 |
— Massachusetts Kayak Safety Bill —
The Massachusetts Legislature is currently considering a bill "relative to kayak safety." The full text of the bill (House #2382 & Senate #1410) can be found here.
The bill is a reaction to several recent, publicized deaths of kayakers. We strongly support the goal of improving small-boat safety, and believe that all kayakers, canoeists, and other small boaters should learn safety skills and judgment through instruction, experience, and guidance of expert boaters. We do, however, believe that there are significant problems and shortcomings with the bill as it is written. Our concerns with the legislation are detailed below.
You can help by informing your legislators (both your state senator and your state representative) about the kayaking community's concerns regarding the bill. To find your representatives' contact information, you can search by your town name or street address (your legislators are labelled "Senate/Rep in General Court"). You can also voice your concerns by attending the hearing to be held June 6th, 2007 from 10am to 1pm in Room B-2 of the State House in Boston.
If you have questions about the bill, please e-mail us or call Mark at (617) 965-5110.
SECTION 2. Section 1 of Chapter 90B of the General Laws is hereby further amended by inserting
after section 5B the following section:
Section 5C. A person aboard a kayak shall wear at all times a TYPE I, II or III personal flotation device in good and serviceable condition.
Comments:
- According to the annual observational study published by the U.S. Coast Guard, in 2004 kayakers had a higher wear rate (87%) than any other type of watercraft (including canoes, 27%) except personal watercraft (jet skis, 95%). The overall PFD wear rate for the general adult boating population was lower than 25%, . Powerboaters who, according to the Coast Guard, account for 75% of boating fatalities, have adult PFD wear rates under 5%. Again, that's five percent!
These data indicate that this bill discriminates against a class of boaters who are already wearing PFDs at significantly higher rates than the average.
- According to U.S. Coast Guard statistics, 75 people have died in boating-related accidents in Massachusetts coastal waters since 1998. Half of those (37) were in powerboats. Canoes accounted for 18 deaths, and kayaks significantly fewer (8).
By requiring PFDs to be worn only by people in kayaks it sends an incorrect and unsafe message to people in other boats that it is not as important for them to wear a PFD. Obviously this conclusion is not supported by the data, which instead show that other boats, including canoes, account for many more fatalities than do kayaks. What is needed is a clear and consistent message that all people in all small boats need to wear a PFD.
Additionally, the sponsors of the bill have not offered any evidence as to why kayaks should be regulated differently than canoes or rowboats.
The singling out of kayaks also doesn't hold up when you start thinking of some scenarios. For example, under this law a canoeist paddling to the Boston Harbor Islands in July could lawfully paddle without wearing a PFD, while his kayaking companion, in boat that is significantly more seaworthy, could not.
- The sponsors of the bill have deliberately excluded Type V PFDs, thereby preventing kayakers from using a PFD that the Coast Guard has already approved! Type V PFDs are worn by the majority of whitewater kayakers, sea kayak guides, and rescue personnel, and are a critical piece of safety gear in many circumstances. We believe the decision of PFD approval should be left to the Coast Guard.
- Enforcing the requirement that only kayakers wear PFDs would be confusing and difficult. Consider the definition of "kayak" as included in Section 1 of the bill: "a lightweight boat that is covered, except for a single or double opening in the center thereof, and is propelled by a paddle."
Among the questions raised by this definition: is a recreational kayak (which represents 80% of today's kayak sales) with a large cockpit opening considered "covered" if only the paddler's feet are under the kayak's deck? What about a decked racing canoe?
As these photos demonstrate, it is not exactly clear which boats would be covered under the proposed bill.
SECTION 3. Section 11 of said chapter 90B, as so appearing is hereby amended by adding the following clause:
(q) Require safety equipment aboard any kayak, which shall include a personal flotation device on each kayaker, as required by section 5C, and may include a compass and a whistle.
Comments:
This section allows the Environmental Police to define which safety equipment must be carried on a kayak.)
- Massachusetts boating regulations already require that all boats carry a whistle and the Mass. Environmental police are currently enforcing this regulation.
- Carrying a compass is critical in many situations on the ocean, but under those circumstances it is just as important for people in canoes and rowboats as it is for kayaks. Carrying a compass makes no sense if you are paddling on a small river or pond. Choosing the correct safety equipment depends on where and when you are paddling and cannot be mandated by the legislature.
SECTION 4. Said chapter 90B is hereby further amended by inserting
after section 13A the following section:
Section 13B. Anyone who holds himself out as a kayak instructor
for hire shall obtain and maintain: (i) first aid training approved by
the department of public health; (ii) cardiopulmonary resuscitation
training approved by the department of public health; and (iii) kayak
instructor certification from the American Canoe Association, or
equivalent water training.
The instructor shall train students on the safety procedures
appropriate to the level of paddling difficulty. Before a student is
instructed in water deeper than 5 feet. He shall receive wet exit
training, which is practice escaping from a kayak while submerged in a
controlled water setting. Wet exit training shall not be required if
the student is using a sealed-hull, sit-on-top or open-decked kayak in
which no part of the student's body is enclosed by the kayak or a kayak
skirt.
A liability release that limits an instructor's responsibility
to comply with this section shall be void.
Comments:
- Kayaks do not trap people; it is spray skirts that can trap people. A spray skirt is worn around the waist of the kayaker and attaches to the cockpit rim, preventing water from entering the cockpit.
If people did get trapped in kayaks it would be reckless for anyone to rent or sell them. No other state or country has any similar restriction, nor have we found that it has even been considered anywhere else.
We believe that wet exit training is an important part of a kayak class, but if a student is not wearing a spray skirt there is no reason why they must perform a wet exit in the beginning of the class.
- Consider the following scenario: under this law, if a group of Girl Scouts wanted to rent kayaks it would be fine for them to go out with parents or a volunteer instructor, but if they wanted a professional instructor/guide to accompany them the first thing the guide would be required to do would be to have the whole group capsize their boats.
This requirement would, of course, be a huge disincentive for people to take kayaking instruction in Massachusetts. For example, if a complete beginner signed up for our kayak class and refused to perform a wet exit, we would be required to ask them to leave the class. They could then take their kayak to the ocean and paddle alone, without any instruction.
- No other country or state has this requirement. Maine and New York have licensing programs for guides and neither one has legislated course content. Maine, Washington State, Quebec, British Columbia, Colorado, and California have a large kayak industry and none of them have anything approaching this type of requirement.
- There have been no incidents where a kayaker not wearing a spray skirt has been entrapped within a kayak.
- A "sealed-hull, sit-on-top or open-decked kayak" is not a kayak by the definition of this bill. Calling it a "kayak" in the legislation itself only increases confusion about what would be considered a kayak by law enforcement.
|
