RE: [Paddlewise] Nearly Fatal

Hello Shawn and all,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shawn W. Baker [mailto:baker_at_montana.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 12:56 PM
> To: Rob Cookson; Paddlewise
> Subject: RE: [Paddlewise] Nearly Fatal
>
>
> Rob Cookson wrote:
> >Now hold on a minute, did I read this right?  Are you accusing
> the dealer of
> >gross negligence based on the statements we have seen here?  Has anyone
> >spoken with the salesperson that sold the craft?  Based on this you are
> >trying to figure out a way to "deal with" this particular dealer?  Sounds
> >like a quick and speedy trial by email to me.  Unless you have far more
> >information than you are sharing here I think you are being quite unfair.
>
> Debbie wrote:
> >The boat is an Oldtown Loon, probably 14 ft.  No bulkheads.  No visible
> >floatation. Nothing on deck other than a fishing pole under the bungees.
> >..
> >He had purchased his boat the week before and was never told
> anything about
> >the hazards of cold water.  He had no previous water sports
> experience.  He
> >was told that his boat had "built-in" flotation and all he
> needed was a PFD.
> >He did not know anything about sprayskirts, pumps or paddlefloats.
>
> Rob, while I agree with your contention that a general "blame the
> dealer" mentality is ultimately bad for our industry, from Debbie's
> statement, I would say that the dealer was, in fact, negligent to some
> (debatable) degree.  She said that she looked inside and saw no
> flotation.  TheWetOne was told the boat didn't need any additional
> flotation.  That's pretty gross negligence.  Not saying anything would
> have been less negligent!

I think you are missing my point.  My point is that this was a hasty
statement made with no firsthand knowledge and with information coming only
from one side.  We do not know what was said between the dealer and the
client and yet immediately the reaction is that the dealer is accused of
gross negligence and it is suggested that they should be dealt with in some
way.  I'm saying that it seems like pretty strong words given how little is
really known about the situation.



>
> It sounds like the guy did ask some questions at the dealership, but was
> told very little.  C'mon, the dealer is in the business of selling
> kayaking gear; we can both agree on that.  They missed out big time, not
> selling the guy a paddlefloat, pump, sprayskirt, and some float bags.

How do you know that the dealer didn't try?  We have not heard from the
salesperson at all.  Again you are leaping to conclusions without any real
evidence.  I have seen this time and time again with rec boats where a
salesperson says that the new paddler needs a pump and a paddlefloat etc etc
and the customer says no thanks I'm just fishing near shore.  What do you
propose?  Would you make all safety gear mandatory?  Should all kayaks be
required by law to ship with sp****n's?  How about a vhf and a cell phone?
Those are clearly valuable rescue tools should all dealers be required to
sell those too?

>
> Ralph Diaz also wrote:
> > I think we will have to put our heads together
> > to figure out the most effective way to deal with this with this
> > particular dealer.  But I don't want to rush into anything without
> > thinking about it.
>
> Sounds like a pretty sane statement, doesn't sound like a "trial by
> email" to me.

It may sound sane to you but it sounds horribly one sided to me.  Sounds
like the dealer has been convicted and the judge is now deliberating
sentencing.



>
> Debbie raised some very, very good points.  She did not name the dealer,
> just raised some issues.  Naming the dealer and calling for an open
> boycott would be a trial by email.  Issues were raised that need to be
> addressed.  The discussion and solution of those issues in this forum
> could quite possibly alleviate future regulation.

I agree that Debbie raised some good points.  I also think that not naming
the dealer was prudent for a number of reasons.


>
> Nobody said the dealer should be sued.  The dealer should be educated to
> better educate their customers.  The dealer is the first entity seen by
> the New Paddler.  If the dealer as an education resource is bypassed,
> natural selection is going to kill a bunch of ignorant (ignorant: "they
> don't know any better") people, and THAT will result in regulation.

The dealer is not necessarily the first entity seen by the new paddler.  How
many times have I heard that so and so took me paddling and he says I don't
need one of them there ______.  People are introduced to this sport in many
different ways and many have some pretty strong notions by the time they get
to the dealer.

I agree that dealers can be very helpful in terms of education.  I believe
that both the companies that I have worked for were extremely helpful in
terms of educating new paddlers.  As I have said I am all for education, in
fact I love teaching this sport, and I stress safety.  But and this is a big
but.  The dealer is in no way responsible for the safety of those that buy
product from them.  It is completely up to the individual buying equipment
to learn how to use it safely and properly.  My whole beef this issue is
that the terms gross negligence were brought out hastily and with only half
a story that is at best third hand.


Think about all of the products in your home and then think about the ones
that are dangerous, then ask yourself how many of them came with an
education at the point of purchase, and then ask yourself why should
kayaking be different.  If you didn't like my examples of firearms, autos
and ladders lets look at one in a related industry.

How about backpacks.  I recently bought a new pack fro a shop that is
supposed to be renowned for it's educational philosophy.  Not once was I
warned about back strain, twisted ankles, being eaten by bears, falling off
cliffs or any of the other ways one can meet with injury while enjoying a
backpack.

When I purchased my last bicycle no one asked me if I knew the traffic laws
of the state or even told me which side of the road to ride the bike on.

Why then do we expect kayak retailers to impart all of the hazards of
kayaking? We don't have this expectation of other retailers.

>
> Like you said, it all boils down to personal responsibility, but people
> need to be exposed to safety resources to be able to make safe (or not
> safe, for that matter) choices.  If you don't have a clue about what is
> safe and what is not safe, then personal responsibility doesn't mean
> much.

I agree knowledge=power but it is the responsibility of each individual to
seek that knowledge.



> I personally don't think that dealers should be legally liable for the
> good or bad choices made by their customers, but I do believe that they
> have a moral obligation to let their customers know that there are risks
> associated with kayaking.
>

I would say that this individual was aware that there was some risk or he
would not have been wearing a pfd.  I am also willing to bet that there was
a warning label in the boat.


I do agree with you that dealers should share as much knowledge as possible,
I've never said otherwise.  My whole objection here is with this quick
judgment made on the retailer with very few facts and the use of the terms
gross negligence.

As I'm sure you can tell the issue of personal responsibility is one that I
feel very strongly about.  I think that we should all keep in mind that when
you point a finger there are four pointing right back at you.

Cheers,

Rob Cookson

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety"
Benjamin Franklin



***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not
to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************