Sheyenne's Law

[Lost Horizons]

Your freedom doesn't include killing or maiming me or anyone else. Otherwise knock yourself out.

Why are you implying that freedom to travel must result in killing someone? Please explain the logic.

 

[Lost Horizons]

Are we supposed to take this as you disagreeing post?

You have to have a license and take a test to drive a car or truck.
You have to have a license and take a test to drive a motorcycle.
You have to have a license and take a test to fly an airplane.
You have to have a license and take a test to be a plumber or electrician.

Why do you think operating a boat should be different?

You give up a lot of so called "freedoms" to live in a society. You give up the right to pee or defecate wherever you want to. You give up the right to walk naked down the street.

Testing and licensing of boat operators is to protect the other people on the water including you and your loved ones. If you are offended by being required to prove that you are capable of safely operating a boat, maybe golf would be a better hobby. Of course golf has rules too.

Right to travel is a fundamental human right, not a privilege granted by a state.
Your example of an electrician or plumber exam is inappropriate. The state has a right to regulate a trade, which is not a God given right like the right to travel. Licensing driving and operating a plane is borderline infringement of human rights too, although one may argue that driver's license is only required on public roads, and that there are alternative ways to exercise you freedom - you can walk. Unfortunately, you cannot walk on water; sailing, or boating, is the only way to travel over water.

The important thing here is: I don't need your permission to exercise my rights, which is what licensing is all about - permission. I do not need your permission to go from A to B (including by means of sailing) as long as I am not crossing your property, or to eat, or to sleep, or even to type this message. AND I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT THIS WAY.

And yes, it was a disagreeing post. I value boating mostly as a means to freedom. There is really not much more to it. It is very painful for me to observe how easily people give up their civil rights in exchange for security, but it is their business. At the end, they will have neither, as usual, but it is their choice. What really concerns me is when someone insists on taking away MY rights so they can feel more secure.

 

[dhays]

Lost, you can travel however you want a few miles offshore in international waters as long as your boat isn't documented in the US.

 

[Lost Horizons]

Lost, you can travel however you want a few miles offshore in international waters as long as your boat isn't documented in the US.

And North Korea, I get it.

 

[gaston]

Are we supposed to take this as you disagreeing post?

You have to have a license and take a test to drive a car or truck.
You have to have a license and take a test to drive a motorcycle.
You have to have a license and take a test to fly an airplane.
You have to have a license and take a test to be a plumber or electrician.

Why do you think operating a boat should be different?

You give up a lot of so called "freedoms" to live in a society. You give up the right to pee or defecate wherever you want to. You give up the right to walk naked down the street.

Testing and licensing of boat operators is to protect the other people on the water including you and your loved ones. If you are offended by being required to prove that you are capable of safely operating a boat, maybe golf would be a better hobby. Of course golf has rules too.

Funny country America its easier to buy a big mother fuzker gun than a beer

 

[Peter B]

What is horrifying is that I wasn't even close to the .08% level that WA state uses as the threshold for DUI. Having never thought about it before, I am now a strong supporter of the effort in some states to decrease the legal limit to .05%.

0.05% is the max legal limit for driving throughout Australia, as it happens, and it is policed fairly actively. However, what is even more scary is that about 25% of those picked up, are also taking other psych-active drugs.

What is it about human beings that they go to such lengths to abuse their bodies, and others as collateral damage..?

 

[Peter B]

Why are you implying that freedom to travel must result in killing someone? Please explain the logic.

Lost H, are you being deliberately perverse..? Yanking our chains, maybe..?
No-one is disputing your right to travel, only that you be in adequate control of what you are travelling in. Boats and road vehicles out of good control are huge and dangerous weapons. We would think that is the obvious point being debated, as coming back to WifeyB's OP, the tragedy of a teenage life lost was because of someone 'travelling' dangerously, under the influence, and insufficiently experienced in driving the watercraft they were using. What's hard to understand about this..?

 

[twistedtree]

Why are you implying that freedom to travel must result in killing someone? Please explain the logic.

I don't think I made any such implication. Travel all you want. Just don't do it in a way that endangers other people.

If someone wants to operate a boat, I'm 100% in favor of requiring them to demonstrate that they can do it without endangering other people and property. It's the same with operating a car.

 

[twistedtree]

Right to travel is a fundamental human right, not a privilege granted by a state.
Your example of an electrician or plumber exam is inappropriate. The state has a right to regulate a trade, which is not a God given right like the right to travel. Licensing driving and operating a plane is borderline infringement of human rights too, although one may argue that driver's license is only required on public roads, and that there are alternative ways to exercise you freedom - you can walk. Unfortunately, you cannot walk on water; sailing, or boating, is the only way to travel over water.

The important thing here is: I don't need your permission to exercise my rights, which is what licensing is all about - permission. I do not need your permission to go from A to B (including by means of sailing) as long as I am not crossing your property, or to eat, or to sleep, or even to type this message. AND I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT THIS WAY.

And yes, it was a disagreeing post. I value boating mostly as a means to freedom. There is really not much more to it. It is very painful for me to observe how easily people give up their civil rights in exchange for security, but it is their business. At the end, they will have neither, as usual, but it is their choice. What really concerns me is when someone insists on taking away MY rights so they can feel more secure.

I'll skip over your imaginary person who is telling you which rights can be regulated and which can't......

I think your view is horrendously self-centered. All you care about it what YOU want to do, and are completely ignoring what harm it might bring to other people. Does your "freedom to travel" include a right to smash your car into someone else? Smash your boat into another boat? Run someone over with your car?

 

[twistedtree]

Lost H, are you being deliberately perverse..? Yanking our chains, maybe..?
No-one is disputing your right to travel, only that you be in adequate control of what you are travelling in. Boats and road vehicles out of good control are huge and dangerous weapons. We would think that is the obvious point being debated, as coming back to WifeyB's OP, the tragedy of a teenage life lost was because of someone 'travelling' dangerously, under the influence, and insufficiently experienced in driving the watercraft they were using. What's hard to understand about this..?

Oh stop it. There you go being rational again.

 

[Lost Horizons]

Does your "freedom to travel" include a right to smash your car into someone else? Smash your boat into another boat? Run someone over with your car?

No, it doesn't.
Does your willingness to submit to licensing process guarantee that you will never commit a crime?

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
You can't legislate stupid but you CAN, through legislation and licensing somewhat limit the demonstration of such. I do NOT feel, in any way, that any of my "rights" have been taken away or infringed upon by the necessity for me to have a license for anything.

What licensing means to me is that at some point the license holder has demonstrated that they have/had, at least, the minimum knowledge and capacity to perform the tasks allowed by said license.

 

[rwidman]

Right to travel is a fundamental human right, not a privilege granted by a state.
Your example of an electrician or plumber exam is inappropriate. The state has a right to regulate a trade, which is not a God given right like the right to travel. Licensing driving and operating a plane is borderline infringement of human rights too, although one may argue that driver's license is only required on public roads, and that there are alternative ways to exercise you freedom - you can walk. Unfortunately, you cannot walk on water; sailing, or boating, is the only way to travel over water. ..............

It appears you wrote your reply without reading my entire thread. God has nothing to do with your rights, travel or otherwise. Governments regulate your rights. It's part of the cost of living in society.

Even your "God given right" to walk is limited by government. It's illegal to walk on an Interstate highway. It's illegal to walk on restricted military properties.

If you cannot live within society's rules, you should go somewhere where there are no rules.

 

[twistedtree]

No, it doesn't.
Does your willingness to submit to licensing process guarantee that you will never commit a crime?

Of course not. Nobody ever said it would. You asserted that boat operator licensing interfered with your right to travel. I disagreed. It's a way to assess some minimum level of competence in performing a task that, if performed incorrectly, can be hazardous to other people. Like driving a car or operating a boat. Or wiring a house, or plumbing a gas line. And it provides a mechanism to bar people from the task if they subsequently demonstrate incompetence. It in no way interferes with you "right" to travel, just your "right" to threaten harm to other people.

 

[Insequent]

As Peter B noted earlier, Queensland has linked car and boat licensing. Separate tests but same rules for operators: you need to be under 0.05. But if you lose one of them for DUI then you lose both of them. I'm fine with that. I'm simply not going over the limit if I need to drive afterwards.

My greatest fear on the roads or on the water is the other folks in the vicinity. Aggressive nut cases, particularly on the roads, ruined the pleasure of driving years ago. Any laws designed to keep drunks from being a problem on land or water are a net plus. Its not hard to organize your life to be able to enjoy some alcohol as well as travel when and where needed.

 

[cappy208]

I've heard shows of radio hosts having themselves tested as they drank on air to increase visibility and the decrease in their reflexes and abilities recorded. That is the huge fallacy, that one is only impacted at .08%. That's just where the law steps in.



.05% or so and there is definitely impact. In transportation jobs .02% is the cutoff.

While its .08 for civilians it's different for Dept Of Transportation workers.
Actually it's .04 for DOT regulated workers. (Which all licensed Mariners are covered by). And this applies like CDL drivers: Even if I'm driving my personal boat, I am subject to the lower level.

So on my boat I am the DD. Until anchored or docked. My boat, my rules. But, Then again, they're my wife, kids/grandkids.

 

[Insequent]

While its .08 for civilians it's different for Dept Of Transportation workers.
Actually it's .04 for DOT regulated workers. (Which all licensed Mariners are covered by). And this applies like CDL drivers: Even if I'm driving my personal boat, I am subject to the lower level.

So on my boat I am the DD. Until anchored or docked. My boat, my rules. But, Then again, they're my wife, kids/grandkids.

Highlighted anchored - why is it OK to be over the limit when anchored? What happens if the boat needs to be moved and you are over the limit?

I'm not picking on you - just drawing attention to a potential issue, which laws in our part of the world cover, and I agree with them.

 

[ancora]

Interestin' that no ne has mentioned the use of marijuana or prescription drugs yet....

 

[gaston]

Interestin' that no ne has mentioned the use of marijuana or prescription drugs yet....

bugger now the cats out of the bag

 

[dhays]

Highlighted anchored - why is it OK to be over the limit when anchored? What happens if the boat needs to be moved and you are over the limit?

I'm not picking on you - just drawing attention to a potential issue, which laws in our part of the world cover, and I agree with them.

Anchoring may be different than being on a permanent mooring even though we will get at least a half dozen accounts of moorings failing...

I think the idea is that once moored, there is the assumption that the vessel will not need to be operated. If I am not mistaken, the USCG doesn't count time at anchor for sea hours either.

 

[BandB]

While its .08 for civilians it's different for Dept Of Transportation workers.
Actually it's .04 for DOT regulated workers. (Which all licensed Mariners are covered by). And this applies like CDL drivers: Even if I'm driving my personal boat, I am subject to the lower level.

So on my boat I am the DD. Until anchored or docked. My boat, my rules. But, Then again, they're my wife, kids/grandkids.

Am I right or wrong in thinking that .02 gets you a 24 hour suspension or something? As an employer .02 was our limit I guess and not the legal limit. We use .02 for cars, boats, everything which basically means don't drink.

As far back as 1990, the GAO wrote a very critical report on the USCG enforcement.

 

[dhays]

Interestin' that no ne has mentioned the use of marijuana or prescription drugs yet....

The law is catching up. In WA state you can be fined for refusing a drug test for marijuana the same as you can be fined for refusing a breath test for alcohol. There is a stated legal limit for THC and big penalties if you are operating a boat over those limits, just as alcohol.

For prescription drugs, it comes down to whether you are impaired or not. It is against WA state law to operate a boat while impaired by any drug. It is just that the prescription drugs don't have set limits.

FWIW, I think that the use of marijuana will become an important safety issue for boating just as alcohol abuse is now.

Disclaimers: 1) I have never in my life used any illegal drugs, including marijuana now that it is legal in my state. As such, I cannot speak from experience on this issue. 2) I have a bias such that I think that any recreational use of marijuana is "abuse".

 

[BandB]

Interestin' that no ne has mentioned the use of marijuana or prescription drugs yet....

Well, alcohol is the most abused drug but you're right in pointing out the others, especially now that we have states making marijuana somewhat legal on land. The ability to measure on the others is limited and LEO's don't have anything comparable to a Breathalyzer. I think it's coming though. And in respect to laws, they are even more inadequate on being under the influence of drugs, legal or not. At the current level of Vicodin abuse, it's scary.

 

[cappy208]

At my real job anything over .0000 gets me looking for a new job! But that's to meet Exxon Mobil charter guidelines.

On the personal boat it's .04. But if I were stopped by a local cop or sheriff I doubt they'd know the lower level. But if the USCG got involved..... Ain't gonna risk it.

Regarding at anchor, I have heard anecdotal stories about that. But AFAIK the laws only apply to vessels underway. Meaning not Aground, Moored, Made fast. I think there's a difference between being in a road stead versus tucked away in a harbor with a good bottom and no appreciable wind. But that's what makes the world go 'round. For me it's also if I have the GKs aboard. Or if it's adult time swimming, beaching fishing or just reading a book.

Personally I think the German laws are admirable. If you get ONE dui you lose ALL your licenses for life. No appeal, No Cinderella license, No fancy lawyer. One and done. And this applies to everything with wheels. Even bikes!

 

[hmason]

Ah, licenses. Try practicing medicine without one.

 

[Gulf Comanche]

Funny country America its easier to buy a big mother fuzker gun than a beer

True dat, we still have our right to have as many guns as we want, guaranteed by the 2nd amendment to our constitution. Can't believe you Aussies gave that up.

 

[cappy208]

Funny country America its easier to buy a big mother fuzker gun than a beer

Not quite true. You are viewing politics through left leaning media. I hope AU media isn't as messed up as it is here.

Where is Paul Hogan when you need him?

 

[CPseudonym]

Interestin' that no ne has mentioned the use of marijuana or prescription drugs yet....

Oh yeah

 

[sbu22]

Based on what I see on the road everyday, where I assume that most operators are licensed, I'm a little skeptical that licensing is the cure-all. But wholly agree that watercraft operations should be regulated and enforced with the same rigor as vehicular traffic. The gaps in boating enforcement and consequences down this way are rediculous.

I am the DD on my boat, regardless of who has the helm. And any helmsman will be clean as a whistle as well.

Down here, July 4 in particular is really bad. Boats rafted up in confined inlets for the concert/fireworks, jon boats to 70 footers, smoking and joking (and drinking). Then, after the fireworks, everybody cranks up and leaves - kinda like the stadium after the game.

My general rule 1 is stay off the water then. If I happen to be transiting for some reason, I stay away (think miles) from these concentration points. Reminiscent of New Year's Eve with cars. Amateur night.

 

[BandB]

Based on what I see on the road everyday, where I assume that most operators are licensed, I'm a little skeptical that licensing is the cure-all. But wholly agree that watercraft operations should be regulated and enforced with the same rigor as vehicular traffic. The gaps in boating enforcement and consequences down this way are rediculous.

.

Enforcement is the cure. But the point of Sheyenne's Law is that in NC there was not even a decent law to enforce if one wanted to as there was no felony version of a BUI law.