Mandating Adult Life Jacket Wear

[Piglet]

...just ban boating all together...

That would save all the insurance costs and search and rescue costs.


Seafood you say? We can all just live on farm-raised catfish....right?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by READY2GO

FrankZ, You have got to be kidding me. How much time do you spend on your boat?
I think everyone who lives in a house ought to be made to wear a hard hat and steel toed boots.

ROTFLMBO............. AHHhhhhh... Its good to be back guys...

[READY2GO]

Seriously, If you spend a couple of hours every other weekend on your boat and you want to wear a pfd, great! But some of us live on our boat. Don't try to make a law that fits you fit everyone else. Don't kid yourself that "it's only for smaller than 18' " it is the thin edge of the wedge. Our government has zero common sense and zero restraint.

A lot more people die in house fires every year than drown from boating accidents, but I don't see a call for a law to make you wear a fire retardant garment while in your home.

[Target9000]

What really worries me is that the regulations and proposed laws will extend far beyond wearing a life jacket while on a boat. Its gotten to where they're going to tell us where we can or can't swim with one on.

"All persons must wear a Type I, II, or III US Coast Guard-approved life jacket at all times while swimming outside of designated swimming areas. (Waivers may be issued by Park Managers to exempt participants of special events, such as triathlons, from this requirement while participating in the event.)"

See:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -- Vicksburg District


How and why do they get to pick the "swimming" areas? And if someone dies in a "swimming" area I can see the law suits that will result in state or federal mandated life guards at swimming areas. And if they're off duty no swimming at all. I know its the old slippery slope argument.

This all goes back to what I like to call the "Safety Epidemic". Everyone is falling all over themselves to save everyone else and the biggest casualty is going to be personal responsibility.

[CaptFrankM]

Actually, Target9000, this seems like a very rational thing. According to the site you lined, this is a three year study to determine if "mandatory" PFD usage in a small collection of specific lakes results in a significant decrease in the loss of life. From my point of view, that is the first legitimate answer to my question that I have seen.

What would be important, of course, would be for people to monitor the results of that study and make sure the results get reported - either way. If they discover that there is a "significant" savings, that would seem to bolster the "mandatory PFD" argument. If, on the other hand, they find that even after making the wearing of PFDs "mandatory" - either because it doesn't really make a difference or because making it "mandatory" doesn't matter, then it would bolster the "voluntary PFD" argument.

On a related note, I have noticed that making something "mandatory" does not necessarily make a difference. For example, I am almost certain it is "mandatory" not to operate a vessel after drinking heavily - but it seems to happen a lot. As an EMT, I can say that "mandatory" seat belt laws don't really make a lot of difference. For what I can tell, the sort of people who do not take basic safety precautions are usually the sort of people who engage in other risky behaviors.

[Boracay]

I support the mandatory wearing of life jackets when a heightened risk exists as required in NSW, Oz.

Here, it is the Skippers' responsibility and as I understand it its the Skipper who would be prosecuted.

From recent news reports it sounds like there are a few boaters alive because they were wearing lifejackets.

I'm curious though: Just how does one swim while wearing a PFD?

[Target9000]

Originally Posted by Boracay

I'm curious though: Just how does one swim while wearing a PFD?

Poorly and uncomfortably.

[Therapy]

Originally Posted by CarlF

But drowning is cheap for society. There's very little chance that you'll end up disabled for life costing the rest of us millions of dollars for your health costs - as with some of the motorcycle no-helmet cases. But there are some adjustments we should make for those who value the freedom to be stupid:

Just a point here. You have it backwards. Without the helmet the head doink kills = lower cost. With the helmet the brain is A-OK lots of times and the rest of the spine, limbs etc. are shattered and in need of life long care and attention.
Just a point.

[zeehag]

hay--i dont care if ye do or not--i wont make someone use one. they have one, but if they dont use it--i got no money and my income cannot be touched--is ssdi. and my boat is my home,no matter where it is so-- was just a 'splaination as to why folks seem to need to have mandates made--i do not go along with ridiculous and unnecessary laws that help darwin improve the human race. i wear mine-- harness type- when and if i feel NEED.
yeah, therapy ye got that right. took care of many in icu shouldnt a made it due to helmets. my own favoritebrother is result of a mca with helmet-- helmet was pulverized on impact. he still aint right-- was in hospital many months and is still badly damaged--cannot hold a job anymore-- he was a design engineer. he occasionally tells me he wishes he hadnt been wearing a helmet..........
ANYONE SEEN A NEAR DROWNING -- THE RESULT IS SAD AND LOOONG LASTING. i took care of those also. not fun to see these--pfds do not necessarily prevent that.

[CaptFrankM]

Originally Posted by Boracay

I support the mandatory wearing of life jackets when a heightened risk exists as required in NSW, Oz.

Here, it is the Skippers' responsibility and as I understand it its the Skipper who would be prosecuted.

From recent news reports it sounds like there are a few boaters alive because they were wearing lifejackets.

I'm curious though: Just how does one swim while wearing a PFD?

Boracay, you make an interesting point. The only thing worse, I think, than a "mandatory" rule is a "conditionally mandatory" rule. For example, you reference wearing a life jacket "when a heightened risk exists" but then there is even more room for interpretation.

It has always been a "rule of the sea" that it is the Captain's responsibility to decide, but it would appear that this puts the responsibility on any law enforcement officer who might see the boat. Suppose three "marine patrol" boats go by and the first two feel that no "heightened risk" exists, but the third one does. How does the Captain defend himself in that situation?

By the way, the best way to swim in a PFD is by lying on your back and kicking, if you are in a type I or type II. They are designed to keep you floating chest up and with your head and neck supported. Type IIIs have no such head support and you usually can't really swim in them, but they are only supposed to be worn in situations where "quick rescue is expected."

[sabray]

Did this once before. Real life. Last night I'm off long island. I was wearing a inflatable vest. If I went over the side no one would know for at least a day. Then there would be huge searches hopefully.makes no difference in Response wether I wore one or not. Gives me a small chance to survive. Better then if I didn't. How long is it going to take me to swim 20. Miles in 75 degree water.yes I was clipped in when on deck. It would be another dumb law that made some do bolder feel like they did something which is nothing. I chose to wear one because it improves my odds very very slightly it is also designed as a harness so that's how I clip in. Like last resort big luck thing. Most likely going over the side with or without would end my time on the water.

[simonmd]

My attitude is dress for the conditions. If it's cold, I wear a coat. If the sea conditions are bad, i'll wear my PFD. If it starts out fine, then they are always to hand (including one for Harvey the dog), so they can be got quickly

If i'm on someone elses boat and they want me to wear one, even in calm conditions, I wouldn't hessitate. They are the captain and it's their call.

However, if this was to become law, I think the main point should be "How do they inforce it?" The sea is a big place.

[Boracay]

This table details NSW Maritime's idea of "Heightened Risk".

[Piglet]

Originally Posted by Boracay

This table details NSW Maritime's idea of "Heightened Risk".

I don't get it.

[S/V Alchemy]

Originally Posted by CarlF

But drowning is cheap for society. There's very little chance that you'll end up disabled for life costing the rest of us millions of dollars for your health costs - as with some of the motorcycle no-helmet cases. But there are some adjustments we should make for those who value the freedom to be stupid:

--The Coast Guard should be able to bill the drowned guy's estate for search costs. Same with hospital costs if they tried to save you but couldn't.

--Life insurance policies should not pay off (since that payoff is born by more responsible insureds)

--No lawsuits should be allowed by the family, bystanders who say they now have bad dreams, or the faithful dog.

Carl

I could get behind these proposals comfortably!