House Votes To Raise Mandatory Life Jacket Age

[Woodsy]

House Votes To Raise Mandatory Life Jacket Age


CONCORD, N.H. -- Children ages 12 and younger would have to wear a life jacket when they ride on a boat outside an enclosed cabin under a bill approved Tuesday by the New Hampshire House.

Currently, children age 5 and under must wear protection. Boats with a 3-foot-high enclosed side rail would be exempt.

Opponents argued that the requirement was intrusive because no children in the age range had drowned in boating-related accidents in the past eight years.

The 204-135 vote sent the bill to the Senate.

[codeman671]

Sounds great to me. My daughter is 7 and is not allowed on the boat without a PFD. Who would argue this???

[Merrymeeting]

Shhhuuussshh! We've been telling our kids that it's 12 for years!

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Merrymeeting

Shhhuuussshh! We've been telling our kids that it's 12 for years!

I was telling my cousin's son that it was Sixteen.... and got away with it for a few years.... then he looked it up online and the game was up... Of course he still doesn't swim well so I don't allow him in my boat with out one.... so now he doesn't bug me for rides anymore, he goes with his grandfather who lets him get away with out it.... No matter what the legal age is the captains house rule always apply on my boat, until they are 18 they have to prove to me that they can swim well enough on thier own....

All the kids that ride in my boat know this rule and I have never had an arguement.... and it keeps them working on thier swiming and water treading abilities....

Now back to the law.... it is about time.... not often as most people are responsible, but on occasion I see young kids in boats with out them.... and it scares me..... people seem to forget how quickly accidents happen.... The last time I saw this I almost yelled at the guy.... they had a baby (1 or 2 years old) being held in moms arms..and I was helping them dock.. the excuse.... was "well he cries when he is in it"..... my thoughts kept in my head " you think he cries with that lifejacket, that nothing compared to your crying when he drownds"..... I just shook my head and didn't reply...

[Resident 2B]

I have an 11 year old son and I believe it makes good sense to have those 12 and under to wear PFDs while on boats.

Safety first!

You never know what can happen out there. This is not a fear of other boaters. It is just common sense.

FYI: I am also against the speed limit, but I fully support the speed limit test in limited ares of the lake this summer. Again, this is just common sense.

R2B

[Phantom]

As a Mass resident & boater in both States -the 12 year old Rule has been the norm for us. Mass has had the age limit at 12 for as long as I can remember and for the many weeks we spend on the Big Lake each year it is- Our boat Rule. With 4 grandchildren, we accumulated & always have numerous size PFD's (and not those orange ones) stowed away for visitors of all ages - including infants.

It was always one of those little quirky differences in the "rules book" between the states that I never could understand -- another is the classification of a "Ski boat" -- I think of Malibu & Mastercraft when I hear that term -- not a little 2 seater.

[chipj29]

Although I strongly agree that it is wise for a child under 12 (or a person of any age for that matter) to wear a pfd, why do we need to legislate it? The article states that there have been no issues without the law, so why do we need the law?

For the record, I always wear my pfd when on my PWC, even though I am not required to by law...and I am well, well, well over the age of 12!

[Aquadeziac]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Although I strongly agree that it is wise for a child under 12 (or a person of any age for that matter) to wear a pfd, why do we need to legislate it? The article states that there have been no issues without the law, so why do we need the law?

For the record, I always wear my pfd when on my PWC, even though I am not required to by law...and I am well, well, well over the age of 12!

For the record, you ARE required by law to to wear a pfd on a PWC no matter how old you are. Have we passed our Boater Safety course lately??

[abay]

I believe the pfd requirement also extends to kayaks and canoes. It always amazes me the number of people going without. (Seat cushions don't count in this case.)

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by abay

I believe the pfd requirement also extends to kayaks and canoes. It always amazes me the number of people going without. (Seat cushions don't count in this case.)

Wearable PFDs are required to be carried in canoes and kayaks, but not required to be worn.

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by Aquadeziac

For the record, you ARE required by law to to wear a pfd on a PWC no matter how old you are. Have we passed our Boater Safety course lately??

Sorry, for the record, you are required to wear a a PFD on a Jet Ski or a vessel that falls under the definition of a Jet Ski;

Under 13 ft long as manufactured
Can exceed 20mph
Can carry no more than the operator and 1 passenger

All Jet Skis are PWCs, but not all PWCs are Jet Skis

A PWC can be a 3 seater or longer than 13 feet and is considered and registered as a boat and subject to boating laws. Therefore, PFDs must be carried but are not required to be worn. However, wearing them is a sensible choice.

[Aquadeziac]

And the key is 13 ft and under. If you go to www.jetski.com you can access all manufacturers specs for all PWCs. Every three seater made is between 120" and 132" (thats 10 to 11 ft) the longest being the Yamaha F/X Cruiser @ 131.5". Even the huge 5 passenger SeaDoo LRV only measures in at 155.5" (thats 12 ft 11 1/2 inches) so even the LRV owner legally has to wear a pfd. I can honestly say I have never seen any three seater PWC larger than an LRV. So I would say that chip is legally required to wear a pfd on his PWC.

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by Aquadeziac

And the key is 13 ft and under. If you go to www.jetski.com you can access all manufacturers specs for all PWCs. Every three seater made is between 120" and 132" (thats 10 to 11 ft) the longest being the Yamaha F/X Cruiser @ 131.5". Even the huge 5 passenger SeaDoo LRV only measures in at 155.5" (thats 12 ft 11 1/2 inches) so even the LRV owner legally has to wear a pfd. I can honestly say I have never seen any three seater PWC larger than an LRV. So I would say that chip is legally required to wear a pfd on his PWC.

No, the key is not 13 ft and under. All 3 conditions have to be met in order to be considered a ski craft. If the 3 elements could be selectively judged, then ANY vessel capable of exceeding 20mph would be a ski craft and ANY vessel that could only carry 2 persons would be a ski craft.

Again, all 3 conditions have to be met in order to be considered a jet ski or ski craft, and only then will the ski craft regulations apply. This may help:

TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270
SUPERVISION OF NAVIGATION; REGISTRATION OF BOATS AND MOTORS; COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER
Ski Craft
Section 270:73
270:73 Definitions. – In this subdivision:
I. ""Bureau'' means the department of safety, bureau of hearings, established pursuant to RSA 21-P:13.
II. ""Department'' means the department of safety.
III. ""Operator'' means a person who operates or who has charge of the navigation or use of a ski craft.
IV. ""Private boat'' means a boat as defined in RSA 270:2, V, including a ski craft.
V. ""Ski craft'' means any motorized watercraft or private boat which is less than 13 feet in length as manufactured, is capable of exceeding a speed of 20 miles per hour, and has the capacity to carry not more than the operator and one other person while in operation. The term includes a jet ski, surf ski, fun ski, or other similar device.
VI. ""Watercraft'' means a motorized ski craft, capable of being used as a means of transportation on or in the water, except a seaplane.

Source. 1988, 283:1, eff. Oct. 1, 1988.

[SIKSUKR]

Chip,my PWC is also a 3-up and registered as a boat.But you still MUST wear a pfd.I questioned this many years ago to an MP for the reason you are using.It really does make sense to wear it on a pwc.Even if you don't ride it like some of the other lunatics out there,one wrong hit on a rogue wave you might not see and you could easily knock yourself out and off the craft.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Chip,my PWC is also a 3-up and registered as a boat.But you still MUST wear a pfd.I questioned this many years ago to an MP for the reason you are using.It really does make sense to wear it on a pwc.Even if you don't ride it like some of the other lunatics out there,one wrong hit on a rogue wave you might not see and you could easily knock yourself out and off the craft.

Nightwing is correct. If you were told that PFDs were mandatory for a three (or four) up PWC then the officer was/is wrong.

I would highly recommend that the operator and all passengers of any size PWC wear a PFD, but the mandatory requirement for PWC (or skicraft) is one or two seaters under 13 feet capable of 20+ MPH.

Unfortunately this is one of several marine regulations here in the State that get confused or misapplied.

I like to bring this one up each year....who can show me the RSA or administrative rule that prohibits overnight anchoring on New Hampshire's inland waters???

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by Skip

Nightwing is correct. If you were told that PFDs were mandatory for a three (or four) up PWC then the officer was/is wrong.

I would highly recommend that the operator and all passengers of any size PWC wear a PFD, but the mandatory requirement for PWC (or skicraft) is one or two seaters under 13 feet capable of 20+ MPH.

Unfortunately this is one of several marine regulations here in the State that get confused or misapplied.

I like to bring this one up each year....who can show me the RSA or administrative rule that prohibits overnight anchoring on New Hampshire's inland waters???

TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270-A
USE OF HOUSEBOATS
Section 270-A:3
270-A:3 Where Overnight Mooring Prohibited. – No houseboat shall be beached or grounded, or tied to the shore of any of the inland surface waters of the state for an overnight period or any part of an overnight period, except as permitted in RSA 270-A:2 or in cases of emergency. No houseboat shall be anchored on any of the inland surface waters of the state for an overnight period or any part of an overnight period except as permitted in RSA 270-A:2 or in cases of emergency.

Source. 1967, 412:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1968.

[Skip]

Good one Nightwing.

Now here's the rub. Below I post the statutory definition of a houseboat. Now, there is only the banning overnight of HOUSEBOATS, but no general statute banning other boats!

Some say that the "temporary" covers the seat cushions on your boat and a toilet could be your bailing bucket. However, many of today's 20 footers and up come with porta-potties and obviously seat cushions. So, if these options make these bow-riders/cuddies "houseboats", why are they then not banned on the lakes & ponds in New Hampshire that do have specific bans on "houseboats"? Because they really are not "houseboats" and are found in abundnace on inland water bodies where true "houseboats" are banned!

Aha, what we have here is a classic legal loophole!

TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270-A
USE OF HOUSEBOATS
Section 270-A:1
270-A:1 Definitions. – The following words and phrases as used in this chapter shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
I. ""Person'' means any individual, firm, co-partnership, company, association or joint-stock association, including any trustee, administrator, executor, receiver, assignee or other personal representative thereof.
II. ""Houseboat'' means any ship, boat, raft, float, catamaran or marine craft of any description upon or within which are located sleeping and toilet facilities, regardless of whether such facilities are of a permanent or temporary nature.
III. ""Overnight period'' means the period of time between the termination of daylight in the evening to the earliest dawn in the next morning.
IV. ""Mooring'' means beaching, grounding, or tying of a houseboat to the shore of any of the inland surface waters of the state, and the anchoring of a houseboat on any of the inland surface waters of the state.
Source. 1967, 412:1, eff. Jan. 1, 1968.

Here is an example of where HOUSEBOATS are specifically prohibited by law:

270:77 Squam and Conway Lakes and Silver Lake in Madison. – No person shall at any time place in or upon, or use, or operate upon, Squam Lake or Conway Lake or Silver Lake in Madison any houseboat. Whoever violates any provision of this section shall be guilty of a violation. Boards of health and health officers of towns abutting said lakes shall have power and authority to enforce the provisions of this section.

[jrc]

How is this enforced? On Winnipesaukee, overnight anchoring is clearly enforced against all cruiser type boat. (I have seen people get away with it after Labor Day) These boat have permanent sleeping and toilet facilities, so they are houseboats, right?

Do MP enforce the overnight anchoring rules against bowriders or pontoons? Can I anchor my bowrider at the sandbar overnight? Can I sleep on it? What if it has a porta-potty and a sleeping bag.

Can I take a cruiser on Squam? Can I take a bowrider or pontoon? What if it has a porta-potty and a sleeping bag?

I guess the rules are unclear, but how are they enforced?

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Skip

Nightwing is correct. If you were told that PFDs were mandatory for a three (or four) up PWC then the officer was/is wrong.

I would highly recommend that the operator and all passengers of any size PWC wear a PFD, but the mandatory requirement for PWC (or skicraft) is one or two seaters under 13 feet capable of 20+ MPH.

Unfortunately this is one of several marine regulations here in the State that get confused or misapplied.

I like to bring this one up each year....who can show me the RSA or administrative rule that prohibits overnight anchoring on New Hampshire's inland waters???

Wow Skip,that's a new one to me.But I definately yield to you on knowledge of the laws.I'm still have to look further into that one though.

[snowbird]

Originally Posted by Skip

I like to bring this one up each year....who can show me the RSA or administrative rule that prohibits overnight anchoring on New Hampshire's inland waters???

In the 2005-2006 Edition of "Boater's Guide of NH", page 44, is the rule/statement that: "It is illegal to anchor overnight on any inland body of water."

I believe this derives from RSA Title XXII, Section 270-A:1.

I have considerable respect for your knowledge, Skip. Did you really not know this is a rule?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by snowbird

In the 2005-2006 Edition of "Boater's Guide of NH", page 44, is the rule/statement that: "It is illegal to anchor overnight on any inland body of water."

I believe this derives from RSA Title XXII, Section 270-A:1.

I have considerable respect for your knowledge, Skip. Did you really not know this is a rule?

Hi Snowbird.....hope you enjoyed your winter and are ready to bring the good weather north to all of us!

RSA 270-A:1 specifically and only addresses Houseboats. You average bowrider, pontoon and skiff do not fall under this definition or they would be banned from a number of lakes & great ponds that have specific restricitions against Houseboats but currently (and legally) are chock full of bowriders, pontoons and skiffs!

The only RSA or Administrative rule banning overnight anchoring specifically and only addresses Houseboats.

The purpose of my pointing this out is just give an excellent example of just one of the numerous recreational and motor vehicle laws that are in contradiction with other regulations, outdated or simply misapplied.

And that is why you have so many lawyers out there!

But as always, the aforementioned is only my personal opinion. Please feel free to call NHMP HQ at 1-603-293-2037 and ask the on duty supervisor to kindly provide you with the statute or administrative rule that prohibits vessels not classified as houseboats from anchoring overnight on New Hampshire's inland waters!

[snowbird]

Originally Posted by Skip

RSA 270-A:1 specifically and only addresses Houseboats. You average bowrider, pontoon and skiff do not fall under this definition or they would be banned from a number of lakes & great ponds that have specific restricitions against Houseboats but currently (and legally) are chock full of bowriders, pontoons and skiffs!

The only RSA or Administrative rule banning overnight anchoring specifically and only addresses Houseboats. [/I]

Skip, you asked for the RSA OR Administrative rule, then proceeded to question the definition of houseboat. Yes, that question arises from the wording of the RSA. But-----

Are you also saying the rule given on page 44 is NOT a rule? If not, what is it? I think it is MP's interpretation of an RSA, as many others are. We all know that RSAs are not the full story, hence the rule-making authority of MP [and other agencies]. I suspect that Judge Smuckler, when faced with the houseboat defense, might just ask if the accused needs neither sleep nor bladder relief during the overnight hours------before he assesses the fine.

Legal eagles will always seek to find ways to evade the intent of the law. If you insist, I could ask a member of the General Court who is also a property owner on the lake to craft a clarifying RSA.

You raise an interesting and frustrating example, to be sure. Perhaps you can tell me why lawyers do not craft wording that everyone can understand?

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Chip,my PWC is also a 3-up and registered as a boat.But you still MUST wear a pfd.I questioned this many years ago to an MP for the reason you are using.It really does make sense to wear it on a pwc.Even if you don't ride it like some of the other lunatics out there,one wrong hit on a rogue wave you might not see and you could easily knock yourself out and off the craft.

As stated above, I don't agree that it is a requirement to wear one.
However, I have never gone out on my pwc without wearing mine. Never have and never will. And I certainly would never allow either of my children (currently 11 and 16) to go without one. At any age. Period.

[Nauset]

Not only do our kids wear PFDs (they are over 5 years old) on our boat. My wife also started wearing one full time incase someone falls overboard she can jump in after them without having to worry about herself (smart idea).
I don't set a good example but I keep a PFD on the seat next to me. If I go out alone I put it on. They make some fairly comfortable PFDs these days.

From the NH boating safety course:
Approximately 70% of all boating fatalities are drownings, and most of those fatalities could have been avoided. Ninety percent of drowning victims are not wearing a life jacket.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Nauset

...They make some fairly comfortable PFDs these days....

Maybe one of these?

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by jrc

Maybe one of these?

Those are type V and must be worn in order to count toward the "wearable for everyone on board."

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by jrc

Maybe one of these?

These are great and comfortable.... However last summer while sailing with my uncle I thought of a incident which could happen where they wouldn't be any better then not having one at all.... I thought to myself if I get hit by the boom and knocked out.... How am I going to pull the inflation cord if I end up in the water..............

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Aquadeziac

And the key is 13 ft and under. If you go to www.jetski.com you can access all manufacturers specs for all PWCs. Every three seater made is between 120" and 132" (thats 10 to 11 ft) the longest being the Yamaha F/X Cruiser @ 131.5". Even the huge 5 passenger SeaDoo LRV only measures in at 155.5" (thats 12 ft 11 1/2 inches) so even the LRV owner legally has to wear a pfd. I can honestly say I have never seen any three seater PWC larger than an LRV. So I would say that chip is legally required to wear a pfd on his PWC.

Interesting that New Hampshire mandates PFDs for Jet-Ski (Ski Craft/PWC) operators when reading this NTSA report:

"A 1996 study by the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators indicates that personal water craft were involved in approximately 36 percent of all boat accidents nationwide.

"A 1998 National Transportation Safety Board report states that personal watercraft boat accidents are the only type of recreational boat accident for which the leading cause of death is not drowning..."

http://tinyurl.com/337m5c

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Aquadeziac

For the record, you ARE required by law to to wear a pfd on a PWC no matter how old you are. Have we passed our Boater Safety course lately??

MY PWC is a 3-seater, therefore is considered to be a boat rather than a ski craft in New Hampshire.
Have YOU passed your boating safety course lately?
I think the part that you may be missing is the definition of a ski craft in NH. A ski craft is a 1 or 2 seater. A pwc with 3 or more seats is considered to be a boat.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

... Now back to the law.... it is about time.... not often as most people are responsible, but on occasion I see young kids in boats with out them.... and it scares me..... people seem to forget how quickly accidents happen.... The last time I saw this I almost yelled at the guy.... they had a baby (1 or 2 years old) being held in moms arms..and I was helping them dock.. the excuse.... was "well he cries when he is in it"..... my thoughts kept in my head " you think he cries with that lifejacket, that nothing compared to your crying when he drownds"..... I just shook my head and didn't reply...

Although I lament the need to legislate what I consider common sense I accept the value of this law for these types of reasons. Just when I think I can't be surprised by parents doing dumb and dangerous things for or to their kids, some story comes out or I personally witness something that just leaves me shaking my head and in some tragic cases, very sad. Unfortunately it's considered "bad taste" in society today to criticize a parent for being stupid. At least now the Marine Patrol or people with common sense like LIforrelaxin can say "It's the law!" and maybe a tragedy can be averted.

[snowbird]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

House Votes To Raise Mandatory Life Jacket Age

Opponents argued that the requirement was intrusive because no children in the age range had drowned in boating-related accidents in the past eight years.

The 204-135 vote sent the bill to the Senate.

For some reason, the the same argument re: speeding fatalities works against speed limits. Plus, it would appear MP is not objecting to being overly stressed with the requirement to police life vest wearing while they couldn't handle the monitoring of speed.

It really doen't take a great stretch of the imagination to understand why speed didn't make it to the House and life vests for older kids did. Go figure.

[nightrider]

House Votes To Raise Mandatory Life Jacket Age


"CONCORD, N.H. -- Children ages 12 and younger would have to wear a life jacket when they ride on a boat outside an enclosed cabin under a bill approved Tuesday by the New Hampshire House."

Just wondering....in the bill, just what exactly is the definition of "ride"????

[Skip]

Originally Posted by nightrider

House Votes To Raise Mandatory Life Jacket Age


"CONCORD, N.H. -- Children ages 12 and younger would have to wear a life jacket when they ride on a boat outside an enclosed cabin under a bill approved Tuesday by the New Hampshire House."

Just wondering....in the bill, just what exactly is the definition of "ride"????

The word the reporter should have used was underway.

Here is a text of the proposed legislation:

No child 12 years of age or under shall operate, control, or be transported on the deck of a boat or vessel which is underway upon the public waters of the state unless said child is wearing a personal flotation device of a type approved by the United States Coast Guard; provided, however, boats, vessels, and ships with continuous side rails enclosing the perimeter of the boat, vessel, or ship, 3 feet or more in height and enclosed between the deck and the top of the railing in a way that would reasonably prevent passage of a small child are exempted from the provisions of this section.

[Misty Blue]

I spend a lot of time with the boating public and I think that it is nutz that we can argue about speed limits and if we should have a law banning certain water toys and ignore the fact that NH is the only state, around here anyway, that can let a six year old go out without a PFD on. That said...

Moms and DADs PLEASE listen. All of the requirements for children to wear PFD apply only when the vessel is UNDERWAY. This is defined as when the vessel is not anchored(moored), docked or aground. The problem is that kids don't drown on vessels that are underway. They drown at the dock, at the beach, at the river and in the pool.

Please, until they are very good swimmers, keep the kids in PFDs any time they are near the water and not being well supervised.

As for inflatable PFDs. These ar Type Vs. I believe that the law requires that a type I, II or III PFD be worn while riding on a Jet-Ski. The type V may not fit the bill.

As for auto inflating type Vs, I never work underway without a type V on. Which is why I don't use an auto inflator. While I can imagine a situation where I am unconcious when I hit the drink I don't think that it is likely. What does happen often is that I enter the water on purpose for work or play and the manual inflator ("Just pull the string") gives me the option to wear the PFD without popping the $20 auto inflator.

For example. I wear my type V when I am sailing the sunfish. I would not if I had to worry about it going off every time that I dumped it.

Misty Blue.

[KonaChick]

I agree that laws should be enacted to protect us however it's been said before on this forum and I'll say it again..you just can't dictate common sense. New Hampshire does not have a helmet law for motorcyles which I personally think is insane...how many lives could be saved by passing a helmet law in New Hampshire?? It's one that would not take too much effort to enforce either, as you can cleary tell if a rider has a helmet or not. I guess I'm just saying you can pass all the laws you want and some will agree and some will disagree...you just can't legislate common sense!

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

I agree that laws should be enacted to protect us however it's been said before on this forum and I'll say it again..you just can't dictate common sense. New Hampshire does not have a helmet law for motorcyles which I personally think is insane...how many lives could be saved by passing a helmet law in New Hampshire?? It's one that would not take too much effort to enforce either, as you can cleary tell if a rider has a helmet or not. I guess I'm just saying you can pass all the laws you want and some will agree and some will disagree...you just can't legislate common sense!

The difference between a mandatory helmet law and the proposed life jacket law, is that the helmet law protects an adult from her/himself and the life jacket law protects ignorant children from potentially dangerous situations adults put them in. NH already has laws that make motorcycle helmets amd seatbelts mandatory for those under 18. I have no issue with laws protecting children. My kids, 10 and 12, wear their life jackets on deck when underway (oddly, the proposed law mirrors our boat rules precisely).

I do have issues with helmet laws for adults, though. I like the freedom of choice even though I always wear full gear (not just a full face helmet, but over $1000 worth of high quality, very effective, protective gear) when I ride one of my motorcycles. If folks want to ride without gear, I say let them. They're not endangering anyone but themselves. Same deal with seatbelts. I wear mine all the time. Don't care what other adults do.

[KonaChick]

I wasn't comparing the two laws simply saying that you can't dictate commone sense..it's common sense to wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle because if you were to fall off your head would probably suffer siginifcantly less damage then if you were riding sans hemlet...just like wearing a helmet when you ride a snowmobile or bicycle. It's all about common sense, some people have it, some don't. No matter how many laws you enact you will NEVER be able to protect people from themselves, plain and simple.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

I wasn't comparing the two laws simply saying that you can't dictate commone sense..it's common sense to wear a helmet when you ride a motorcycle because if you were to fall off your head would probably suffer siginifcantly less damage then if you were riding sans hemlet...just like wearing a helmet when you ride a snowmobile or bicycle. It's all about common sense, some people have it, some don't. No matter how many laws you enact you will NEVER be able to protect people from themselves, plain and simple.

We are in agreement about common sense, but you also stated that you advocate a helmet law. That's the part I was debating. I don't want any laws protecting me from me, I'm quite comfortable taking responsibility for myself.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by Dave R

We are in agreement about common sense, but you also stated that you advocate a helmet law. That's the part I was debating. I don't want any laws protecting me from me, I'm quite comfortable taking responsibility for myself.

I agree Dave, I don't think there could ever be a law enacted to protect you from yourself.