smokes or not. Why shouldn't use of safety equipment be part of the equation? If someone lies in order to get a lower rate, the insurance company should not have to pay if they get hurt or die, or at least they should be allowed to pay a reduced benefit. Fair is fair. |
#42
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Absolutely. I'm all for insurance companies having a freer hand to
dictate coverage terms and to price coverage according to what terms the insured is willing to accept. My father and older brother work in insurance, and so did I for a while. I hate to tell you this, but insurance is ALL about statistics. And the current statistics DO NOT support mandatory use of a pfd in a sea kayak. Besides, if the insurance company did have that kind of power then what would be next? They may decide, based on the statistics, that every paddler must wear a drysuit. Now your paddling in Florida and the air temp is 110 degrees and the water is 80 degrees. To have to wear a drysuit would be ludicrous! But you get into trouble and need assistance. To bad! Your insurance is canceled because you didn't have on a drysuit at the time as dictated by the insurance company. Is that really what you want? Scott So.Cal. |
#44
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Randy Hodges wrote:
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). Point taken. US Congress can arm-twist states through appropriations bills. But unlike road construction and education, boating is not highly subsidized by Federal grants to the states, so the leverage is ouite limited. I don't see a bill coming out of congress that says "make PFDs mandatory or we'll cut the funding for X for your state." 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. Still true today, depending on what state's jurisdiction you're in. We have a patchwork system of hundreds (if not thousands) of separate jurisdictions each with it's own rules that vary by boat size and type. Not that I'm arguing for comprehensive Federal regulation to supplant state and local laws, but a single set of laws for the entire country would be significantly *less* arcane. -- //-Walt // // http://gadflyer.com/articles/?ArticleID=63 |
#45
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Well, I dont't know about insurance issues, but don't like the idea of more
restrictive legislation..... I used to enjoy the Willamette as my backyard when I lived in Oregon. We'd swim in the river all day and watch the tubers go down (you know, like the fat guy in a tube with a three-year-old on his belly heading for the I-5 rapids). Didn't often see the River Police, but one day I was out in my boat w/o PFD and was ticketed. Passed the police boat and waved. They motioned me back so I beat upriver to see what they wanted. Got a lecture on the dangers of boating without personal flotation. I pointed out the swimmers and tubers in the same area to no avail. Apparently there is something inherently dangerous about being in a boat. Anyway, I got the citation. Seems like a warning would have been in order. I wasn't a wise guy about the whole thing, and didn't argue about the validity of the law........ I use PFD and helmet when I think it's prudent. Don't like laws that protect me from myself. I already have a mother. Bill (now in NC) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
NTSB, August 25, "Mandatory" PFD | General | |||
PFD Statistics and Mandatory-Wear requirment proposal | General |