eneumeier Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 This was passed in the MA Senate on SEE SENATE, NO. S01410 OF 2007-2008.] The Commonwealth of Massachusetts _______________ In the Year Two Thousand and Nine _______________ An Act relative to kayaks. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 90B of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2006 official edition, is hereby amended by inserting after section 5B the following new section:- Section 5C. Every person aboard a kayak, as defined in section 13B, shall wear at all times a coast guard approved personal floatation device of type I, II or III, in good and serviceable condition. SECTION 2. Section 11 of said chapter 90B, as so appearing, is hereby amended by inserting, after clause (o), the following clause:- (p) Prescribe safety equipment required to be aboard any kayak, as defined in section 13B, however no such rule or regulation may exempt kayakers from the requirement to wear a personal flotation device as required by section 5C . SECTION 3. Said chapter 90B, as so appearing, is hereby further amended by inserting after section 13A the following new section:— Section 13B. (A) As used in this chapter, “kayak†means a lightweight boat that: (i) is covered, except for a single or double opening in the center thereof; and (ii) is propelled by a double bladed paddle. ( Anyone who holds himself out as a kayak instructor for hire shall obtain and maintain: (i) first aid training approved by the department of public health; (ii) cardiopulmonary resuscitation training approved by the department of public health; and (iii) kayak instructor certification from the American Canoe Association, American Red Cross certification in small craft safety and basic water rescue, or equivalent water training. Any course of kayak instruction shall include, but not be limited to; (i) the safety procedures appropriate to the level of kayak paddling difficulty; and (ii) wet exit training, which training shall be conducted prior to a student operating a kayak unsupervised or in water deeper than 5 feet. Wet exit training shall consist of practice escaping from a kayak while submerged in a controlled water setting. Wet exit training shall not be required by this section if the kayak to be utilized by the student during the training is a sealed-hull, sit-on-top or open-decked kayak in which no part of the kayaker’s body is covered or enclosed within the cockpit, or center opening of the kayak. A liability release that limits an instructor’s responsibility to comply with this section shall be void.†Here is the link to the text: http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st00/st00974.htm This is the history, this time around: Senate, No. 974 Presented by: O'Leary, Robert (SEN) For legislation relative to kayaks 1/20/2009 S Referred to the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security 1/20/2009 H House concurred Public Hearing date 7/9 at 1:00 PM in Hearing Room B2 9/22/2009 S Bill reported favorably by committee and referred to the Senate Committee On Ethics and Rules 10/14/2009 S Committee reported that the matter be placed in the Orders of the Day for the next session 10/14/2009 S Rules suspended 10/14/2009 S Read second and ordered to a third reading 10/15/2009 S Read third 10/15/2009 S Passed to be engrossed - 29 YEAS to 4 NAYS (See Senate Roll Call, No. 140) 10/19/2009 H Read; and referred to the House Committee On Steering, Policy and Scheduling I will contact my State Rep. about this. (The emoticon put itself in there, it is not part of the bill.) Liz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyson Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Grrr... This is the sort of thing that prompts my libertarian leanings. The government just shouldn't be involved here, esp. since it doesn't know what it is doing. Why does the ACA get a monopoly on this?! A good time to post my current email signature: -- A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures. - Daniel Webster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyson Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 ...and what impact does this have on mentoring and pool sessions? Are BCU 5 stars no longer "qualified" to instruct?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deb Millar Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 ...and what impact does this have on mentoring and pool sessions? Are BCU 5 stars no longer "qualified" to instruct?! My understanding is, if mentors (unless the mentor is a professional coach) don't accept money, this wouldn't affect them. Once $$$ enter the picture, then it's paid instruction and probably would qualify. As for the BCU: there's a difference between the star awards and the coaching awards. The BCU syllabii clearly states that 5* -- or any * award -- is NOT a coaching award. However, that DOES NOT mean that someone holding any of the star awards can't teach. Coaching is a whole 'nother track in the BCU universe. What is confusing is that one does need certain star awards to qualify for the different levels of coaching. For example, someone may be a L2 coach and hold the 4* award. If he or she wants to move up the coaching ladder, they could do so, but in order to move to the next level (L3) if they didn't have the 4*, they'd have to get it. Conversely, some one may hold the 5* but have no desire to become a coach. It's a fairly confusing system at times but it works for those who choose to pursue it. If you want more clarification go to: www.bcuna.org And, no, I'm not starting the ACA vs BCU vs peer learning debate. Deb M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEL Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 And, no, I'm not starting the ACA vs BCU vs peer learning debate. Oh, why not? Been a little tame lately and what is an online forum without a good flame war every now and then. <g> Since this bill went through the Senate in a perfunctory manner, I suspect it is on track to be enacted. This suggests to me those folks whose ox would be gored by it either have been asleep or have decided it is no big deal. Does seem to create a regulatory/legal thicket by leaving open ended what is required to be qualified. I am curious how the term "instruction" is defined as in does a guided tour constitute "instruction". I would assume both BCUNA and ACA are more than happy to have certification mandated since they are in the business of certifying people. I don't see how anyone can complain about people who are taking money and thus holding themselves out as professionals being required to have a reasonable level of first aid training. Of course the devil is in the details. As for the wet exit issue, I recall that before you could even take the NHAMC WW class you had to demonstrate to the instructors satisfaction a wet exit. Still, one wonders. Ed Lawson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 ...and what impact does this have on mentoring and pool sessions? Are BCU 5 stars no longer "qualified" to instruct?! The BCU 5* has nothing to do with instruction. You need to go down the coaching track to instruct...... That aside this is a poor bill, that has had nothing fixed in it since the last time. The wet exit and the lack of type V PFD's are two big issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEL Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 That aside this is a poor bill, that has had nothing fixed in it since the last time. The wet exit and the lack of type V PFD's are two big issues. Without looking at the statue being amended I cannot tell, but it looks as if some regulatory body is being given authority to create regulations to specify the equipment that a kayaker must have aboard. Creating the potential for inconsistent requirements to that in the CG regs cannot be a good thing either. Ed Lawson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djlewis Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I haven't done a word-by-word comparison, but this appears to be the same bill introduced the last couple of years, complete with all the same misguided intentions and technical mistakes. NSPN -- well, mostly I -- prepared a detailed position paper against this bill, both in concept and detail. It was presented to several members of the legislature and several of us, among about a dozen others, testified before the committee. The bill died a well-deserved death that year, thanks in so small part to our efforts. Much of that effort was spearheaded by Mark Jacobson of CRCK, who enlisted a House Rep, Kay Kahn of Newton, to block the bill long enough for us to get into action, and continue blocking it as necessary. In 2008, however, Mark threw in the towel after being contacted by one of the sponsors (Rep Straus) to participate in a slight rewrite. He said his employer, CRCK, no longer opposed the bill because it would not affect them. In addition, he said that Therese Murray, MA Senate President, had taken a personal interest in the bill. Nonetheless, it died that year. But now it appears to have been resurrected in essentially its former, highly flawed form, and almost passed. I haven't the time or heart to fight this anymore, but if anyone else would like to take up the cudgel, I'd be happy to give them all my materials and spend a bit of time briefing them on the politics and strategies. Let me know by e-mail (djlewis at triadic dot com). --David. This was passed in the MA Senate on SEE SENATE, NO. S01410 OF 2007-2008.] The Commonwealth of Massachusetts In the Year Two Thousand and Nine An Act relative to kayaks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chetpk Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Discussions going on at another board http://www.npmb.com/cms2/e107_plugins/foru...opic.php?132578 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael_Crouse Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I agree, it's a poor bill, very vague on most details and confusing on other rules like "wet exit training, which training shall be conducted prior to a student operating a kayak unsupervised or in water deeper than 5 feet" Does this mean as long as the student is "supervised" no wet exit is needed? What does "supervised" mean, instructor 5 feet away? 20 feet away? Also no class 5 rescue vests allowed? That makes perfect sense paddlers on a river shouldn't get to wear a rescue vest that might save their lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EEL Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Also no class 5 rescue vests allowed? Inflatables are Class V too. As are the PFDs used by some commercial rafting operators I have been told which have high collars. Ed Lawson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rick stoehrer Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 The BCU 5* has nothing to do with instruction. You need to go down the coaching track to instruct...... That aside this is a poor bill, that has had nothing fixed in it since the last time. The wet exit and the lack of type V PFD's are two big issues. technically, a 5* or a no star CAN instruct. IF you wanna be able to say "i'm am L (fill in the blank) coach, THEN you follow the coaching scheme. technically a bcu 5* means you are certified to lead a capable group in open water - british conditions and all that. how that group is made "capable" or what constitutes "capable" is open to debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyson Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Discussions going on at another board http://www.npmb.com/cms2/e107_plugins/foru...opic.php?132578 I'm rather disturbed by some of the comments suggesting that the bill is generally reasonable. There is absolutely no reason for a PFD in a context where I would happily free swim. There is also absolutely no reason that an instructor should have to comply with arbitrary requirements from the ACA or pay a fee to the ACA. ...not to mention that the bill is very poorly written by someone who doesn't know what they are doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Nystrom Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 The timing of this bill is also interesting, as it seems to be designed to catch the kayaking community off-guard. Who would expect kayaking legislation in October? The people driving this are probably counting on weariness and inattention on the part of kayakers at the end of the season. This may be a last-ditch attempt to ram this thing through and if it's defeated again, it may be the end. This is not the time to give up the fight. Even moreso than before, this is completely unenforceable, as there are no state resources to do so and the Coast Guard won't enforce state laws. Consequently, kayakers will be relatively unaffected, but outfitters are really going to take it on the chin. In a climate where politicians are trying to spur retail sales to get the economy going, this bill is utterly counterproductive. That's just one more point to add to the existing arguments against this legislative stupidity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chetpk Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I'm rather disturbed by some of the comments suggesting that the bill is generally reasonable. There is absolutely no reason for a PFD in a context where I would happily free swim. There is also absolutely no reason that an instructor should have to comply with arbitrary requirements from the ACA or pay a fee to the ACA. ...not to mention that the bill is very poorly written by someone who doesn't know what they are doing. I found the responses on that board interesting and was a little surprise that these events didn't pique some concerns. I wonder what the opinion of the whitewater businesses that operate in the western part of Massachusetts (Deerfield River etc.) or AMC run boating trips opinion is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djlewis Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I'm rather disturbed by some of the comments suggesting that the bill is generally reasonable. There is absolutely no reason for a PFD in a context where I would happily free swim. Ummm... beg to disagree on the need for PFDs. It's been proven time and again that wearing a PFD is the single most effective safety measure for kayakers and canoeists. You may be OK swimming, but lots of people aren't. Besides, what if you get bonked on the head and go unconscious as you exit? Whether there should be a "nanny law" to address that, however, is a bigger discussion. But it's actually moot -- there is such a law now in place in most states, and in MA it applies equally to canoes and kayaks, but only in the cold season (which is mis-timed in the current law as Sept 1 to June 1). The really stupid thing about the proposed bill's PFD provision is that it applies only to kayaks (whatever they are). This sends the unconscionable message to canoeists that they are somehow in safer territory than kayakers, not that that will reduce PFD wearing among canoeists any more below the already low level (lower than for kayakers). The sponsors of the bill are well aware, however, that including canoes would instantly kill the bill. And that raises some questions about the underlying motivation of the bill's sponsors. I'd be glad to share that and lots more with anyone interested in doing some serious work on this issue. (So far people seem more into venting on this board than having an actual impact, which requires time and work.) --David. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djlewis Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I found the responses on that board interesting and was a little surprise that these events didn't pique some concerns. I wonder what the opinion of the whitewater businesses that operate in the western part of Massachusetts (Deerfield River etc.) or AMC run boating trips opinion is? I think the whitewater operators feel they are already in compliance with this, and therefore have no worry. In fact, it's aimed mainly at sea kayakers. But the equally unconcerned attitude of CRCK is, IMHO, really short-sighted. Yeah, they may feel like they are in compliance and have nothing to fear from this particular bill. But there is evidence that this is but the first step in a plan to single out sea kayakers for intense regulation in what is certainly one of the top two or three states for that activity. --David. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael_Crouse Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Venting is perfectly healthy as long as that's not all we do! I sent in letters and contacted my State Rep every time this Bill came up before and I intend on doing that again. I agree, if the sponsors include canoes, or other boats this bill would be shot down instantly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chetpk Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Laying the groundwork for kayak fees? If this bill requires a regulatory agency to oversee, then it will require funding? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyson Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Ummm... beg to disagree on the need for PFDs. It's been proven time and again that wearing a PFD is the single most effective safety measure for kayakers and canoeists. You may be OK swimming, but lots of people aren't. ...those that are not OK swimming are not in a context where they would freely swim. There may be cases where a PFD would have saved a life, but someone else's carelessness is not a good reason to restrict my liberties and activities when I am using reasonable judgement. Note that my judgment leads me to to wear a PFD 99.9% of the time. I very much enjoy kayaking in contexts that I would never free swim. Besides, what if you get bonked on the head and go unconscious as you exit? Red Herring! The PFD's we use will not keep you face up in that context. You will still drown. Whether there should be a "nanny law" to address that, however, is a bigger discussion. But it's actually moot -- I have a hard time ever feeling that nanny law infractions on reasonable freedom are moot. The sponsors of the bill are well aware, however, that including canoes would instantly kill the bill. Divide and concur is a typical strategy for so called "reasonable restrictions" of liberty. That is why I feel compelled to support not only the liberties that I care about, but also those that I don't care about. If the restriction isn't needed, doesn't actually help in spite of intent, or harms people that were not part of the problem, then the restriction should be opposed. And that raises some questions about the underlying motivation of the bill's sponsors. I would bet that the ACA is loving this. Seems that both the ACA and CRCK need to receive a letter that if they don't oppose this, they have lost a customer. ...and I have been a regular customer of CRCK. I'd be glad to share that and lots more with anyone interested in doing some serious work on this issue. (So far people seem more into venting on this board than having an actual impact, which requires time and work.) Not sure how much impact I can have. Though I am taxed by MA, I have no representation in MA. Which is a bit ironic because I used to watch the "School House Rock" segment about "Taxation without representation" being unfair on MA based WGBH. Yes, heavy handed, mis-guided, nanny government really gets my hackles up. Ty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eneumeier Posted October 21, 2009 Author Share Posted October 21, 2009 "The really stupid thing about the proposed bill's PFD provision is that it applies only to kayaks (whatever they are)." The one change I see in this version is the inclusion of a definition of a kayak. "And that raises some questions about the underlying motivation of the bill's sponsors." I think the motivation is the same as it has always been: someone died, the family went to their senator/rep. and said "please do something." The legislators are trying to be responsive to their grieving constituents. They are not looking to regulate for fun or profit or because they want to establish a nanny state. "I'd be glad to share that and lots more with anyone interested in doing some serious work on this issue. (So far people seem more into venting on this board than having an actual impact, which requires time and work.)" David: Please email me what you have. I will contact my state rep. and encourage others to do the same. We can stop this in the House, but expect it to be reintroduced next year. Liz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Allen Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 If I remember the origin of this bill was a situation where a kayaker, with a spray skirt, died during his first wet exit training due to gasp reflex/water inhalation. Not sure how this bill would have prevented that. If anyone has the time to continue the fight, I would argue that A) the bill selectively only targets a small portion of the potential safety issue( all boaters and only a select type of PFD's), B ) that there already are regulatory and insurance requirements for those operating business in this state, C) that there is no mechanism to enforce these requirements and D) at best the targeting of kayaks alone would prevent on average less than one fatality a year. Also, the web-page dealing with CRCK's (apparently changed) feelings about this bill is still active and can be found here Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eneumeier Posted October 21, 2009 Author Share Posted October 21, 2009 I found the following statement the NSPN board drafted in January 2007, but I cannot recall exactly what was done with it, i.e., whether it was submitted to the relevant committees or just used as the basis for individual comments. Anyway, it is pretty comprehensive and I encourage individuals to make these arguments to your Representatives - they do respond when they hear an outcry from constituents. Preface NSPN (North Shore Paddlers Network) is a large, active sea kayaking club, affiliated with the ACA (American Canoe Association), with over 200 dues-paying members, and over 400 members participating in its online community. NSPN is the largest sea kayaking membership organization in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, and members paddle most often in Massachusetts, but also New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island and other venues. NSPN is extremely kayaking safety conscious. Like all paddling clubs we know of, NSPN requires active, continuous use of PFDs on all official club activities on the water, even during practice sessions in lakes and swimming pools. We strongly encourage a wide range of other safety training and measures. We offer our own training and sponsor professional instructors from all over the world to offer training. In all those classes, not only do we use safe practices on the water, we also teach a wide range of safety practices and techniques as part of the curriculum itself. It is no exaggeration to say that upwards of 25% or more of all time spent in NSPN courses is concerned with safe kayaking practices. Apart from actual courses, even most recreational paddling trips sponsored by NSPN also include some safety training for participants. Finally, NSPN publishes and distributes a brochure on kayaking safety, a copy of which is attached. NSPN Position on Proposed Law Despite NSPN’s very active interest in kayaking safety, we oppose the proposed Massachusetts kayak safety law (Senate, No. 2709, House, No. 4949) for the following reasons. PFD Provision • The PFD provision applies only to kayaks, despite common sense and overwhelming evidence that PFDs save lives equally in all paddlesports. To single out kayaking, therefore, sends a dangerously incorrect message to the canoeing community, a message in direct opposition to the ACA (American Canoe Association) who, like essentially all paddlesports organizations worldwide, recommends wearing PFDs in all paddlesports at all times on the water. This will bring the law into disrepute among paddlers and may actually decrease compliance. It is also a major step backwards from the existing PFD law, which treats canoes and kayaks the same. • The PFD provision overrides the judgment of the Coast Guard regarding the types of PFDs that are acceptable and is incorrect about the details, so that a significant part of the kayaking community will see that it makes no sense. For example, type V PFDs are worn by the majority of whitewater kayakers, guides, and rescue personnel. NASBLA (the National Association of State Boating Administrators), which set standards for and approves boating courses for Massachusetts and all states, has a model PFD act which states “Personal flotation device" means a device that is approved by the United States Coast Guard under 46 CFR Part 160). In particular, the Coast Guard approves Type V PFDs for all boaters, yet the proposed Massachusetts law disallows them. • The definition of “kayak’ in the proposed amendment to section 13B and referenced in the PFD provision does not make sense from a safety standpoint. That section defines a kayak as being covered except for a single or double opening in the center and propelled by a double bladed paddle. This definition fails to address sit-on-top kayaks which lack the covering but are like ‘covered’ kayaks in many other respects. On the other side, some canoes have decks or coverings with a central opening, and differ from kayaks primarily in being paddled with a single blade. The point here is that there is a broad range of human-powered water craft, and legislation singling out a single sub-type, the covered kayak, on the basis of features irrelevant to safety makes little sense Compass Provision • The compass provision makes no sense at all for kayakers on rivers and small ponds and lakes, where determining directions and finding the way to a destination is not a problem, even with low visibility. Flat water and white water kayaking on creeks and rivers are two of the most popular forms of kayaking, so the proposed law would impose on a large fraction of the kayaking community a useless and illogical provision. • For a compass to enhance safety even on the ocean, the paddler needs training in how to use it. Yet the law provides for no such training. In fact, in the hands of an untrained novice, a compass could even prove dangerous in fog or darkness, giving a feeling of security while actually leading the paddler astray. For example, as most instructors who teach compass navigation can attest, a common mistake made by beginners with a compass is to head in exactly the opposite direction from where they wish to go! Safety Equipment in General • In general, which safety equipment, beyond the PFD, is most important and effective varies considerably with the type of boat, paddling venue, environmental conditions and other factors. Any conscientious attempt to account for this variation and legislate safety equipment at the detailed level proposed by this law would be hopelessly complex and unenforceable. Wet Exit Training Provision • The wet exit training provision, like other parts of the proposed law, contains a number of serious problems which, if passed, would subject the law to derision in the kayaking community. For example, the assumption that wet exit training is needed only in water five feet or deeper is simply incorrect; a capsized kayaker can be completely submerged in as little as two feet of water, and have difficulty in even less. For another, the real safety issue with escaping from a kayak is releasing the sprayskirt, not exiting from the cockpit. Requiring such training for kayaks without sprayskirts subjects students to an unnecessary capsize and significantly changes the nature of the experience for no good reason. • The wet exit provision makes no distinction between novice and experienced kayakers, so that wet exit training would be required even for intermediate and advanced classes. This would either inhibit the offering of such courses in Massachusetts, or be widely disregarded, thus decreasing respect for the entire law. Intermediate and advanced kayak training in Massachusetts is presently an active and vibrant industry which attracts well-known coaches from all over the world. It also has an impeccable safety record, and indeed trains the future leaders and instructors who will teach safety to novices. It is not clear that there is a practical way, short of full-scale regulation of all kayaking instruction, for a law to require wet exit training for beginners and not for experienced paddlers. Such full-scale regulation would, of course, be absolutely unprecedented, infeasible and counterproductive in a number of ways. • It is illogical to require safety content for courses without requiring the courses themselves. Anyone wishing to avoid safety training will simply not take a course. If the goal is simply to improve safety in commercial classes, then it must be noted that wet exit is already taught in all beginning courses where spray skirts are used. • On the question of requiring safety instruction in paddling, as it is for youths operating motorized craft, we do not believe it is desirable or even feasible, given the enormous range of paddlers and paddling situations from backyard ponds up. In fact, as far as we know no other state or government entity requires or even regulates safety instruction in any non-motorized sporting activities, much less boating. • Professional instruction presently reaches only a small fraction of Massachusetts paddlers, and the vast majority of paddling deaths involve paddlers who have not received such instruction or who are ignoring what they may have learned in commercial courses. Directly regulating commercial paddling instruction therefore addresses the wrong issue for improving safety. Far better would be to encourage and promote professional instruction which already does a superb job of teaching safety. • Detailed regulation of safety course content, be it specific topics as proposed by the legislature, single courses or entire curricula, is rarely if ever done by direct legislative specification, but is given to the executive branch and to outside bodies of experts. For example, for motorized boating safety, all states belong to NASBLA (National Association of State Boating Law Administrators) and look to that organization to set content of and certify required safety courses. Legislatures do not themselves set course content for good reason. They have neither the expertise nor the technical resources to do such a job properly and to address ever-changing technology and best practices. The proposed wet exit provision fundamentally breaks this universal paradigm, and the result is an improperly drafted and technically illogical law which may do more harm than good for the cause of boating safety. NASBLA, by the way, looks to the ACA (American Canoe Association) for safety issues regarding kayaks and canoes. • How do we address the problem that conscientious instruction in safety practices presently reaches only a tiny fraction of kayakers? This is not an easy question, but one thing is clear: illogical and unnecessary regulation will not do it and may well have the opposite effect. If the proposed law passes and is actually enforced, the kayak training industry in Massachusetts is likely to shrink, and even fewer kayakers will be able to take comprehensive courses where they learn, among many other safety practices, the importance of wearing a PFD at all times on the water. Therefore, the ultimate result of a badly drafted law or of any attempt to regulate instruction at the level proposed may well be worse than no law at all. Instructor Training Provision • The provision for first aid and safety training of instructors again omits canoeing. Like the PFD provision, it thereby sends a dangerous message, that canoeing is somehow less dangerous than kayaking, and less attention to safety is required by canoeists and canoeing instructors. Also, all professional paddlesports instructors in Massachusetts that NSPN is aware of already have the specified training, so there seems to be little need for such regulation and the state bureaucracy it would entail. Regulation of Training in General • Should there be any direct regulation at all of professional kayaking instruction in Massachusetts at all? NSPN believes not. In our experience, the current state of professional kayaking instruction in Massachusetts is actually very safety-conscious. A single death in a class, however tragic, does not change that fact. More salient by far are the many deaths by paddlers who have received no safety training and/or are ignoring fundamental safety principles such as wearing PFDs and using boats designed for safety in their paddling venue. This includes the two young women who tragically died off the South Cape in 2002. Conclusion NSPN ardently shares the Legislature’s concern for boating safety and saving the lives of boaters in human-powered craft. We believe, however, that the proposed law is a very poor way to accomplish this goal. Almost all its provisions are improperly drafted, illogical or downright incorrect, and many actually send dangerous messages to large segments of the boating public. Overall, the proposed law is as likely to reduce compliance with good safety practices and therefore actually cost lives rather than save them. Additionally, the problems with the proposed law highlight the inherent difficulty in legislating safety practices in this complex and rapidly changing area. To do so conscientiously and effectively would require inordinate, ongoing research and an extensive bureaucracy to draft, monitor and enforce regulations and constantly update them. In fact, the ACA, as America’s primary organization for recreational paddling, has an extensive, ongoing program of courses and safety practices and other safety promotion activities, far beyond what any state legislature can muster. The ACA strongly recommends that states address paddling safety not by regulation, but by educational efforts. Fortunately, also, the existing Massachusetts community of professional paddlesports instructors and organized clubs are already highly skilled at and extremely conscious of safety issues, and expend an immense amount of energy on teaching and inculcating good safety practices. This has already saved untold lives! Rather than regulatory legislation, therefore, it would be far more effective for Massachusetts to work with and support the paddling community to improve and expand existing educational programs. The fact of the matter is that these programs today reach only a tiny fraction of the paddling public. If they could be nurtured and supported – rather than burdened and possibly diminished with inherently flawed attempts at detailed legislative regulation – many more lives would be saved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chetpk Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Openings. If your boat has three hatch covers then it has four openings including the cockpit thus doesn't meet their definition. If the law reads that hatch covers designate that they aren't openings, then wearing a sparayskirt would also designate that the boat has no openings at all thus it isn't a "kayak." ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Allen Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I found the following statement the NSPN board drafted in January 2007, but I cannot recall exactly what was done with it, i.e., whether it was submitted to the relevant committees or just used as the basis for individual comments. Anyway, it is pretty comprehensive and I encourage individuals to make these arguments to your Representatives - they do respond when they hear an outcry from constituents...........(stuff deleted for brevity)......If they could be nurtured and supported – rather than burdened and possibly diminished with inherently flawed attempts at detailed legislative regulation – many more lives would be saved. Liz's text is great but I want to point out that NSPN is no longer affiliated with the ACA. That shouldn't change anything of value in that statement, which I believe we should all send to our representatives. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.