Do you think recreational boats should be licensed?

[first wind]

Originally Posted by rwidman

Somehow you got this from my post: "it's amazing that people who love big government and are for more government control .................... "

I never said that.

no. you didn't directly say you love big government or more government control. you argued in favor of bigger government and more government control; which would lead a person to think that you are in favor of those things.

furthermore, you scoffed at, and insulted, anyone who stated that they were concerned with their constitutional rights or worried about overreaching government. that's generally a sign of someone in favor of big government and more government control.

people are bound to draw conclusions about your position from what you say. for most people; if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

[ob44]

CT requires a "safe boating certificate." I have an unlimited 2d Mate license and a 2500 Freight and Towing, Oceans, license but took the course anyway. For my money, it was long on how to trailer, protect the eel grass, etc. and short on navigational skills and, most importantly, Rules of the Road. I certainly would not suggest requiring an exhaustive exam, but too many people are clueless on basic rules concerning right of way; crossing and meeting situations in particular. Licensing, per se, will not prevent accidents, but it would help reduce collisions and keep boaters safer.

[leftbrainstuff]

In a word YES. Once the dickhead ratio gets above 1 unit anywhere the rest of us have to suffer an inconvenience or worse.

Anything worth doing is worth doing well. Sailing is one of those things worth doing well.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[nautical62]

I've owned and done expedition trips in canoes, kayaks and cruising sailboats. The risk canoes or kayaks pose to to the environment or other persons is quite small compared to cruising sailboats or trawlers.

As I recall about half of all recreational boating accidents involve motorized PWCs.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by first wind

there are 'dry' towns where the sale of alcohol, a legal product, is prohibited. since the majority of the country allows the sale of alcohol and hasn't become a desolate graveyard because of it, i don't think you could say the law is there to protect anyone. like a number of other laws, this one is just enforcing one person's morality on another.

now, if you were to say that, in America, laws were originally intended to protect one person from another, i'd say you were right. but, it hasn't been that way for a very long time.

In fact such "dry" laws create more risk and thus contribute to accidents and injuries by forcing inhabitants of such dry towns to drive further than they normally would to engage in what should otherwise be a perfectly legal activity.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by first wind

no. you didn't directly say you love big government or more government control. you argued in favor of bigger government and more government control; which would lead a person to think that you are in favor of those things.

furthermore, you scoffed at, and insulted, anyone who stated that they were concerned with their constitutional rights or worried about overreaching government. that's generally a sign of someone in favor of big government and more government control.
...

This kind of discussions show always how people are intolerant regarding other opinions as if their own opinion marked the boundaries of what is right or wrong.

For instance if someone sees as a positive thing control government on a given area that does not make that person arguing for a big government but for an adequate government.

You talk like if more governmental control was a bad thing and that makes less governmental control a good thing. that does not make sense.

There is a need of government control. That's why there is a government, living on anarchy just doesn't work. What are the things that should be regulated and how they should be regulated does not make for a bigger government. One can find that recreational boating should be more regulated and that other things, like sex toys or other subjects, don't need regulation.

On this case it is just a matter of opinion regarding the advantages and disadvantages of having boat licences. It seems the insurance companies see the advantage regarding safety since they offer better premiums to the ones that have licences.

[rwidman]

Simple common sense would tell us that we would all be safer on the water if other boaters have been educated in the rules of the road and other safety issues.

Governments already license automobile drivers, commercial truckers, motorcyclists, and airplane pilots. The water is about the only place you can buy or rent a 300 HP object, capable of injuring or killing several people without one ounce of proof of the capability of operating it or knowledge of the laws covering the operation of it. There's a marina in my town that rents power boats "No boating experience needed." I have been around these boats.

It is not about taking away anyone's constitutional rights or personal freedom, it is not about "big government" and it is not about creating a revenue stream for the government. It is about safety. Your safety and more importantly, my safety.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by Polux

On this case it is just a matter of opinion regarding the advantages and disadvantages of having boat licences. It seems the insurance companies see the advantage regarding safety since they offer better premiums to the ones that have licences.

But that's the thing. If you're equating insurance industry's interests with those of general boating public than sure. But I don't believe they can or should be equated. The times of "what's good for GM is good for America" had long passed. And sadly mostly because of globalization mentality of the corporations not due to anything on the public's part. Besides, if you dig a little deeper you'll find that 99% of the insurance industry players are really foreign registered corps utilizing insurance and tax friendly jurisdictions. That tells us a lot where their loyalties and goals are.

[barnakiel]

Now having read a few more posts I think the reading comprehension courses these should definitely end with a very strict exam and a license (or none, for the dummies). Otherwise, how do we know who understands and who only nods their head?

In fact, the same rule applies to sailing courses.

b.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by rwidman

It is not about taking away anyone's constitutional rights or personal freedom, it is not about "big government" and it is not about creating a revenue stream for the government. It is about safety. Your safety and more importantly, my safety.

I disagree. It is about taking even more constitutional right away. And if you're so concerned for your safety on the water yo have many choices. One is to boat in the jurisdiction which already requires such licensing. Another is not to boat if the presence of unlicensed boaters makes you so concenred. Still another is to sue the bejesus out of anyone who damaged your property or injured you due to their lack of training. If you fear to engage in any activity for any reason you have the perfect right not to engage in such a feared activity. But your fears, wheather real or imagined, give you absolutely no right to trample upon the rights of others engaging in that activity.

[Polux]

Originally Posted by Island Time O25

But that's the thing. If you're equating insurance industry's interests with those of general boating public than sure. But I don't believe they can or should be equated. The times of "what's good for GM is good for America" had long passed. And sadly mostly because of globalization mentality of the corporations not due to anything on the public's part. Besides, if you dig a little deeper you'll find that 99% of the insurance industry players are really foreign registered corps utilizing insurance and tax friendly jurisdictions. That tells us a lot where their loyalties and goals are.

Their goal is make money and they are good at that.

Making money on the insurance business has to do with a correct reading of the risks involved. If they charge less for a policy if the owner has a boat licence that means only that the risks for them are smaller.

Less risks means more safety (for all) while operating a boat.

[Island Time O25]

Originally Posted by Polux

Their goal is make money and they are good at that.

Making money on the insurance business has to do with a correct reading of the risks involved. If they charge less for a policy if the owner has a boat licence that means only that the risks for them are smaller.

Less risks means more safety while operating a boat.

I understand that perfectly well. But when we ARTIFICIALLY make them indispensible, such as we made them for car ownership in most states, that upsets a natural economic equilibrium and makes their now indispensible service or product much more expensive, assuring them much heftier profits (and much higher costs to us) than they otherwise would make.

I would not mind a mandatory type of insurance scheme for anything, be it a boat, a car or medicine, if, and only if, we can be guaranteed a truly non profit nature of the scheme. Until then I believe no insurance should be mandatory. Just as eating healthy should not be.

[capeharj]

Most states already require new boaters to pass a boaters safety course and to retain the certificate. As with drivers licenses, that's no guarantee the operator will perform with any competency. I've been doing the great loop this winter and the most obnoxious operators were those in the 40 + foot category. They have money, size and probably a captains license, but that doesn't help. Or, maybe that is just Floridians on the ICW. At any rate, all licensing would be is another boon for states to get additional dollars to spend on stupid stuff.

[psneeld]

If the certification courses were taught by all competent individuals and tailored to the individual....I might say common sense would tell us something....

But random, standardized education, teaching a complex subject in 8 hrs or less is going to have little effect in my mind. Especially when topic like trailering, administrative issues of boating, environmental issues and a host of other topics with really with nothing to do with safer boat handling are included. They are included to the point where rules of the road is a 15 minute discussion wit little time for questions and answers.

Common sense would tell us???? Heck there not even many factual statements presented in this thread, let alone any common sense determining how we all should think.

[first wind]

Originally Posted by Polux

This kind of discussions show always how people are intolerant regarding other opinions as if their own opinion marked the boundaries of what is right or wrong.

For instance if someone sees as a positive thing control government on a given area that does not make that person arguing for a big government but for an adequate government.

You talk like if more governmental control was a bad thing and that makes less governmental control a good thing. that does not make sense.

There is a need of government control. That's why there is a government, living on anarchy just doesn't work. What are the things that should be regulated and how they should be regulated does not make for a bigger government.

as this is America; a country that is supposed to be all about the constitution, limited government, and individual liberty; i make my judgements based on what the government was intended to be. all levels of government have long ago passed the size and control over the individual intended by the founding fathers, especially the federal government which was intended to be small and very limited.

each new bit of government control is just a step farther away from what America was all about. so, yes, i do say that more government is bad and less is good. the founding fathers are probably spinning in their graves so fast that the effect on the earth's gravitational field is causing the global warming we are supposed to be experiencing.

along with freedom comes personal responsibility. along with freedom also comes risk. you can only eliminate personal responsibility and risk by eliminating freedom. and it's proportional. the more risk and responsibility you eliminate, the more freedom you lose. assume responsibility and take risk and you get freedom.

and regulation does make for a bigger government. how do you think government handles the act of regulating? by creating new departments and staffing those departments. if you create government mandated licensing, you create something like the mva or you expand an existing government department. it will be necessary to have additional staff to handle the applicants, review documentation, handle people trying to get their licenses back after a suspension. there will have to be policy makers. more enforcement. curriculum will need to be created. of course, like the mva, there will be literature and advertisements. all of this takes more and more people and more and more money. in other words: bigger government. everytime you assign a new duty or power on government, it grows.

and all of that creates red tape. just like with the mva (dmv in some states) and police, there will be no interdivisional communication. although everything is computerized, you will have to run from one place to another to get this form from these people to take it to these people; just as you now do with the mva.

plus, there is the give them an inch and they will take a mile factor. originally, the only thing government did regarding cars was a license and test, tax with tags, and enforce actual safety laws.

now, for an example, they force you to wear seatbelts and helmets. they determine lots of the things about your car's or motorcycle's equipment; much of it arbitrary (like whether a motorcycle has a front fender or not). they use speed cameras to generate revenue (cameras which are often the subject of dubious accuracy and violate a citizen's right to face their accuser in a court of law). interestingly enough, if you need to take care of an issue, the mva can not communicate with the police. if you owe for a speed camera violation, they amazingly enough can communicate that. and, of course, they watch us on cameras at nearly every intersection. compared to it's start, the mva has become huge, expensive for drivers, and a complete headache to deal with.

so, you want to do mandatory government licensing. after creating the infrastructure to do that, and socking the bill to mr and mrs taxpayer, the whole thing will creep into more and more regulation.

so, yeah. i'd say more government is a bad thing.