NYCkayaker New York, first state to require kayakers, canoeists to wear life jackets

[rob buchanan]

hey, huffy libertarian here, sorry to keep this conversation going but i'm
not sure everything's quite been said.

one problem is that while most of us may be looking at this from a kayaking
(ie, narrow and tippy) point of view, the law as written applies to all
vessels under 21 feet--kayaks, canoes, row boats and everything else, on all
navigable waterways including coastal waters. that's a pretty wide range of
craft and conditions. i can understand, and even agree with, a park service
requirement to wear a vest on the delaware when that river is cold or in
spate. but what about a 20-foot catboat with an eight-foot beam, cruising
the shellfish ponds of long island, average depth three or four feet. water
temp in the beginning of november is stil in the sixties--perfectly
swimmable.

in short, it may be worth considering the idea that the wearing of life
vests is not as integral to other, related sports as it is to kayaking. but
the law lumps us all together.

here's another issue. a friend of mine recently built a prototype east river
rowing boat and made it 181/2 feet long so it would fit inside a 20-foot
container, the better to store it near the water. yes, of course, when
rowing it on the east river i will most likely be wearing a vest, and will
certainly require anyone participating in a community rowing session to wear
one. but if i take that boat somewhere else and the situation is different,
i would prefer that the vest decision be me mine. so, while i intend to
build more boats in the same category, at this point there's no way any of
them is going to be a centimeter less than 21 feet. somehow that
feels...medieval.

in general, i don't understand the legislative need to try to reduce the
risks of cold water and small craft by mandating specific dates and hull
lengths, nor do i understand the collective willingness of most of the
respondents here to endorse such an approach. do we really want to reduce
this still relatively open field of endeavor to a series of (somebody
else's) rules and numbers?


--rob buchanan




On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Erik Baard <erikbaard at gmail.com> wrote:

> I vow to stay away from politics then... And some people reasonably fear
> being sucked into politics, so they wrote to me back channel. So here are
> kayaking and kayak community thoughts that don't play to an ideological
> bent:
>
> First, I should clarify one statement. When I stated that a life jacket law
> was already on the books, I meant that the requirement to have one in the
> boat already exists.
>
> Two people asked what forum would be appropriate for getting kayakers heard
> as regulations are drafted. To be honest I am less certain of the forum
> than
> the voice. At the state, the Hudson River Watertrail Association is best
> suited, along with allies like the American Canoe Association. At the city
> level, the forming NYC Water Trail Association is the right mechanism
> though
> I expect it will go through some substantial growing pains regarding
> governance before it is truly inclusive, transparent, and effective. It is
> under the wing of the HRWA. The good news, however, is that the NYC
> Department of Parks and Recreation is very friendly to kayakers'
> aspirations. We're more frustrated on the state and national levels.
>
> One list member also made a good point against my claim that foolish
> paddlers endanger only themselves. I suppose I was trying to concede the
> point a little. But when a rescue operation begins, this is no longer true.
> Should a kayaker go missing and take longer to locate and bring to safety
> (or retrieve from the fishes' buffet table), each additional minute is
> another during which responders are taking risks and spending tax dollars.
> Though some of us might protest that we'd never sue authorities or others
> for our errors (despite strong temptations to litigate strewn about), when
> a
> paddler is missing he or she has no means of telling agencies to not seek
> him or her. The expense and risk must be assumed.
>
> Another burden that's spread around: without a law requiring the wearing of
> life vests during these higher risk periods, it's usually left to fellow
> kayakers to make the case (often to argumentative and unpleasant
> resistance). A state rule lifts that burden from peers who lack all
> authority apart from common sense.
>
> I disagree that regarding freedom on the water, "history usually works in
> the other direction." We've seen a mushrooming of kayak launches throughout
> the city. Access is growing rapidly. Only security zones from 9/11
> countervail that trend, and I suspect those will soften or harden depending
> on threats or incidents.
>
> So, in short, I do support this new rule but not the opacity of its
> creation. Let's get in there and ensure we are part of the process for all
> future laws and regulations affecting our community.
>
> Erik Baard
>
>
>
>