Kayak Safety Amendment -- PFD, whistle & compass

[djlewis]

This has been in the works since last February. Anybody know where it stands? We've seen some pretty cockamamie proposals for laws affecting kayaking, but this one seems to make some sense. Have we discussed it here?

Full article at http://www.vsv.cape.com/~harharb/ciha/kayakersmissing2.html

including ways to express opinions on the bill to legislators.

--David.

-------------------------------------------------

"New Legislation would make Massachusetts the first state to mandate a compass, whistle, and life jacket to be worn by kayakers at all times.

"Representative Shirley Gomes (Republican) has filed the bill to require that life jackets be worn by kayakers year round. The bill is House H-4456. ...

"AN ACT RELATIVE TO KAYAKS

"Chapter 90B of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after section 5B the following section:-

"Section 5C. Any person aboard a kayak shall wear at all times a Coast Guard approved personal flotation device of Type 1, 11, or 111. Kayaks shall also be equipped with a compass and a whistle.

[JohnHuth]

I spoke with the Harwich Harbormaster, Tom Leach about this last spring. He said that it had gone through a lot of changes, but I *think* is close to being voted on. One legislator objected to the inclusing of a compass because she had no idea how to use a compass. Her logic prevailed for a while and the compass requirement was stripped out. I think it eventually got put back in.

I have an e-mail into Tom to find out about the status of the bill. I'll post to the list then I get a reply.

BTW - I was out in the fog at the same time, within 100 yards of where/when Sarah Aranoff and Mary Jadoga went out. It was a very rattling experience to hear of their deaths. Tom was involved in the search. This upcoming Columbus Day marks the one year anniversary of their deaths. I have to say that I was spurred on personally to become much more vigilant about my own kayaking safety because of this accident.

John Huth

[Brian Nystrom]

The last I heard was that it was "sent out for study" or whatever the proper legislative term for that is. What that means is: "We don't want to deal with it, so we'll say that it needs further investigation, then not appropriate the funds for the study, due to fiscal concerns." This is what happened to the infamous "safety flag" legislation, too. It's basically a way for gutless politicians to avoid having to vote down bad legislation, in the hope that it will eventually be forgotten. Considering the emotional nature of this proposal, this approach satisfies the need for legislative sanity while not making the politicians look heartless. Sleazy, but effective.

[traction]

I may be wrong, but somehow i don't think Greenland style paddlers would like to be forced to don pfd's

[traction]

On the other hand, i may mount a three foot pole on the deck of my kayak with a nice big flag on top, so the drunk power boaters can see me... although that may make rolling a tad more difficult,.. so mabey i'll get some nice big sponsons too and... aw frig it!.. i'll just go buy a jetski! and a case of bud and i'll be all set.

OK enough of this sillyness! The fact of the matter is, you cannot protect people from themselfs this way, simply passing a law to wear a pfd in a kayak is not going to help much, as any avid paddler knows.. I see many beginners on the water with no spray decks,no flotation no paddle float no bailer or pump, no spare paddle ect. and almost worst of all, no skills whatsoever! a pfd ain't gonna help much if your adrift in the atlantic and do not have the ability to get back into your kayak. i could go on and on, but i'm sure any readers of this post get my drift..

We need education, not legislation!

P.S. I belive a whistle is already a coastguard requirement and a good one at that.

As far as the compass goes, i won't go for a walk in dogtown without one.. just common sense.

[JohnHuth]

I kind of had a feeling this would create responses along these lines.

I was out in the same time and place as those girls and was having a great old time fishing for striped bass. I was out of sight of land serveral times, and never had any problems. When I talked with Tom Leach, who searched for the girls, and "created" the bill, I pointed out all these arguments. He said "yeah, but you're experienced".

I wouldn't call Tom "sleazy" or "bad" or "gutless". He's a well-meaning guy, who is trying to do something in the wake of a tragedy.

This kind of bill is a bit like a seat-belt law in the minds of many.

You could imagine passing a law that requires pedestrians to carry compasses because they might turn into hikers in the woods. Obviously there is an absurd limit to all this.

On the Cape, there are a ton of outlets that sell cheapo kayaks. The people who sell them don't really think about potential dangers of inexperienced people going out in conditions over their heads. I've had to rescue a number of people out in Nantucket Sound.

I guess I'm an agnostic on the bill, but that's because Tom Leach is a friend of mine, and although I sympathize with the point that you can't legislate intelligence, if I put myself in the position of SAR personnel, you can't but try to see it from their perspective.

John Huth

[Brian Nystrom]

I wasn't trying to impugn any person in particular, but was lamenting about politicians in general. I'll take your word about Tom Leach, but there have been a LOT of poorly crafted laws proposed and passed by well-meaning people. The problem is that many politicians don't understand the issues and don't take the time to learn about them. They just vote for "safety" bills if they sound reasonable on the surface. Perhaps Mr. Leach is an exception to this. I certainly hope so.

I guess it's up to us to educate politicians before they mistakenly pass laws that are unnecessarily restrictive, unenforceable and/or outright harmful. That's exactly what happened with the "safety flag" legislation. Once the dangers of the bill were pointed out, it was shelved, which is great. However, it still bothers me that instead of coming out and saying that it was a bad idea, they went through these ridiculous gyrations of "sending in out for study" and not funding it. It seems that legislators (at least in MA) are absolutely unwilling to speak out against against any proposal that is offered as a "safety" measure. That IS gutless, in my opinion.

Tom Leach's proposal is flawed and unnecessarily restrictive in that:

1) It specifies "whistles" rather than encouraging people to use other, more efficient sound making devices. Those of us who've tried the typical "safety" whistles sold to kayakers know that they don't have any range in anything other than dead-flat-calm-quiet conditions. "Storm Whistles" and the various horns on the market are far more effective and only slightly more expensive. If you're going to mandate safety equipment, why not establish a performance standard that insures that the equipment will actually work as intended? Specifying a "sound making device that generates 'X' decibels" would be far more effective

2) It doesn't allow paddlers to use inflatable PFD's, which are legal for all other craft. Perhaps this is an oversight, but the wording of the bill looks like it was specifically crafted to exclude them.

3) It targets only kayakers, when there are more canoeists, power/sail boaters and fishermen dying each year. Why aren't these same restrictions imposed on them? Call me cynical, but I suspect that it's because their numbers are larger and they'll make more noise about it, making passage less likely. Also, there's the emotional "leverage" of the deaths of two young women that will help to force this through. That strikes more of a chord with the public than drunken fishermen falling overboard while taking a leak.

4) A compass is useless if you don't know how to use it and/or don't have a chart. Personally, I don't paddle without one, but I know what direction land is and what heading that would be on a compass. I also know enough to trust the instrument, rather than my senses.

5) It provides no incentive for boater education, which would be more effective than any of the provisions of the bill.

This proposal seems to be more about emotion than anything else. It falls into the reactionary "We MUST do SOMETHING!" category that rarely results in good law. There's no way it can be enforced, as there isn't sufficient manpower to do so. If passed, it will create restrictions on paddlers with little likelihood of any benefit to safety. So what's the point, other than to make politicians look and feel good?

More important, what will they do next, when this law doesn't work? If we allow ourselves to be singled out from the larger boating community for what amounts to selective punishment, we can only expect more of the same in the future. This is the classic "slippery slope". It's much harder to remove bad laws from the books than it is to prevent them from getting passed in the first place. We owe it to ourselves to fight this bill unless it's changed to be fair and sensible.

Since you know Tom Leach, could you please pass this on to him and ask him for comment? Since we're not privy to the legislative discussions, we're left to make assumptions about motives and intent, which may or may not be true. By all means ask him to communicate with us here to clarify his intent and rationale. We're a very safety-oriented organization and if we are afforded the opportunity to work WITH legislators, rather than being forced to work against them in self defense, perhaps reasonable legislation will result that will actually increase safety on the water for all boaters.

[JohnHuth]

I think Tom would like nothing more than to actually hear from kayakers. I'll pass this on to him.

There's an interesting parallel here, if you'll allow me: the Maine lobster industry was in trouble for a while. Rather than to craft legislation from afar, the state spent a lot of time working with the lobsterman's union to devise sensible regulations. This has worked reasonably well.

If there is an interest effective ways to prevent deaths in ocean kayaking, I think it does necessarily involve people who are experienced. I've tried to talk with Tom about this, but he was already launched on this particular bill before I was able to get to him. It's worth taking another shot.

Thanks for your comments!

John Huth

[JohnHuth]

I asked Tom Leach about the bill. Evidently they stripped out the whistle and compass requirement, but kept the PFD. In my understanding, there is already a PFD requirement for roughly Labor Day to Memorial Day - the only effect of the bill would be to make it year round.

Don't shoot the messenger....I'm just reporting!

Finally, I did take a lot of Brian Nystrom's suggestions to Tom. I'm awaiting Tom's reply.

John H.

Quotation to follow:

----------------------------------------------------------------

Hi John, Thanks for asking. The bill is back in the Senate. Nop whistles and

No Compass! Tom

Kayak safety bill moves on to Senate

By Scott Dalton/ sdalton@cnc.com

Tuesday, August 31, 2004

Less than a year after a kayak tragedy took the lives of two young women,

the state Senate is poised to require that all kayakers wear a personal

flotation device at all times.

The Senate Ways and Means Committee will now consider the bill in

anticipation of a review by the full Senate. Harwich Harbormaster Tom Leach

said the bill has received backing by harbormasters throughout the

commonwealth.

The House of Representatives unanimously approved the Mary Jagoda/Sara

Aronoff Kayak Safety Bill Aug. 18. The bill is named after Mary Jagoda, 20,

of Huntington, N.Y., and Sara Aronoff, 19, of Maryland. The pair disappeared

on the afternoon of Oct. 12, 2003, after launching their kayaks off Ayer

Lane Beach in Harwich Port. They were reported missing an hour later.

Searchers later recovered Jagoda's body. Aronoff's body has not been found.

State Rep. Shirley Gomes sponsored the original legislation less than a

month after the tragedy. The bill would require that kayakers wear life

jackets all year, rather than only between Sept. 15 and May 15, as now

required by state law.

"The Harwich harbormaster requested this legislation after the terrible

tragedy," Gomes said at the time. "It is my hope ... that people become more

aware that safety on the water is not just for larger motor boats and

sailboats, but for canoes and kayaks as well."

Although kayakers are required to have a life jacket in their vessel at

all times, the existing legislation only mandates that they wear it between

Sept. 15 through May 15. It is unknown whether Jagoda and Aronoff carried

life jackets with them when they set out. Leach said the families of the

young women are in full support of the bill.

In addition to keeping the person above water, a life jacket can also

slow down the effects of hypothermia because the person does not expend

energy attempting to stay afloat. Leach said more than 100 kayakers die each

year, adding the Coast Guard estimates that 84 percent of drowning victims

would have survived had they been wearing a life jacket.

[Brian Nystrom]

"The Harwich harbormaster requested this legislation after the terrible tragedy," Gomes said at the time. "It is my hope ... that people become more aware that safety on the water is not just for larger motor boats and sailboats, but for canoes and kayaks as well."

This statement strikes me as utterly ridiculous, since more people die each year in "larger motor boats and sailboats" than in kayaks, yet the bill does not require users of them - or of canoes - to wear PFD's year round. Someone please tell me what sense that makes. Once again, emotion triumphs over reason and "Nanny Government" rushes recklessly in to "do something".

We kayakers are being unfairly singled out by this bill. If it passes, the precedent will be set and one can only speculate what the result of the next, inevitable kayaker death(s) in MA will be. It's not likely to be good news.

[JohnHuth]

If you feel strongly about the subject, contact the people in the Senate:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/

and the actual e-mails for the senators are:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/memmenus.htm

Although I'm new to the group (and sure feel the heat in posting), I assume that if, as a group, you advocate a certain position in which you are undoubtedly both experts and an interested party, then your views may very well prevail.

John H.

[Walter]

Hi John

>Although I'm new to the group

I want to thank you,as a new member and an individual that is concerned about safety on the water, for your involvement and input on this subject.It is nice to see people step up.

Please do not

>feel the heat in

>posting)

here.

This subject is to important.

I believe this subject, brings out a lot of opinions that show a great deal of dispare on a subject, that brings on some emotion along with a lot of thoughtfull logical suggestions(to us), that have come with years of experience and have fallen on deaf ears.(Boy thats a mouthfull)

>I assume that if, as a group, you advocate a

>certain position in which you are undoubtedly both experts

>and an interested party, then your views may very well

>prevail.

This subject is so important, you may have hit upon a way that we as a group and individuals could express our thoughts.

>If you feel strongly about the subject,

As you can see we do.

>contact the people

>in the Senate:

Do you know if is it posssible that we could have a meeting with someone or the legislatures that would allow us to present a clubs point of view.

We would then need someone to organize the club members(Brian would you be interested in chairing this?) for there input and have someone that would have the time to present our views.

I think Brian has hit upon a lot of the frustration,true or purseived,

that a lot of us have. At the same time he has very eloquently touched upon a lot of the flaws in this bill and problems dealing with the legislative body.

I would like to see and hear discussion on a lot of the solutions to the problem,with the legislation, that Brian has brought up. I think ,Brians and others, solutions to this matter should be considered, possibly expanded and researched for the ability to make them work.They should then be presented in such a way that they are lissened to and considered.

There may be members that have some knowledge of how to get this goal achieved.

Brian brought up another very valueable point. That is there is no purpose passing laws that can not be instituted and enforced.

In closing I want to thank you and the other members that have posted here with there thought provoking suggestions.

However, I believe we as members and obviously conserned Paddlers need to take this to the next step; organizing our thoughts, constructing a proposal and presenting it SO THAT WE ARE HEARD, AND OUR PROPOSAL IS THOUGHFULLY CONSIDERED (:-)).

I would support this and look forward to supporting those that know how to proceed with; A) Putting our suggestions together and

B)Getting the presentation presented so that they are considered and do not get lost.

Walter

Impex Serenity

Sunburst / Ivory (I finally have the colors correct.)

[Brian Nystrom]

John,

Thanks for getting involved and providing the links; I'll see what I can do. Although I do the majority of my paddling in MA waters, I'm not a MA resident, so I don't know how much local politicians are going to care about what I have to say, since I can't vote for or against them. I also have to plead ignorance when it comes to the inner workings of the political system in MA. I guess I'm going to be learning...

One thing I feel I need to state clearly is that the opinions and suggestions in my posts are my own and do not reflect any kind of "club position" on this issue. AFAIK, we have no established club stance on any political issue.

The idea of the club attempting to become a political force locally is surely to be a controversial subject. I'm not sure the membership would want to do that and I understand the reluctance. There may also be more value in voicing our opinions individually, as many separate statements from individual voters would likely carry more weight that a single one from an organization, unless it is submitted in the form of a petition.

Unless there is a groundswell of support within the club for more active involvement in promoting our sport, perhaps the best thing we can do is what has been done here; make people aware of the issues and encourage them to become involved individually. The lack of participation in this thread is not encouraging.

[Walter]

Brian

>John,

>

>Thanks for getting involved and providing the links; I'll

>see what I can do.

I agree completely.

>Although I do the majority of my paddling

>in MA waters, I'm not a MA resident, so I don't know how

>much local politicians are going to care about what I have

>to say, since I can't vote for or against them.

The fact that your not a MA resident does not preclude your feelings and thoughts toward this important topic. Also, this could be a steping stone for how other states handle this matter.

> I also have

>to plead ignorance when it comes to the inner workings of

>the political system in MA. I guess I'm going to be

>learning...

I am in the same boat here. Therefore I think the question needs to be asked and answered; "Are there members that have this experience and concern that would like to help? Please post here."

>One thing I feel I need to state clearly is that the

>opinions and suggestions in my posts are my own

Yes, but I believe others have the same concerns( boy I wish I could spell this word).

> and do not

>reflect any kind of "club position" on this issue.

I think the club should take a stand on this matter and decide if it wants to make a statement. Especially since we state in our opening statement on our web page, that we are safety oriented.

>AFAIK, we

>have no established club stance on any political issue.

Maybe its time we stepped up and were counted. This matter effects us all.

>The idea of the club attempting to become a political force

>locally is surely to be a controversial subject. I'm not

>sure the membership would want to do that and I understand

>the reluctance.

I think the club should decide. I would ask; "Members to voice your opinions here."

>There may also be more value in voicing our

>opinions individually, as many separate statements from

>individual voters would likely carry more weight that a

>single one from an organization,

That should also be done. The outcome will determine its effectiveness.

>unless it is submitted in

>the form of a petition.

This is another tool that should be looked at.

>Unless there is a groundswell of support within the club for

>more active involvement in promoting our sport, perhaps the

>best thing we can do is what has been done here; make people

>aware of the issues and encourage them to become involved

>individually.

I think that making "people aware of the issues" is always a way to get things started.

>The lack of participation in this thread is

>not encouraging.

It is early yet.

I think if you would agree to chair this matter or even co chair it with John. Assuming you were both interested in getting this subject matter together and presented to the proper ears in a way that they could understand and support.

Setting up items chronologically that you both felt should be consider and posting here,for a start, so that members could comment.This would give me and others a way to consider and comment on the items individually.

You could also have meetings at peoples homes( I would be willing to host such a meeting), or a common meeting place (Conomo Point Yacht Club Building,Essex Ma. is available free,no heat. You could paddle after.)to get members thoughts.

Another suggestion would be to have memebers that are interested in this subject to e-mail other paddlers to advise them of this subject requesting there support by posting here.

I would ask at this time that all members that have and interest in this subject,which effects us all, post there thoughts and suggestions on how we can support this cause.

Keep a paddle in the water.

Walter Mears

Impex Serenity

Sunburst / Ivory

[JohnHuth]

Thank you for the encouragement. I'd be willing to follow up on this and am happy to work with some of the more veteran members.

First item of business - I'll try to find out where it stands in the legislative process. I believe it's before the Ways and Means Committee. The obvious next step would be to contact the relevant principal on the Ways and Means committee.

The next step would be to schedule a meeting - but before doing so, I think you (North Shore) have to have a collective decision on whether you speak as an organization or as individuals. As an organization, you carry more weight, but then you also have the burden of forging a representative consensus, which has its pluses and minuses, clearly. Since I'm new to your organization, I don't feel that I can speak on this last matter.

By the way - I don't view myself as an expert on kayak safety. As I said on one of my previous posts here, I was in the same water at the same time as the two girls who died. I know Tom Leach and some of the background of the bill. Because I was in close proximity to their deaths, I've become more conscious of my own kayak safety - largely because I paddle solo so much (one of the reasons for learning about your group was so that I could find people at approximately the same skill level and increase my own skills - which, to me, is the bedrock of safety).

If you wish to form an "interested party" e-mail list, I'd be happy to help on that too.

I'll dig in on the Ways and Means Committee issue (who is introducing the bill), but await other commentary on how you, as a group, would like to handle this.

Best,

John Huth

[djlewis]

Well, I started this, and it's been a great discussion. I doubt if I can end it as easily, but after listening to these well-argued points of view, here's my $0.02 (or maybe $0.05 or so).

First, the whistle and compass requirements have been stripped from the bill, and that's probably wise. So, all that's left is extending the PFD requirement from Fall-Winter-Spring to the entire year. Seems hard to argue with that in the abstract -- it's exactly what we and all safety-conscious paddlers practice.

Yes, such a law "discriminates" against kayakers. But don't we already acknowledge that our sport is a good deal riskier than motor boating or sailing? Yes, maybe more people do die in those activities, but also a whole lot more people practice them (as we can observe on the water).

Anyway, rather than get into a numbers game, I'll just ask if it makes sense to insist on parity from other water activities before proceeding to improve the safety of our own. If we ran everything that way, of course progress everywhere would pretty much grind to a halt. Let's take responsibility for our own sport, and try to make it as safe as we can while not destroying the enjoyment. If other sports don't want to, that's their problem. Maybe we can even be a beacon to them.

So if you follow the argument so far, the question remaining is mainly whether this law is a useful step in the direction of kayak safety. I think it is.

Sure, no law is a guarantee of behavior. How often do automobile drivers come to a dead stop at a stop sign? Or, in Massachusetts especially, how many obey the speed limit? But those are not good arguments for doing away with traffic laws altogether.

On the positive side of the argument, I think having a law on the books that says "PFD's all the time" ~will~ improve kayak safety, but mainly indirectly. It will give those of use who educate new (and old) kayakers in safe paddling a rather potent tool to make the point that a PFD, worn at all times on the water, is a darn good idea, safety-wise. The old law was so perversely weak in that regard, that it was best not mentioned at all when teaching new paddlers, most of whom wouldn't paddle beyond June-to-September anyway. In fact, it seemed more like permission or even encouragment ~not~ to use a PFD in summer.

As for special cases, like Greenland paddlers in tuiliqs, that is indeed a bit of a problem. But we can probably just let that slip between the cracks. GPers can argue with the harbormaster or CG officer who tries to give them a ticket, if that actually ever happens. But you know, I don't think I've ever seen anyone in a tuiliq out on the ocean... just in pools and ponds, practicing rolls. (That's a joke, I think.)

But I also can't stop thinking of the time I was horsing around with a skilled GP kayaker wearing a tuiliq and no PFD. He was bumping and destabilizing me, in good fun of course. Then I pulled his bow up on my cockpit, and he looked at me with a dare in his eye -- so flip me. I always accept such dares and flipped him forthwith. And, of course, he rolled up elegantly. But I couldn't help thinking how easy it would have been for me to hold him upside down as long as I liked... what would have happened to him if he did have to bail out? I didn't of course. But the point is, anybody can wind up swimming for reasons beyond their control. Can you lose your paddle surfing an offshore break? Do you have that combat handroll down pat? Etc. And if and when you do swim, having a PFD suddenly becomes a survival factor.

Whew... that ~was~ long. Thanks for bearing with me (if you did).

--David.

[JohnHuth]

I contacted some people in the Ways and Means committee. I'll probably set up a meeting. I don't know what precisely I will say, but I'll be checking this thread before I do.

John

[Walter]

I just left Joe's Creek(AKA Walker Creek). The wind is blowing at 30 Plus. There were two kayakers with life jackets an protective suits trying to go out the creek. One had a skirt but was not useing it. The waves were three feet plus mostly white caps. The waves started to fill the kayak. She was blown back to the beach with a kayak partially full of water

Her friend was not able to paddle against the wind and he was blown back to the beach also. He had his skirt on.

There was also a gray haired man in a rubber boat with a small motor on it. He was sitting up high trying to paddle it. He had no life jacket on and was having trouble paddling and starting the motor. He almost flipped the boat a couple of times as he was blown up the river away from shore.

Finally he was blown into a boat that was anchored. He was able to hold on and get his motor started. He attempted to go to his boat that was anchored but turned back as the wind was too much for his little motor.

At times like these I wonder why I care? Since they show so little care for themselves. The only thing I could have done for them was watch, call the authorities, and informed there next of kin were they went down.

I do believe what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

If there is any legislature passed it should apply to all that use the water in any means of conveyance with very little exception.

We also needs to bring in the other problems that we see.

Walter Mears

Impex Serenity

Sunburst / Ivory

[Brian Nystrom]

I agree that there is little reason to oppose mandatory PFD wear, in the abstract (although it's obviously against my Libertarian leanings). It won't affect me personally, since I always wear one and have no intention of changing that habit. However, the implementation of this law is blatantly unfair. If you look into the numbers, the ACA's recent study indicated that more canoeists die each year than kayakers (in gross number and percentages), yet they are being exempted from the new regulation. More people die in power and sailing boats, too. If the intent of the law is to save lives, it's the raw numbers of deaths that count and not the per capita percentages. Power and sail boats are all required by the Coast Guard to have PFD's aboard for every passenger. What's wrong with making them wear them? A reasonable exemption for craft above a certain length makes sense. I would think that somewhere in the 30' range might be a good starting place, since most "pleasure" and non commercial fishing craft fall into that category. Of course, it would be subject to input from the affected boaters.

As for Greenland practitioners with tuiliqs, I know several that wear inflatable PFD's with them. The proposed regulation needs to be ammended to include all Coast Guard approved PFD types, including inflatables (Type V). I can't see any valid reason for any excluding them.

Doing so should also make it easier to get other boaters to wear them, since they're not bulky or uncomfortable. The only downside is that they're more expensive than the typical junk most power boaters carry in order to comply with the CG requirements.

Safety is safety, boats are boats and a drowning is a drowning. If Massachusetts is going to require PFD use for kayakers, it should be required of all recreational boaters.

[djlewis]

The point about inflatable PFDs seems important -- anything CG approved for kayaking and otehr kinds of boating. Can whoever is lobbying on this be sure to bring that up.

Say, why don't we see more kayakers around here in inflatable PFDs? Can you hang knives, watches, radios, water bladders, etc on them? If so, what happens to the accessories when the PFD deploys?

--David.

[sings_evil_twin]

The Representative of Chinatown just became the new Speaker of the House. I work with his aide a lot on budget and legislative stuff. I personally have no problem with the mandated PFD but if the club wants take a stand, I'll arrange a meeting.

To me, legislation is always a compromise of competing interests -- sometimes in one's favor and sometimes not. I'd rather be in a place where you can work the system than be in a place with no system.

sing

[Brian Nystrom]

They're less popular for a number of reasons.

- They're more expensive than the cheaper models of foam vests.

- They have no pockets.

- They have to be manually deployed via pulling a self inflation tab or filling by mouth (backup method).

- They don't offer attachment points for gear.

The advantages are a low profile, ample ventilation and freedom of movement.

[Jill]

You can find out information on any bill before the Massachusetts legislature by going to http://www.mass.gov/legis. There is also helpful information on that site which describes the legislative process and a glossary of terms.

The current legislative history of the bill under discussion is at:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/history/h04456.htm.

Note, according to the legislature's web site, the whistle and compass requirements are still in there.

As to thoughts on the subject. Legislation enacted in response to a specific tragedy is often flawed because it is reactive rather than proactive. It would seem that this bill is designed for the ocean but doesn't limit its affect. So, if you are paddling any kayak on a hot August day on your dinky local pond or calm river, you'd need to wear a pfd. I find that requirement more oppressive than being forced to wear a pfd on the ocean -- something we all do or should be doing anyway.

In my experience most people who paddle canoes and kayaks do not know what the current law is (Sept. 15 - May 15 requirement for wearing a pfd and having it in the boat at all other times). If I'm not mistaken, the tragedy on the Cape last year took place during the time when pfds were required to be worn. Making the requirement more strict won't help unless paddlers know the law and follow it.

If they really want to save lives, they should require all those who rent paddlecraft to supply properly fitting pfds and require that they be worn at all times on the water. They should also require those who sell paddlecraft to provide a written statement as to the law on wearing pfds and about the dangers of paddling without one.

Jill

[bob budd]

>Yes, such a law "discriminates" against kayakers. But don't

>we already acknowledge that our sport is a good deal riskier

>than motor boating or sailing? Yes, maybe more people do

>die in those activities, but also a whole lot more people

>practice them (as we can observe on the water).

I don't agree with this assertion in any way. While sailing and kayaking I have seen practices by (evil) power boaters that make it unsafe for others as well as themselves. Consider for a second what the likelihood for injury is to a boater in a craft travelling at much higher speed without a PFD and unattached to said watercraft.

>Anyway, rather than get into a numbers game, I'll just ask

>if it makes sense to insist on parity from other water

>activities before proceeding to improve the safety of our

>own. If we ran everything that way, of course progress

>everywhere would pretty much grind to a halt. Let's take

>responsibility for our own sport, and try to make it as safe

>as we can while not destroying the enjoyment. If other

>sports don't want to, that's their problem. Maybe we can

>even be a beacon to them.

We have taken responsibility for our sport. That is what the club is all about. The substance of many objections to this legislation is that it fails to realistically address safety. Since most of us already carry/wear PFDs this law with do nothing for safety.

[JohnHuth]

Let me add:

inflatables require a decision to deploy them - in many cases, having that floatation available in a passive fashion is desirable (you whack your head).

Also - I find that the added buoyancy makes rolling easier in a foam vest (but I'm a wuss compared to y'all).

I know some places - outfitters and guides - who won't allow you to use an inflatable. Still, the CG rates them as type III's.

John