Want some help with boating law change

[19skier]

I am hoping to change MT. state boating law to allow no-observer watersports towing  with properly equipped boats. I had been working with our local senator & state FW&P people  over the past year towards that. The result was SB444 being drafted. It all looked good up to the point the senator resigned before the bill was introduced under his sponsorship. His replacement in the senate then used the placeholder (for that bill to be introduced in 2011) on something else. She has indicated that the no-observer concept is cool with her, but she let it slide for this session. I think that making her aware this change has broad support would help get it back on the agenda. I want any MT. skiers, or others who ski in MT. to let her know they would love to see that boating law change, but want more impact than a few occasional emails in her inbox. Suggestions??? Thanks in advance.

[unksskis]

Wish this could just be a National initiative, and I think it's awesome you're taking it on and got it this far.

 

I wonder if you can use the rates of accidents/collisions and compare them using states with mirror laws and those with a 3rd required.   Outside of a 3rd law, and I think a mirror should be mandatory for anyone pulling a skier.  This then negates the need of a third in some states that I know of, however even in states that require a third, it will help with safety and collision issues as then the less experienced boaters without a mirror are not turned around watching their skier the entire time.  I would trust a driver alone pulling me than a boat load of "observers" with no mirror.

[19skier]

Thanks for the input. I sent some info to the parks & recreation person at FW&P on studies done in MN. and FL. that show no increase in accidents with mirror laws in those states. He did some research and came back to me and the sponsoring senator that he was onboard. The new senator said she would feel safer with a driver and mirror than with a boatload of distracted observers and promptly gave the placeholder to something else. I am not sure why this is moving backward now, but I do think  numbers talk. I want the senator to hear from a LOT of names and places in the state to convince her that many people care about this, but I don't want to do any more work or spend any more $ than neccasary. I am wondering if anyone has ideas on how contact/organize boaters who would take the time to contact a senator. I know Idaho just passed a no-third rule for boats in a slalom course - not quite what I want but they got something done.

[DW]

19skier, could you attach the studies, perhaps as a pdf file here so that others can use the information for the same purpose or help you with yours?  I think other states may be on the cusp of allowing something similar so now might be a good time to strike on this one.  The one way to get people to contact the representative of choice is to post the website or email of that individual so your target audience has the tools to easily do it.  In addition, you might write a form letter that simply needs thier name attached, I have seen that be used very effectively.

No question, a ski boat focused on doing a good job pulling a skier is much safer and capable than a boat loaded with distracted observers.  To me, the classic is the boat pulling the young tuber and dad standing behind the helm of the Four Winns looking back at the tube while weaving back and forth with a bunch of kids screaming and hollering littered around the boat.  Certainly, there is the recipe for disaster, but in his mind he is safer than the ski boat with no observer.  I can't tell you how many times I have heard that logic particularly aimed derogatorily right at the (implied elitist) course skiers who on occasion go out w/o an observer. 

[19skier]

Thanks for the input DW. Here is a link to the Minnesota study:  http://web1.msue.msu.edu/imp/modtd/33840420.html. I hate to just post some info and hope enough boaters respond to make a difference, but I don't want to spend a bunch of time/$ targeting serious boaters with a form letter/petition. Always looking for the easy button! That may be the best approach if I can't come up with the right representative who will just take it on.

[jjackkrash]

I have skied without an observer on many, many occasions without incident, but often wonder what would happen if something went really sideways with the skier injury wise. I am all for freedom and reduced regulation, so I don't think the practice ought to be banned, but I am not convinced it is nearly as safe as having a driver and someone to jump in to help an injured skier, especially if the skier has a back injury or is severely bleeding. Has this argument come up? I am curious what your response to this argument is.

 

Good luck,

 

Jack

[19skier]

I had been through that scenario wondering if the convenience of no observer was worth the potential risks. The FW&P person who did the research concluded that there was no increased "incidence or risk" found by the studies when mirror laws were observed. There is significant risk anytime we are on the water - fisherman fall overboard, people get prop cuts & watersports produce lots of injuries. I am sure extra bodies on the boat can be a plus as well as an increase to risk, just not statistically proven one way or the other. Thanks for the good thoughts and the contact in UT.

[jjackkrash]

Its funny, when I picture an extra body in the boat, I picture one of my safety-trained ski buddies. But I guess for the average public its more likely that the extra bodies would just be more wally's to get in the way if something actually went wrong. :)

[unksskis]

non-tournament skier friends think I'm a jerk when I don't chit chat while driving the boat, as well as when I get irritated when I look up and see the driver looking at and having a conversation with the observer. 

 

As far as safety, yes, if you have a safety oriented observer it would always be helpful, but I'd be pretty confident I could get the boat back, turned appropriately to access the skier, and off in an acceptable amount of time, and then it's your safety training and knowledge that goes from there.  

[DW]

I am going to guess the study didn't really cover the aspect of once an injury happens but more of what leads up to an accident.  One incident over a few decades of hammering away at this sport required or was done much safer with 2 healthy people.  A neck injury so we didn't want to move the skier any more than necessary.  We used a wakeboard (as a back board) to slide the injured skier on to the platform and idled back the the dock with the skier on the platform, then used the wakeboard again to get the skier up on the dock as the close proximity to the water was getting cold.  The heater was used to keep the skier as warm as possible.  Called the parametics and they took it from the dock.  No serious injury, but certainly a good training experience.  One person had the necessary training for transport as a ski patroller.  All this said, a traditional boat (no platform) loaded with inexperienced wally's would have make the transportation solution much more challenging.  Hypothermia concerns were the deciding factor on attempting to move the injured skier.

 

[Kelvin]

The USAWaterski Safety Coordinator/Director training program teaches correct water rescue techniques for dealing with head/neck injuries.  It is an excellent class to take - even for those that never plan to be safety personnel at tournaments/clinics.  It will open your eyes to the things that can and do go wrong and the proper way to handle it.

[skiinxs]

You may want to add tourism dollars into your presentation.  Any state that does not allow my wife and I to ski is off the list for potential vacation choices. 

Dave

[LeonL]

I think the "if mirror in place, no observer required" is good, but I want to tell a little story.  Good friends of mine husband and wife, National level trickers were tricking on a private site, as is the norm, no vest.  Husband doing toes, catches an edge and actually breaks his pelvis.  Wife comes back, to pick him up, he gets on the platform sits there for a few seconds and passes out, falls back in the water.  Wife jumps in to hold his head above water (no vest for her, as she was just driving) boat floats away out of reach and they both nearly drown.  She yells for help and a slalom skier on the other lake (2 lake facility) when dropped at the end miraculously hears her. Goes to show that stange accidents can be tragic.

[ral]

In my books, doing toes without an observer is not the best way of promoting safety... Yeah, some argue that they know how to hold the rope to self-release and even tell that they feel safer than when using a release person, but I do not buy it.

[DW]

Kelvin, that is good info, in addition most Sheriff's Marine departments will offer boating safety classes to any group that asks.  Not quite the same, but certainly better than nothing.  Sad part, most people don't ask and I arranged a class for our lake one year, well attended but not by anybody from our lake, go figure.

[Nateb]

I like the idea of being able to use a mirror for water sports. We are not talking tubing because if that being done most likely there are several people in the boat already that can spot. Im talking surfing wake boarding and skiing, less people in the boat equals less distractions, most cases where I would be doing this would also be midweek when less people are available to go, that also mean less people likely to be on the water.

 

I'm currently working on a proposal to get this changed in WA.

 

I see the valid points of having a spotter there to assist in helping if someone is injured, but keep in mind its not illegal to go fishing or boating by yourself if you fall or get injured your on your own in those cases.

 

If anyone has any info that would help make a case for Washington I would greatly appreciate ideas.

 

 

[gsm_peter]

Fwiw (could this help you?)

 

In Sweden we do not need a spotter nor a flag for any towing, water sport.

There are no driving license needed except for larger boats and commercial usage.

Many have taken licenses volountarly.

 

We have about 1 000 000 recreational boats and 96 000 lakes plus type 1500 miles costal acess.

There are about 100 waterski clubs.

I do not recall any accident when a skier has been hit by another boat. Ever...

 

Only accidents has been when jetskis hitting swimmers....

 

I will support you by sign a 'public call' if that could help.

 

Best luck

 

[96SNEFI]

This is the youngest thread I could find to add to :). I don't know if a list is needed seeing as how laws can change but I made one anyway and thought I could share it. At least it's as of this writing.

In Canada, it's in the national criminal code to require a "responsible person keeping watch". I would like to go about trying to change that to allow a mirror. Having heard that different states have different rules, I investigated what they all have on their books. My list lists just the rules for public-water free-skiing. Several states relax some rules if you're in a tournament or using a recognized course. I'm not listing those specifics. The list will be state,[observer wording or age],[mirror],[flag];. Oh look...pretty much a csv. :) Use the semi as a line break...if that works. :)

 

State,Observer,Mirror,Flag;Alabama,12,yes,;Alaska,12,yes,;Arizona,12,,yes;Arkansas,12,yes,;California,12,,yes;Colorado,person,,yes;Connecticut,12,,;Delaware,competent person,,;DC,12,,;Florida,observer,yes,;Georgia,person,yes,;Hawaii,competent person,yes,;Idaho,competent person,,;Illinois,competent person,,;Indiana,person (Ohio riv 12),(Ohio riv yes),;Iowa,responsible person,,;Kansas,12,yes,yes;Kentucky,12,yes,;Louisiana,competent person,yes,;Maine,12,,;Maryland,12,,;Massachusetts,12,,;Michigan,person,,;Minnesota,person,yes,;Mississippi,10,,;Missouri,12,yes,;Montana,person,,;Nebraska,12,yes,;Nevada,12,,yes;New Hampshire,13,,;New Jersey,competent observer,,yes;New Mexico,,,yes;New York,10,,;North Carolina,observer,yes,;North Dakota,person,,;Ohio,10,,;Oklahoma,8,yes,;Oregon,observer,,yes;Pennsylvania,competent observer,,;Rhode Island,12,,;South Carolina,person,yes,;South Dakota,competent person,yes,;Tennessee,12,yes,;Texas,13,yes,;Utah,observer,,yes;Vermont,12,,;Virginia,observer,,;Washington,observer,,yes;West Virginia,12,yes,;Wisconsin,competent person,,;Wyoming,,,yes;

 

North Carolina appears to not need anything if the skier is wearing a "life preserver". Indiana seems to let more go on the Ohio River. Nevada has a little age thing depending on the age of the driver or something.

[liquid d]

http://www.uscgboating.org/regulations/state-boating-laws-details.php?id=17&title=%5B4.1%5DWater%20Skiing

[Jmoski]

In Maine you can ski the course without a spotter provided you have a mirror. You should be able to use this as precendence to help your cause.

 

My friends in NH have been lobbying for the same rule change. The rep they spoke asked "how does this change improve safety". The NH laws just recently changed, it used to be you needed a spotter for EVERY person in tow. So if you have 3 kids on tubes, you need 3 spotters! Now they are atleast back to requiring a single spotter.

 

IMHO, lobbying to remove the observer rule all together would not make the lake safer given all of the Yahoos that are clueless out there.

[96SNEFI]

Yes thank you liquid d. I saw that list and noticed a couple holes. For the criteria I was looking for, my list is more complete. I got my information from each state. Obviously linking to a website with a nice table is more attractive but I wanted completeness and currency and I didn't want to build a whole nice table to put here.

[96SNEFI]

Jmoski: I don't think I like the idea of no one required to look out for the skier either. That's not my intent. My intent is to add the OR mirror option. I'm not sure I like any of this being a CRIME in Canada (albeit just a summary conviction but still).

[96SNEFI]

I guess I could describe my list a little more too. The observer column would have anything if an observer is required and showing the term they use or the age (which implies required). The mirror column is "or" from observer. The flag column is if a flag is required. There are some different requirements for use of a flag but I don't get into that.

[liquid d]

I checked because your list says Florida needs an observer; it does not. You need a wide angle mirror in Florida or and observer.

[96SNEFI]

Read my most recent post where I describe my list a little more. It says Florida,observer,yes,; which is to be interpreted as needing an observer OR have a mirror and no mention of flag. Although admittedly I may not have gone into all the detail about a flag on all states seeing as how Canada doesn't need one. Maybe I shouldn't have included mention of a flag at all.

I'm not sure why I'm getting an adversarial sense from you though. I'm just some amateur hobbyist anonymous shmoe on the interwebs who spent some time putting a list together after digging into the sites of every state and figuring maybe it would be helpful information for others. At the end of the day you get what you pay for.

 

Sure it's nicer to see this information in a nice table but some of that USCG terminology is quite inconsistent. Then...what's the complete story with Arkansas? I see that they need a 12 y/o or a mirror. Are Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming no longer a part of the union? I see that they have their own laws/regulations too.

I can't find mention of being able to use a mirror in DC. I do find mention of being able to use a mirror in Hawaii. I do find mention of needing a spotter in Louisiana. I will correct my list with New Mexico. They do in fact appear to need a spotter or a "device"... presumably a mirror. I'll call it a yes under that column. I do find mention of being able to use a mirror in South Carolina.

[96SNEFI]

Oh. Rats. It seems I can't edit my main list. So New Mexico should be:

New Mexico,person,yes,yes;

Again...they say "device". Surely they mean a mirror. Maybe a camera pointed out back and a screen in view of the driver. That might work I suppose. :)

[96SNEFI]

Well shoot. Sorry to add more to this. Turns out Wyoming also needs correcting. It should be: Wyoming,person,yes,yes;

Their site had two confusing pieces. Apparently I only read one that apparently wasn't complete. They have a link to regulations and a link to a brochure. The brochure appears to be more complete with more regulations than the regulations link and includes and duplicates the content of the regulations link. Odd and confusing.

 

So...every state needs a spotter and less than half let you use a mirror instead.

Half give a minimum required age of the spotter and the other half don't specify.