Pretty obvious…
– Last Updated: Jul-10-08 12:38 PM EST –
Seek the advice of an experienced professional.
Isn't Teddy Kennedy the "go to" guy in Mass. regarding "water safety" issues?
BOB
well
maybe he was wearing a pfd and mary jo wasn’t
Here is the current, 2008 bill…
– Last Updated: Jul-10-08 1:41 PM EST –
... more or less directly from a Massachusetts legislator involved in rewriting it this year to compromise with the opponents and get it passed...
------------------------------------------------
SECTION 1. Section 1 of Chapter 90B of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2004 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after the definition of "Jet skis" the following definition:
"Kayak", a lightweight boat that is covered, except for a single or double opening in the center thereof, and is propelled by a paddle.
SECTION 2. Said chapter 90B is hereby further amended by inserting after section 13A the following section:
Section 13B. Anyone who holds himself out as a kayak instructor for hire shall obtain and maintain: (i) first aid training approved by the department of public health; (ii) cardiopulmonary resuscitation training approved by the department of public health; and (iii) kayak instructor certification from the American Canoe Association, American Red Cross certification in small craft safety and basic water rescue, or equivalent water training.
The instructor shall train students on the safety procedures appropriate to the level of paddling difficulty. Wet exit training, which is defined as the practice of escaping from a kayak while submerged in a controlled water setting, shall be required only if a "spray skirt" is attached during any part of the kayak instructional session.
A liability release that limits an instructor's responsibility to comply with this section shall be void.
-------------------------------------------
As I said, there's no argument with these as "good things". The issue is whether they should be embodied in a law which will either generate a bureaucracy to enforce it and create ever more laws, fees, regulations, etc -- or lie unenforced, merely a feel-good bill, at least for now.
There are some actual issues, of course, such as why is a sub-sub-type of paddlecraft being singled out, namely the decked kayak with one or two cockpits, and the utterly insane message it sends that other paddlecraft are somehow safer and not in need of such regulation. Also, why jsut the wet exit aspect of kayak instructor safety. How about requiring the instructor to be on the water at all times when students are; carry a tow belt and paddle float and pump; carry a light at night; carry a compass; carry a spare paddle; know how to use all these; know how to do a HOG rescue (very important to save lives -- one was indeed done on the gentleman who tragically died in a class)etc etc.
IOW, why is the legislature inserting itself into this complex, highly technical area of regulation which they are utterly ill-equipped to handle. Gee, it took them three years to even get a bill that's close to making sense technically, and that required stripping out 75% of the provisions.
What's going on here? It makes no sense on the face of it.
--David.
Triples
is the way to go.
Anyways,
…
“Kayak”, a lightweight boat that is covered, except for a single or double opening in the center thereof, and is propelled by a paddle
…
Do hatches count as openings, even though they are covered with hatch covers?
Must the kayak be propelled by a paddle, or are paddles permitted as well?
How can anything have 2 openings in the center, if center is a single spot?
Are student’s credentials ever considered?
I don’t understand
the 5 feet of water rule?
If this passes people will avoid certified instructors like the plague.
A paid instructor is already accepting responsibility and liability if the client is injured from neglagence or stupidity.
missed it
Good - many c3 rivers won’t require wet exit 
He, he, he…they have to go back to the
drawings boards.
All the Hobies are evidently exempt since they are peddled, not paddled with a “kayak paddle”
cheers,
jackL
You said it yourself!
You said that you would prefer to seek out someone who is clearly well-qualified for the job. Okya, fine. How would you like it if the choice was totally out of your hands because Big Brother knows best?
SOT are already exempt
SOT are already exempt. Aren’t the Hobies SOTs?
I am comfortable
– Last Updated: Jul-10-08 8:56 PM EST –
with the concept that there are board certified orthopedic physicians to manage my orthopedic medical issues, even if BIG BROTHER is inimately involved in those physicians' training, insternships, liscenure and requirements for continuing education.
Nobody, including BIG BROTHER, is planning to keep you or your friends from getting together and teaching this or that about paddling on an informal, not for fee basis.
But if you feel you deserve to get to get "paid" for the paddling instruction you provide, then I encourage you to get the appropriate education, training and certification.
Hypothermia
If the law is forcing instructors to teach the wet-exit at the start of a tour in the water and forces participants to wet-exit in the water before the tour, then they need to start regulating the temperature of the water.
A dry land practice run works just fine.
Wet exit at the ~start~ of the ~tour~
Two interesting issues in that statement…
- Is leading a tour for money included in “kayak instructor for hire”. Inquiring minds wanna know ;-)))
- The law doesn’t say you have to teach wet exit ~at the beginning~ of the lesson (or tour, depending on the other question). 'Course, I’d hate to go before a judge or jury after having a student die because of inability to wet exit and say, gee, Your Honor, it was on the schedule for the end of the lesson, and he died before we got to it. The law didn’t say…
Wet exit == early in lesson
– Last Updated: Jul-10-08 10:22 PM EST –
"Is leading a tour for money included in "kayak instructor for hire". Inquiring minds wanna know"
No, guiding isn't instructing. The client of a guide is not a "student".
"after having a student die because of inability to wet exit and say, gee, Your Honor, it was on the schedule for the end of the lesson, and he died before we got to it"
It would seem obvious that the idea is to teach it before they needed it. The order matters (legally and practically). Note that we are talking about a death/injury related to an inability to wet exit.
Give me ONE example of something …
…that the government regulates and does so in an efficient and effective manner. The main reason that major professions (such as medicine, engineering, law) do a pretty good job of verfying the competence of their participants is that they do it with a minimum of government “help” and a maximum of their own practical experience. That is a feature which is at the very heart of the definition of “profession”.
For me, what it comes down to is that the ONLY reason government proposes laws like the one originally discussed here is because it’s a way for local politicians to create the illusion that they “care” so that they can improve the way they are percieved by ignorant voters. If that weren’t the case, they’d actually propose laws having a major influence, such as requiring all occupants of a motor vehicle to wear crash helmets, NOT drop-in-the-bucket legislation that “sounds good” but impacts almost no one, and therefore is not likely to piss anyone off. It’s all about votes. I’d be less jaded about this if that weren’t 100-percent true.
???
– Last Updated: Jul-10-08 10:37 PM EST –
"The main reason that major professions (such as medicine, engineering, law) do a pretty good job of verfying the competence of their participants is that they do it with a minimum of government "help" and a maximum of their own practical experience."
Medical licensing is a state requirement. Law licensing is a state requirement. Both of these requirements was to deal with the fact that anybody (qualified or not) was able to hang a shingle.
The alternative to government regulation (as bad as it might be or can be) is typically no regulation. And there are many, many examples that show that that is much worse (that is, unless you think that charletans, child labor, useless patent medicines, people burning in locked factory floors, etc are actually good things).
(I don't think this law does anything to appreciably increase the safety of kayaking students).
Yes, but who is in control of the …
– Last Updated: Jul-11-08 10:19 AM EST –
...process? Legislators do not decide what the requirements and experience-gaining process for certification should be. People within the profession create those guidelines and procedures. I stand by my original statement regarding the actual motivation for the law being discussed here.
I happened to think of a nice example of how "effective" direct government regulation is likely to be. Certainly you've heard of OSHA. I'm sure OSHA occasionally visits construction sites in my hometown of Madison, WI, but it's not something that the average person in the construction industry has ever seen happen. On the other hand, if you want to build something in the tiny little town of Galena, IL, you'd better keep your safety-rule ducks in a row because there's a very good chance OSHA will stop in for an inspection. Why are construction sites in a tiny town like Galena so frequently inspected in comparison to sites in a bigger town having at least 100 times as much construction activity? It's because Galena is a very touristy town and a very pleasant place to visit, and OSHA workers love to stop there and combine business with pleasure (and the local belief in Galena is that there's very little "business" in an OSHA employee's workday, but lots of "pleasure". It seems we are paying those guys to play golf).
I didn’t miss the point !
I was just pointing out how stupid the law makers in Mass are.
They enjoy controlling other peoples lives in any way they can.
Nice place to visit, but I would never move back there.
Cheers,
JackL
are you sure about that?
– Last Updated: Jul-11-08 7:36 AM EST –
my understanding is that the bill is aimed at kayak tour outfitters, not just "instructors"---the sections cited do not give a definition of "instruction" or "instructors"--it would likely mean anybody who takes clients in the water in a kayak for money---
when I do simple day tours, there is always instruction given on paddle strokes, safety issues, and wet exits(and no we don't practice them in the water before going out) If I was in Mass. I'm assuming that I would be covered by the act, even though I normally don't "instruct" but "guide". I don't know whether you are a professional (meaning paid) guide or not, but if you were you would know that all guided kayak tours involve "instruction" even those only involving a two hour paddle around the bay.
Teaching or not
– Last Updated: Jul-11-08 11:49 AM EST –
Had a conversation with the First Aid person in NY state - in their understanding, the minute you know more than the other paddler and show them how to do something, you can be construed to be acting as a coach. Under that definition, it'd be hard for a Guide to get more than 20 feet from shore without doing something that would leave a court feeling that they were being a coach. Only a problem if things go south of course, but that's the only time this stuff matters anyway.
The bill is still badly drafted
– Last Updated: Jul-11-08 8:25 PM EST –
That's all I'm saying.
Even after years of critique, and finally removing the most problematic provisions, they still can't write a technically sound bill.
I think there are two reasons for that. One, they aren't equipped to deal with this technically complex area. No legislature is. For that reason, legislatures turn over the job of drafting and administering boating safety regulations to NASBLA (http://tinyurl.com/6bq4zh), which has every state boating administrator as a member. And NASBLA works with the ACA on non-motorized boating.
And the second reason... hmmm.. I forgot it. But the first one is enough to damn the whole idea of such a bill.
--David.