Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 17-06-2011, 16:53   #166
֍֎֍֎֍֎֍֎֍֎

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 13,042
Re: USCG Considers Mandatory PFD Use !

No doug, my response was to what you posted, not to the larger body of USCG works. If the summary was a misleading summary...that's still a problem, most folks read the first and maybe last page and skip the middle anyway. Heck, that's how Congress reads and signs those thousand-page omnibus budget bills too.

I don't think I'd be interested in serving on an advisory committee even if some misguided soul nominated me to it. I have this problem, I think that fools should be allowed to suffere consequences and that the rest of us should not surrender our freedoms in the name of protecting the folks who don't know or care, i.e. those who think they have to be macho and wouldn't be caught dead wearing a life jacket.

Appoint me "Military Governor" though, and I'll gladly require that every boater sign off "A or B" saying "A-Leave me alone, and don't come if I call" or "B-I'll follow reasonable safety regulations, please do respond if I call you". Those who refuse to sign & file their choice, will receive a full bill for the rescue services. Or, the recovery services.

Sharks gotta eat, and the SAR teams have a right to debate the concepts of tolerating fools versus getting all cold and wet for them.

I fully endorse (was it Heinlein or Clarke?) the concept that a society should be judged by the way it cares for those who cannot care for themselves, i.e. infants, madmen, elderly and infirm. But I also think there have to be limits, there's only so much help to go around and if people don't want it...you don't force it on them.

Boracay-
"if they were to fall in the water and raise their arms, that they fell through and out of the life jacket."
Q: What do you call any life jacket that doesn't have a crotch strap?
A: A grave marker.

Sorry, I was lucky enough to learn that one a long time ago. If there's no crotch strap the only way a life jacket works is if it is built airline style. You know, like the ones under every overwater airline seat, which fit so tightly around the neck that you'll be garrotted before you can possibly drown? (Ever notice, the cabin crews ALWAYS slit the neck open on the ones they use for demos? Ahuh.)

Why the USCG approves PFDs that don't have crotch straps on them, now THAT'S a good Homer Simpson Question. "D'OH!"
__________________

__________________
hellosailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2011, 07:17   #167
Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Annapolis, MD
Boat: Sabre 34-1
Posts: 153
Re: USCG Considers Mandatory PFD Use !

Quote:
Originally Posted by doug86 View Post
Well, I'm glad that at least your guyz have examined the report. I have to agree that it's a bunch of data that leads to very little conclusions.



Without passing a personal judgement either way, I believe the USCG uses this exact data to make their policy recommendations, which makes this report very much related to the subject of this thread. Yes, their conclusions may be completely wrong, but at least we can see the data that they are basing their conclusions on. So in that sense I think this is on point.
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I agree that this is likely the data that USCG uses, and so yes, it is perfectly appropriate (and quite illuminating) to bring in the fray. My point was not that it didn't apply to our discussion, but rather that it provided no useful supporting data for the proposed rules.

I wouldn't say that their conclusions are wrong, any more than I would say they are right. I would say that this data provides no useful information at all to MAKE a conclusion!

Harry
__________________

__________________
sailingharry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-06-2011, 17:55   #168
Senior Cruiser
 
Therapy's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: W Florida
Boat: The Jon boat still, plus a 2007 SeaCat.
Posts: 6,894
Images: 4
Re: USCG Considers Mandatory PFD Use !

hellosailor and sailingharry.

You say it much better than I do.

I note the stats are "what they are" but cannot explain them as well as you do.

Thanks.

PS. I note that life jackets just do not do what one might think they do.
__________________
Who knows what is next.
Therapy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 07:24   #169
Registered User

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Rockford, IL, USA
Boat: Chrysler 26
Posts: 12
Re: USCG Considers Mandatory PFD Use !

Mandatory PFD wear is no different than mandatory seatbelt wear. We should each have the right to determine our own risk level. The non-wearers are not endangering anyone but themselves and so should be free to do so.

Perhaps we should stop trying to interfere with Darwinism.
__________________
svCopacetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 09:45   #170
֍֎֍֎֍֎֍֎֍֎

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 13,042
Re: USCG Considers Mandatory PFD Use !

"The non-wearers are not endangering anyone but themselves "
Nice theory for an empty planet, but in this world most nations have social welfare programs. As a result the non-wearers endanger all of the responders when there is an accident.

SAR responders, body recovery teams, dive teams, ambulance and fire-rescue teams. Whether it is a driver ejected from a car, or a MOB on a boat, the event does not happen in a vaccuum. And while I agree with you that wearing either should not be mandatory, someone has to rationalize that with the costs to everyone else, and the dangers to anyone else, when an incident occurs.

You don't want to wear a seat belt, I say that's fine. But I get to send a bill to your estate, for scraping your pieces off the side of the highway when you are ejected from your car. Oh, and your insurer gets to add a line in the policy that says "We don't pay out unless you were belted" or, they can add a surcharge for "we'll pay even if you weren't belted".

You don't want to wear a PFD at night in a storm at sea? I get to send your estate the bill for the SAR response. The whole thing, all six or seven figures of it.

Freedom, yes. With responsibility.
__________________
hellosailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 10:05   #171
Registered User

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Rockford, IL, USA
Boat: Chrysler 26
Posts: 12
Re: USCG Considers Mandatory PFD Use !

HelloSailor,
I agree, but... PFD or no, you decided to take the risks of being out there. Shouldn't that carry the same responsibility? Or should the government decide when (or if) sailing is safe enough for you? They could simply outlaw recreational boating, think of the lives and dollars saved!

As for billing the estate, you're assuming the estate has some ability to pay.

IMHO, it's perfectly alright for an insurance company to make stipulations because they are a private company, and you can choose to use them or not. Laws, however, bind us all.
__________________
svCopacetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 10:16   #172
֍֎֍֎֍֎֍֎֍֎

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 13,042
Re: USCG Considers Mandatory PFD Use !

"They could simply outlaw recreational boating,"
Along with recreational and general civilian use of air travel and automobiles. There's no need for people to fly, granpa can retire down the block. And no need to drive, highly paid professional cabbies should do that.
Shhh! Don't let Michele Bachmann hear you! There's an election coming up.

Bachmann vs. Palin...wouldn't that be a wonder. Talk about the consequences of freedom, huh?
__________________
hellosailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 18:18   #173
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 107
Re: USCG Considers Mandatory PFD Use !

Quote:
Originally Posted by hellosailor View Post
"The non-wearers are not endangering anyone but themselves "
Nice theory for an empty planet, but in this world most nations have social welfare programs. As a result the non-wearers endanger all of the responders when there is an accident.

SAR responders, body recovery teams, dive teams, ambulance and fire-rescue teams. Whether it is a driver ejected from a car, or a MOB on a boat, the event does not happen in a vaccuum. And while I agree with you that wearing either should not be mandatory, someone has to rationalize that with the costs to everyone else, and the dangers to anyone else, when an incident occurs.

You don't want to wear a seat belt, I say that's fine. But I get to send a bill to your estate, for scraping your pieces off the side of the highway when you are ejected from your car. Oh, and your insurer gets to add a line in the policy that says "We don't pay out unless you were belted" or, they can add a surcharge for "we'll pay even if you weren't belted".

You don't want to wear a PFD at night in a storm at sea? I get to send your estate the bill for the SAR response. The whole thing, all six or seven figures of it.

Freedom, yes. With responsibility.
2 Points

1.SAR responders, body recovery teams, dive teams, ambulance and fire-rescue teams, coast guard etc...That is what they are paid, with my tax dollars, to do. Not a reason to infringe on my rights.

2. Funerals are cheap, relatively.

Support Darwin, let the stupid die. It will be much cheaper in the end.
__________________
Morgan3820 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 18:26   #174
Registered User
 
avb3's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Florida/Alberta
Boat: Lippincott 30
Posts: 9,913
Images: 1
Re: USCG Considers Mandatory PFD Use !

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgan3820 View Post
2 Points

1.SAR responders, body recovery teams, dive teams, ambulance and fire-rescue teams, coast guard etc...That is what they are paid, with my tax dollars, to do. Not a reason to infringe on my rights.
So you are entitled to your entitlements?

No wonder the U.S has a debt/deficit problem. Europeans too. Fortunately Canadian governments smartened up 15 years ago. People here realized it could not go on forever. Unfortunately too many people in the states just plain like their entitlements too much, both Dem and Rep.

[political rant turned off now]

Every time a SAR team goes out, there are incremental costs... fuel, wear and tear, and probably overtime. YOU may have caused that or added to it, why should YOU not pay for the incremental costs.
__________________
If your attitude resembles the south end of a bull heading north, it's time to turn around.
avb3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 19:01   #175
Registered User
 
sabray's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wash DC
Boat: PETERSON 44
Posts: 3,169
I'm thinking revenue source. I have just started work on a lifejacket cam. It will cross match you with facebook skype and other media things and send you a ticket if your not buckled in whoops wearing a life jacket. Where the he'll is the seat belt on thus boat. Adding to the do list make seat belt.
__________________
sabray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2011, 05:12   #176
Armchair Bucketeer
 
David_Old_Jersey's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,013
Images: 4
Re: USCG Considers Mandatory PFD Use !

Quote:
Originally Posted by avb3 View Post
Every time a SAR team goes out, there are incremental costs... fuel, wear and tear, and probably overtime. YOU may have caused that or added to it, why should YOU not pay for the incremental costs.
Easy answer to that. Don't go out. Well, at least not on the Govt's dime
__________________
David_Old_Jersey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2011, 07:09   #177
Registered User

Join Date: May 2009
Location: Rockford, IL, USA
Boat: Chrysler 26
Posts: 12
Re: USCG Considers Mandatory PFD Use

My sarcasm may not have translated well to print. We really need a sarcasm font.

David said it very succinctly.
__________________
svCopacetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2011, 07:24   #178
Moderator Emeritus
 
Pblais's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Hayes, VA
Boat: Gozzard 36
Posts: 8,700
Images: 15
Send a message via Skype™ to Pblais
Re: USCG Considers Mandatory PFD Use

Quote:
Easy answer to that. Don't go out. Well, at least not on the Govt's dime
The hard part is you can't pay and go out anyway. This exposes a great risk that something will happen and you won't be able to pay. If the government is willing to let you go out and not rescue you unless you can pay the better route would be to not let you go out in the first unless you can pay. It protects the government from the unnecessary death of a tax payer. They lose the money it costs plus all the money you would have paid. The government needs the money more than you need your freedom. If the government won't care about your life why do they have to care about your freedom? You really need the first to have hope for the second.

Your dead body and scuttled boat become a burden that still costs money and they still lose all the tax money you would have paid. Saying you would go off and not be able to pay are a disconnection. A system where everybody pays avoids far too many problems enforcing risk management. Picking and choosing requisitions like wearing a PFD is more benign than the alternative. You don't have to like it either. Whining about wearing a PDF and not being afraid to not be rescued are a disconnect too.Wear it or not you'll still get rescued.
__________________
Paul Blais
s/v Bright Eyes Gozzard 36
37 15.7 N 76 28.9 W
Pblais is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2011, 08:21   #179
Registered User
 
avb3's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Florida/Alberta
Boat: Lippincott 30
Posts: 9,913
Images: 1
Re: USCG Considers Mandatory PFD Use

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pblais View Post
......A system where everybody pays avoids far too many problems enforcing risk management. Picking and choosing requisitions like wearing a PFD is more benign than the alternative. You don't have to like it either. Whining about wearing a PDF and not being afraid to not be rescued are a disconnect too.Wear it or not you'll still get rescued.
Your correct, as the mandate of the USCG is to provide that service.

The only point I was trying to make was that the same people who talk about their "freedom" being infringed by not wearing PFD's will be the first ones to whine the the "government didn't respond fast enough" in an emergency.

In reality, of course the USCG will and should respond.

But where is the personal responsibility to minimize a situation? If your out on deck in a Force 7 without a PFD or harness, are you being responsible?

Should your choices cause incremental expenditures to the collective?

I'm suggesting that there is a threshold where you become responsible for preventable incidents.
__________________
If your attitude resembles the south end of a bull heading north, it's time to turn around.
avb3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-07-2011, 09:16   #180
Registered User
 
capn_billl's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Houston,Tx
Boat: Maxum 37'
Posts: 1,587
Re: USCG Considers Mandatory PFD Use !

Quote:
Originally Posted by hellosailor View Post
Oh, and your insurer gets to add a line in the policy that says "We don't pay out unless you were belted" or, they can add a surcharge for "we'll pay even if you weren't belted".
Interesting that it has always been perfectly legal for insurance companies to do exactly that, ...yet they chose the path of lobbying congress to pass the seat belt law?
__________________

__________________
capn_billl is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
pfd

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:20.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.