http://www.boatus.com/magazine/2011/June/reports.asp

Coast Guard Considers Mandating Adult Life Jacket Wear

An advisory panel to the U.S. Coast Guard gave its go-ahead to pursue federal regulations that would require adults to wear life jackets on certain boats. The National Boating Safety Advisory Council asked the Coast Guard to consider mandating that anyone aboard a boat less than 18-feet long be required to wear a life jacket when underway. In addition it asks that all those being towed in water sports, riding personal watercraft, or in human-powered boats of any length be required to wear life jackets as well.

The 16-5 decision mirrors a trend among state boating agencies to increase the number of people actually wearing Coast Guard-approved life jackets with the aim of reducing boating fatalities. But unlike the Council recommendation, which would apply to all ages, most state laws apply just to children and specify varying age cutoffs, typically 12 and under.

The U.S. Forest Service estimates that 82 million people participated in boating in 2010 and Coast Guard statistics show 736 people died in boating accidents that year. According to a Coast Guard mathematical model, if a 70 percent wear rate was achieved, mandating boaters nationwide to wear life jackets in boats less than 18-feet could save 71 lives each year.

We want your opinion! Let us know what you think about this Coast Guard initiative at GovtAffairs@BoatUS.com. Please include whether this specific proposal impacts the boats you go on or not.

I would be fine with this proposal as long as "When Underway" did not include while trolling or with fishing gear deployed.

Usually the people who drown don't pay much attention, don't have much experience, and don't follow the rules anyway. They are idiots more often than not.

We all know how nasty things can get in a boat out there and my guess is you know better when to wear that life jacket at that moment than anyone else.

I feel this is just yet another chance to write a ticket when it all boils down. Tickets = Revenue.

They don't work if not being worn, but at what point should common sense prevail over government mandates.

Bushbear, using the words common sense & government, just doesn't work

That is perfect... more rules to follow. It is just one more infringement on personal rights. I expect that would include drift boats.




Instead of Big Brother watching us, it should be Big Mother watching out for us.


Maybe we could have a mitten check before we leave the house too.

That would add an interesting challenge to duck hunting from a layout boat!!!

don't like it. If I don't want to wear a vest I won't. Now if im on someone elses boat and they want me too fine, but another law so a few lives can be saved. possible 71 out of 736. Hmmm.

I think life vests are good and should be worn, I just get tired of rule after rule.

Anyway

I'm all for it. I wear mine 100% of the time I'm on the water and so does everyone on my boat. With self inflatable ones, there's zero impact on ability to fish and almost zero impact on comfort. However, I'm all for Darwinian selection of the less intelligent so I'm fine with those who chose to not wear one ---- AS LONG AS, no tax payer $'s go to rescue, life saving attempts etc on those who won't wear one. Since the latter ain't gonna happen, the rule seems like a good idea to me.

I agree it is getting a bit out of hand. Used to be USCG did the boating safety stuff more friendly courtesy service, WDFW did a little fishing enforcement and a whole lot of education. That was pretty much it, and most seemed to share a common desire for cooperative relationships, public safety, effective resource stewardship. There was little overlap in their roles, it worked well, and the public generally felt positive about their interactions with both entities.

Now in addition to USCG and WDFW (with their greatly expanded authority), we've also got city police and county sherriffs running their own boats around chasing people down to do their own inspections and enforcement. Sometimes people get multiple checks in a day. So we have more aggressive enforcement of more rules by more enforcement entities, with overlapping authority. More rules, more tickets, less education, less positive interaction. As a result, the attitude of the boating public is becoming more negative. Need to pay attention to that, or any new rule will be received as just another revenue generation tool and the safety message will be lost.

While I think its a great idea to wear them, I hate the government always taking the easy way to get funds rather than taking actions that cost but actually have a real difference. My guess is that a huge portion of those that they feel would be saved already fall under the law for those under 18 or are violating another law, such as drinking while operating a motor vehicle. Notice that they don't say the law will save any laws, just that if they get the rate up to 80% they feel they can save the lives.

I can think of a ton of ways that would save more lives, but since they don't raise revenue, they aren't enacted. Just like hatcheries that exist only to get back their broodstock, government seems to love to exist simply for the purpose of existing, letting the rest of us pay for it.

So you would prefer another new law over personal choice? What is the value of our freedom? One saved life? Ten? More than that? How many drownings could we prevent if we required one for swimming too? We could establish a safety perimeter in relation to any body of water deeper than a foot. I am sorry... maybe that is just going overboard, as in carried away.



I am glad you are happy wearing your inflatable and allowing society to make decisions for you but on my boat I will decide when wearing one is prudent.


Lastly, if wearing a life vest improves intellegence we should start handing them out in public schools; maybe I could have made honor roll more than half the time.

Instead of the government mandating PFD wear, I think the insurance companies should refuse payment to anyone drowning from negligence by not wearing a PFD. We can't legislate people to use common sense, so it should be costly for their refusal to do so. Of course, that implies that most would have taken steps to provide for their family after their demise; probably not a safe assumption, even with the "take personal responsibility" crowd.

Sky-Guy,
I understand what you were getting at, but I would submit that many who find themselves overboard were leaning over a gunnel to grab a downrigger release, or unhook a fish, or otherwise engaged in some sort of fishing activity. I believe the boat that capsized on the shrimp opener were setting pots at the time.

I don't have any hard data, but I think more people end up in the water while not underway.

Yes! Edzachary.

Lastly, if wearing a life vest improves intellegence we should start handing them out in public schools; maybe I could have made honor roll more than half the time.
Good one


Lets not forget some in our government tried to pass a law requiring seatbelts on motorcycles in the not so distant past, luckily that never saw the light of day!


Fishy

Pretty much dialed on this!

I don't care if you wear your life jacket......really.
Why do you need me to wear mine?
Are you my mommy?

(not directed at anybody in particular, but rather at everybody who thinks I need "mothering")

If we get 70% of 82 Million boaters to wear life jackets, we can save 71 people. Let's do the math.....

(.7)(82,000,000) = 57,400,000 wearing life jackets

57,400,000 / 71 = 808,450

So the chances that a life jacket, if you wear it, is going to save your ass is one in 808,450.

Is it panic time?

You know, it is really hard to not be cynical when faced with idiotic numbers such as these with a thought that, "Something needs to be done!"

That's good rationale, Slab, but even after doing the math and figuring out the odds of being killed by a terrorist, we're still gettin' nearly naked in the airport and trying to stop Moooslems from building mosques.

Time for a lesson in statistics, maybe.

Goharley- you contradict yourself...


You agree that getting naked in the airport in unnecessary but you think additional legislation for life jackets is a good idea?


The whole legislating common sense comment was an oxymoron too and the idea of punishing non-conformists is equally rediculous. Insurance companies don't need another excuse to not pay on policies they write themselves.

That's it? Go for it, Danny Boy!