<SNIP> > "victimless-crime laws" > Rick, I respect your opinion. No flames intended, but I'd like to share my opinion on some of your comments, just for consideration. It's a "victimless" crime until someone drowns, and that's what the law is trying to avoid - some people need to be protected from themselves, unfortunately. Very few drownings were intentional, most were accidents that could have been avoided. Additionally, don't forget the other victims - their children, spouses, family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc. They are being protected as well, by these "victimless" crime laws. I do agree, however, that some laws seem completely victimless, and seem designed with the intention of raising revenues. I SURE HATE THOSE! <snip> people should wear a PFD when they think it protects them, not to be role > models. > That's the funny thing about accidents. It's hard to predict WHEN an accident will happen, and therefore WHEN to put it on. Sure, there are obvious situations where accidents are more likely than others, but if you want to stake your life on it, and the well-being of those other "victimless" victims, it certainly is your perogative. I look at my two children, and suddenly I'm not willing to take the chance. <snip> > Having thus expostulated, I almost always wear a PFD; but, like Charles > Barkley, I sure as hell am no role model. > Glad to hear you almost always wear one. About the role model... IMHO, everyone is, by default, a role model to someone who is on the same path, but a few steps behind. They can be modeling both good and bad behavior (agh! I hope I don't start a morality debate here!) The question is really whether or not they accept that fact and act accordingly, and secondly, what behavior are they modeling. If you don't want to be a role model, someone will still watch your actions and to some degree emulate them. There's no way possible to prevent that. Mass murderers don't have the ambition of being a role model, but they are one to all the "copy cat" killers who follow in their foot steps. Using Barkley as the example, do you think that kids across the country close their eyes when they see him play or turn down the volume when he's interviewed? He can say he's not a role model, but what he means is that he doesn't "want" to be a role model, or he's not a "good" role model....but in the end, he is still "a" role model. He just may or may not be the one you want "your" kids to emulate. But, I respect your opinions and choices nontheless. That's what makes the world so interesting! The other Rick *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
>- some people need to be protected from themselves, unfortunately. I can't resist asking: why? Apart from the issue of the family and dependents of such a person (which I have already acknowledged *is* a legit issue, IMO), why does the government have a valid interest in protecting me from myself? Why is that the government's business? Let's say I don't have any children or dependents. I don't have any debt that's not covered by my current assets. No one will suffer financial loss at my death. Why is it anyone's business other than mine if I want to take personal risks, like kayaking, rock climbing, hang gliding, etc.? Even if I decide to do these things in novel ways, that only I like, and that are more risky (say, without a PFD)? (The issue of the interest of an insurance company, BTW, apart from not being a valid *government* interest, is easily dealt with by providing that certain things invalidate the coverage -- like paddling a kayak without a PFD.) I truly have a hard time understanding what reasoning it is that leads to the conclusion that the government has a legitimate right to protect people from themselves (as opposed to protecting *other* people). Mark *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Let's suppose, for the sake of this argument, that you don't quite die as the result of your injuries but are rendered incapacitated to the extent that you can no longer care for yourself. Who else, besides the "Government," is going to look after you and provide your care? These days we don't often drag the unfit out back and just leave 'em there to fend for themselves... I suppose that the rules/regs that we are talking about here could be seen as being place so that the government/society/greater-good doesn't have to bear the consequences of the one individual's mistake. --allan *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Mark, While I agree that the government needs to butt out of a lot of issues, at the same time I believe that individuals who indulge themselves with risky behaviors should reimburse the tax payers when they have to be rescued. In effect, when the Forest Service has to pluck a mountain climber off of a mountain or the Coast Guard gets called out to come to the aid of paddlers who knowingly assume risk, those individuals should pay for that service. Nancy *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Well, Duh! Because you're a taxpayer, that's why!! Shawn ;) Mark sez: >I can't resist asking: why? Apart from the issue of the family and >dependents of such a person (which I have already acknowledged *is* a legit >issue, IMO), why does the government have a valid interest in protecting me >from myself? Why is that the government's business? -- Shawn W. Baker 0 46°53'N © 2000 ____©/______ 114°06'W ~~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^\ ,/ /~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ baker_at_montana.com 0 http://www.geocities.com/shawnkayak/ *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
>Well, Duh! >Because you're a taxpayer, that's why!! I'm not sure I follow that. Because I'm a taxpayer the government has a right to regulate things that are intended only to protect me from my own stupidity? What am I missing here? Because that just doesn't make sense to me. Mark *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
> people should wear a PFD when they think it protects them, not to be role > models. Hmmm. I think my PFD *always* protects me. Now, it's not the only thing: I have a reliable combat roll and a decent hand roll (if I lose the paddle); I wear a helmet; I don't paddle rivers when I think conditions are beyond my ability; I don't paddle whitewater alone; I've worked hard to develop solid strokes and knowledge of how to read water; and so on. Most of these could fail me without notice. But it seems pretty likely that the PFD and helmet will stay with me. (They have done so through some moderately gnarly excursions with and without the boat. I have every reason to believe that they fit properly and are adjusted properly to stay put under all but the most extreme conditions. And I don't paddle in the most extreme conditions.) So I think I'm doing exactly that (wearing it when I think it protects me) by always wearing a PFD and a helmet. Now let's turn to the "role model" issue. I'm teaching a clinic on Saturday at a local beginner-level slalom race, in the middle of a city park that's heavily trafficked by joggers, bikers, families, etc. The creek has 54 CFS going through it right now. It's no more than 2 feet deep at its deepest point. A good long jumper could get across it without getting wet. I'm perfectly capable of teaching the clinic and paddling the course with only a tiny chance of flipping and an even smaller chance that I'll leave my boat. But I will be wearing the helmet and the PFD (a) because of the reasoning I outlined above and (b) because a lot of the people I'll be teaching or who will stop to watch will recognize that I'm [supposedly!] one of the better paddlers there. They will also notice that -- just like the beginners -- I am wearing a PFD and a helmet. Perhaps they will make the connection that *everyone* wears these and that they do so for a reason...maybe they'll think to themselves, "hey, look, even the instructor is wearing a PFD and a helmet...and he looks pretty good...hmmm..." I know this happens because I've been asked about it by passers-by in previous years. Whether I like it or not, whether I volunteered or not, I *am* a role model. It would be foolish for me to think that I could abdicate that role simply by saying "I'm not a role model". And as long as I'm being a role model, I might as well be one that communicates (verbally and nonverbally as well) that I think that wearing a PFD and a helmet is an awfully, awfully good idea. Will this have any impact? I don't know. There may be no way to know. But my hope is that it will contribute a tiny bit to public awareness and that maybe -- just maybe -- some of those folks who pass by will consider wearing a PFD the next time they take a float trip in a canoe down a local stream. Maybe it'll come in handy if they do. And this is not entirely altruistic, either: I certainly don't want people drowning in my rivers and creeks because that's bad for them. But it's also bad for *me* because it tends to cause over-reaction on the part of local authorities who have difficulty distinguishing between non-PFD-wearing-Johnny-six-pack-in-a-rental-canoe and regularly-training-experienced-paddler-in-a-racing-kayak... and who, because they think it's their job, or perhaps it *is* their job, will curtail the paddling opportunities available to me because someone else did something exceedingly stupid. I think it's easier to try to deal with this up front...and if that means I have to accept that I'm a role model and act accordingly, okay, I can do that. Obviously, this doesn't provide any guarantees -- there may be only a small chance that Johnny-six-pack will catch on to what I'm doing and why. But if I don't do it, there's no chance at all. ---Rsk Rich Kulawiec rsk_at_gsp.org *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
In a message dated 9/7/00 10:33:56 PM !!!First Boot!!!, sailboatrestorations_at_worldnet.att.net writes: << I'm not sure I follow that. Because I'm a taxpayer the government has a right to regulate things that are intended only to protect me from my own stupidity? What am I missing here? Because that just doesn't make sense to me >> Mr. Shawn was intimating that as a taxpayer, "you are the goose" or "you are the hand that feeds." That's what I got anyway. And then you say, "Don't call me Anyway!" Bruce McC WEO *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
As Bruce pointed out, it was meant completely in jest. They don't value your life, they value your $$ in the coffers!! Later, Shawn > sailboatrestorations_at_worldnet.att.net writes: > << I'm not sure I follow that. Because I'm a taxpayer the government has a > right to regulate things that are intended only to protect me from my own > stupidity? What am I missing here? Because that just doesn't make sense to > me >> -- Shawn W. Baker 0 46°53'N © 2000 ____©/______ 114°06'W ~~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^\ ,/ /~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ baker_at_montana.com 0 http://www.geocities.com/shawnkayak/ *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Rich Kulawiec wrote: --snip-- > But it seems pretty likely that the PFD and helmet will stay with me. > (They have done so through some moderately gnarly excursions with > and without the boat. I have every reason to believe that they > fit properly and are adjusted properly to stay put under all but > the most extreme conditions. And I don't paddle in the most extreme > conditions.) --snip-- Had a well fitting helmet ripped off once in a hole, then the boat, then the well fitting PFD, then the spray top, then the shorts. Shoes stayed on, though. The down side was the fellow with the video camera. Cheers, Richard Culpeper *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Gad! That's a scary experience. Tell us more. Was it a keeper hole? When the boat got ripped off, did it stay in the hole with you? How did you finally get out? Did somebody throw a rope? Jack Fu 47°38'N 122°08'W --snip-- Had a well fitting helmet ripped off once in a hole, then the boat, then the well fitting PFD, then the spray top, then the shorts. Shoes stayed on, though. The down side was the fellow with the video camera. Cheers, Richard Culpeper *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
In a message dated 9/8/00 1:37:51 AM, rsk_at_gsp.org writes: << Whether I like it or not, whether I volunteered or not, I *am* a role model. It would be foolish for me to think that I could abdicate that role simply by saying "I'm not a role model". And as long as I'm being a role model, I might as well be one that communicates (verbally and nonverbally as well) that I think that wearing a PFD and a helmet is an awfully, awfully good idea. >> This is the most eloquent argument I have heard thusfar in regard to this discussion. Well said, Rick. Jed JA(SR)PFDW (Just Another (Sometimes Reluctant) PFD Wearer) *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced/forwarded outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:17 PDT