"Unintended Consequences"—A Good Thing?

[ApS]

Maybe HB162 will have a different—and highly desireable—effect.

While searching PFDs, I found that kite-boarders (or kite-surfers), have a unique complaint about PFDs. It turns out that when they "crash" (like a waterskier's fall), they really get beat up by the PFD—and even fall out of it! While the PFD keeps one afloat, kite-boarders often hit the water harder, and the PFD retards a clean "entry". It certainly doesn't help that they can't let go instantly, as a skier can. They "de-power" the kite—a curved, automobile-sized, sail.

Instead, they buy specialized vests that don't knock the wind out of them when they crash. (Kite-boarders usually crash at 26-MPH or less). For security, some of these vests feature "grooves", "funnels", "mesh" and a side-entry! They don't float as well as a CG-approved PFD, however. (I've had the wind knocked out of me with a NH-mandated ski belt).

At HB162-friendly speeds, PFDs usually stay on skiers and boaters. Exceeding HB162 speeds, however, have resulted in PFDs being torn off upon impact with the water with fatal results. (We saw a double-fatality last summer—posted here).

Even 45MPH is a very high boating speed I've read—somewhere.

It's been reported that eight out of ten victims in fatal boating accidents were not wearing PFDs.

It's a good thing to promote PFD-wearing. In 2005, the Coast Guard proposed 100% of boaters wear PFDs when moving. It got shot down—in favor of "Education".

PFDs will prove to be more effective at HB162 speeds than at "no-limit" speeds.

[Airwaves]

Are you telling us that you pull skiiers on Winni at 45MPH or above? Perhaps I read that wrong, but if that is the case what does the comment "PFDs will prove to be more effective at HB162 speeds than "no-limit" speeds", mean?

PFDs are a life saving device.

When I conducted vessel safety inspections on recreational boats I used to encourage parents, usually the mother, to play a game with the kids. One day when they are beached throw PFDs in the water and challenge the kids, as well as Mom and Dad to get into them, make it a game! First one wins an ice cream or something like that. After doing that a couple of times parents (boaters) learn that getting into a PFD in the water is not easy!

PFDs on skiiers are meant to keep the skiier floating so that you can get to him/her before they drown. PFDs as a life saving device should be worn, but as we all know, they aren't.

[GWC...]

As a side note, there is a little difference between a PFD and a water skiing vest, although both are USCG certified.

http://www.shopzilla.com/7X--Watersk...106__start--30

[Airwaves]

A water ski vest and Type III PFD is one in the same.

Some look like the photo above, some are the orange PFDs that many boats have on board, but both are Type III. Just don't use an orange Type III PFD water skiing!

I remember as a kid when it was okay to use a white foam belt as a water skiing PFD!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Maybe HB162 will have a different—and highly desireable—effect.

While searching PFDs, I found that kite-boarders (or kite-surfers), have a unique complaint about PFDs. It turns out that when they "crash" (like a waterskier's fall), they really get beat up by the PFD—and even fall out of it! While the PFD keeps one afloat, kite-boarders often hit the water harder, and the PFD retards a clean "entry". It certainly doesn't help that they can't let go instantly, as a skier can. They "de-power" the kite—a curved, automobile-sized, sail.

Instead, they buy specialized vests that don't knock the wind out of them when they crash. (Kite-boarders usually crash at 26-MPH or less). For security, some of these vests feature "grooves", "funnels", "mesh" and a side-entry! They don't float as well as a CG-approved PFD, however. (I've had the wind knocked out of me with a NH-mandated ski belt).

At HB162-friendly speeds, PFDs usually stay on skiers and boaters. Exceeding HB162 speeds, however, have resulted in PFDs being torn off upon impact with the water with fatal results. (We saw a double-fatality last summer—posted here).

Even 45MPH is a very high boating speed I've read—somewhere.

It's been reported that eight out of ten victims in fatal boating accidents were not wearing PFDs.

It's a good thing to promote PFD-wearing. In 2005, the Coast Guard proposed 100% of boaters wear PFDs when moving. It got shot down—in favor of "Education".

PFDs will prove to be more effective at HB162 speeds than at "no-limit" speeds.

According to the NH Boating course ski belts are not acceptable. What were you using???

"Towing a Person Legally with a Vessel
Vessel operators towing a person(s) on water skis, aquaplanes, or any other devices must also obey these laws:

All persons being towed behind a vessel on water skis or any other device must wear a U. S. Coast Guard-approved Type I, II or III personal flotation device (life jacket). Ski belts are not approved personal flotation devices and are illegal."

[SIKSUKR]

Skibelts are not acceptable for pfd's in NH.I grew up skiing using a skibelt.My father was always yelling at me for biting that foamy thing.Something about that spongy foam.APS,I would think the neoprene vests would work well for kite-skiing.

[gtxrider]

Originally Posted by codeman671

According to the NH Boating course ski belts are not acceptable. What were you using???

"Towing a Person Legally with a Vessel
Vessel operators towing a person(s) on water skis, aquaplanes, or any other devices must also obey these laws:

All persons being towed behind a vessel on water skis or any other device must wear a U. S. Coast Guard-approved Type I, II or III personal flotation device (life jacket). Ski belts are not approved personal flotation devices and are illegal."

Ski belts were accepted back in the "OLD DAYS". We have progressed just like growing up we could ride in the back of a pickup truck, ride bikes with no helmets, ride in a car with out seat belts. Rules and laws change.

As for high speed why not wear what race boat driver wear?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by gtxrider

Ski belts were accepted back in the "OLD DAYS". We have progressed just like growing up we could ride in the back of a pickup truck, ride bikes with no helmets, ride in a car with out seat belts. Rules and laws change.

As for high speed why not wear what race boat driver wear?

Acres' post did not mention how long ago the belt incident took place. I knew that these have not been legal for some time. I remember as well seeing people use them years ago and actually saw someone go by my place last summer wearing one. You never can tell these days who is up on the laws...

[ApS]

How about in one sentence?

HB162 will discourage the speeds at which PFDs are normally torn off in an upset.

[RegalStan2450]

I waterski around 32-37 mph. When cutting across the wake on one ski you easily reach 45 mph+. I have fallen plenty and never had a problem and I weigh 230 lbs. HB 162 will do nothing to help with this IMO. A skier going 40 mph still faces plenty of danger crossing a wake.

Again I believe HB 162 will have a completely different and undesirable effect on the lake. High speed chases for one. Now that so called 5% of boaters that are gfbl boaters, who according to some here are driving drunk. You think that drunk guy will stop? I think he will go faster and become more reckless. Driving drunk is extremely stupid but unfortunately people do stupid things. Why not do one more stupid thing and try and outrun MP?

How about those young PWC drivers. Think they will stop for MP when they are already going 70 mph? I am 37 years old now and have matured quite a bit since 18 but when I was 18 I question what I would do on a PWC.

A PWC can travel in inches of water. The first place a law-breaking,fleeing PWC would go would be the shallows, where people fish and swim. Imagine what could happen there.

I am sorry but I see much more undesireable effects coming from HB 162 than desireable. To much wasted time and effort for very little results.

It also restricts too many law abiding citizens.

The 200k sport cruiser that can do 80 mph. 45 mph is slow in these . The fisherman who wakes up at 6 am to fly across the empty, crystal clear lake in his 90mph bass boat to get to his favorite spot, now must go 45 mph. How about that responsible guy who bought his 80 mph PWC to satisfy his need for speed.

Even the trick barefooter will be restricted. I know very few people do this but you need to go over 45 mph to to trick barefooting. I have seen barefooting and depending on the weight of the person,at 45 mph you are normally barely planning the water with your feet.

Again IMO this law will do absolutely nothing to help improve safety on the lake. Uneducated boaters pose a much greater risk.I have been boating for well over 10 years now and have never had an incident with a speeding boat. They all usually go fast, way out in a big lake, where it is safe.

Maybe not the post for this story but here is one of my little experiences with an uneducated boater.

I was boating on a very small lake(with a 30 mph speed limit BTW). We were anchored and our 2 kids were swimming and jumpiing off the boat. A young driver driving a small 16' boat or so was pulling a waterskier at about 25mph. I believe he was trying to show off and he passed in between my boat and a canoe coming within a couple feet of both of us. He actually did it a second time! Then I became mad and followed him until he stopped.

He had no idea about the 150' law and could not understand my anger. "What if one of my kids were swimming under water just off my boat?", I screamed!? I don't even want to think about it .

On any lake I fear the uneducated boater much more that the educated 100mph boater.This is based on my own experiences. If we need to spend all this time and possibly money lets spend it on more boater education, not a useless speed limit.

[KonaChick]

Boats going at high rates of speed, drunks behind the helm of boats, people pulling waterskiers and tubers at hight rates of speed, fisherman and pwc's screaming across the lake. Basically you're saying if HB 162 passes things will stay the same then.....

[GWC...]

As a side note, either the cruise ship ran out of fuel or someone is enjoying Nassau; because the ship's speed is zero.

The cat's still away, so continue with your play...

[upthesaukee]

If you read the post on the cruise, you will see that he is still monitoring the website. Sooooooooooooo, remember, Big Brother, er the Boss, er our Exalted Leader, oh you know, the webmaster who makes all this possible is still out there watching the shop. Kinda like our parents...they had eyes in the back of their head, and must have had hidden camera in the house while they were away !

[ApS]

Originally Posted by RegalStan2450

"...I waterski around 32-37 mph. When cutting across the wake on one ski you easily reach 45 mph+. I have fallen plenty and never had a problem and I weigh 230 lbs. HB 162 will do nothing to help with this IMO..."

You make my point: At speeds over HB162's 45, your vest becomes a burden. It could stay on but others (like SOTW's Poker Run) have been torn off.

Originally Posted by RegalStan2450

"...Again I believe HB 162 will have a completely different and undesirable effect on the lake. High speed chases for one. Now that so called 5% of boaters that are gfbl boaters, who according to some here are driving drunk. You think that drunk guy will stop? I think he will go faster and become more reckless..."

It's clear you haven't seen a MP "high-speed chase".

Originally Posted by RegalStan2450

How about those young PWC drivers. Think they will stop for MP when they are already going 70 mph? I am 37 years old now and have matured quite a bit since 18 but when I was 18 I question what I would do on a PWC..."

Those young PWC drivers will become tomorrow's "Cowboys".

Look at how many can't control their GFBLs on Winnipesaukee doing stunts today. They learn all the wrong moves early—and they're the ones educated earliest through NASBLA. ('Just two more years left to mop-up the oldest boaters).

For example, is this activity consistent with "Maintaining a Proper Watch"?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Look at how many can't control their GFBLs on Winnipesaukee doing stunts today.

One? Wait, that wasn't his boat was it? Speed limit will help there, not.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

For example, is this activity consistent with "Maintaining a Proper Watch"?

So that "activity", going in circles on a pwc, is going to be stopped by a speed limit? Nope. Why is that even a problem? Is it that someone is having fun?

As far as maintaining proper watch, when a pilot training in an airplane wants to practice manuevers, how do you suppose the pilot "maintains a proper watch"? Why yes, by performing clearing turns, one 360 or two 180s in the shape of an S.

True agenda rears it's ugly head again Senators, they can't stand those PWCs.........

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Look at how many can't control their GFBLs on Winnipesaukee doing stunts today. They learn all the wrong moves early—and they're the ones educated earliest through NASBLA. ('Just two more years left to mop-up the oldest boaters).

APS...

Yet another unfounded blanket statement!

If you recall, Island Lover recently posted about along time Islander that had NO IDEA a Boater Safety Certificate was required! Then if you do a further search, you will find the posts about the COLLISION between a small SeaRay and a STATIONARY pontoon boat... guess who was driving??? An OLDER guy, I think in the article they listed his age at 70! No collisions between Hi-Performance boaters and anyone else last year....

In any case, I think there is a bill in the House now that will tighten up the Boater Safety Certificate requirement. It is supposed to eliminate the internet testing option and require a proctored exam. Its also supposed to tighten up the requirements for rental boats by requiring a BSC for anyone who is renting a boat. Not too sure how the heavy rental business pro HB-162 Marinas like Fay's & Thurstons are going to like that.

There are a few other bills in progress as well, one that would require life jackets on children (Under 12 I think?) and the previously discussed noise bill. I think there is also a bill to increase funding to the Marine Patrol. But like all money bills I am sure it will be subject to a pretty heated debate.

You might want to inform your kite surfer friends to do a bit more research on available PFDs. Check these guys out, they make all of the PFD's used by most boat racers. They aren't cheap, about $500 or so, but they won't blow off in an accident either. Had the guys on the SOTW Poker Run been wearing one of these the outcome of the accident might have been different.

http://www.lifelinejackets.com/


Woodsy

[ApS]

Originally Posted by ITD

"...So that "activity", going in circles on a pwc, is going to be stopped by a speed limit? Nope. Why is that even a problem? Is it that someone is having fun?

As a long-time boater, I seldom see a Jet-Ski exit his "doughnuts" in the same direction he entered it—AND he seldom looks around until after he's accelerated into a new direction. When I was a mini-kid, I used to spin myself around to make myself dizzy—it's harmless in the living room.

But my point here—clearly missed—is we're seeing a generation of "thrill-boaters" who trained on Jet-Skis!

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...60&postcount=4
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=57709
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=27673

Originally Posted by Woodsy

APS...

Yet another unfounded blanket statement!

If you recall, Island Lover recently posted about along time Islander that had NO IDEA a Boater Safety Certificate was required!

Because not everybody is required to have a Boater Safety Certificate?

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...about the COLLISION between a small SeaRay and a STATIONARY pontoon boat... guess who was driving??? An OLDER guy, I think in the article they listed his age at 70! No collisions between Hi-Performance boaters and anyone else last year....

Don't GFBL "drivers" reach age 70?

Don't "flips"—with injuries—count?

Originally Posted by Woodsy

There are a few other bills in progress as well, one that would require life jackets on children (Under 12 I think?)

And what is the value in a 70-MPH flip, when shoes, PFDs, and all other apparel are torn off grown-ups?
(...to include big children... )

Oh, and finally...http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=29835

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Check these guys out, they make all of the PFD's used by most boat racers. They aren't cheap, about $500 or so, but they won't blow off in an accident either. Had the guys on the SOTW Poker Run been wearing one of these the outcome of the accident might have been different.

Pop-quiz time:

You're invited to a cliff dive. You elect:

1) A Class III PFD from K-Mart.

2) A $500 boat racer vest.

3) A $200 kite-boarder vest.

4) A $500 boat racer vest with helmet.

5) None of the above.

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Maybe HB162 will have a different—and highly desireable—effect.

While searching PFDs, I found that kite-boarders (or kite-surfers), have a unique complaint about PFDs. It turns out that when they "crash" (like a waterskier's fall), they really get beat up by the PFD—and even fall out of it! While the PFD keeps one afloat, kite-boarders often hit the water harder, and the PFD retards a clean "entry". It certainly doesn't help that they can't let go instantly, as a skier can. They "de-power" the kite—a curved, automobile-sized, sail.

Kite-Boarders/Wind-Surfers are exempt from PFD rules. Falling off the board is considered "part of the wind surfing experience".

[Cal]

For their own safety , maybe they should be required to where one.

[ApS]

OK, Woodsy, Cal, NightWing, ITD, upthesaukee, KonaChick, GWC, RegalStan2450, codeman671, gtxrider, and SIKSUKR. Does Airwaves' reply indicate a blanket confusion regarding PFDs and speed?

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Are you telling us that you pull skiers on Winni at 45MPH or above? Perhaps I read that wrong, but if that is the case what does the comment "PFDs will prove to be more effective at HB162 speeds than "no-limit" speeds", mean?

My contention is that PFDs are unsafe at the speeds prohibited by HB162—(not that those speedsters wear them anyway—they have to look "cool").

At the bottom of this post, you can view a video showing a different "Unintended Consequence", sort-of-related to this thread.

Quiz:

You're invited to a cliff dive. You elect:

1) A Class III PFD from K-Mart.

2) A $500 boat racer vest.

3) A $200 kite-boarder vest.

4) A $500 boat racer vest with helmet.

5) None of the above.

Please make a quiz-based comment and check out the video of this "rescue":

http://www.m90.org/index.php?id=11568

[RegalStan2450]

You make my point: At speeds over HB162's 45, your vest becomes a burden. It could stay on but others (like SOTW's Poker Run) have been torn off.

Ok here is a big problem I have. Deception in quoting people. Clearly you are missing my point and have left out the one part of my comment that matters. HB 162 has absoluely nothing to do with safety while wearing a PFD while skiing and will not help save lives here either I don't know if you ever water skied one ski but while cutting across a wake at 35 mph(the speed I ski at) you are traveling at least 45 mph+.

Thus here is the rest of my statement.

HB 162 will do nothing to help with this IMO. A skier going 40 mph still faces plenty of danger crossing a wake.

It's clear you haven't seen a MP "high-speed chase".

No I haven't as a matter of fact. Again you make my point and that point is I hope never to see one If this law passes maybe I will get to see one since they will probably be a more frequent event..

Those young PWC drivers will become tomorrow's "Cowboys".

Look at how many can't control their GFBLs on Winnipesaukee doing stunts today. They learn all the wrong moves early—and they're the ones educated earliest through NASBLA. ('Just two more years left to mop-up the oldest boaters).

For example, is this activity consistent with "Maintaining a Proper Watch"?

I am sorry APS but sometimes I just don't get your posts. Now ths picture shows a PWC rider doing dougnuts and you keep talking about this. Can these guys do doughnuts at 45 mph +? This is a speed limit discussion. What you are discussing is education and I am totally for some new stricter education laws just not a useless speed limit . In fact I believe PWC incidents will get much worse if this law passes not better.

[SIKSUKR]

What the heck are you calling me out for on this thread?I made one post that took no position at all.I think your veiws and opinions speak for themselves.

[Cal]

Great video , seen it before , but a shortened version.
The Coast Guard captain is just as wrong as the little boat. #1 rule of boating safety "do whatever's necessary to avoid a collision". The little boat obviously wasn't paying attention so the Coasties should have slowed or changed course a bit.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

OK, Woodsy, Cal, NightWing, ITD, upthesaukee, KonaChick, GWC, RegalStan2450, codeman671, gtxrider, and SIKSUKR. Does Airwaves' reply indicate a blanket confusion regarding PFDs and speed?


My contention is that PFDs are unsafe at the speeds prohibited by HB162—(not that those speedsters wear them anyway—they have to look "cool").

At the bottom of this post, you can view a video showing a different "Unintended Consequence", sort-of-related to this thread.

Quiz:

You're invited to a cliff dive. You elect:

1) A Class III PFD from K-Mart.

2) A $500 boat racer vest.

3) A $200 kite-boarder vest.

4) A $500 boat racer vest with helmet.

5) None of the above.

Please make a quiz-based comment and check out the video of this "rescue":

http://www.m90.org/index.php?id=11568

I don't understand the premise of the Quiz, cliff divers don't wear life vests. Furthermore if I accept your contention, which I don't, then I would have to believe the vests are unsafe at 45mph as well as 46 and so on.

Now to the video, didn't the boat that got hit have the right of way? Now granted the Coast Guard was on a rescue mission but I didn't hear any sirens or see any lights. Also from the narration the captain of the CG boat did see the other boat but ran him over anyway. These are the same guys who we take every word and action to be Gospel.

Finally each boat appeared to be travelling much less than 45 mph and they still hit, guess a speed limit would have helped there huh?

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

OK, Woodsy, Cal, NightWing, ITD, upthesaukee, KonaChick, GWC, RegalStan2450, codeman671, gtxrider, and SIKSUKR.

At the bottom of this post, you can view a video showing a different "Unintended Consequence", sort-of-related to this thread.

Quiz:

You're invited to a cliff dive. You elect:

1) A Class III PFD from K-Mart.

2) A $500 boat racer vest.

3) A $200 kite-boarder vest.

4) A $500 boat racer vest with helmet.

5) None of the above.


Please make a quiz-based comment and check out the video of this "rescue":

http://www.m90.org/index.php?id=11568

5) None of the above.

Do not remember the last time, or first, that I saw a cliff diver wearing a pfd.


The Coasties failed to avoid an obvious collision in the making, by simply backing off the throttles to allow the smaller boat, the one in their danger zone, to safely pass.

Then again, the person driving the small boat should have been more observant and noticed the obvious collision in the making, by simply backing off the throttles to allow the Coasties to safely pass.

How is this unintended consequence a good thing?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

As a long-time boater, I seldom see a Jet-Ski exit his "doughnuts" in the same direction he entered it—AND he seldom looks around until after he's accelerated into a new direction.

Oh I see the problem, the jet ski failed to follow the rule that says you must exit a turn or series of turns in the same direction. (There is no such rule). As far as the comment about looking before he accelerates in a new direction, while I agree it probably happens it's the exception rather than the rule. And once more, nothing a SPEED LIMIT will solve..

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

When I was a mini-kid, I used to spin myself around to make myself dizzy—it's harmless in the living room.

Oh man, more comedy gold here, can't resist, I apologize in advance.....

You were a kid once?

Sometimes I wonder if you still make yourself dizzy before you post.

Ok, I'm just joking, I really don't think that..

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

But my point here—clearly missed—is we're seeing a generation of "thrill-boaters" who trained on Jet-Skis!

{snipped}

Once again, I don't buy your premise and I really think you're offbase here but I don't see any way to prove or disprove this.

I think the person in your example ("a generation) was lacking judgement and knowledge that what he was doing was dangerous. I don't care how much you legislate, you won't be able to prevent people like this from doing stupid things if they are determined to do it.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

PFDs are safe ONLY at HB162 Speed.

Can you document more than two or three incidents in the entire world and all recorded history of a person drowning because his PFD was stripped from their body during a high-speed boat crash? Man o' man people are grasping at straws. I've got news flash for you, most people in power boats over say 15' don't wear there PFDs on the lake. You can argue about if that's a good idea or not, but you really can't argue that it's true.

As to cliff diving, I haven't found a good place on the lake.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by jrc

"...Can you document more than two or three incidents in the entire world and all recorded history of a person drowning because his PFD was stripped from their body during a high-speed boat crash..? "

I've deliberately omitted ocean crashes and "the entire world" from my casual research:Their "world" has more spectacular crashes than even ours. Gruesome, even—not "post-able" here.

Of the four double-fatalities on lakes last summer, two had their PFDs stripped off, and two weren't wearing theirs when struck from behind by a speeding Baja. A near-double occurred with a boating safety instructor at the helm—at 70-MPH.

Originally Posted by RegalStan2450

"...HB 162 has absoluely nothing to do with safety while wearing a PFD while skiing and will not help save lives here either HB 162 will do nothing to help with this IMO. A skier going 40 mph still faces plenty of danger crossing a wake.

I agree. Even a skier crossing a wake at 70-MPH isn't affected by HB 162. The vests that were torn off last summer were torn off at 70—witnessed by the Coast Guard themselves. There was no mention of the PFD type that were worn—only that they were mandatory. (New Hampshire's old ski-belt law was mandatory).

In the light that all the victim's apparel was torn off also, I have no trouble understanding the hydraulic forces at work at the speeds of the newer boats—and newer Jet-Skis. I've done lots of stupid speed-stuff in my life, but I wouldn't try to jump off a boat moving at 45—or 75—MPH. (Now that I've suggested it, look for it on Winnipesaukee: It'll probably happen!)

Originally Posted by RegalStan2450

"...Now ths picture shows a PWC rider doing dougnuts and you keep talking about this. Can these guys do doughnuts at 45 mph +?...In fact I believe PWC incidents will get much worse if this law passes not better.

Jet-Ski "drivers" aren't the only ones doing doughnuts. At least two of the recent 4½-ton boat crashes involved such stunts.

Until I saw a four-passenger Jet-Ski doing doughnuts last summer, I hadn't given this too much thought. All 4 passengers seemed to be secure during this stunt, but it was a wakeless and calm day. Still, such stunts seem to have "graduated" from Jet-Skis—to 4-passenger Jet-Skis—to 4½-ton boats.

BTW: How will PWC incidents "get much worse" at sane speeds?

Originally Posted by jrc

"...I've got news flash for you, most people in power boats over say 15' don't wear there PFDs on the lake. You can argue about if that's a good idea or not, but you really can't argue that it's true..."

As to cliff diving, I haven't found a good place on the lake.

While I agree that "nobody wears PFDs", the Coast Guard proposed last year that there be a mandatory use of PFDs on all moving recreational boats. If we get an excellent boating season weather-wise (and many more accidents as a result), look for another push. Even local states with mandatory education laws are revising and upgrading their curricula, as their accident trends are reversing.

I've cliff-dived—Puerto de Soller, Ibiza—back when I was young, indestructible, and stupid. 'Maybe post a photo later, when I can copy it. I'll post some of the sensory effects then.

Aside from the less-familiar kite-boarding, there's no closer analogy to being ejected from a boat at high speed. Wearing a PFD while cliff-diving would've knocked you out—if it wasn't ripped off by the impact—like SOTW.

As to "stripped vests"—I don't see a Coast Guard category for that. Except for those two incidents, I haven't noticed previous ones being reported. What's the Coast Guard to record in this case anyway?

If witnesses state that vests were worn—but torn off—the officer would still have to state that they were being worn, wouldn't he? Vests worn aboard=vests worn at terminal speed/crash.

With Jet-Ski accidents becoming reduced nationwide, the stats should be decreasing: So far, the trend is downwards, but is increasing in other, nearby, locales. Speed (helped along with alcohol) increases the severity of a crash, and is a subject getting revisited from New Hampshire to California.

Originally Posted by GWC

"...the person driving the small boat [in the video] should have been more observant and noticed the obvious collision in the making, by simply backing off the throttles to allow the Coasties to safely pass."

You're right, but I think the Coasties "gilded" this video with the voice-over.

The smaller boat was alerted by the CG, who announced the warning over a loudspeaker. (What? No whistle?)

Nonetheless, the smaller boat never slowed, perhaps perceiving the broadcast was being made by the large boat to their right. Had they been 45+MPH-capable, the impact would have been even more severe. (You can see that the victim's 21-footer was torn in half as it was). And yes, I think they were the victims.

I suspect the captain did angle his CG boat to minimize the impact, but perceived the real danger too late. What's remarkable is that this video wasn't "deep-sixed".

The CG also had a recent case where their officers were ejected from their own CG boat while near a docked Miami cruise ship. Their own boat circled around them for 20 minutes—repeatedly colliding with other boats, and endangered themselves in the water.

Education works? In the Miami case, they at least were wearing PFDs.

Originally Posted by ITD

"...Finally each boat appeared to be travelling much less than 45 mph and they still hit, guess a speed limit would have helped there huh?"

What would the victim have said about proceeding at anything faster? As it was, you can see that his boat was totalled by the impact. A faster speed—and resulting greater impact—would have required a far more extensive explanation from the CG, IMO.

[Woodsy]

Looks to me like the Coastie at the helm wasn't paying attention. The Coastie was the give way boat. I didn't hear any sirens or horns in the video indicating they were speeding to an emergency.

Woodsy

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

In the light that all the victim's apparel was torn off also, I have no trouble understanding the hydraulic forces at work at the speeds of the newer boats—and newer Jet-Skis.

Sometimes, when I dive into the water off my dock, my bathing suit falls off. Does this mean I get a ticket for speeding should the speed limit pass?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by ITD

Sometimes, when I dive into the water off my dock, my bathing suit falls off. Does this mean I get a ticket for speeding should the speed limit pass?

When you get a ticket for speeding, you can claim "insufficient 'speedo'".

Same for diving off your dock.