Wakesurfing = Negligent Boater Operation???

[TeamAllen]

I'll build the houses.

Andrew can supply us w/ the amps and wetsounds goodies to outfit our boats.

We'll bring Lee and Chpthril to work on our boats in the event they break down.

We'll bring Spharis to get our electrical system on the island up and running.

Coach, b/c you gotta have a teacher of some kind for the little ones.

Matt to keep our website running.

And well... I don't really know what anyone else does off the top of my head.... because if you look at the PW thread, it seems none of you have jobs

Here is an old thread with some of our occupations.

http://www.tigeowners.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2911&

[Costigan]

Gooooood luck beating a cop's interpretation of "unsafe operation" in court. Everyone's energy would be better spent getting the law modified. A law that requires the cop to determine whether you are stern drive vs direct/v drive is probably not going to fly. It's much easier to just ban an activity that has the potential for death or injury vs having an intellegent discussion and working out a law that protects the idiots while allowing fun.

X2

[malarson]

My family and I were on the news yesterday. http://www.klewtv.com/news/26012319.html I thought my case was solid but the deputy held to his point that it is negligent operation. Proximity to the boat? Therefore barefooting would also be illegal.
What's the next move? I think I'll call the county prosecutor that he blamed the law on again.

Any ideas?
Mike

[talltigeguy]

Good Job!!!!!!!!!

I think the cop is a little out of his mind...but he did blame the need for citing people on the prosecutor's interpretation of the negligent boating law. So the buck stops at the prosecutor's doorstep. Ask him to find a single instance of a person 'succumbing' to CO poisoning when wakesurfing. I have never heard of a prop injury either, BTW. Since neither have ever happened, it would make sense to modify the interpretation of the law.

I thought it very interesting how they said it started in California...that is code in Idaho for 'don't let that shiite in here or it will ruin Idaho'. Mention the word California there and a frown immediately follows. I know, I used to live in Pocatello. Utah isn't much different.

[LovinPowell]

He made one quote in there that I would ask for further substantiation on:

Colvin says health officials have also found another concern.

"Another huge factor is the carbon monoxide issue where they have done a bunch of surveys across the United States on it and they're finding out that a lot of people being towed in that sport succumbing to carbon monoxide inhalation."

To me he is basically stating that people have "succumbed" (does that mean died or felt the effects of) to carbon monoxide inhalation. I would say "prove it". He is making a statement that has to be supported by facts, so I would ask him for the facts. To which I would counter with the studies that have been done to the contrary. I know that surfdad has access to some of those as well has his friend, Dennis (I think). Have you posted this on WW also? They will have some good input.

Was that the guy that pulled you over?

He also quoted the prosecuting attorney, so I would go right to the "horse's mouth" and see what he has to add to it.

[LovinPowell]

So Utah citizens, with Idaho being our neighbor to the North, I would urge all of you to keep an eye out for legislation (or interpretation of legislation) that would doom wakesurfing in our state. Contact your legislators before it is too late and tell them that wakesurfing is as safe as other watersports and to not be misinformed or misinterpret other occurances as similar to wake surfing.

[xpjim1]

I would give them the CDC/Coast Guard report from fresh air exhaust website. It states surfing the CO limits are way below the unsafe levels with or without FAE

[RubberDucky]

I don't know about you guys but this makes me mad. They have no proof to make the sport illegal to the v-drive or inboard boats. I have skied behind boats with above hull exhaust and you can smell the exhaust while skiing. so if they are going to band surfing, by the way they are saying, then that means all water activites are dangerous by what they are saying.

Will they let you go if you have a new boat or have centurion? The reason i ask is because on these boats the co levels are little to nothing!! Because of the catalyic converters and on the centurion the exhaust is routed to the other side of the surfer by the way of the sideswipe exhaust.


by the way
Malarson, nice boat!!!

[time2kyl]

If the danger of wakesurfing is proximity to the motor, I would also argue that anyone sitting in the back seat is in closer proximity to the motor than someone surfing.

[Carter13]

As we all know laws change and usually it is for the worst. It sounds like the sheriff is playing hard ball with the surfers. I don't think there is a snowballs chance in hell that Idaho is going to change the negligent boaters law and I am sure other states are going to be quick to follow. Maybe the inboard tow boat industry should hire some lobbyists to fight this otherwise wakesurfing could be a thing of the past, it already is in Idaho according to the sheriff.

[jleger98]

He said that "an operator who puts anyone in his boat or anyone being towed or in the vicinity of the boat would be at fault for negligent operation." Soooooo wouldn't this include riding rails on a wakeboard, doing inverts on a wakeboard, riding in a tube at more than idle speed?

I have been injured more wakeboarding than I have wakesurfing...in fact NEVER been hurt wakesurfing. Watersports, just like any sport have some degree of risk of injury by their nature. How many people have been seriously injured riding a rail? Heck people have been killed riding in tubes. People have been killed riding in boats! Its ludicrous to single out a sport where no-one has ever been killed or seriously injured (when using the correct equipment). You want to make a law, thats great, but give people who are using the correct equipment a waiver. If you have an inboard where the prop is well under the boat, and are making considerations for "reasonable safety" then I don't see the issue. Maybe mandate FAE for surfing, give Larry some $$, but to ban it outright is just plain ignorant.

So yeah, this pisses me off too, but being pissed is not going to help the situation at all. Education is the only solution here. I will agree that things like teak surfing is a really bad idea, but so is putting your lips on the exhaust. My guess is that this law was created around teak surfing, and they just automatically extended it to cover wakesurfing with little or no thought or education around the topic. Education education education.

[Bandsecurity]

I would consider challenging the law in court. Of course that means getting a ticket and it could cost $. While they use the term negligent in the law, the standard of proof is much higher in criminal law than civil law. A person acts with "criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor’s standpoint." The standard of care is can be determined by studies as was mentioned by the officers. However, those studies must be credible. If you have studies that establish that emissions are not an issue and come from a credible source, that would overcome the standard of care issue. Further, not giving tickets to barefooters who are the same ditance or closer shows disparate enforcement. Finally, the fact that the legislative history clearly shows that the state legislature excluded surfing language establishes that they intended it not be included in the law. Just my thoughts.

[Bandsecurity]

Also, it is almost physically impossible for a surfer to hit the prop if the boat is moving. They can hit the boat but the prop is another matter. But a helmet mitgates that risk.

[jleger98]

I would consider challenging the law in court. Of course that means getting a ticket and it could cost $. While they use the term negligent in the law, the standard of proof is much higher in criminal law than civil law. A person acts with "criminal negligence, or is criminally negligent, with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor’s standpoint." The standard of care is can be determined by studies as was mentioned by the officers. However, those studies must be credible. If you have studies that establish that emissions are not an issue and come from a credible source, that would overcome the standard of care issue. Further, not giving tickets to barefooters who are the same ditance or closer shows disparate enforcement. Finally, the fact that the legislative history clearly shows that the state legislature excluded surfing language establishes that they intended it not be included in the law. Just my thoughts.

How about the CDC and USCG:
http://www.boatpipes.com/Reports/USC...FAE_report.pdf

[Bandsecurity]

How about the CDC and USCG:
http://www.boatpipes.com/Reports/USC...FAE_report.pdf

It is always hard for the government to say that a government report is wrong.