Hi Henk,
: It's hard to argue with a person who rides a motorbike for improved personal
: safety. I guess you don't wear a helmet too, to be even safer? ;-) (Sorry
: just kidding here, couldn't resist it.)
It is very hard to argue, specially with the helmet on. 
I don't argue that much. I've always worn a helmet, keeps your head warm in winter and stops sunburn in summer. Keeps bugs out of the eyes, too.
: If that were so then why doesn't the NTSB require cars to NOT install seat
: belts, ABS, airbags etcetera. It defeats common sense to me. Speaking for
: myself, my road behavior is determined first of all by the speed limit.
I wouldn't be advocating removing these features, they do save lives. I get concerned that the equipment takes over from thought. And for most people, being told that a craft/car/machine has all the latest safety features seems to mean that they are now invulnerable. To these people, the speed limit is a target to beat.
: I don't dismiss the argument entirely but I doubt very much if it outweighs
: the counterarguments. For one thing, the fact that there is a Coast Guard
: provides a safety net that pushes kayakers beyond the limits. But reliable
: watertight hatches don't, I think. Most people assume that they work,
: assume that their paddle float will save them and so on. These things are
: conveniently ignored until they become real issues when it's too late. I
: would pay for better safety.
That's where education/training beats legislation. You can't legislate to make someone check out their equipment by mandating that equipment, you can, however, train people to do so until it becomes ingrained habit. The Army does it successfully with recruits. I wouldn't pay for better safety through equipment, I would pay for training. Equipment won't improve your abilities, training will.
: So? If rescuers put their lives at risk at the expense of taxpayers (remember
: Mt Hood), why not mandate that they bring a beacon? That's better than
: closing the mountain (but even that could be justifiable). Likewise, if
: there are justifiable safety improvements for kayaks, why not mandate
: them? People spend $4000.- on a kayak but are balking at spending $1000.-
: on a GPIRB. Pennywise poundfoolish if you ask me. I'm not saying that
: GPIRBs should be mandated for all. But what about those who do a 4 hour
: crossing? You can rent them. PFDs are already mandated for good reasons.
: Things are usually mandated for good reasons.
If a set of "safety" features are added to any machine the cost goes up, and there is an unconscious cut-off point with price in most people. This would decrease the numbers of buyers and increase further the price, until it becomes elitist. With more equipment, there's more to check. Will that be done? Not unless the user is already in the habit of checking their equipment already. By which stage, they wouldn't need the extra safety equipment to be safe.
: Some bungee jumpers would still be alive if there had been a mandated device
: that checks if the cord is actually attached to something... it all fits
: in the same category.
There is a mandated device that checks if the cord is actually attached to something, the operator. A visual and physical check is the first and simplest of things to do.
One of the things that differentiates us from other animals is the ability to think beyond the now. Using that ability marks us as human.
Mike Savage
South West Cork
