USCG Considers Mandatory PFD Use

[svCopacetic]

Originally Posted by avb3

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?

Just where is that responsibility line drawn? Some would say you were irresponsible for being out in Force 7 to begin with. Others might say that you must pass some form of certification to be out in anything over Force 2. Still others might say you must be clipped in to a harness at all times. Someone else might mandate a lifeline net 6 feet high.

It's a slippery slope when we start letting others assess our personal risk. To quote one of my favorite movies, "Anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing."

[evm1024]

The cost to us all by these risky actions is Just not to be tolerated. We must eliminate those activities that could possibly lead to accidents.

When on the water life jackets. No private planes. For that matter let's get rid of private cars. Too too many accidents which causes huge costs to the public. We can use rail. We don't need so many roads as well that way.

Smoking - out

Drinking - oh baby out

Overeating - out

Eating non-government approved foods - out

Government mandated exercise - in

THe list goes on and all because Your activity is against the common good.

THX-1138

Regards, Ethan

PS

Here in Oregon we have Mt Hood and every now and then there are accidents on it. The 304th aerospace group goes out to rescue them at great cost. Sometimes the media gets on the bandwagon to charge the victims....

What is the 304th's take? They cannot pay enough to get this kind of training. Training missions do not give then nearly the benefit that an actual rescue mission does. And makes them more ready for their "real" mission. Aerospace rescue

PPS do I really need to put a here?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by svCopacetic

It's a slippery slope when we start letting others assess our personal risk. To quote one of my favorite movies, "Anything you do can get you killed, including doing nothing."

I know that this is a cruiser forum. However, some might want to take a look at the requirements for offshore racing. The ISAF and race committees do make assessments of your personal risk.

As pointed out by some others, rescues are conducted by the collective. Maybe sailors should have to pay for their rescue or put up a bond or be required to be insured for the SAR costs. That might reflect individual responsibility. Asking your non-sailing neighbor to pay for your rescue through their taxes does not. If the collective is to assume responsibility, then they can be expected to establish parameters.

[Morgan3820]

Originally Posted by avb3

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.

Actually, The CG is the absolutley last call that I would make. I am aware of two deaths locally that were caused by CG screwing up the rescue and then there is the SF thing last month. They are a LEO now, no longer a rescue organization.

You can wear your PFD all of the time, day/night, in the shower, to the pool, to church... if the Government tells you to. As a full grown adult American citizen that paid enough in taxes last year to buy a new car allwo me to make my choices.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Morgan3820

.....
You can wear your PFD all of the time, day/night, in the shower, to the pool, to church... if the Government tells you to. As a full grown adult American citizen that paid enough in taxes last year to buy a new car allwo me to make my choices.

No problem; make all the choices you want.

When it starts affecting others, then others have a right to restrict yours. Your freedom ends when it starts affecting mine.

Carrying that further,if your actions increase others taxes, why should your actions not be subject to curtailment?

[Target9000]

Originally Posted by avb3

No problem; make all the choices you want.

When it starts affecting others, then others have a right to restrict yours. Your freedom ends when it starts affecting mine.

Carrying that further,if your actions increase others taxes, why should your actions not be subject to curtailment?

If you carry this sort of logic out to its conclusion you would basically form the basis for total regulation of all aspects of life.

For instance. Universal healthcare or anything that comes close to it that is funded by the government directly links the health of all citizens to my money which is another way to say my freedom. If you're on medicaid I should be able to mandate a brown rice diet, water only, and exercise daily. Right?

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by Morgan3820

Actually, The CG is the absolutley last call that I would make. I am aware of two deaths locally that were caused by CG screwing up the rescue and then there is the SF thing last month. They are a LEO now, no longer a rescue organization.

You can wear your PFD all of the time, day/night, in the shower, to the pool, to church... if the Government tells you to. As a full grown adult American citizen that paid enough in taxes last year to buy a new car allwo me to make my choices.

Please call in your specifics to make sure the USCG never responds to any requests from you...I'm sure if they read your response...they would be happy to add your name to a list of disgruntled citizens who have no appreciation for what it takes to run such an organization. While not perfect...they as a whole try awfully hard to do a good job and most would willingly sacrifice their lives trying to save your ungrateful butt.

As A fellow boater...you are already on my list.

and one more time for the cheap seats...most rescue organizations in the US are fully funded...whether they sit and watch TV or come and save your butt...so while they don't appreciate putting their lives in danger because you are more than stupid...we all get caught or make mistakes and they are GLAD to help.

[sabray]

Real life I'm 6 miles off the coast. Really atlantic city is to port. I'm wearing a inflatable. No government mandate. Auto pilot is on and I'm doing 6.6 knots. If I go over no one will no the boat will run head long into long island. If the boat starts breaking up that's a mess but has nothing to do with me wearing a jacket.if it's going down I'm wearing a jacket. I don't see how wearing a jacket helps the government. It hives me a slim chance for survival if I find myself swimming

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by sabray

Auto pilot is on and I'm doing 6.6 knots. If I go over no one will no the boat will run head long into long island.

No tether?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Target9000

If you carry this sort of logic out to its conclusion you would basically form the basis for total regulation of all aspects of life.

For instance. Universal healthcare or anything that comes close to it that is funded by the government directly links the health of all citizens to my money which is another way to say my freedom. If you're on medicaid I should be able to mandate a brown rice diet, water only, and exercise daily. Right?

Yes, a slippery slope can certainly be argued.

Considering the obesity and diabetic rates, as well as other lifestyle conditions, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a required multi-week indenture learning how to eat well and properly for those that get government assistance for some reason or another.

But, it is a slippery slope, and I understand the other side of the argument.

Next thing you know Florida will be trying to tell people where to anchor!

[evm1024]

Someone in the US CDC has suggested that children of obese parents be removed and placed in foster care. The camel has more than a nose under the tent....

Regards, Ethan

[hellosailor]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

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?

Bill, they haven't chosen ay path or anything to do with Congress on this issue. I think you'll find there have been no actions, decisions, policy options, offered or requested by any insurers regarding how they offer or pay out on policies, versus whether their insured are wearing seat belts.

Except of course, in the courts. That's not a matter of insurance contracts, that's just part and parcel of everything else when and if relative liability is apportioned by a court.

[hellosailor]

Originally Posted by evm1024

PPS do I really need to put a here?

Remember, you'll always be free to choose a soothing color, from the approved color palette, for your safely padded rubber room.

Isn't that the ultimate definition of freedom? (sigh)

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by Ishmael

It's apples and oranges. In one instance, a suicidal person is in imminent danger and clearly in need of the assistance of rescuers watching from the shore because of some "policy". The other is an example of a government bent on "protecting" us from our own choices.

The juxtaposition of the two threads meaningless, UNLESS it's to point out the incongruity in the logic of the government agencies and politicians: mandating life jackets is another way for the government to "protect" us from ourselves (not to mention the fines they can collect), and yet they'll allow a guy to make the choice to kill himself without intervening?!?

Did you see the folks that were sent to rescue this guy?..they looked to me that they couldnt save themselves much less someone else.I belive they said they couldnt swim well themselves..go figure.I agree we could do without more laws but to say smaller gov. is good just means less accountability for the few that remain.just remember the USA is the greatest country the world has ever known and that is NOT subject to change.there are other great countries also but just because were living in tough times doesnt mean you should bad mouth the good old US of A.

[rgscpat]

Actually, the insurance companies may be quite a bit smarter than the government about risk assessment because they know quite precisely when a risk is getting big enough to cost them customers or make coverage not affordable to customers and hence not profitable for the insurance companies. When the insurance companies lobby for safety changes, they are very likely to be cost-effective.