Visit our Popular Forums

daddle · 02-06-2011, 08:41

Yet another reason to sail away from the madness...

MichaelC · 02-06-2011, 08:42

I am asking here - is there a law about power vessel operators in the 10 - 15 foot range wearing PFDs?

**David M** · 02-06-2011, 09:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelC

I am asking here - is there a law about power vessel operators in the 10 - 15 foot range wearing PFDs?

Not under federal law. States have many varying laws mostly having to do with age, boat length and area of operation.

delmarrey · 02-06-2011, 09:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by David M

The Coasties used to be under the Department of Commerce for a number of good reasons. Making them a branch of the DOD was a mistake and illegal under the Posse Comitatus Act.

From Wikipedia: Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction, with the intention (in concert with the Insurrection Act of 1807) of substantially limiting the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement. The Act prohibits members of the Army and Air Force from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property

It's wrong for a branch of the military to have the power to able to tell civilian citizens what to do when there is no war on our soil. Civilians are supposed to be able to tell the military what to do through our elected representatives.

Isn't our waterways federal property?

scoobert · 02-06-2011, 09:48

i am going to court tonight for not wearing my seatbelt.
i love fascism.
i have no less then 15 outstand boat tickets i will never answer.
when they stop me on the water for a "safety check" i call them "fascist water pigs" they can always find something wrong. wasting our tax money farting about on jetskis and 400HP boats.

capn_billl · 02-06-2011, 10:56

It is an interesting dichotomy between wanting government assistance and not wanting rules. I personally fall right square in the middle of it. I think seat belt are a good thing, but don't want to be fined for my own good for not wearing one. Yet it does incure additional expense for society to pay someone to be on disability the rest of their life if they go through a windshield.

Tha same with boating it costs the coast guard more money to dredge to recover a body plus countless manhours searching, compared to getting a rope and picking up a live person in a life jacket.

If those costs could be assigned to those who incure the risk without effecting the rest of us, that would be great. Practically speaking though the ones least likely to wear protective gear are also the ones least likely to be able to pay the consequences.

Even though life jackets have been required to be aboard every regulated vessel for years, only a small percentage of people actually use them. Statistics show most of those who drowned weren't wearing one.

If the regulation read, life jacket required if not in inland waters, or if in a powered vessel of any size, that would fit common sense. As pointed out before a kayaker usually wears one, but a racing skiff does not. If I was kayaking in a 4 foot deep 1 acre lake, I wouldn't wear one either, but if I was clogging a busy shipping channel with my kayak, ....

David_Old_Jersey · 02-06-2011, 11:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by rtbates

Don't want any help and/or rules from the CG??? Start a campaign that lets anyone who wishes to opt out to sign a waiver stating that any and all CG rescue efforts will not be asked for...

I would do it the other way around - make it an opt in

.

At present it does all rather smack of Socialism on a grand scale. I appreciate that as the USCG is "fully funded" by the Chinese so that have to go along with their ideology (he who pays the piper etc) but nonetheless I think US citizens should at least be encouraged to stand on own 2 feet. Freedom is not as scary as it sounds

scoobert · 02-06-2011, 11:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by capn_billl

It is an interesting dichotomy between wanting government assistance and not wanting rules.

i would call sea tow. not uscg.
i would prefer no government at all.
who pays for the recovery of the fishers in the Alaska crab race?
should be them. i am sure we spend 100's of millions to back up their risky job.
why not make it illegal to fish in bad weather?

**boatman61** · 02-06-2011, 11:51

Always makes me smile when folks scream "COST".... what.. you think they only get paid and use fuel etc when on a rescue... don't make me laugh..
Same with the military... the only extra expenses is the munitions used with extravagence... the rest of the time they're steaming about playing war games around the world... still costing loads in wages, fuel and maintainance..

scoobert · 02-06-2011, 11:52

the difference? we need war. private industry can handle rescue.

svstarfish · 02-06-2011, 12:17

To be accurate, the USCG is under the Department of Homeland Security and they invoke DOD authorities apparently at will.

Alecadi · 02-06-2011, 12:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by doug86

Actually, that was the point of my indicating today's other CF thread. It is a case where the CG choose NOT to save a life.

In that case it was NOT the CG, it was the Fire dept and the city.

Lucky Larry · 02-06-2011, 13:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by doug86

interesting contrast of two thread today in CF. This thread, which so far members seem to think that the government is overstepping in an attempt to save lives...

and another one Water Rescue Failure - SF - Page 2 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums
where most posts seem to think the government didn't do enough.

I'm not taking sides, merely pointing out that there seems to be some schizophrenia in our country about the role of government in our lives.

This thread has a direct impact on the cruising community. I don't see the link to cruising if someone in SF decides to commit suicide.