Darwin will be active again
this weekend…You just know someone is going to be tempted
http://www.maine.gov/mema/mema_news_display.shtml?id=55044
kayak deaths/canoe deaths.
if I remember correctly, the number of kayak deaths and the number of canoe deaths was almost exactly the same in relation to the total number of kayakers and canoeists. Something like 25 kayak deaths per year and 75 canoe deaths per year with 3 times as many canoeists. Regardless of weather you are a kayaker or canoeists, 90% of victims are not wearing life jackets.
I remember reading somewhere that most victims are not 1st year paddlers. Most are regulars. With some experience.
Having been rescued a time or two, I am glad the rescues were free. At no time did I feel I was in danger but I was happy to recieve a helping hand. Crap happens some days. Doesn’t matter if you just bought a rec boat or have been paddling for hundred years.
It will be a sad day when something like paddling is looked at like it is some kind of burden to society that needs to be dealt with. The story from liberal media is right up their alley. Surely they can find something better to focus on than an imaginary surge of paddler rescues.
with a picture…
– Last Updated: May-02-08 9:48 AM EST –
when going to bed could be an issue!!
nevermind, another day another story!
Showed Ft. Kent underwater.
Twisting the Point
You say
“Ask yourself, would I be safer on the highway if there was no licensing or testing requirements to prove some modicum of knowledge about driving laws and how to operate a vehicle? Should it be alright for a 14 year old to hop in a car and just try to work out how the whole driving thing is done? Why doesn’t the same assumption apply to boating?”
Your analogy doesn’t apply because you are pointing out how a bunch of uneducated drivers on the road is a danger to the rest of us. What some newbie does with his new rec kayak, or what some experienced paddler does with his top-of-the-line hull in a moment of stupidity, does NOT endanger me. Drivers are piloting two- to five-thousand pounds of steel down the road at such speeds that a screw-up is likely to kill somebody else, not just them. A paddler who has an accident isn’t going to take somebody else with him, and won’t be causing hundreds of thousands of dollars in property damage either. It’s just him and his boat.
I believe so
but looking at the comment I made it does not seem to be as pertinent as it was earlier… then I notice that you have amended your comment anyway. Makes me think that after all my reply to your ORIGINAL comment was relevant.
It is hard to maintain credibility when somebody amends his/her comments. Replies to those comments become disjointed.
requiring certification
wouldn’t have helped Brandon Andrusic and Tim Gutmann,
and requiring certification wouldn’t have helped the guy
in the latest edition of SK magazine who was run down by
a power boat.
There is a difference between 1) getting run down by a boat,
and 2) getting caught by conditions. Most replies seem to
confuse the two.
Another difference: There is a big difference between
- knowing the regs, 2) good judgement, and 3) having everyone
else around you follow the regs. Power boats (etc.) are
required to keep a look out, but …
And re bikes, I see them run stop signs all the time. Act as if
they think the rules of the road don’t apply to them. But most
bike-car accidents are still caused by negligent car drivers,
not the bike.
Darwin . . . and me too
Big rains mean it’s time to paddle little rivers.
Paddled yesterday on a gorgeous little river that can probably only be paddled 5 to 10 days a year (levels are too low the rest of the time).
Photo at:
http://picasaweb.google.com/waterwalker1/LittleRiver/photo#5195589788108393394
I guess my analogy was not clear
– Last Updated: May-02-08 11:24 AM EST –
The analogy I was trying to make was between vehicles and vessels, not between vehicles and kayaks. My point is that unlike roadways, there is insufficient regulation to insure the competence of operators of vessels on waterways. I have to admit I don't know much about the current regulations concerning the operation of non-commercial vessels, but I don’t believe there is any requirement that operators of non-commercial vessels demonstrate that they have an understanding of the Navigation Rules or the ability to safely operate their vessels. (I recognize that there may be testing requirements to operate very large non-commercial vessels.)
Navigable waters are far less organized than roadways, and are therefore more dependent on vessels being operated in a logical consistent manner. When I am on the water and there is someone roaring around in a cigarette boat at 60 knots, I am very uncomfortable knowing that the operator of the boat may not have a clue about his/her obligation to other vessels on the water. That is why I believe that testing and licensing of operators of vessels is reasonable and beneficial. The other issue is what should be the scope of testing and licensing programs; specifically, should the operators of paddlecraft and bicycles be included in the programs?
With respect to the licensing of paddlecraft and bicycles, I see two functions of the licensing requirement. First, to promote a safe and efficient transportation system, and second, to educate people sufficiently about the risks involved in the activity so they can make an informed decision about accepting the risks.
My opinion is that if paddlecraft and bicycles are to be treated as vessels and vehicles operating on an equal footing with other vessels and vehicles in their respective environments, there should be the same requirements that their operators demonstrate some minimum competence to operate them. The rational being that navigation and driving are organized systems, and all users of the systems should know the rules and to the maximum extent possible be made to conform to the rules. This argument would not apply to people who only paddle in rock and rapids where other vessels do not operate, or who only pedal off-road.
I realize that some people seem to feel that the right to behave stupidly and recklessly is either a God given or Constitutional right, and maybe it is, but arguably society has an obligation to provide people with the information that would enable them to make an informed decision about the risks that they are accepting to both themselves and others. Testing and licensing simply insure that people are exposed to the information neccessry to make an informed decision. Additionally, even if the person taking an unreasonable risk is the only likely direct victim of his/her acts, there are potential societal consequences. There are search and rescue costs, risks incurred by professional and Good Samaritan rescuers, health care costs and the trauma to the innocent people who are the immediate cause of the injury. I for one would be have trouble sleeping if I mangled some idiot on a bicycle with my car even if the idiot had run a red light.
I am not advocating prohibitions against participating in risky activities; I am saying that some mechanism that attempts to educate people about the risks that may be involved in an activity and to enable them to function in an organized transportation system is reasonable and beneficial. Testing is a means to insure that they have been exposed to the knowledge and licensing is a means to insure that they were tested.
it was under water and luckily
it was the Fish River and not the St. John that flooded—the dikes on the side of the SJ held–otherwise the water would have been a lot deeper.
those two guys
the Biddeford paddlers were fairly good and probably, if certification was required, would have been certified–so youre right—don’t think it would have made a difference in what happened. There are paddlers out there who think that they can handle anything on the ocean.
Not too long ago here on P-Net was a kayaker who said he liked to go out in 40–45 knot winds but was having some problem controlling his boat(Yuh think!!!) Looked at his profile and picture of him and his boat–has all the right equipment–real high end stuff and seems like a competent paddler. Point is that if you go out in those kind of conditions, you are taking a chance and eventually your luck may run out. A certification requirment won’t change that.
Exactly!!!
Let Darwin claim his share and those who get pulled should pay for getting an extension on life. Much fairer than the elitist crap about having to take lessons from alphabet soup organizations to earn the “privilege” of going out for a paddle.
sing
Potential Can of Worms
How many different licenses would there have to be . If only one is required to be certified to do it all it will be a long class.
One for Flatwater, one for whitewater , Rec. Boat , Canoe , Kayak, Ski, will length and width of boat matter , river , Ocean , Lake , Cold weather , windy conditions ! Can you roll !
If I get a flatwater permit can I go onto a river with class 1 whitewater !
Will we have to put license plates on our boat !
How will they check this to assure that each paddler is covered .
I have a headache !
Sing how do I join your Outlaw paddle Club !!!
Fair enough, but let’s not take this…
– Last Updated: May-02-08 1:10 PM EST –
...to silly extremes.
First, I admit that I didn't have the patience to read this whole thread, but general topic seemed to be about paddle craft, paddle-craft logic is what I used in interpreting what you said, and for such boats, it made no sense to me.
Now, as far as search-and-rescue costs being a reason to legislate "exposure to information" that goes along with "proper licensing", I don't agree with that philosophy at all. I think it's just one more slippery step down the path to total elimination of personal responsibility, and total take-over by lawmakers of how we live. That sounds a little over-stated I'm sure, but we got along for hundereds of years without being told how every last little detail of our lives must be controlled, and things aren't any better now than they were then. Let's go ahead and require training for the operation of any kind of heavy machinery that clearly presents a risk to others if operated carelessly, but I dread the day when I can't even go for a dayhike without first having taken a government-mandated "safety course" and been properly "licenced" and payed a fee to "cover the costs" simply because there's about a 1/100,000 chance I could fall and break a leg and searchers might go looking for me. Don't think for a minute that that's any more rediculous than government-mandated training for rec kayakers before they hit the water.
This whole deal about "we can't put the searchers at risk" is crap in my mind, because those who preach this reasoning invariably paint with much too-broad of a brush. Sure, there are situations where search-and-rescue operations are truely dangerous, but DO NOT use that as a reason to assume that EVERY aspect of boating is likely to lead to the same risks for searchers as when getting the crew off a crippled fishing boat in the North Atlantic. For accidents involving MOST paddlers, the WORST thing that can happen to search and rescue workers if we screw up is that they will miss the big game on TV that day. Example, if I capsize in three- to four-foot waves on the big local lake, and somebody sees me in trouble out there, the Sheriff's deputies aren't going to swim out after me; they will come after me in a boat that handles beautifully in such conditions. They will get some wind-blow spray in their faces every now and then, but that's about it. I'll do what I can to make sure this never happens, but I'm confident that if it does, no one will be in any danger except me.
I don't want the fact that I "could" get myself in trouble when I go out in a boat to be an excuse for just another tax. That's all it is. If they make us take classes to operate paddlecraft, there's no limit to the hoops we will have to jump through for other things as well, like maybe needing government inspections of your woodworking shop (woodworking poses a lot more risk to most people than paddling). Life need not be that complicated. Take responsibility for your own actions and don't give these fools in Washington the chance to pretend they have our best intrests at heart.
youre already in
I concur, sillines should be avoided at
all costs, but with that said, I don’t think what I am advocating is silly. And what I’ve stated is a very general concept implementation of which would not be simple.
Primarily, I am advocating mandatory education and testing of non-commercial vessel operators. Secondary, I believe that kayak operators who use navigable waterways and bicycle operators that use public roadways, should be accorded equal status with other users of waterways and roadways and as such should also be required to demonstrate basic competence. My main argument supporting these positions is that they facilitate the safe and orderly operation of vessels and vehicles in these systems.
I strongly disagree with you to the extent that you maintain that the risks to rescuers should not be considered in determining whether or not some level of mandatory education is be justified. Certainly most rescues by trained, professional rescue personnel are well within their safe operational limits, however, for some percentage of recues, professional rescuers are placing themselves at risk, and in some cases they are injured or killed. There is also to be considered the risk to non-professional, Good Samaritan, rescuers. I recall reading of a number of cases where people have died trying to save someone who carelessly put themselves into a life threatening situation. I am not saying that this argument, by itself, is sufficient to justify mandatory education and testing, but it does bolster the main argument and it should at least be evaluated.
I also disagree with you to the extent that you imply that the monetary costs of search and rescue and medical care for people that are lost or injured as the result of their own recklessness should not be considered. This may be a weaker argument than the other two, but it should be at least be considered in the overall decision regarding education and testing. It is my understanding that minimizing the medical costs carried by government or insurance companies is the primary justification for mandatory helmet and seat belt laws.
The avoidance of the traumatization or just aggravation of people who are impacted by other people’s reckless actions is also a legitimate concern. Once again maybe not sufficient in itself, but at least a factor that can add support to the program I am advocating.
I agree with you when you say that over regulation should be avoided. I agree that there should not be licenses required for hiking, woodworking or many other potentially dangerous activities. I also agree with you that the fees involved in a licensing program should not be used as a source of general revenue. They should just cover the cost of testing and issuing the license. I just happen to feel that the maintenance of safe and orderly waterways and roadways justifies a requirement that operators of vessels and vehicles demonstrate minimal competence. The other arguments are just supplemental to my main argument.
Link to a detailed
account of what happend at Biddeford Pool, Maine
by Brandon Andrusic the survivor.
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=106073
2nd link is to the Portland press story of the incident. Looks like this actually happened last year.
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=106049
You won’t see me . . .
paddling a kayak on the day that kayak certification and licensing becomes mandatory. I’ll be out there, but you won’t see me. This is Maine – and there are still lots of places to go where people (and their regulations) can’t find you.
A related story about 2 boys (ages 7 and 9) in a paddleboat who had to be rescued from the Penobscot River yesterday is at http://bangornews.com/news/t/penobscot.aspx?articleid=163780&zoneid=183
Think regulations would have helped those kids?
Yaeh - it’s old
But it has dramatic appeal so of course it ended up dominating the news story. Much of my point - that the rational stuff doesn’t have much to do with what drives public policy.
The tricky bit is keeping kayak safety from becoming public policy, and that may require a little more than complaining about inexperienced paddlers, unfortunate judgement calls or revenue-grabbing politicians on pnet.
Hmmm
– Last Updated: May-02-08 5:09 PM EST –
You addressed some points I didn't even talk about.
Still, I do imagine that the level of regulation you are in favor of would immediately do-away with the kinds of bicycle use that I and all my friends took part in when we were kids, because there's no way kids of 8 - 11 years old are going to keep riding their bikes to school, to go fishing, or whatever, if they need to pass the equivalent of a driver's test before they are allowed to ride.
We will have to agree to disagree on this. Clearly you are in favor of what currently would be an unprecidented amount of government regulation of a number of very simple activities in a way that has ever been considered "normal and acceptable" in the past, and clearly I am not in favor of this. I doubt that you can convince me that the users of all "vessels" (that includes kayaks, canoes, and rowboats, right, or else why are we even discussing it here?) should be trained, licenced and regulated just because across the whole country, perhaps a dozen times per year, one of these people turns up missing off the coast, or because some mis-guided Samaritan will bite off more than they can chew in a rescue attempt, or something similar. As far as it being important to know the rules of the road for commercial boating traffic, I think the number of paddlers who are affected by commercial traffic is miniscule in comparison to the total, and given the speed and size of their "vessels", the only rule which makes any sense is "stay out of the way of the big boats", since there is no way a paddle craft can adhere to any of the standard navigation rules in the first place when going only 4 mph. THAT should be common sense, and what's more, any packet of boating rules from the Coast Guard or your local DNR already says this. Knowing who has the right-of-way under such-and-such circumstance is irrelevant since the operator of the larger vessels won't know you are there in the first place, and can't be expected to slow down or change course "just for you" if you are dumb enough to dart out in front of them. To say otherwise would be just like claiming that you need a good understanding of the rules of railroad operation to avoid being hit by a train at a grade crossing, when if fact all you need to know is that the train won't stop until it's too late, no matter what. Since we simply cannot legislate-away all the things that create potentially dangerous situations, it makes no sense to single-out an activity like paddling which is so incredibly insignificant in the overall scheme of potential dangers we face.
Here's my standard of measurement for "feel-good" safety laws. Any one who REALLY wants to save lives with some sort of new safety rule, should be willing to implement a SINGLE law which will be thousands of times more effective at saving lives each year than ANY COMBINATION of other safety-related laws that have ever been proposed. What would such a law require? It would require that ALL drivers and ALL passengers on the road, in any kind of vehicle, must wear helmets at all times. The tremndous effectiveness of such a law can't be debated. The effect would be astronomical. However, such a law would never come to be, because it would never be acceptable to the general public, and therefore it would not be proposed by lawmakers (who of course want to be re-elected). However, if such a simple, but effective law doesn't stand a chance of being implemented, how can it make any sense to piddle around with massive amounts of regulation, relative to the benefit, when it comes to things like canoes and kayaks? The answer is simple - because "it can be done" and because "there will be fees to collect", and all the feel-good talk in the world can't disguise this.
The Bicycle Comment
’akin to having to take a class to ride a bicycle’.
Well… I routinely see dumbasses on bicycles on the wrong side of the road. Maybe if bike sellers and boat sellers were required to include a “rules of the road” booklet with their products, at least they could say “You were warned.”
I don’t want to hear any shit about kayakers wasting the Coast Guard’s time. It’s like folks joining the army then whining about having to go fight.