The statistics aren’t really important. My failed attempt at sarcasm above was trying to point out that just because paddleboats aren’t the leading type of boats involved in accidents (as argued by rnsparky) that wouldn’t mean we shouldn’t try to reduce the number of paddleboat accidents.
rnsparky, if you want to focus on powerboat accidents, go on with your bad self, but why do you care that Moulton wants to focus on paddler safety?
Doubt it all you want. I couldn’t care less. It certainly appears that you don’t know much about the genesis of government regulation. I actually do.
The proposed legislation in Washington State, which a vocal opposition temporarily defeated BTW - was prompted by the parents of victims contacting their representative. Representative contacts the state boating safety office and gets an earful about how close calls and fatalities are increasing. You know exactly what happens next. In other cases, in other states, it’s been a combination of bad publicity, complaints by law enforcement or whatever about having to rescue totally unprepared paddlers etc.
Motorized watersports in general have a long history of increased regulation over time - just as motor vehicles do. When people drive recklessly, you can be sure that regulations will follow. Safe drivers don’t cause an increase in regulation, nor do safety-conscious paddlers, or responsible corporations. In fact, the exact opposite is true.
I’ve been paddling for over 50 years. Used to be we had a strong safety culture and looked after our own - and government left us pretty much alone. Not so much anymore, and that trend is increasing.
You may not like my viewpoint on this, but I’ve given this whole issue a great deal of thought. I’m not in favor of more regulation and I’m working full time promoting safety. You’d think that would be something you’d support, but no, you want to criticize and undermine what we’re doing. I can’t begin to imagine why you feel so compelled to do that.
It’s easy to pick apart someone else’s safety advocacy - but when you’ve done nothing yourself to promote safety, it’s hard to take you seriously. BTW - I’d be cautious about how much you rely on outdoor industry statistics - they’re anything but impartial.
Thanks, Nunio. Sorry, I kinda missed that sarcasm part. My bad. We’re cool.
I see what you’re saying, Bud. Here’s how the data collection system works as best I understand it: First, every state has a boating safety office that’s charged with keeping track of boating accidents. That’s the primary source. The USCG also has a separate system that mines media using keywords. We do the same at the Center. The idea is to cast as wide a net as possible given the resources available.
Tracking fatalities is easy. Close calls, not so much. So when an accident makes it onto the Coast Guard database, it’s usually because it was significant enough that SAR or EMS or LE got involved - or it at least got reported by local media. Accidents that fail to meet that threshold don’t get measured.
The significance of all this is that when a paddler gets into deep trouble, the outcome is likely to be fatal far more often than it would be in any other vessel class that the system tracks. I think that’s the takeaway on this, and it argues for more safety education in our sport, not less.
As an additional example of increases in senseless regulation caused by accidents, public outcry, etc.
Locally, several years ago a car proceeded through an intersection driven by a teenage girl accompanied by some of her girlfriends. The young lady was a safe driver and did not disobey any traffic regulations. Another car driving on the cross street was speeding and blew through the stop sign on that was on that street. That driver broadsided the girl’s car, killing the occupants.
A great outcry ensued. Something must be done! So, the police made that intersection an all way stop intersection… even though that was the only accident, in living memory, that had ever occurred there and it was caused by the driver that ran the existing stop sign. The “solution” would not have prevented the accident that occurred, but the police did “something”. I should add that there is a curve right before the intersection that the speeder rounded, so even if the all way stop sign had existed at the time and the girl stopped, she could (would) have still been struck.
Now ever car that goes through that intersection has to stop. A small increase in regulation, to be sure, but it illustrates the point that more accidents can drive increased regulation.
@MoultonAvery Keep up the good work! Most of us support what you are doing. And the rest… just ignore them.
Typical Pnet, can’t make an argument without arrogance, insult and assumption. I’m outta here.
Why don’t the “anti safety trolls” just go and keep competing for the Darwin Award instead of posting here?
The OP, and many others here, provide a valuable service to make boaters aware of the dangers that may not be obvious to everyone.
I’m not for more regulation, but if there are more idiots being unsafe, more regulation will come. So the best is for more people to behave safely. Then there is no need for regulation. Or the need is minimized. If you want to be unsafe, you are free to do so. But remember, your unsafe behavior will at minimum:
I bet the OP put a lot of work in his campaign and they are doing it to make the World better.
If you want to be a troll, at least be smart enough to get paid by the company. Don’t be a useful idiot.
Surely this horse is getting weak in the knees.
Typical Troll. No substance. Claims the OP is arrogant for making logical arguments. Fails to address anything that the OP says in response to antagonistic comments, whines when exposed, leaves in a huff. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
Another thing that struck me as odd was the statement that the major concern was the paddle blowing away. A far greater concern is having the kayak blow away.
A reminder of the community guidelines. You can disagree and remain civil. No need for name calling.
I asked for evidence of your statement about the “big driver” and disagreed with your use of carnage; hardly antagonistic unless you’re extremely sensitive or perhaps “whining”.
Claiming I “don’t know much” while you “actually do” is an excellent example of arrogance, insult, so my last post isn’t whining just pointing out your behavior. Behavior you continued in this post.
You’ll get no argument out of me that you’re safer if you wear a pfd, dress for immersion, (water temp) and can swim in your paddling environment? We can add a lot of other stuff to that list.
For the general public, I really like focusing on the pfd, dressing for immersion and the importance of learning how to swim. I think most people don’t realize (low apparent danger) how quickly cold water zaps you. So that one requires special consideration and additional explanation…
I want to encourage these basic safety steps. I believe we should hold manufacturers and retailers accountable for the messages they send with their advertising. When they consistently don’t depict basic safety standards in their advertising they are missing out on a wonderful opportunity to depict “best practices”.
I suspect if Oru or other companies were sued by family members, who had lost loved ones in a paddling accident, that they would think a lot more about the safety practices or lack of safety practices that their ads depict. If one of their irresponsible ads was displayed in a court room after some expert testimony about the need for dressing for immersion and effectiveness of pfds, well I think it could get ugly for the manufacturer/retailer. It would get even uglier if it was shown that sellers/manufacturers were informed their ads fell short of basic safety standards and didn’t do anything to correct it. Personally, I wouldn’t want that kind of liability On the other hand, if they could show that their ads depict ACA best practices I don’t think they would have much to worry about. The real question is how many people will die in the meanwhile? Big tobacco fought for a long time. Hopefully the paddlesport industry will come around a bit quicker since part of their pitch is a healthier lifestyle.
Now all that bein’ said, each individual and company can do what they want. It’s all good until someone loses a life. (and plenty have been lost already) .Then lots of folks start to take a lot harder look at the “whys”. Be “wise”. Wear a pfd and just dress for immersion. That’s the message we should all be selling. If that makes me a zealot I’m ok with that,
Now that Im’ old I ain’t worried about the paddlin’ police comin’ to take me away. The pfd is sorta attached to my body. In my neck of the woods the paddlin’ police is the National Park Service, So yeah the paddlin’ police is real!
If you gotta forget somethin’ spring boatin’, let it be the whistle, not the drysuit. In the words of my WV Governor (Big Jim) and Larry the Cable Guy, Just wear the d##n suit (mask)! … Get errrr done.
Well, if it was a real boat with a solid paddler there would have been a spare still attached to the deck. But that is not who they are talking to.
An example:
Type A vessel – 2 accidents, 1 fatality = 50% death per accident
Type B vessel-- 1000 accidents, 250 fatalities = 25% death per accident
It is absurd to maintain that you are twice as likely to die in a Type A vessel.
Kayak - one person in the boat, 100% fatality when one occurs
Party, crab, lobster, ground fishing boats - up to ten people in the boat, fatality can be well under 100% if they get into life rafts and survival suits
The rate per incident is lower when there are more people in the boat. And of course the rate really stinks for that one person in a kayak.
Please don’t muddy the waters ( pun intended) The original post is about an irresponsible marketing campaign from Manufacturer of “kayaks”. I believe that they hold a public duty to advertise safe practices. My point of view , no need to argue that they have their freedoms to advertise as they like. I get it.
A pro-active attempt to keep people safe is appreciated. Thank You!
Where I live I doubt 1 in 1000 serious mishaps would fall into the category of being reported. What gets reported is when someone gets sucked into a strainer and is clinging to a limb of a down tree. The cheap plastic boat is ether hopelessly stuck and mangled or heading to the Golf of Mexico never to be seen again as hardly no one identifies their boat with an if found sticker. I would say local officials get called out on a half a dozen of those per year and going by memory we might have a fatality every 10 years or more. Not that a single one isn’t a big deal. This spring I have been seeing local posting warning people of the air / water temp problem and to stay off the water period. There is no talk of here about proper immersion gear as they know no one has it hardly and the few that spent the money on it are far more aware than the average paddler.
The normal mishap here is someone goes for a swim in water that is really still too cold to be in unprotected sometimes there is a lost boat involved the person manages to make it out of the water on their own or with help and has a long walk of shame home to dry off and tell their story over drinks later. Nothing gets reported. Sometimes a few days later they will find the boat sitting on someone’s dock.
I use the water temp of 60f as my point of going and I feel better at 65f. I know others on the forum have told me if they used 60f they would miss half the canoeing season and the majority of the WW they enjoy. Those people also invest in the best of gear and do it with a high degree of safety. I have no worries about them and you can measure them in a totally different statistical group.
The fear I have here is the lure of flat water that is cold. I know people who haven’t capsized their boat in 50 years they go out fishing and never once do they think they could be swimming because it never happened. So they assume a higher risk factor in terms of say water temp than someone doing rapids in a rec-kayak that shouldn’t be there in the first place in warm water.
There are a lot of sub groups between as well. Very tough statistical problem to get a firm handle on.
As to cancel culture and debate. The people that get canceled in this modern form of debate are actually the group of people the debate is constructed to advise. Polarization is never the correct method to solve any problem, but in today’s world it is the norm.
Typical of the behavior here. I know better you’re a troll. Your original post sir was thought provoking and well intentioned. This post makes you look like an arrogant ass. When you, or others get so up on your high horses, it defeats the purpose of the original message.
You’ve assumed the position of policeman of watercraft safety. That’s noble. But don’t expect everyone to agree with your position or agenda. If you’re going to bring that to a forum, particularly one like this where many people are set in their ways, then you should expect some push back. Once again, your original post impressed me. You put a lot of work into that film. But the subsequent conversation has turned to name calling and poor behavior as many posts do here. You shouldn’t have stooped to that level in acknowledging someone making a snarky comment.
Your point is well taken, Bobonli. Overall, I thought the discussion on this forum was informative and worthwhile, but I certainly admit that I sometimes argue when I should hold my tongue. I also have a temper, and I get impatient with people who criticize safety advocates and accuse them of fearmongering etc.
I’ve been advocating cold water safety full-time for ten years and my roots on that subject go back to the 1970’s. Most of the snarky anti-safety comments are made by uninformed people who have done absolutely nothing to promote any kind of safety. If I make an honest attempt to engage and respond to criticism and the person I’m addressing just continues with the anti-safety attack, I tend to get a little pissed off. My wife says I shouldn’t engage with trolls at all. My inclination, which I do struggle with, is to try and reason with them and then, when they persist, eat them for breakfast.
This argument over statistics is a typical case in point. Most if it is not well-intentioned, and it has no relationship to the original post. If I feel comments are basically made in good faith, like Bud16415’s, or yours, I answer in good faith. In other words, I try to share what I know or how I feel, to educate people. But otherwise, I see no reason to tolerate anti-safety trolls like rssparky and davbart. They’re part of the problem.