not sure who you’re addressing -
- or jumping on - a lot of us don’t kayak in warm water, and don’t kayak close to the shore of a small lake - i wear a PFD full time because cape cod bay stays darn cold right into june-july, and at age 65, would be in serious trouble if my boat got away from me when i’m a couple of miles offshore in 2-3ft seas - i also wear a full wet suit right thru the summer, as this water can kill you if immersed long enough -
again, what i do is MY decision, and i don’t want the gov’t legislating my perceived safety -
Are Type V’s Approved?
I was under the impression that a Type V vest is only CG approved for those trained and certified in swiftwater rescue and that they are not approved for general use. Think I heard this in my boater safety course last summer. Anyone?
~wetzool
Wrong bill
The bill in question is not the infamous “flag bill”. That bill was killed when the problems with it were explained to it’s sponsor. He saw the light, so to speak.
Peter, following your lead
I have sent the following e-mail letter to the sponsors of the proposed bill and to my state senator and state rep.
As a point of legislative proceedure I’d like to point out that it is not too late to get the sponsors to change there minds and “drop” the bill, or completely re-write it. At the moment the filing of the bill has not occurred - it’s just on the docket as a potential filing.
Here’s the text of my e-mail in case anybody wants to borrow:
Dear Representative Gomes and co-sponsors,
cc: Senator Morrisey and Representative Tobin
I noticed you are re-filing the “kayak safefty” legislation you proposed in the last session - in the last session it was House 4456. I also understand that you were motivated to file this bill by the tragic deaths of two young women who drowned off Chatham in the fall of 2003 while kayaking on the ocean, without life jackets, in a kayak not appropriate for the conditions.
While you are to be commended for attempting to memorialize the lives of the two young women so tragically lost, I do not believe your bill, as
currently written, will accomplish the purpose of making kayaking safer.
Please consider the following:
- The PFD requirement - MA already requires kayakers to wear a USCG approved PFD while kayaking during the Fall, Winter and Spring (other
small craft users are not required to do so). Aronoff and Jagoda were in violation of this requirement when they died. Additionally, your bill doesn’t allow the use of USCG approved Type V PFDs which includes “rescue vests” and “inflatable vests” prefered by some kayakers.
- Compass and whistle requirement - makes sense to most sea kayakers venturing offshore in MA costal waters, but did you know that most kayaking in MA is done on small lakes, ponds and slow moving rivers and streams? In these situations the compass and whistle are somewhat
extraneous considerations. Even further, this extra gear would most likely be more of hinderance to those white water kayakers who cavort in the fast moving rapids of streams through out the Commonwealth in tiny
and cramped kayaks designed specifically for playing in white water rapids. Likewise kayak surfers who play the shore break in specially
designed surf kayaks. Also consider that a pocket compass is not of much use in conditions where you must have both hands on the paddle to stay
upright. And a pocket whistle is not much good if there is nobody within 400 yards to hear it.
Please also consider that some of the best sea kayaking practitioners in the US practice their techinques on Massachusetts lakes. Some of these
people roll kayaks using only their hands, many know more than 12 different ways to roll a kayak. These people practice without PFD’s and compete at kayak rolling contests internationally. While all conscientious sea kaykers wear PFD’s when touring on the ocean, having to use them during this type of monitored practice would make the
practice irrelevant to competitions where they are not allowed.
Additionally for folks who race kayaks even a type III PFD is restrictive. They race in the Blackburn Challenge around Cape Ann, regular races on the Charles in Boston, and at other races in the area. If there is to be a PFD requirement please make sure it includes type V
(5) PFD’s to accommodate racers.
My bottom line is: Your current bill will not make kayaking any safer and will not be enforceble. If your desire is to craft legislation that will improve the safety of the sport, please obtain input from experienced safety conscious kayakers. Groups such as the North Shore Paddlers Network (http://www.nspn.org), the Boston Sea Kayaking Club (http://www.bskc.org) and others
(http://www.outdoors.org/activities/paddling/index.cfm) would be glad to give knowledgeable consultation if desired. These organizations all advocate use of PFD’s when ocean kayak touring (requiring them at their official events), have provided safety information and/or instructions to
hundreds of paddlers, and are acquainted with various specialties of kayaking.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have concerning my remarks.
With regards,
CHPaton
Your letter in nicer than mine
thanks for pointing up my missive. Hope to meet you and paddle. Feel free to e-mail
Dear Teddie…
Since you have so much clout up there, could you plese get the bill amended to read: That all occupants of vehicles driving near waterways must be equipped with a PFD. When such vehicles are driving ove bridges each occupant of said vehicle must wear their PFD.
Cheers,
JackL
i live 1/8 mile from cape cod bay -
i wonder if i’ll have to wear a PFD while mowing the lawn !?!?
=;-)
ops, sorry, i think this post is deteriorating !!
Here’s another letter option
– Last Updated: Jan-22-05 9:15 AM EST –
Anyone who wants to use any of this text is free to do so:
Dear (enter rep’s name here),
I strongly urge you to reconsider your support for House bill #4456, the kayak related proposal that is a reaction to the deaths of Ms. Aronoff and Jagoda off Cape Cod in 2004. While undoubtedly well intentioned, this bill is woefully ill-conceived and blatantly discriminatory. To wit:
1) In a typical year, there are several times more boating fatalities related to canoes, rowing craft, sailing craft and power boats than there are related to kayaks, yet these boater groups are excluded from the proposed legislation. Many of these fatalities could be prevented if the boaters were to wear Personal Floatation Devices (PFD’s), as specified for kayakers in the proposed legislation. If the purpose of this measure is to save lives, why are all boaters not included? State and Coast Guard regulations require that PFD’s be carried for each passenger on all of these craft, so why not make the occupants wear them? Are the lives of these other boaters somehow not as worthy of saving as those of kayakers, or are kayakers being singled out for punitive action?
2) The equipment regulations are ill conceived. The measure specifically excludes Type V PFD’s, which are Coast Guard approved for use in kayaks and other vessels. Some kayakers (and other boaters) prefer to use this type of PFD, particularly in the warmer summer months. By excluding Type V PFD’s, it is just as likely that people who prefer them will violate the law and refuse to wear a PFD at all, as it is that they will comply with the new regulation. This could result in a net reduction of safety on the water.
As someone who is an avid paddler and has the opportunity to use whistles on the water, I can state with confidence that they are essentially useless under conditions with any significant wind or wave noise. By specifying “a whistle”, you encourage people to use the least expensive and least effective means of creating an audible distress signal. It would be far more effective to require an “audible signaling device” that produces a specified minimum sound level.
Carrying a compass is pointless if one doesn’t posses the knowledge to use it. With the convoluted nature of the Massachusetts coastline, a marine chart is necessary in many areas in order to be able to determine the proper direction to travel in order to reach safety as quickly as possible. A compass alone is not enough. Additionally, the proposal would require paddlers to carry compasses on ponds and rivers, where they are completely useless.
3) From a practical standpoint, the proposed measure is unenforceable. The current regulations regarding PFD’s in paddle craft cannot be effectively enforced, so how can this more stringent measure possibly be enforced to any meaningful degree? The Coast Guard cannot enforce state laws and there are not enough state enforcement resources to handle the state’s inland waters, let alone the coastline. How do you propose to enforce this new measure?
4) The result of all of these factors is that should this proposal become law, it will be ineffective at saving lives. Most paddlers will probably not even be aware of the law. Many will simply ignore it, knowing that their chances of encountering a law enforcement officer on the water are negligible.
The deaths of Ms. Aronoff and Jagoda are certainly tragic and we all grieve for their families. However, they died not because they were victims of a lack of regulation – which is what this measure implies - but because they made a series of bad judgments on the day in question, including violating the existing Massachusetts law requiring PFD’s at that time of the year. Whether this was intentional or simply a case of not understanding the risks involved is anyone’s guess. One thing is certain, it’s human nature to refuse to take precautions if one does not understand or appreciate the risks involved in an activity. If the legislature’s desire is to reduce boating fatalities, far more can be accomplished by educating the boating public than by passing restrictive measures on kayakers.
This is happening to some degree in the private sector. For example, the North Shore Paddler’s Network (a safety oriented, non-profit paddling club), in conjunction with local retailers and harbormasters, has developed kayak safety brochures and distributed them throughout the coastal region of the state. These brochures are produced at the club’s expense and distributed free of charge. State support for such measures would allow them to be greatly expanded and would go a long way toward educating the public about the dangers of boating in Massachusetts’ waters. In the long run, this and other forms of education will be far more effective in reducing fatalities than obscure, narrowly focussed and unenforceable legislation.
Organizations such as this have an intimate knowledge of both the practical requirements for safety in kayaks and of the psychology of the people who participate in the sport. Consultation with them would result in legislation that is both effective and acceptable to paddlers. No one in the paddling community wants to oppose effective safety legislation, but ill-conceived measures such as House #4456 put paddlers in the uncomfortable position of having to voice their opposition in order to prevent a flawed proposal from becoming a bad law. I strongly encourage you to abandon the current proposal and work with paddling organizations to come up with reasonable regulations that will be supported by the paddling community. Working together, we can save lives.
Respectfully
(your name here)
Let’s see…
A compass in the hands of people who have no idea how to use one and a whistle to blow when you’re so far away from civilization that only God is going to hear…Sounds just about right.