New PFD law?

[Michael_Crouse]

http://www.malegislature.gov/bills/187/house/h00646

It's for all boaters who you use smaller boats.

I just heard about it.

[Phil Allen]

"SECTION 1. Section 5A of Chapter 90B of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2008 Official Edition, is hereby amended, by inserting at the end thereof, the following sentence:-

Any person on a vessel, under twenty feet in length, that requires a life saving device is required to wear said device at all times during the operation of said vessel."

Kind of keen sense of the obvious, but let's see who complains. Gotta believe the small power-boaters are gonna be pissed when they're cited.

Phil

[Michael_Crouse]

damn I wish I could edit my grammar, my mother would be ashamed if she saw this!

Power boaters, canoeists, etc... will be angry, funny that tandems would be exempt!

[bob budd]

I don't see that a (kayak) racer with an (flaccid) PFD would be in violation of this ordinance. Most recreational kayakers have so much stuff in their PFDs that they would rather have them on anyway.

[tyson]

... funny that tandems would be exempt!

Our tandem is 23'. Some solo racers and surf skis exceed 20'.

[rick stoehrer]

Our tandem is 23'. Some solo racers and surf skis exceed 20'.

sheesh...the older i get, the less i like any legislation that serves to protect us from ourselves.

the open disdain for legislators discussing topics where they don't have the least bit of experience or idea, don't seek to educate themselves and then write bills and legislation is relatively new as well.

[eneumeier]

I doubt this pfd bill will get anywhere. My state rep office said all calls are against. See this Cape Cod Times coverage of the hearing:

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110406/NEWS/104060326/-1/rss02

Liz

[Gcosloy]

I think it important that any legislation aimed at making us safer in our watery environment not conflict seriously with societies goal of awarding the annual Darwin prizes for stupid humans. If the PFD law passes we're on the proverbial slippery slope; what's next drysuits being made mandatory for Winter boating? I can see the headlines now "Four kayakers arrested in Gloucester, their kayaks confiscated by the Coast Guard". Their offense? Observed launching at Lanes Cove without conducting the mandatory "beach briefing"! The ACLU is considering entering a brief in the case. Local kayakers are confused: If I go solo do I still need to have a beach briefing?

[rick stoehrer]

I doubt this pfd bill will get anywhere. My state rep office said all calls are against. See this Cape Cod Times coverage of the hearing:

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110406/NEWS/104060326/-1/rss02

Liz

HURRAH FOR Anne Gobi/D - Spencer who said "At some point, enough is enough, and we allow adults to make some decisions."

[tyson]

[...] If I go solo do I still need to have a beach briefing?

HURRAH FOR Anne Gobi/D - Spencer who said "At some point, enough is enough, and we allow adults to make some decisions."

[bazzert]

A bill that would allow municipalities to set restrictions for powered personal watercraft on bodies of water smaller than 750 acres in their jurisdiction dominated the hearing.

Can't say I'd have much problem with this part of the legislation.

[Rob Hazard]

If you consider that the law would also require all the weekend fishermen in their 17' Boston Whalers to wear PFDs, it's obvious that this bill's chance of passage is mighty slim.

[tyson]

Can't say I'd have much problem with this part of the legislation.

I'd suggest being very careful about that. It would be very easy to convince the Joe/Jane Public that kayaking has a higher death rate and that kayaks are what should be more heavily regulated. When you try to take an other man's sport, he's likely to try an take yours. More broadly, if you believe in freedom, you have to support the freedom of others, not just yourself. The place of policy is to maintain opportunity. As kayakers, we may work to have a place that we can safely kayak without getting run over. ...but we still need to have places for the power boats to play also.

In NH, they have set a maximum speed of 45(?) mph got all boats. NH has no larger lake that is more appropriate for the use of high speed boats. I don't have one and don't want one, but others do. It may be appropriate to restrict speeds on some areas of the lake, but it is draconian to restrict the entirety of the states largest lake.

If you want support for your freedom, you need to support the freedom of others.

LINK REMOVE BY MODERATOR

[Doug]

I'd suggest being very careful about that. It would be very easy to convince the Joe/Jane Public that kayaking has a higher death rate and that kayaks are what should be more heavily regulated. When you try to take an other man's sport, he's likely to try an take yours. More broadly, if you believe in freedom, you have to support the freedom of others, not just yourself. The place of policy is to maintain opportunity. As kayakers, we may work to have a place that we can safely kayak without getting run over. ...but we still need to have places for the power boats to play also.

In NH, they have set a maximum speed of 45(?) mph got all boats. NH has no larger lake that is more appropriate for the use of high speed boats. I don't have one and don't want one, but others do. It may be appropriate to restrict speeds on some areas of the lake, but it is draconian to restrict the entirety of the states largest lake.

If you want support for your freedom, you need to support the freedom of others.

LINK REMOVE BY MODERATOR

Tyson, I watched your attached clip (above) then went on a tangent.

This really is a bit over the top as a political message relating to boating but I felt it was a good take off of where you were going about peoples rights.

LINK REMOVE BY MODERATOR

[tyson]

Tyson, I watched your attached clip (above) then went on a tangent.

This really is a bit over the top as a political message relating to boating but I felt it was a good take off of where you were going about peoples rights.

I agree that the link/videos are a bit over the top for this forum, but I hope that my text was appropriate. We need to lobby to ensure that kayakers have the freedom and opportunity to enjoy our sport. ...but in doing so we should not try to eliminate someone else's sport. On the next round, we may be the some else.

Cheers!

Ty

[bazzert]

I'd suggest being very careful about that. It would be very easy to convince the Joe/Jane Public that kayaking has a higher death rate and that kayaks are what should be more heavily regulated. When you try to take an other man's sport, he's likely to try an take yours. More broadly, if you believe in freedom, you have to support the freedom of others, not just yourself. The place of policy is to maintain opportunity. As kayakers, we may work to have a place that we can safely kayak without getting run over. ...but we still need to have places for the power boats to play also.

The difference is that the freedoms enjoyed by kayakers do not impinge on the freedom (freedom from noise, visual and atmospheric pollution) of others ... and even if they had a higher/accident rate I dont know of any case where a kayaker has caused the death of somebody else.

Barry.

[tyson]

The difference is that the freedoms enjoyed by kayakers do not impinge on the freedom (freedom from noise, visual and atmospheric pollution) of others ... and even if they had a higher/accident rate I dont know of any case where a kayaker has caused the death of somebody else.

Barry.

Oh, but kayakers do impinge on others freedoms. It impinges on their freedom to "open it up" and feel the wind in their hair. Kayakers may not cause deaths of others, but they do cause their own deaths and we must protect them from that! They also cause expensive rescue missions and accidents when they get in the way of a power boaters that can't see them! That is why many people don't like kayakers and do everything they can to restrict their freedoms.

Please note that I am playing devils advocate here. The point isn't about kayaks vs. power boats. It is about reasonable balance of freedoms and respecting others freedoms instead of all out war. There is more of them than there is of us and the "winner" won't be determined by reason and logic. Government doesn't work that way.

Cheers!

Ty

[bazzert]

Oh, but kayakers do impinge on others freedoms. It impinges on their freedom to "open it up" and feel the wind in their hair. Kayakers may not cause deaths of others, but they do cause their own deaths and we must protect them from that! They also cause expensive rescue missions and accidents when they get in the way of a power boaters that can't see them! That is why many people don't like kayakers and do everything they can to restrict their freedoms.

Please note that I am playing devils advocate here. The point isn't about kayaks vs. power boats. It is about reasonable balance of freedoms and respecting others freedoms instead of all out war. There is more of them than there is of us and the "winner" won't be determined by reason and logic. Government doesn't work that way.

Cheers!

Ty

Your definition of freedom is starting to look a lot like self indulgence. If you want to "open it up" then go somewhere where you can do so in open water, safely and without disturbing people. Freedom has a context and a set of responsibilities; in a civil society you wouldnt have to legislate for it, it would be called respect for your fellow citizens. I have no problem with jet skier's per se, but its not an activity you can indulge in on a small lake without impacting a lot of people. Also I think there is a huge difference between a passive impact and an active impact ie. the difference between the impact caused simply by being there and say projecting 80+ dba two cycle engine noise.

However, I agree that we shouldnt be in the business of protecting people from themselves.

Barry.

[rick stoehrer]

Your definition of freedom is starting to look a lot like self indulgence. If you want to "open it up" then go somewhere where you can do so in open water, safely and without disturbing people. Freedom has a context and a set of responsibilities; in a civil society you wouldnt have to legislate for it, it would be called respect for your fellow citizens. I have no problem with jet skier's per se, but its not an activity you can indulge in on a small lake without impacting a lot of people. Also I think there is a huge difference between a passive impact and an active impact ie. the difference between the impact caused simply by being there and say projecting 80+ dba two cycle engine noise.

However, I agree that we shouldnt be in the business of protecting people from themselves.

Barry.

if you go out and play in water that's rough or stormy (you know, fun) you too are self indulgent.

in doing so, you're increasing the risk on the harbor master, marine patrol, coast guard or other emergency service personnel that may be tasked to come save your bacon should you overestimate your skills and underestimate the water. isn't that more self indulgent than someone merely making noise on a scooter? can you see where some good meaning folks might want to call that "stupid" and "actively impacting" emergency personnel and want to make it illegal?

fine lines.

[bazzert]

if you go out and play in water that's rough or stormy (you know, fun) you too are self indulgent.

in doing so, you're increasing the risk on the harbor master, marine patrol, coast guard or other emergency service personnel that may be tasked to come save your bacon should you overestimate your skills and underestimate the water. isn't that more self indulgent than someone merely making noise on a scooter? can you see where some good meaning folks might want to call that "stupid" and "actively impacting" emergency personnel and want to make it illegal?

fine lines.

yeah, I hear you Rick. But I still think there is a difference between where the normal and expected outcome of your activity (in a given context) will specifically and actively impact others (noise, pollution, danger) and where there is an exceptional or possible impact on people who are trained (and dare I say it ... paid) to rescue numbskulls like you :-)

Barry.

[tyson]

Also I think there is a huge difference between a passive impact and an active impact ...

As do I, however:

There is more of them than there is of us and the "winner" won't be determined by reason and logic. Government doesn't work that way.

Also, many people _LIKE_ that noise. They like that smell too. That is a large part of what draws people to NASCAR races. If NASCAR were to switch to electric vehicles that were higher performance than the dinosaurs they drive now but lacked the noise and smell of "performance", the franchise would die. This is readily acknowledged by Formula 1 also.

I see a similar battle between snowmobilers and backcountry skiers. The skiers (I'm one of them) hate the noise and smell. Additionally the snowmobiles ruin the snow. The snowmobilers love the noise and smell. ...and they are well organized. Fortunately, there are trails where they are allowed (good for them) and trails where they are not (good for me).

My point? What is good, what is bad, what should be banned is a subjective opinion. Encouraging us vs. them instead of figuring out how they can have some space and we can have some space will be a loosing battle because we live in a land of tyranny of the majority.

...its not about logic or reason.

Cheers!

Ty ...who thinks this conversation would be much more fun face to face w/beer or wine.

[rick stoehrer]

...who thinks this conversation would be much more fun face to face w/beer or wine.

"wine does more than milton can to justify god's way to man"

if it's heady enough for theological discourse, maybe it'd even bring kayakers and jet skiers together.

[tyson]

"wine does more than milton can to justify god's way to man"

if it's heady enough for theological discourse, maybe it'd even bring kayakers and jet skiers together.

Kayakers and jet skiers?! WOw! Now that is ambitious! I was thinking only of bringing this group of kayakers together.

(I almost posted with a type-O that spelled 'bringing' as 'brining'. Appropriate?)

[scamlin]

One of the criticisms of past kayak legislation is that it illogically singled out kayakers, despite the fact that canoeists have at least as high a death rate, and the fact that small power boaters in aggregate have many, many more accidents and deaths. Also, the difficulty of trying to define a kayak.

At least this legislation covers all boaters, so we can focus on the freedom vs. safety tradeoffs, not the discrimination toward kayakers.

Also, for once, the kayak community is not the only one speaking up.

Scott