Please explain that...Out4trout wrote:...unlike motorcycle helmet injuries...which do cost us all...
I fully support accountability for your actions and out and out hate "nanny laws".
ps, I stole the term "Nanny laws" cause it rocks
life jackets
My wording was not very clear... I meant injuries caused by not wearing a helmet...Hookup wrote:Please explain that...Out4trout wrote:...unlike motorcycle helmet injuries...which do cost us all...
I fully support accountability for your actions and out and out hate "nanny laws".
ps, I stole the term "Nanny laws" cause it rocks
Head injuries are the most prevalent unrecoverable injury in non-fatal motorcycle accidents. The victims of these accidents cost the taxpayer's via the health system for treatment and hospitalization, sometimes in a vegetative state for years on our dime. Helmets have reduced the cost to us all. I don't see lifejackets in the same light....
While I don't have any statistics off hand but the occurance of "non-helmet, non-fatal motorcycle accidents" is probably extremely low. My guess is chances of just surviving the initial impact without a helmet is in the single digits. It's the people that wear the helmets that are involved in serious accidents that spend extended periods in the hospitals.Out4trout wrote: My wording was not very clear... I meant injuries caused by not wearing a helmet...
Head injuries are the most prevalent unrecoverable injury in non-fatal motorcycle accidents. The victims of these accidents cost the taxpayer's via the health system for treatment and hospitalization, sometimes in a vegetative state for years on our dime. Helmets have reduced the cost to us all. I don't see lifejackets in the same light....
In the case of the drowning deaths, keep in mind that it's the taxpayers that foot the search and rescue bills to locate and retrieve the bodies.
w.r.t. the debate, the argument that small craft operators should have to wear them when the boat is under power is well founded. I do see the operators of the larger cruisers balking at it. It's similar to comparing a car to a mobilehome.
"There wouldn't have been any butt kickings if that stupid death ray had worked."
I think they should make it mandatory for everyone to stay home where they are gauranteed safety. No fishing, no boating, no nothing. Gosh, you could get hurt eating at a restaurant, or walking down the street. Lot's of people get food poisoning and get hit by cars. Walking should be banned or at least make it mandatory to wear armour and a helmet. People should have to be quarantined after eating at a restaurant. Who Knows, you might get H1N1 or whatever the desease of the day is.
Yep I'm with all you guys who want more regulations. Definite first step is mandatory no boating or fishing whatsoever. I mean, how many people have impaled themselves on hooks before. Time they were banned or at least anglers should wear mandatory gloves. Why should I pay taxes to cover Joe Idiot's medical expenses when he has to get hooks cut out of his thumb.
Geez!
Yep I'm with all you guys who want more regulations. Definite first step is mandatory no boating or fishing whatsoever. I mean, how many people have impaled themselves on hooks before. Time they were banned or at least anglers should wear mandatory gloves. Why should I pay taxes to cover Joe Idiot's medical expenses when he has to get hooks cut out of his thumb.
Geez!
-
pikeonthe fly
- Participant
- Posts: 80
- Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 10:02 pm
- Location: Ontario
-
Hookup
- Silver Participant
- Posts: 795
- Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:54 am
- Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (eh)
This stuff, as previously stated, gets my knickers in a knot...
One of the great things about our country is that we do not have a bunch of rules trying to dictate what we can and cannot do because of two prevaling principals that all canadians share.
1) be curtious and concious of others
2) use common sense
And as a rule, most canadians work within those guiding principals very well. It's the very small minority who lack both/either in some situations and end up in the spotlight. Which always get a different, yet equally lacking minority up in arms and demanding the implementation of rules and regulations "for the benifit of us all".
Thankfully these 'nanny-groups' rarely get the chance to save us from our own stupid selves because of more traditional groups using hard facts and comon sense to cut through the bull.
I'm completely confident that the lifejacket rule will not fly, unless there is a serious and signifcant drain on taxpayer dollars and a strain on other social service systems that can be avoided by implementing the new regulation.
My observations/point of view regarding the Search & Resuce costs that the taxpayer incurs; I think this is a bit of crying wolf. We pay for search & resuce, and EMS, regardless if people need them or not. In fact, in an ideal world we pay for them to sit and do nothing all day long because no one is getting hurt. I am assuming that the delta costs for an ambulance to leave the parking lot and pick someone up is very minimal. Therefore the real worry would be that the EMS are already operating at capacity, that people are litterly not being saved because they are in a queue... I do not believe that is the case either so this is why I say that "costs of search & rescue" or the like isn't really a correct perspective.
thoughts?
One of the great things about our country is that we do not have a bunch of rules trying to dictate what we can and cannot do because of two prevaling principals that all canadians share.
1) be curtious and concious of others
2) use common sense
And as a rule, most canadians work within those guiding principals very well. It's the very small minority who lack both/either in some situations and end up in the spotlight. Which always get a different, yet equally lacking minority up in arms and demanding the implementation of rules and regulations "for the benifit of us all".
Thankfully these 'nanny-groups' rarely get the chance to save us from our own stupid selves because of more traditional groups using hard facts and comon sense to cut through the bull.
I'm completely confident that the lifejacket rule will not fly, unless there is a serious and signifcant drain on taxpayer dollars and a strain on other social service systems that can be avoided by implementing the new regulation.
My observations/point of view regarding the Search & Resuce costs that the taxpayer incurs; I think this is a bit of crying wolf. We pay for search & resuce, and EMS, regardless if people need them or not. In fact, in an ideal world we pay for them to sit and do nothing all day long because no one is getting hurt. I am assuming that the delta costs for an ambulance to leave the parking lot and pick someone up is very minimal. Therefore the real worry would be that the EMS are already operating at capacity, that people are litterly not being saved because they are in a queue... I do not believe that is the case either so this is why I say that "costs of search & rescue" or the like isn't really a correct perspective.
thoughts?
Hookup,
I agree, we're paying for everything in one way or another, though I would not necessarily compare them to EMS. The national SAR operations (handled by the military) could be compared to EMS in that SAR is their only job 24/7, with their budgets, etc set accordingly.
Local SAR on the otherhand is typically handled by the local police or the regional police as as an auxilary unit that is mobilized as required. Members of these units not currently on duty at the time of a call, will be called in (on overtime) for the SAR. I'm sure the municipalities/regions budget for SAR, however unexpected increases in SAR events can easily blow said budget.
I agree, we're paying for everything in one way or another, though I would not necessarily compare them to EMS. The national SAR operations (handled by the military) could be compared to EMS in that SAR is their only job 24/7, with their budgets, etc set accordingly.
Local SAR on the otherhand is typically handled by the local police or the regional police as as an auxilary unit that is mobilized as required. Members of these units not currently on duty at the time of a call, will be called in (on overtime) for the SAR. I'm sure the municipalities/regions budget for SAR, however unexpected increases in SAR events can easily blow said budget.
"There wouldn't have been any butt kickings if that stupid death ray had worked."
-
Bass Addict
- Diamond Participant
- Posts: 4536
- Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 4:47 pm
- Location: I'm keeping an EYE on Fish-Hawk
ChrisS wrote:I think they should make it mandatory for everyone to stay home where they are gauranteed safety. No fishing, no boating, no nothing. Gosh, you could get hurt eating at a restaurant, or walking down the street. Lot's of people get food poisoning and get hit by cars. Walking should be banned or at least make it mandatory to wear armour and a helmet. People should have to be quarantined after eating at a restaurant. Who Knows, you might get H1N1 or whatever the desease of the day is.
Yep I'm with all you guys who want more regulations. Definite first step is mandatory no boating or fishing whatsoever. I mean, how many people have impaled themselves on hooks before. Time they were banned or at least anglers should wear mandatory gloves. Why should I pay taxes to cover Joe Idiot's medical expenses when he has to get hooks cut out of his thumb.
Geez!
-
Hookup
- Silver Participant
- Posts: 795
- Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 8:54 am
- Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (eh)
I did not know that is how our local SAR worked... and therfore, I change my position from above.. (LOL, Internet forms are awesome). So now I do think there is a valid argument regarding "cost of stupidity" when having to respond to things that are preventable.Todd B. wrote:Hookup,
I agree, we're paying for everything in one way or another, though I would not necessarily compare them to EMS. The national SAR operations (handled by the military) could be compared to EMS in that SAR is their only job 24/7, with their budgets, etc set accordingly.
Local SAR on the otherhand is typically handled by the local police or the regional police as as an auxilary unit that is mobilized as required. Members of these units not currently on duty at the time of a call, will be called in (on overtime) for the SAR. I'm sure the municipalities/regions budget for SAR, however unexpected increases in SAR events can easily blow said budget.
I would not know what the cost per incident is, but this is where the calm-rational people can hammer out the pros and cons of implementing laws like making lifejackets manditory, and more to the point, we can get involed in the process through numerious avenues as well. The system works.
Someone, I think it was Todd, mentioned it should be manditory for children under the age of 16. I agree 100%. My kids always wear their's when we are under power, and I grimmace at other boaters who do not do the same. Just like the no smoking in you car with kids in it law, we go back to common sense and thinknig of others... sometimes that fails and we have to make nanny laws...
PFD
Comon! People also have to see the reality that we are regulated and legislated to death in this country! What ever happened to personal choice? I do not have issue with people not wearing or wearing their life jackets all the time, but what I do take issue with is the government stepping in and implementing another law that dictates how we as citizens live! We have far to much big brother in our life as is! Bugger off and let people make their own damn decisions! We are adults and we should have the right to choose! I am tired of being over governed! Their are much bigger issues that need the attention of governing MP's besides that of people not wearing a life jacket while boating!
Ab
Ab
make it like bicycle helmet laws..... if your a minor its law to wear one.....
if your an adult its your call..... personally i think its darwinism at its finest people......
theres no need to legislate every friggin thing!!!!
im not opposed to the law im just opposed to yet another law..... revenue generation for the province as if we arent taxed enough folks........
that would be my short rant for the day.
cheers lads.
if your an adult its your call..... personally i think its darwinism at its finest people......
theres no need to legislate every friggin thing!!!!
im not opposed to the law im just opposed to yet another law..... revenue generation for the province as if we arent taxed enough folks........
that would be my short rant for the day.
cheers lads.
-
Gordo_Mumbo
- Participant
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:40 pm
- Location: Campbellville
we have too many do gooders comming up with new laws to protect us from our selves
let your actions determine your fate and suck it up if things dont turn out the way you like it.
being alive is hazardus to your health
earth is a tough planet to live on
what next a safety harness when you take a bath?
safety belts when you go to bed
pass a law that we have to wear sunblock on sunny days
more people die in plane crashes, get used to the fact people will die from other things besides old age
let your actions determine your fate and suck it up if things dont turn out the way you like it.
being alive is hazardus to your health
earth is a tough planet to live on
what next a safety harness when you take a bath?
safety belts when you go to bed
pass a law that we have to wear sunblock on sunny days
more people die in plane crashes, get used to the fact people will die from other things besides old age