Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kali's Law

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Kali's Law

    Haven't seen this discussed yet but see threads on other new laws taking effect this year.



    I don't like it.

    Someone's head hitting the motor or prop whether spinning or not will probably not have favorable outcomes. Seems knee-jerkish and cash grab-y. Tragic accident nonetheless.

    #2
    Nanny state.. you can't regulate the danger out of everything..

    Comment


      #3
      Generally any law named after a kid who died is a bad idea or else it wouldn't require an emotionally driven name like that.

      On this one I'm not entirely opposed to it...

      Comment


        #4
        This is a good law. I support it

        Comment


          #5
          Why wouldn't someone be for this? Operating a boat on public waters is dangerous,and if people are too dumb. There sho hold be consequences.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Hooverfb View Post
            Why wouldn't someone be for this? Operating a boat on public waters is dangerous,and if people are too dumb. There sho hold be consequences.
            I'm against any new law. A law us just a feel good gesture that allows the government to make money off of you.. if a person is not smart enough to wear the kill switch then this won't change a thing.. Just like feel good gun laws do nothing to stop criminals.

            Comment


              #7
              I think wearing a PFD and the kill switch should be required just like a seat belt in a vehicle.

              Nanny state...whatever. It saves lives. The recent thread just on here about the tragic loss of the Kemah Police Chief is a good reminder that accidents can happen to anyone at anytime. Had he been wearing a PFD, there may have been a different outcome.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by jds247 View Post
                I'm against any new law. A law us just a feel good gesture that allows the government to make money off of you.. if a person is not smart enough to wear the kill switch then this won't change a thing.. Just like feel good gun laws do nothing to stop criminals.
                I get what you're saying,but this is at least easier to enforce and check. Kind of like driving your car with one of the lights out. It might not be a problem for a while, but once you get a ticket for it you'll change the bulb.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by jds247 View Post
                  I'm against any new law. A law us just a feel good gesture that allows the government to make money off of you.. if a person is not smart enough to wear the kill switch then this won't change a thing.. Just like feel good gun laws do nothing to stop criminals.
                  If the state makes a law that holds someone accountable for their poor judgment how are they planning on making money off this? You evidently don't understand the way laws like this work. It's not just a traffic ticket. If a person fails to wear a kill switch and injures or kills someone then the state can prosecute that person under this law. At which time any money they would have made from the tickets they wrote would be gone in Attorney cost. I'm for it. Its a good deterrent.
                  Last edited by Hoggslayer; 06-11-2019, 12:46 PM.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    what is the law? the article says "requires certain boat operators to be physically connected to a boat's emergency cut-off switch". who are these "certain" boat operators?

                    Comment


                      #11
                      I think I can side with the OP. I absolutely oppose any legislation that's based on emotion, rather than factual data. Seatbelts: There's actual to data to support that yes, they do in fact save lives and are effective. The same precedent should be set for this law. Show the data that supports that this law is effective and that wearing a killswitch would have actually mattered. Without evidence(More than 1 singular incident) we should not be creating new laws. We all would agree that banning supressors after 1 mass shooting would be pretty ludicrous; why is it any different in this situation.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        I’m ok with this one. Boats don’t stop on their own if the operator gets thrown out. It happens more often than people realize. If the kill switch was worn that boat probably won’t circle back around and kill you while you’re in the water.

                        Don’t wear a seatbelt and that’s on you. But if you get thrown out of your boat and it kills someone else that’s where I have an issue.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by gb22250 View Post
                          I’m ok with this one. Boats don’t stop on their own if the operator gets thrown out. It happens more often than people realize. If the kill switch was worn that boat probably won’t circle back around and kill you while you’re in the water.

                          Don’t wear a seatbelt and that’s on you. But if you get thrown out of your boat and it kills someone else that’s where I have an issue.
                          Exactly, falling out still leaves a fast travelling boat that's going to keep going until it hits someone...

                          Endangering yourself is one thing, creating an externality that endangers others is very different

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by TexasArchery_27 View Post
                            I think I can side with the OP. I absolutely oppose any legislation that's based on emotion, rather than factual data. Seatbelts: There's actual to data to support that yes, they do in fact save lives and are effective. The same precedent should be set for this law. Show the data that supports that this law is effective and that wearing a killswitch would have actually mattered. Without evidence(More than 1 singular incident) we should not be creating new laws. We all would agree that banning supressors after 1 mass shooting would be pretty ludicrous; why is it any different in this situation.
                            How about how my dad's uncle got run over several times when wake from another boat caused him to lose balance and fall over. He was driving a tiller handle and it just went in circles. Luckily he survived because he was just outside of the game warden camp and they saw the incident and got help. It could have been much worse and he was left with permanent head trauma and scars from the prop. There is plenty of evidence that a killswitch will help save lives in certain instances. Will it work 100% of the time? No, just like a person wearing a seatbelt can and has died in the event of a crash. But the odds are better if you wear it.

                            I'm for the new law.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Boats under 26 feet with a kill switch built into the boat must be used if the boat is going faster than headway speed. I read that on another article.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X