Mandating Adult Life Jacket Wear

[Target9000]

Originally Posted by Aussiesuede

They present a very real, and measurable, risk to we the public.

Any time you start talking about the government measuring things you have to be very careful because there are:

1) Lies
2) Damn Lies
3) Statistics.

[Piglet]

Anchors are pointy and dangerous. I propose that safety googles be mandatory if you have an anchor onboard.

[Aussiesuede]

Originally Posted by CaptFrankM

Actually, the only reason they present a "risk to we the public" is because the government - before deciding that there needed to be mandatory seat belt laws - decided that there should be mandatory lifetime medical care for people who are injured in automobile accidents if they are not wearing seatbelts. If you remove the requirement for the latter, you remove the requirement for the former. On the other hand, if you do not want to remove the latter, then why stop at the former? Why not make a law that says if you are caught not wearing a seatbelt, you can never drive again? This would certainly protect "we the people" from "real and measurable risk."

The fact is that mandatory seatbelt laws don't really make a difference, after a period of adoption. People who are going to wear seatbelts will, people who are not won't. Same with PFDs.

My support of mandatory seatbelt and helmet laws have absolutely nothing to do with an attempt to control behaviour. I'm in agreement with them simply due to the fact that in the reality of the America in which we live, if an uninsured individual is injured in a motor vehicle accident and requires emergency care, WE the people have to pay for that care when he cannot. Changing any laws which require that care to be given is another story all together.

The same scenario does not exist with regard to madatory PFD use since the overwhelming majority of equations where a life were to be saved if a PFD were being worn - generally result in the death of the individual who was not wearing the PFD; and the subsequent funeral costs fall upon the family of the deceased NOT We the public. As such, We the people are NOT at risk as we are not the ones left with the responsibility of paying for the victim in a drowning but ARE left with the responsibility of providing care for the uninsured motorist who survive their accidents (ie, the majority). If a majority of the public were to choose to repeal the laws which require that emergency care be given to all who present for emergency care - then my stance on seatbelt and helmet laws would change since I as a member of the public would no longer be presented with any risk.

I personally agree with Ronald Reagan's decision to sign "EMTALA" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergen...bor_Acthttp://into law and mandate that emergency care be given to all who present for emergency care. In the event that law is ever repealed and not replaced with similar legislation, then I'd no longer support mandatory seatbelt and helmet laws since the public would no longer be at risk of paying for the significant difference in care required for an accident victim who, if he'd been wearing a helmet, would have sustained the marginal cost injuries of a broken arm and leg vs life long care associated with blunt head trauma.

Non sealtbelt wearing, and non helmet wearing individuals cost we the public more money. Non PFD wearing individuals don't cost we the public a thing, therefore we the public should have no say in that particular individuals behaviour.

[smurphny]

Isn't the current circus going on in congress evidence enough that America needs to STOP hiring more people, creating more laws, funding new intrusive and costly government programs? Government creates laws for one reason alone: to make more government jobs. Aside from the truly disturbing "big brother" issue, good intentions, put forth by do-gooders and busybodies often have disastrous and costly consequences. Government cannot possibly protect the inherently stupid from every foolish action. Put a life jacket on when you feel it is warranted. Most of us are smart enough to know when. Government needs to get much smaller if the US is to survive financially and to stop trying to save everyone from every possible danger. It's sheer folly.

And to Target9000- MANIPULATED statistics.

[FSMike]

As far as "we the people" having to pay for uninsured accident victims -
I've been in an inordinate number of emergency rooms through my life, often uninsured. Would "we the people" please send me my check? I seem to have paid all my bills myself and could sure use the refund.
Admittedly my uninsured episodes were prior to ridiculous medical costs.

[sabray]

Originally Posted by Piglet

Anchors are pointy and dangerous. I propose that safety googles be mandatory if you have an anchor onboard.

You haven't actually poked yourself in the eye with your anchor have you?

[sdowney717]

How about making such a rule FAIR by requiring swimmers in any water to wear life jackets. Such as swimming pools. Can you imagine looking out on the pool and seeing all those people wearing life vests?

A women just recently drowned in a city pool full of people and the body was not discovered for 3 days. So dont tell me lifeguards make all the difference, or other people are there to see things happen. A life vest would likely have kept her floating and not drowned the poor unfortunate women.

So we need laws to be applied equally across all potential dangers or they are not fair and just laws. Then we will see a public outcry I think.
http://kdrv.com/page/218721

You cant save the world by making everyone wear vests anytime they go into the water.

[CaptFrankM]

It appears the question is no longer "how do we feel about this," since the answer to that is obvious.

So, we need to move on to the follow-on question - what do we do to prevent it? I have found in the past that those who want to "protect" us simply keep pushing until the rest of us get tired of fighting. I can't think of wording to put into a law that says "no federal organization shall make any law requiring the mandatory use of PFDs" that would actually work, although I must admit that I see something ironic in the idea that the only way to prevent a law would be to make a law so saying.

Other than the obvious "vote the bums out" - which merely results in a different set of "bums" - is there any way to prevent a mandatory law from eventually happening?

[FSMike]

Maybe the attention of the various legislative/bureaucratic entities could be diverted from "must do this" to "must be educated about this". That wouldn't bother me much. Well, not too much.

[zeehag]

if emtala were actually able to mandate care after accidents, then my brother should be cared for f or life. is NOT the case. he only gets that which he pays for, same as you and me. he doesnt even get ssdi as he isnt qualified--was in hospital way too long to qualify for that. he earned it but is ineligible for it. ok. NEEXXT! gottta laugh as governmental intervention is not in the favor of the people -only in the favor of the government.

[Sam Plan B]

Who are the elected people that are pushing this? Seems to me the first thing would be to out them by name. Then the next thing would be to find their most viable and politically agreeable opponent in the next election cycle and contribute to that persons campaign.

[sabray]

Originally Posted by CaptFrankM

It appears the question is no longer "how do we feel about this," since the answer to that is obvious.

So, we need to move on to the follow-on question - what do we do to prevent it? I have found in the past that those who want to "protect" us simply keep pushing until the rest of us get tired of fighting. I can't think of wording to put into a law that says "no federal organization shall make any law requiring the mandatory use of PFDs" that would actually work, although I must admit that I see something ironic in the idea that the only way to prevent a law would be to make a law so saying.

Other than the obvious "vote the bums out" - which merely results in a different set of "bums" - is there any way to prevent a mandatory law from eventually happening?

Where is boat us on the issue? The very first thing we should all start not doing is drowning. I just took the first step and it wasn't to hard. I'll try again yep still not drowned. If we all started not drowning the issue would go away.

[perchance]

Originally Posted by CaptFrankM

It appears the question is no longer "how do we feel about this," since the answer to that is obvious.

So, we need to move on to the follow-on question - what do we do to prevent it? I have found in the past that those who want to "protect" us simply keep pushing until the rest of us get tired of fighting. I can't think of wording to put into a law that says "no federal organization shall make any law requiring the mandatory use of PFDs" that would actually work, although I must admit that I see something ironic in the idea that the only way to prevent a law would be to make a law so saying.

Other than the obvious "vote the bums out" - which merely results in a different set of "bums" - is there any way to prevent a mandatory law from eventually happening?

But I like bums, and thighs, and the rest of the naughty bits.

[nautical62]

Given the astronomically higher number of automobile fatalities, more lives would probably be saved by requiring all auto operators and passengers to wear helmets with face guards. Probably c-spice immobilizers as well to reduce whiplash.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Aussiesuede

I support mandatory helmet and mandatory seat belt laws because of the threat lack of their use presents to the general public. Most car and motorcycle accidents are survivable. Seat belts and helmets measurably reduce the extent of injuries sustained during an accident. It's a quantifiable fact that there is a measurable percentage of t general public which operated these motor vehicles uninsured. When those folks are involved in accidents and need emergency care, WE the public pick up the tab for the uninsured. They present a very real, and measurable, risk to we the public.

Very true, with state sponsored health care or having to buy health insurance I don't want the public eating unhealthy foods like hamburgers, drinking alcoholic beverages, being overweight, and smoking because it costs me the public. Why should I have to pick up the tab for someone elses lack of discipline.

Certainly high risk sports like sailing and swimming are on borrowed time. Search and recovery is too expensive for the public to have to keep picking up the tab. Even if you don't drown everyone knows you can get seriously ill if the water quality is bad.

I go on record as supporting a movement to have people confined in comfortable padded cells so that we can get through this without extra expense.

BTW, I was told yesterday that the UK is seriously considering prosecuting parents for having overweight children. You can't make this stuff up.