Jump to content

California boaters card???


Recommended Posts

Boaters here in California are required to have and carry this when boating, I am going to ignore it because I don't want to deal with any more government bullshit plus I have done all of the boating and other water courses including international ocean safety. Who has gotten one?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck when the CG checks you out.I don't think they'll be impressed by your "sovereign citizen" attitude.

We have to have on - the PCOC (pleasure craft operator card). It's just a boat drivers license required because of all the powerboat and jet ski morons fucking things up and killing people.

It took a few minutes online to take the test and it's good for life so no biggy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Good luck when the CG checks you out.I don't think they'll be impressed by your "sovereign citizen" attitude.

We have to have on - the PCOC (pleasure craft operator card). It's just a boat drivers license required because of all the powerboat and jet ski morons fucking things up and killing people.

It took a few minutes online to take the test and it's good for life so no biggy.

yes its from the jet ski and power boaters in the delta crashing into things

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in the process right now even though I've got a few years before it's required for me. It's pretty easy - there are a couple of free online self-study courses that fulfill the education requirement (I'm doing the one from California DBW and it's basically read a PDF pamphlet and do a paper exam which, as far as I can tell, is untimed and open book).

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Good luck when the CG checks you out.I don't think they'll be impressed by your "sovereign citizen" attitude.

We have to have on - the PCOC (pleasure craft operator card). It's just a boat drivers license required because of all the powerboat and jet ski morons fucking things up and killing people.

It took a few minutes online to take the test and it's good for life so no biggy.

I've never had a Coastie ask for a  state card. Not their juristiction nor their interest!

We've been running boats in Canada for over 100 years. There are no numbers. There are no cards. No permits. Nobody cares. The CCG only cared about one thing--after 100 years, they told us the swim raft was a "navigational hazard." We had to move it. Had been there for 100 freakg years.

Only commercial fishing boats have numbers. Haha.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Benytoe said:

Boaters here in California are required to have and carry this when boating, I am going to ignore it because I don't want to deal with any more government bullshit plus I have done all of the boating and other water courses including international ocean safety. Who has gotten one?

Is it just another NASBLA course? You probably already have it from another state and that likely will pass muster. If you don't, its like 45 minutes of your life and not the biggest issue you should be focused on within our government.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, George Hackett said:

Well, you can come here to Subic and every time you want to go sailing, you have to file a request for a permit to sail with the coast guard.  

Tbis is why people all over the wrld want to live here in the U.S.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Benytoe said:

Boaters here in California are required to have and carry this when boating, I am going to ignore it because I don't want to deal with any more government bullshit plus I have done all of the boating and other water courses including international ocean safety. Who has gotten one?

I am amazed that California is more than 20 years behind Connecticut on this.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Benytoe said:

Boaters here in California are required to have and carry this when boating, I am going to ignore it because I don't want to deal with any more government bullshit plus I have done all of the boating and other water courses including international ocean safety. Who has gotten one?

I didde yeares aggo foire severalle epic runnes at the Manteca Watere Slides............. it wase realley easey.........            :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Benytoe said:

Boaters here in California are required to have and carry this when boating, I am going to ignore it because I don't want to deal with any more government bullshit plus I have done all of the boating and other water courses including international ocean safety. Who has gotten one?

It's a lot more government bullshit if you get caught without one. Don't know if USCG will be checking but if you get stopped by the local harbor patrol for any reason I imagine that will be on their checklist.

$100-$500 fine and the court will order you to take a boating safety course and provide them with proof of completion within 7 months.

This year it's required for anyone under 40, and by 2025 everyone will have to have it. Better I think to spend $10 and a little extra time, and it never hurts to brush up on boating safety.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TJSoCal said:

It's a lot more government bullshit if you get caught without one.

Yep. Also, it's a term of your insurance to comply with the law so if you have a claim, they will, for sure, deny it. Ask Mr. Wonderful how it's going without the Canadian card. I've got my California and my Canadian card. What's the problem? Can't pass? Don't have the cash? 

Ignoring it is a great idea. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the Canadian one it was phased in gradually. Larger pleasure boat owners were the last group that needed to get one.

We left the country in 2009 when we didn't need one, and sailed around the world, returning in 2017. 

At which point we now needed a PCOC.  :)

Thankfully I also have a CYA cruising instructor card which grandfathers me. But I always forget to take it with me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really not much different than a motorcycle endorsement. Boats, bikes, they want you to demonstrate minimal competence, guns, on the other hand..., whoops, wrong thread, sorry.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zonker said:

With the Canadian one it was phased in gradually. Larger pleasure boat owners were the last group that needed to get one.

We left the country in 2009 when we didn't need one, and sailed around the world, returning in 2017. 

At which point we now needed a PCOC.  :)

Thankfully I also have a CYA cruising instructor card which grandfathers me. But I always forget to take it with me.

Same in the US regarding the phase in. I've also got other licenses, certifications that supersede the requirements, but I've been asked to show my California Card during a boarding. When I say I have this and that certification or license, they look at me as if I'm a chemistry set. It's just easier to show them the card.  I don't understand the resistance to getting one. It's not hard. What's the big deal? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

California's is phased in by age, starting with under 20 in 2018 and going up until everyone in 2025. They do have exemptions for certain licenses and certifications.

The one aspect that irks me is they exempt rentals. Seems like that's a group that most ought to have to demonstrate some safety knowledge before they go out on the water. But I'm guessing that industry lobbying go that thrown in.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TJSoCal said:

California's is phased in by age, starting with under 20 in 2018 and going up until everyone in 2025. They do have exemptions for certain licenses and certifications.

The one aspect that irks me is they exempt rentals. Seems like that's a group that most ought to have to demonstrate some safety knowledge before they go out on the water. But I'm guessing that industry lobbying go that thrown in.

I agree, the rental exemption is totally crazy. For sure, industry lobbying. 

But, I'm into operating legally, in every country, state, whatever, that I operate in. You got rules? Fine. What are they? Gotta pay? Pass some sort of bullshit test?  Big shock. 

If you have the means, to own a sailboat, that has a crew, that you take to sea, for sailboat racing I feel like you have the obligation to meet the legal requirements however lame they may be.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, no shoes said:

I agree, the rental exemption is totally crazy. For sure, industry lobbying. 

But, I'm into operating legally, in every country, state, whatever, that I operate in. You got rules? Fine. What are they? Gotta pay? Pass some sort of bullshit test?  Big shock. 

If you have the means, to own a sailboat, that has a crew, that you take to sea, for sailboat racing I feel like you have the obligation to meet the legal requirements however lame they may be.  

Well that's the other sort of weird exemption: "A person operating a vessel in an organized regatta or vessel race, or water ski race." But I'm guessing they could still nab you on your way in or out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TJSoCal said:

Well that's the other sort of weird exemption: "A person operating a vessel in an organized regatta or vessel race, or water ski race." But I'm guessing they could still nab you on your way in or out.

It's crazy. Makes no sense. I'm not defending it. It's lame. It's a money grab. But to me, it's like a passport, trusted traveler card, negative PCR test, whatever. It's a document I need to do what I want to do. And I'm doing it. 

To the OP; for sure, ignore it. Fuck tha police. Have fun with that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do put all this shit? When I sail, phone, wallet, keys are left behind. Say you are kite boarding, or even just paddle boarding. Where do you keep your boaters card? I would rather see it part of a registration process. To get your sticker, you need to demonstrate some minimal competency. Guess that would not work if you let some idiot use your equipment unless, perhaps, the registered owner was the one held liable in any sort of accident or infraction. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, fastyacht said:

I am amazed that California is more than 20 years behind Connecticut on this.

Haha, that is too funny. I sailed in competition against a wealthy guy from connie, he helped destroy the 2.4 mR fleet in the USA and ultimately killed sailing in the para games.

You guys on the east coast should join the EU. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, no shoes said:

Same in the US regarding the phase in. I've also got other licenses, certifications that supersede the requirements, but I've been asked to show my California Card during a boarding. When I say I have this and that certification or license, they look at me as if I'm a chemistry set. It's just easier to show them the card.  I don't understand the resistance to getting one. It's not hard. What's the big deal? 

Freedumb!

I'd be willing to bet that the anti-license people have a big overlap with anti-maskers.

In other areas of life it's called juvenile defiance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zonker said:

With the Canadian one it was phased in gradually. Larger pleasure boat owners were the last group that needed to get one.

We left the country in 2009 when we didn't need one, and sailed around the world, returning in 2017. 

At which point we now needed a PCOC.  :)

Thankfully I also have a CYA cruising instructor card which grandfathers me. But I always forget to take it with me.

Leave it on the boat?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Washington state its a boaters education card.  Doesn't say anything about a license.  Though your are liable for a fine without it.  Also:

not required if:

  • Your vessel has an engine that is under 15 hp.
  • You were born prior to January 1, 1955.
  • You hold a valid U.S. Coast Guard Marine Operator’s License.

Being an old guy I don't need it.  I read the handbook, took the test and passed easily but didn't give my CC.  A lot of stupid stuff was covered but I don't recall any mention of a sailboat having right of way over a power boat which we all feel is one of the most important RoW rules to know.  So IMHO we are raising/enabling a host of "licensed" but un(der)educated boaters.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TJSoCal said:

Better I think to spend $10 and a little extra time, and it never hurts to brush up on boating safety.

Where did you find it for $10?

I know nothing about the website, but boat-ed.com wants $35! :o   

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Winston29 said:

Where did you find it for $10?

I know nothing about the website, but boat-ed.com wants $35! :o   

The card is $10. Course seems to be free. See https://californiaboatercard.com/courses-2/#boat-us-foundation or https://californiaboatercard.com/courses-2/#california-division-boating-waterways

(I googled california boaters card, went to first hit and found those... so not very well hidden, even from someone from Europe)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Similar boating card is being pushed in Finland. So far there is no any requirements for vessels under 24 metres. I think it would be ok if it was made with safety in mind. Sadly many times it feels like cash crab.

I am sure that if such requirement comes I wont get any benefit of it. Test most likely contains just basics.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Meat Wad said:

Haha, that is too funny. I sailed in competition against a wealthy guy from connie, he helped destroy the 2.4 mR fleet in the USA and ultimately killed sailing in the para games.

You guys on the east coast should join the EU. 

I'm counting on the San Andreas Fault to get rid of the part of Calif no one likes. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WGWarburton said:

Don't you guys have a national governing body that can put a stop to this stuff? Land of the free and all that.

 How many lives is this legislation saving each year?

Cheers,

               W.

3 hours ago, Upp3 said:

The card is $10. Course seems to be free. See https://californiaboatercard.com/courses-2/#boat-us-foundation or https://californiaboatercard.com/courses-2/#california-division-boating-waterways

(I googled california boaters card, went to first hit and found those... so not very well hidden, even from someone from Europe)

Prople in CT spenf $75 or more for courses.

Lives saved? Good question. That was thr rationale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Were has most states that require a boater education card (by way of taking a class) have reciprocity with other states as long as it was administered by the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA). This is also recognized by the USCG. I have mine from CT back in 2003 and even though I no longer live there, it's still "valid". 

Initially it was stated that you had to take the CA course, regardless if you already hold a card from elsewhere. This to me indicated it was less about safety and more of a cash grab by the state. Does anyone know if they now accept out of state cards as long as they are NASBLA approved? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, RImike said:

Were has most states that require a boater education card (by way of taking a class) have reciprocity with other states as long as it was administered by the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA). This is also recognized by the USCG. I have mine from CT back in 2003 and even though I no longer live there, it's still "valid". 

Initially it was stated that you had to take the CA course, regardless if you already hold a card from elsewhere. This to me indicated it was less about safety and more of a cash grab by the state. Does anyone know if they now accept out of state cards as long as they are NASBLA approved? 

The law implementing the California card requires that the price only covers the cost. ($10)

There are free courses.

Non residents can use cards from other states for up to 60 days.

 

If this is a cash grab its a really poorly designed one.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, George Hackett said:

Well, you can come here to Subic and every time you want to go sailing, you have to file a request for a permit to sail with the coast guard.  

Why would I want to sail with the Coast Guard?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they grandfathered NASBLA courses for the first couple of years but now require a new course. I can kind of see why since there's content specific to California regulations.

There are several free options listed here. I did the one from DBW, you just have to read a PDF and they send you a 60 question multiple choice open book exam. Pretty easy and reasonably informative even if you're an experienced boater. Then the card is $10 and as far as I can tell it's lifetime.

California has to grab cash for something, this isn't the worst thing they could do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After taking the course, the concept is good - otherwise you will let any drun k houligan with $50G drag his 2x250hp outboards all over with no knowledge.

 

But what irks me is that the BIGGEST idiots are the rental boats in our fair harbor, that get more training on their lawn mower at HD, that dont have to get one!! Ludicrous. Its not like they let car renters get bye without a license.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Washington (state) has required this for some time.  It's annoying but otherwise painless - 30 minutes in an online app and a card shows up in the mail.

Have never been asked to present it, either by local authorities or Coast Guard.

The thing that amuses (?) me is that.... it is perfectly possible to get a "safe boater" card without actually knowing anything about boating.  The questions are about, for example, types of life-jackets, required equipment, carbon-monoxide dangers, etc. 

So... yeah, I might have a card in my pocket that says I'm a safe boater, but still be "that guy" who doesn't know anything about the operation of his 50-foot powerboat except "I turn on the motor and steer it like a car".  Nothing about docking, anchoring, weather, seamanship....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I will do it, I just hate how everything in life needs some kind of fee or form. Im not saying Im a know it all because of my sailing certifications but know I am safe. Most sailors are very good with boating and being safe. Its the power boaters who think they are driving cars on the water who cause the problems most of the time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Upp3 said:

The card is $10. Course seems to be free. See https://californiaboatercard.com/courses-2/#boat-us-foundation or https://californiaboatercard.com/courses-2/#california-division-boating-waterways

(I googled california boaters card, went to first hit and found those... so not very well hidden, even from someone from Europe)

Boat-US.  Of course (Duh!).  I forgot all about them.  

Thanks.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, eric1207 said:

Washington state its a boaters education card.  Doesn't say anything about a license.  Though your are liable for a fine without it.  Also:

not required if:

  • Your vessel has an engine that is under 15 hp.
  • You were born prior to January 1, 1955.
  • You hold a valid U.S. Coast Guard Marine Operator’s License.

Being an old guy I don't need it.  I read the handbook, took the test and passed easily but didn't give my CC.  A lot of stupid stuff was covered but I don't recall any mention of a sailboat having right of way over a power boat which we all feel is one of the most important RoW rules to know.  So IMHO we are raising/enabling a host of "licensed" but un(der)educated boaters.  

Our PCOC is like that - it is a minimum level of knowledge with the (often false) assumption that knowledge will continue to grow with experience.

At least it covers such fundamentals as understanding marker buoys and so forth. It has a pretty high pass grade as well IIRC

The exemption for rentals is insane - they need it more than owners in most cases. Can you imagine being able to legally rent and drive a car without a drivers license?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Snaggletooth said:

I didde yeares aggo foire severalle epic runnes at the Manteca Watere Slides............. it wase realley easey.........            :)

did you get in trouble for wearing a mask and snorkel at the base of the slides to watch bikini tops and bottoms come off?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Benytoe said:

Yes I will do it, I just hate how everything in life needs some kind of fee or form. Im not saying Im a know it all because of my sailing certifications but know I am safe. Most sailors are very good with boating and being safe. Its the power boaters who think they are driving cars on the water who cause the problems most of the time.

I think the difference is because you have to know quite a bit to be able to make a sailboat go - not just turning a key and stepping on the gas.

People seldom talk about "driving" a sailboat but the usually say it about powerboats.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Chris in Santa Cruz, CA said:
17 hours ago, Snaggletooth said:

I didde yeares aggo foire severalle epic runnes at the Manteca Watere Slides............. it wase realley easey.........            :)

did you get in trouble for wearing a mask and snorkel at the base of the slides to watch bikini tops and bottoms come off?

I dointe remebber that parte..........             :)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's one more ticket to carry around.

I suppose that's a bit better than having your face scanned and the computer denying that you have permission to be boating... 

The willing compliance with ever more intrusive government only leads to more of it. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LionessRacing said:

It's one more ticket to carry around.

I suppose that's a bit better than having your face scanned and the computer denying that you have permission to be boating... 

The willing compliance with ever more intrusive government only leads to more of it.

I take it you don't have your microchip implant yet?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LionessRacing said:

It's one more ticket to carry around.

I suppose that's a bit better than having your face scanned and the computer denying that you have permission to be boating... 

The willing compliance with ever more intrusive government only leads to more of it. 

Once again, the myth of "America = Freedom" is shown to be wanting, in this case by a racket which exempts the least skilled.  And once again, the those objecting to the compliance culture are mocked.

Here in Ireland we have a lot more regulation than when I was a kid.  But at least my boats need no registration or licence, I don't need a licence to use a boat, and there's no armed goons checking up on me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TwoLegged said:

Once again, the myth of "America = Freedom" is shown to be wanting, in this case by a racket which exempts the least skilled.  And once again, the those objecting to the compliance culture are mocked.

Here in Ireland we have a lot more regulation than when I was a kid.  But at least my boats need no registration or licence, I don't need a licence to use a boat, and there's no armed goons checking up on me.

Same in the UK

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, George Hackett said:

Blue Crab.  May I suggest you read from the top and tell me who is bitching.  All I did was show what could happen. 

I was trying to make a funny vis a vis, "I'm not crying! You're crying."

Not much separates the hero from the zero.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they going to let you know when your age group requires one? I actually would favor a more thorough licensing exam with maybe a practical portion similar to a drivers license but, as with most things like this, I will probably procrastinate until it’s a hard deadline. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2021 at 8:14 AM, Benytoe said:

Yes I will do it, I just hate how everything in life needs some kind of fee or form. Im not saying Im a know it all because of my sailing certifications but know I am safe. Most sailors are very good with boating and being safe. Its the power boaters who think they are driving cars on the water who cause the problems most of the time.

I got mine a year or so ago since i'm 33. The course took about 45 minutes and if I remember correctly, you can fast forward most of it. It's 90% geared towards power boats. I've never had anyone ask me for it besides insurance and they only asked if I had one, not for any ID numbers. 

There are definitely some qualified captains out there that could use this course but for the rest of us, it's extremely basic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2021 at 6:58 AM, WGWarburton said:

 How many lives is this legislation saving each year?

 

We'll never know. ;)

On 2/19/2021 at 7:49 PM, Blue Crab said:

I'm not bitching, you're bitching.

Bitching or bitchin'? One's good, the other not so much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2021 at 3:58 AM, WGWarburton said:

 How many lives is this legislation saving each year?

How many does it take to be worthwhile?

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

How many does it take to be worthwhile?

1) Enough to offset the intrusion, inconvenience and waste of time for those forced to sit the test and those required to enforce it.

2) More than would be saved by focusing the resources to enact and operate on education rather than legislation.

3) More than are lost by fools assuming that since they have passed the test they know all they need to know

4) More than would be saved if lawmakers, campaigners, lawyers and law enforcement staff used the time to make more dangerous activities safer

5) Enough to justify acting as a barrier for people to enjoy the freedom to enjoy boating 

6) Enough to be able to avoid the embarrassment of justifying to an international audience the existence of petty, intrusive, pointless legislation in a country that claims to stand for individual freedom. 

 There are probably more. I haven't even tried to research the subject.

Cheers, 

               W.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, WG but, much as I champion individual freedom, there's a point at which the unfettered exercise of same leads to rampant abuse of the rights, enjoyment and safety of others and, at this point, there is a mandate for government to step in and create sensible, non-intrusive standards for that exercise. My general impression is that in your country, there is less tendency to excessive and irresponsible consumption of the fruits of our economic prosperity. Sad to say, here in the US, it's all too frequently that we encounter fools on the water in equipment they have no business operating whose sole qualification is they made enough of a pile to write that big check and thumb their collective noses at the suggestion that they actually know a little about how to use their boats.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

So more than one.

How about if that one was your child?

Would you still regard that as "acceptable losses"?

We all make that decision every day when we allow our children to ride in cars.

Personally I'm not going to stop using cars or refuse to allow my children to ride in cars because the death rate of kids in cars is more than one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, JohnMB said:

We all make that decision every day when we allow our children to ride in cars.

Personally I'm not going to stop using cars or refuse to allow my children to ride in cars because the death rate of kids in cars is more than one.

Are you going to let them ride with an unlicensed driver?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2021 at 11:34 PM, TJSoCal said:

California's is phased in by age, starting with under 20 in 2018 and going up until everyone in 2025. They do have exemptions for certain licenses and certifications.

The one aspect that irks me is they exempt rentals. Seems like that's a group that most ought to have to demonstrate some safety knowledge before they go out on the water. But I'm guessing that industry lobbying go that thrown in.

In New Hampshire a boating safety certification is required to rent a boat. They will accept cards from other states.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SloopJonB said:

Are you going to let them ride with an unlicensed driver?

From a risk point of view my 16 year old son is far more likely to die in a car crash in a car with a licensed driver than in a accident caused by an under educated boater.

If we wanted to eliminate the risk of death in boating accidents we can simply outlaw boating. Some people would consider it extreme, but it would prevent deaths, based on your comment above you would support this legislation, because saving one life is a sufficient reason for us to give up our freedom to boat.

Personally I don't have an issue with the card, I do have an issue with the stupid argument, that saving a single life is a sufficient reason to enact it. We are constantly dealing with levels of risk in our lives and in legislation, and we have to be able to balance risk with personal freedom, and with alternative better options. WG makes some good points in his post above, but they can certainly be argued against. But the whole 'what if it was your child' argument is and always has been a crock of shit, because NONE of us would accept the restrictions associated with totally eliminating the risk of death to our kids.

to quote Ramsome

"better drowned than duffers, if not duffers will not drown"

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2021 at 12:46 AM, TwoLegged said:

 

I have a basic hypothesis that 90% of the fatalities on the road could be eliminated if we could magically remove the 10% most dangerous drivers. Almost obvious this is not going to hold strictrly true but you see the point.
The problem with the boater's cards is that they are as close to a farce as you can get, so why have them? Just shut up and take the test but also talk out of the other side of the mouth. You might rue the day they make them real tests...like an unlimited oceans kind of knowledge...

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

I have a basic hypothesis that 90% of the fatalities on the road could be eliminated if we could magically remove the 10% most dangerous drivers. Almost obvious this is not going to hold strictrly true but you see the point.

I get the point, but the problem with most such attempts is that like the boating card, they assume that the problem is caused by lack of competence.  In reality, the problem is bad attitude.

This focus of competence is a fundamental mistake.  There are plenty of people who drive cars with limited skill, but have sufficient self-awareness that they avoid accidents.  Such drivers go slowly, avoid motorways, park in wide spaces etc.  They are deeply incompetent, but also very safe, because the worst accident they ever have is at 5mph.  Sadly, licensing systems keep people like that off the road.

OTOH, the serious accidents are caused by people who overestimate their competence and under-estimate their safety margins.  Those people will almost certainly pass any testing system, because they have higher than average vehicle control skills.  Many of them are capable of advanced manoeuvres, and most of them have quick reaction times.  The problem is that a significant chunk of them overestimate the accuracy of their hazard perception skills and miscalculate their safety margins in high-risk situations.  So the result is that when they do have accidents, those accidents are much more severe than the low-speed car-park scrapes of the first group.

Most licensing systems are fundamentally flawed, because they pre-emptively exclude the incompetent-but-harmless first group, while leaving the second group (the daredevils) in place until after the accident.

But a minimalist licensing system is simple to design and implement, so it is likely to win the support of those like @SloopJonB who – with the best of intentions — talk themselves into something close to the Politician's syllogism

  1. We must do something
  2. This is something
  3. Therefore, we must do this.
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:

I get the point, but the problem with most such attempts is that like the boating card, they assume that the problem is caused by lack of competence.  In reality, the problem is bad attitude.

This focus of competence is a fundamental mistake.  There are plenty of people who drive cars with limited skill, but have sufficient self-awareness that they avoid accidents.  Such drivers go slowly, avoid motorways, park in wide spaces etc.  They are deeply incompetent, but also very safe, because the worst accident they ever have is at 5mph.  Sadly, licensing systems keep people like that off the road.

OTOH, the serious accidents are caused by people who overestimate their competence and under-estimate their safety margins.  Those people will almost certainly pass any testing system, because they have higher than average vehicle control skills.  Many of them are capable of advanced manoeuvres, and most of them have quick reaction times.  The problem is that a significant chunk of them overestimate the accuracy of their hazard perception skills and miscalculate their safety margins in high-risk situations.  So the result is that when they do have accidents, those accidents are much more severe than the low-speed car-park scrapes of the first group.

Most licensing systems are fundamentally flawed, because they pre-emptively exclude the incompetent-but-harmless first group, while leaving the second group (the daredevils) in place until after the accident.

But a minimalist licensing system is simple to design and implement, so it is likely to win the support of those like @SloopJonB who – with the best of intentions — talk themselves into something close to the Politician's syllogism

  1. We must do something
  2. This is something
  3. Therefore, we must do this.

You needn't write so many words. Just a couple strokes says it all:

image.thumb.png.d258543a306819be3097399c846fd951.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JohnMB said:

From a risk point of view my 16 year old son is far more likely to die in a car crash in a car with a licensed driver than in a accident caused by an under educated boater.

If we wanted to eliminate the risk of death in boating accidents we can simply outlaw boating. Some people would consider it extreme, but it would prevent deaths, based on your comment above you would support this legislation, because saving one life is a sufficient reason for us to give up our freedom to boat.

What utter bullshit.

Having people demonstrate the minimum level of knowledge required to get a license is hardly tyrannical. You're spouting the same sort of crap that anti-helmet bikers and the anti-seatbelt people spouted decades ago.

You're talking about freedumb, not freedom.

And by the way, I was pissed that we had to get a license because of the morons in powerboats and on jet skis but I was also mature enough to recognize that there are so many of them that it had become necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SloopJonB said:

What utter bullshit.

Having people demonstrate the minimum level of knowledge required to get a license is hardly tyrannical. You're spouting the same sort of crap that anti-helmet bikers and the anti-seatbelt people spouted decades ago.

You're talking about freedumb, not freedom.

I only wear a helmet when I am racing. I haven't raced since 1997. It is illegal to drive a car with a helmet in PA. As long as that is true, why the fuck should I have to wear a helmet on a bike to be safe? Did you know that the Z90.whatever it is now is just a drop test? Not a collision test. Did you know that the first person to die in a crash in the Tour de France in a descent was wearing a helmet? Also, Motorcycle helmets are different from bike ones. They have hard shells. Bike helmets due about nothing in a real crash. Just psychobabble. IF you are that scared to ride, don't fucking ride. I won't ride most roads any longer. Not safe with any form of protection.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SloopJonB said:

What utter bullshit.

Having people demonstrate the minimum level of knowledge required to get a license is hardly tyrannical. You're spouting the same sort of crap that anti-helmet bikers and the anti-seatbelt people spouted decades ago.

You're talking about freedumb, not freedom.

Conventional wisdom does not become any more insightful through being expressed with ferocity.

The "freedumb" tag is better applied to those who don't check their assumptions.

There is plenty of analysis to show that current law on seatbelts are back-to-front.    A driver's seatbelt protects only the driver, so the only beneficiary of it is the driver: there is no public interest in requiring a seatbelt.   Even worse, there is plenty of evidence that a seatbelt increases a driver's sense of safety and that mot drivers use up some or all of that increased margin.

So the net effect of the driver's seatbelt is so increases the risk to everyone else:  to passengers in the same car, to people in other vehicles, and to pedestrians and cyclists.

If lawmakers were actually concerned with using seatbelts to make the roads safer, the laws would be pretty much the inverse of the current setup.  Instead of being required, seatbelt use by driver would be banned unless the driver had demonstrated sufficient safety awareness, and would be withdrawn after an accident.  For drivers with multiple accidents, not only would the seatbelt be banned, but a spike would be fixed in the centre of the steering wheel, pointed directly at the driver.  That will encourage careful driving.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

26 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:

Conventional wisdom does not become any more insightful through being expressed with ferocity.

The "freedumb" tag is better applied to those who don't check their assumptions.

There is plenty of analysis to show that current law on seatbelts are back-to-front.    A driver's seatbelt protects only the driver, so the only beneficiary of it is the driver: there is no public interest in requiring a seatbelt.   Even worse, there is plenty of evidence that a seatbelt increases a driver's sense of safety and that mot drivers use up some or all of that increased margin.

So the net effect of the driver's seatbelt is so increases the risk to everyone else:  to passengers in the same car, to people in other vehicles, and to pedestrians and cyclists.

If lawmakers were actually concerned with using seatbelts to make the roads safer, the laws would be pretty much the inverse of the current setup.  Instead of being required, seatbelt use by driver would be banned unless the driver had demonstrated sufficient safety awareness, and would be withdrawn after an accident.  For drivers with multiple accidents, not only would the seatbelt be banned, but a spike would be fixed in the centre of the steering wheel, pointed directly at the driver.  That will encourage careful driving.

I'm having difficulty with the notion that incompetent drivers are less dangerous. Both speed limits, and speed minimums are in place to provide a level of acceptable risk for all licensed drivers. There are various grades of licence in most countries(commercial, truck, car etc). In countries like Germany and France, the barrier to entry is higher than in U.S. and Canada. Basically you have to become a better driver to get your licence(and mutually benefit from a higher speed limit on certain roads). One of the most dangerous practices on North American roads is when an incompetent driver clogs the fast lane and drivers pass them on the right. In Germany this is an immediate ticket, where as here in Canada it barely ever gets ticketed. 

Acceptable risk is 102 vehicle related deaths a day in the U.S. Not all deaths involve head on collisions, so the seatbelt game theory argument doesn't really hold either. If someone hits an animal in the middle of the night (see # of moose collisions in Alaska and Canada...which are often deadly) they could die through no fault of their own. The seatbelt is essentially saving just a solitary driver. There are plenty of laws on the books in 'free' societies that are there to save people from only themselves. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the time U.S. cars have only one occupant.
I was hit head-on by a stupid fucking teenager driving on the wrong side of the road passing on a curve.
People driving slow in the left lane are called left lane campers. They suck.

There is a significant percentage of car drivers (5%?) who do this on purpose, driving 63 mph in the left lane. 

Then there are the people with the flashing brake lights. I have yet to see a car driven by anyone but an asshole impetuous pass on the right type.

The latter are partially created by the campers. But they don't even flash. They just dive below you--even if I am doing 80 and in process of clearing the tractortrailer, they dive under me before I even signal. And tehy don't signal. Then I had one of them brake chck me a few weeks ago--witjh his fuckingflashing brka lights and all.

We have some fucking bad fichking drivers in the US.

Then again I was on a white nuckle drive in Germany once as a passenger in a van.

I can only imagine driving on that road across South America...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

What utter bullshit.

Having people demonstrate the minimum level of knowledge required to get a license is hardly tyrannical. You're spouting the same sort of crap that anti-helmet bikers and the anti-seatbelt people spouted decades ago.

You're talking about freedumb, not freedom.

And by the way, I was pissed that we had to get a license because of the morons in powerboats and on jet skis but I was also mature enough to recognize that there are so many of them that it had become necessary.

I never claimed that it was tyrannical. And I did not not spout that crap. What I spouted was an objection to the equally crap

5 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

How about if that one was your child?

  and

6 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

How many does it take to be worthwhile?

....so more than one...

  argument that you were spouting.  I apologize that I was not clear enough about that.

Personally I don't have a huge problem with the boaters card thing,  we don't have them in Illinois where i live now, or in the UK where i used to live. But I think the framework that WGW put forward is a legitimate way to think about this kind of thing.

-how many lives are saved,

-how big an impediment is it,

-is there a better way

are all legitimate questions as part of this discussion.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

Most of the time U.S. cars have only one occupant.
I was hit head-on by a stupid fucking teenager driving on the wrong side of the road passing on a curve.
People driving slow in the left lane are called left lane campers. They suck.

There is a significant percentage of car drivers (5%?) who do this on purpose, driving 63 mph in the left lane. 

Then there are the people with the flashing brake lights. I have yet to see a car driven by anyone but an asshole impetuous pass on the right type.

The latter are partially created by the campers. But they don't even flash. They just dive below you--even if I am doing 80 and in process of clearing the tractortrailer, they dive under me before I even signal. And tehy don't signal. Then I had one of them brake chck me a few weeks ago--witjh his fuckingflashing brka lights and all.

We have some fucking bad fichking drivers in the US.

Then again I was on a white nuckle drive in Germany once as a passenger in a van.

I can only imagine driving on that road across South America...

Ive been to a lot of countries with crazy driving habits. I find that drivers are on the whole better in Europe. Somebody whose driven around Rome might beg to differ. 

As counter intuitive as it might seem, off the top of my head, two of the craziest places would be Jamaica, and maybe Bangkok...both places I would never rent a car and just leave it to the pros. In Bangkok a taxi will enter a 9 way intersection that maybe has lights governing 4 directions, and just sail through it...at high speed. I think it has something to do with some kind of Buddhist trust in all things in motion.

The Jamaican thing...no idea. Everything moves slow...accept the hotshot taxi with the tricked out stereo. That's when I know it's time to fasten my seatbelt.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fufkin said:

Acceptable risk is 102 vehicle related deaths a day in the U.S. Not all deaths involve head on collisions, so the seatbelt game theory argument doesn't really hold either. If someone hits an animal in the middle of the night (see # of moose collisions in Alaska and Canada...which are often deadly) they could die through no fault of their own. The seatbelt is essentially saving just a solitary driver. There are plenty of laws on the books in 'free' societies that are there to save people from only themselves. 

Sure, there are circumstances where drivers can be killed or injured through no fault of their own.  So those who want to make decisions for other people will be able to justify their action to themselves.

However, if those lawmaking enthusiasts are actually concerned about the safety of everyone, then they also need to take a second step: to weigh the perceived gains from such a law against the costs of such a law. 

Those costs are not just measured in accidents involving people in other vehicles.  If drivers take more risks because they have a higher survival rate, then the price is paid not just by people in other vehicles, but by pedestrians, cyclists, wildlife, and people near the roads who endure increased noise and pollution.  This is similar to what economists call the externalised costs of some forms of productions, except in this case it's the externalised cost of driver safety.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a licence requirement in Aus. It is different state to state, and you need to do a practical and theroy course that takes about 6 hours. We don’t offer it at our school because all the providers have discounted themselves to death and it ain’t worth running. One of them grandfathers our Quals for the cost of the course.

it is recorded on your drivers licence and is cyber so you don’t have to carry it on you when boating. But you do in your car :) 

It would be talking it up to call the course basic. Not in anyway related to competency only attendance. But with most things to do with government, you need to pick your fights and this one isn’t worth it. It lasts for life.

My 2c from the outside.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, fufkin said:

I'm having difficulty with the notion that incompetent drivers are less dangerous.

The notion that incompetent drivers are less dangerous is not the notion I am advancing.

My point has a subtle but crucial difference: that the risk comes from the gap between skill and awareness, rather than from the absolute level of skill.

Take one extreme example: X is a one-legged person with bad eyesight and almost no driving experience.  X drives a car once a week, when they take their spouses's car 20 feet out of the garage to wash it, and then return it.  Risk is minimal.

At the other extreme: Y is an enthusiastic young driver, with lots of training, 20,000 miles clocked up in 5 years since they were licensed, and more than 100 hours of track driving.  Y drives the country roads near home like a rally driver.

Y has massively more skill, but is way more dangerous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:

Sure, there are circumstances where drivers can be killed or injured through no fault of their own.  So those who want to make decisions for other people will be able to justify their action to themselves.

However, if those lawmaking enthusiasts are actually concerned about the safety of everyone, then they also need to take a second step: to weigh the perceived gains from such a law against the costs of such a law. 

Those costs are not just measured in accidents involving people in other vehicles.  If drivers take more risks because they have a higher survival rate, then the price is paid not just by people in other vehicles, but by pedestrians, cyclists, wildlife, and people near the roads who endure increased noise and pollution.  This is similar to what economists call the externalised costs of some forms of productions, except in this case it's the externalised cost of driver safety.

Increased car quality has driven up speeds and inattentive driving. I have noticed this in my lifetime. Try driving a model A fast on a windy off-camber road. You won't. Pedestrians have no time to react when cars are doing 45 through a neighborhood. This has become a pandemic.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, TwoLegged said:

Sure, there are circumstances where drivers can be killed or injured through no fault of their own.  So those who want to make decisions for other people will be able to justify their action to themselves.

However, if those lawmaking enthusiasts are actually concerned about the safety of everyone, then they also need to take a second step: to weigh the perceived gains from such a law against the costs of such a law. 

Those costs are not just measured in accidents involving people in other vehicles.  If drivers take more risks because they have a higher survival rate, then the price is paid not just by people in other vehicles, but by pedestrians, cyclists, wildlife, and people near the roads who endure increased noise and pollution.  This is similar to what economists call the externalised costs of some forms of productions, except in this case it's the externalised cost of driver safety.

So do externalised costs extend to the care of the dead or injured? If so, those costs have been roughly cut in half over the last for decades due to the efforts of those 'enthusiastic lawmakers' and vehicle manufacturers. 

The notion that  wearing a seatbelt and an airbag is going to suddenly turn a soccer mom into the third lead on Fast and the Furious is a bit of a stretch. 

We live in an era were automobiles are safer than they've ever been...so safe in fact that one might argue they might erode certain basic driving instincts. But the stats say that argument would lose.

The increased safety features in cars, and laws on the roads, in the context of a significant reduction in vehicle related deaths, have basically deflated any notion  that more safety equals more risk which leads to more carnage.

Hell my car can even tell me when I'm tired. Go figure.

https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot

edit: I do agree with pedestrian and cyclist safety having perhaps suffered do to the cloistered modern driver, at least in my hometown it's evident.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fastyacht said:

I only wear a helmet when I am racing. I haven't raced since 1997. It is illegal to drive a car with a helmet in PA. As long as that is true, why the fuck should I have to wear a helmet on a bike to be safe? Did you know that the Z90.whatever it is now is just a drop test? Not a collision test. Did you know that the first person to die in a crash in the Tour de France in a descent was wearing a helmet? Also, Motorcycle helmets are different from bike ones. They have hard shells. Bike helmets due about nothing in a real crash. Just psychobabble. IF you are that scared to ride, don't fucking ride. I won't ride most roads any longer. Not safe with any form of protection.

You're right, I agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohnMB said:

I never claimed that it was tyrannical. And I did not not spout that crap. What I spouted was an objection to the equally crap

  and

  argument that you were spouting.  I apologize that I was not clear enough about that.

Personally I don't have a huge problem with the boaters card thing,  we don't have them in Illinois where i live now, or in the UK where i used to live. But I think the framework that WGW put forward is a legitimate way to think about this kind of thing.

-how many lives are saved,

-how big an impediment is it,

-is there a better way

are all legitimate questions as part of this discussion.

You're right, I agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites