Controversial opinion

Hi, I’ve been involved in surf lifesaving competition for about 15 years – primarily in the surf boat arena, but also in the surf ski and paddle board disciplines. I choose to wear a Gath helmet when competing in the surf boat arena, due to the high risk of being struck by a wayward oar. However, I choose not to wear the helmet when on the board or ski, mostly for reasons of comfort.

I’m unsure about the use of PFDs. While it’s true a wetsuit provides some buoyancy, for a floatation device to be truly effective (e.g. to keep your head above water when unconscious) it has to be restrictively thick. Particularly when a competitor is required to roll a board or swim for a lost ski, I think this could create issues.

I think a reasonable solution might be to require surf lifesaving competitors under the age of 16 to wear a Gath-type helmet (and perhaps a PFD if an adequately non-restrictive solution can be found) but to allow competitors over the age of 16 to use their own judgement – much in the way rugby players can choose if they want to wear headgear.

RAB, I was not accusing you of laying blame. Many people are trying though. Maybe its the litigious society we live in.

As i stated maybe a light soft helmet may have worked in this case.

It might be a good idea for junior competitors but I would leave it as a personal decision for senior competitors. Just like rugby helmets. Some seniors wear them, some don't.

Doug at SagaKayak wrote; "A small case in point: The damned U.S. Fed seat-belt law… before it was MANDATED, I always wore my seat-belt. After the mandate, I thumb my nose, and routinely leave it unused. Damn the bureaucrats and insurance lobbyists! (most probably not in my best interest, but I feel good about it all the same!) "

Really! That has got to be the dumbest thing I ever saw on this site. Honestly. My 4 year old knows better.

Trudat and sadly he is not alone.

gary: I suppose you're a good little nazi browncoat, aren't you. Believe and do everything your state tells you. Ok, so I don't wear my seat belt every single moment that I drive. You do? So what! I also do not wear my PFD on many paddles. "Oh gese...he's really pushing now, folks!" Oh, I bet you wear your pfd every paddle, don't you? Why? Because you always obey! Gary the robot. "The Government is ALWAYS right and is always looking out for Gary's best interest."
Edit: Ok Gary, you possibly have something there...that statement may be too much for many over-protected, fragile, sensitive readers here to read. The point I was trying to convey is that personal safety should be up to the individual, not some over-seeing, disconnected entity mandating a rule that is all-encompassing.
and restrictive.

>> here we go >> runs out to grab popcorn

as a thought ... sometimes the state legislates things to protect people from thier own stupidity or protect the innocent and/or save taxpayers an expense.

Superdog, don`t forget to let us know if you wore your belt or not....!!
Later fellas, I`m off paddling!

Superted: yes, the state thinks it needs to protect everyone. Yet, what it is doing is dumbing down life. With so many nanny rules and regs, people now have others to blame for their own follies, through the same laws meant to protect them. If you allow for personal choice and error, then the only fault lies with the person who did not prepare properly, did not train properly, did not build enough skill, did not foresee a potential danger, and did not use good judgment. I know, some ninny-nannies will think that sounds too harsh.
Now if there was an over-abundance of nuisance, restrictive laws, then this model person that became injured or worse (or his family) now can blame someone else for his woes. He can now blame the race director, and the race promoter, and the race sponsors for not having a perfectly safe race course and perfect weather conditions for that individual’s skill level. What happens now? No more races. No promoter, director, or sponsor wants that kind of risk of being blamed for someone else’s follies because the law allows for it. Much for any restrictive law that was originally deemed a personal choice. As people become accustomed to being restricted in more and more ways, their judgment does not get exercised, and they rely more and more upon the state for their guidance and sustenance. Exactly what the state is striving for. More power. Traditional means of self control and good judgment have been largely reduced now that the state has become ever larger and restrictive.

Owenfromwales,

Sure if you really want me to tell you when I wear my seat belt, I'll play your game. One condition however, you must tell us when you pull your head out of your ass!

Doug, my point was I encourage you to be responsible for yourself and to take all decisions regarding your own safety. I agree we should all take much more responsibility upon ourselves. State laws are restrictive because they are trying to protect the lowest common denominator from itself.

When hooning on my motorbike, I only do so in a situation where I will injure nobody but myself, and if I am injured, it will be so severely I will die and nobody will be saddled with looking after me.

In Australia, that's behaving like a woman. : D Socially responsible hooning.

Don't be too hard on him folks; he comes from North Carolina and that's just the prevailing
opinion around there.

Doug,
Seems I owe you an apology for that earlier Freudian slit, of course I meant to write `Superted`, but after getting caught up in all the excitement of the banter between you two, it accidentally got morphed into `superdog`. My lame attempt at on the fence humour was directed at him, not you.
Owen
ps can I take my head out of my arse now? It`s kinda dark and I can`t really see where I`m going on my surfski - I`m also scared my helmet will chafe on the way out!

C'mon guys, personal attacks just are not in the interest of the forum or community.

Put forth your views, however silly, so the rest can all laugh or wonder in your brilliance, listen to others, and see if anything good comes out of the mixing pot.

Let everybody be free to make an idiot of themselves without the fear of somebody calling them names and other childish crap like that.

Doesn't matter what you post, somebody, somewhere in the world will disagree, so we all expect to have disagreements, but why make it into a childish fistfight?





Back on topic..........

or maybe this one has run it's course.........

I suppose my point is that sometimes even a government requirement to use safety equipment might actually be sensible, and it is perverse not to do so merely to make a point. Otherwise we may end up like this guy -

articles.cnn.com/2011-07-04/us/new.york....tate-police?_s=PM:US

Now there's a candidate for the Darwin awards...

I'll keep buckling up, wearing my motorbike helmet and wearing my PFD - not because my government tells me to, but because it just is sensible. Although not all at the same time.

Gary... sorry for the old German fascist party connection. Too much coffee and GU gels, I guess (well, that sounds like a perfectly fine excuse).

Marieski: “When hooning on my motorbike, I only do so in a situation where I will injure nobody but myself, and if I am injured, it will be so severely I will die and nobody will be saddled with looking after me.”
Me and my ol' Kaw ZRX 1200 RR are not the most law abiding duo on the wee-hour morning streets, either. “Hooning”… I’ll remember that one! (oh shite, another ill conceived confession for the over-protected, fragile, sensitive readers here to know about)

Owen: “ps can I take my head out of my arse now? It`s kinda dark and I can`t really see where I`m going on my surfski - I`m also scared my helmet will chafe on the way out!” --nice one!

Heck, this thread is almost as good as a hard paddle…. My heart rate gets up there!

Edit: Ok Gary: in his link: "Another New Yorker who has been a motorcyclist for over 50 years, Joseph Costantini, said, "I would never ride without a helmet -- even in a state that says you don't have to. I understand where the protesters are coming from because ultimately it's a matter of CHOICE. For me, I would wear a helmet no matter what. ... Must feel great to ride without a helmet because sometimes it's uncomfortable. ... I'm sure his family isn't going to be happy."

Darwin awards? Boy, you just keep coming up with stuff to hammer with, don't you.

Not that I don't ride with helmet and full leathers. (I'm mostly kinda freightened of getting seriously messed up or worse without being at fault without protection) But if someone chooses to ride without protection, well that's their choice. Who are you to judge his motives?

From now on, I'll end each possibly negatively construed posting with a happy note....