New Silly Laws

[Shane]

>We decided to put the bill into a

> study which essentially would kill the bill.

It's good that the stupid (sorry if I am offending anyone here) idea will die.

I wonder what "a study" really means. Does "a study" cost us tax money nonetheless? Is this like one of those "if you eat an excess of twinkies, will you get fat" "a studies"? If "a study" has a foregone conclusion, why study? I'm not a legal guru, just curious...

Probably not a NSPN topic though, huh?

Anyway, hoorah - no flagpoles required on sterns of kayaks in MA in the near future. Thanks for the follow-up Brian!

_Shane

"Would a knife help protect you against a ‘curious’ shark? I don’t know but I would like the option." - Trevor Gardner

[Brian Nystrom]

- They decide that the subject requires study before they can act on it.

- A study requires funding.

- No funding is available, so the issue ends up on indefinite hold.

- Since they didn't have to vote on it, they don't have to admit that it was a mistake in the first place by voting against their own bill. If they are questioned as to why nothing was done on the matter, they can simply state that that they shouldn't try bring it to a vote without understanding the ramifications of the proposal, which is true, and that there wasn't any funding to study it, which is also true. They're covered politically and bad legislation doesn't make it onto the books. I guess that's a win-win.

You know, it kinda creeps me out that I'm beginning to understand politicians... ;-)

[alcoons]

Quite a while ago some of us emailed our representives about "H.2126: An Act Relative to Making Mnadatory Installation of Safety Flags on Kayaks." I just received a very personalized letter from Paul Casey, the State Rep from my district. He or his people had obviously read the copy of the good information I forwarded that had been posted here and saw the logic in it. He wrote that he planned to share it with the appropriate commitee (Public Safety). So, who knows how our reps will vote when it comes down the actual ballot, but at least Mr. Casey has impressed me with taking the time to read and respond in detail to something like this.

Al

[alcoons]

>Quite a while ago some of us emailed our representives about

> "H.2126: An Act Relative to Making Mnadatory Installation

>of Safety Flags on Kayaks."

I mentioned in a previous email that one rep had responded. Now Senator Shannon has also responded with interest.

He mentioned that he "is aware of only one bill affecting kayak users, and that is House Bill 4456." He asked me to clarify the origin and status of the flag proposal I mentioned in my email [House Bill No. 2126] and copied and quoted that information from our club's message board back to him.

He sent me a copy of House Bill No. 4456. It asks that in addition to existing laws (which are not listed):

a) Any person aboard a kayak shall wear at all times a Coast Guiard approved personal flotation device of Type I, II or II.

Kayaks shall also be equpped with a compass and a whistle.

I wrote back:In terms of Bill 4456. This clearly is a reaction to the unfortunate events last summer in Cape Cod. Those paddlers made very bad choices in terms of conditions, experience, equipment and gear.

1) I assume no one in our club would ever consider going out without an approved flotation device when the paddle requires one - which is most of the time. Any time we go as a group it is requirement. However, the way this bill reads, if I wish to paddle in a narrow part of the Charles River (100 feet wide), when it is 100 degrees out, I am required to WEAR the flotation. Do we require all swimmers to have wear flotation devices? Do we require all other boaters to wear them at all times? Sailers in small boats are often in more danger in high winds and seas than kayakers.

2) A whistle is a good and expected safety device. But what is wrong with other and perhaps more effective types of signaling devices? What if you had a small air horn rather than a whistle?

3) A compass without maps, training, and sense of direction and location is of no use. While of course the goal of carrying a compass is sensible, requiring a compass is like requiring an AM radio. It will give you information but not useful information. I carry one at all times, but I know how to use it, also carry a map, and know where I am.

Thanks again for finding the time to deal with this issue. The club I am a member of does promote safety and trains its members endless by example and expectations to make good decisions. Amendments to the present laws may be in order, but I hope that individuals, national organizations, and clubs that have true expertise can be included in helping frame changes that will, in fact, improve safety.

Al

PS. Please note that I speaking for myself here and not the club I am a member of.

[Brian Nystrom]

...is that it precludes the use of Type V PFD's, aka inflatables. They're commonly used by people who wear tuiliqs and also by some racers and fitness paddlers. While I'm philosphically opposed to mandatory PFD laws, I'm even more concerned that the choice of PFD is being limited. Any Coast Guard approved PFD should be legal.