Life Jackets in Illinois - Moderated Discussion Areas

  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: The Whaler GAM or General Area
  Life Jackets in Illinois

search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Life Jackets in Illinois

DillonBW posted 05-12-2010 09:49 PM ET (US)
Found this item on line somewhere today.
Was wondering what thoughts any one else had, good or bad?
"Springfield, Illinois. In a sweeping bill that could effect 96% of the states registered boats, the Illinois General Assembly is set to pass an new mandatory life jacket law that would require solo boaters to wear a life jacket year-round."
I am looking for it again and some more information but seem to be unable to find it...Duhuh!
tjxtreme posted 05-12-2010 09:59 PM ET (US)
http://www.boatus.com/pressroom/release.asp?id=502
David Pendleton posted 05-12-2010 10:15 PM ET (US)
Oh, quit your crying. The State of Illinois knows what's good for you; even if you don't.
Wear your life-jacket and obey.
Or, you can contact your legistlator(s) and urge them to oppose this legislation.
I recommend the latter.
PeteB88 posted 05-12-2010 11:01 PM ET (US)
It troubles me that this legislation seems on the fast track and for what? Illinois ought to focus on Asia Carp and building relationships with their neighbors. Sounds like deflection off that issue. It is really concerning that they have had poor public involvement.
We had the discussion last night w/ two highly experienced boaters and Whaler drivers about PFDs. I learned what I needed to know from whitewater and some experience in the Pacific when I lived out west. "Beyond This Point Your Life May Depend on Your Good Judgement"
I keep two high quality PDFs snapped to the back of the RPS for quick access. I tend to wear mine when solo and going fast especially in 13. I tend to put them on as opposed to take them off. The fellas I was talking to agree wear PDF more often than not.
Sounds like Boat US is driving this. They need to slow this sucker down and get local experts - the boaters - involved. I can see the issue from multiple sides - lots of drunks here compared to West where I used to boat. Dumb asses running wide open especially on PWCs and kids have created major concerns and I don't see that changing.
I think for bigger boats it's captain's discretion. They should not be legislating something that is extremely difficult to enforce. What's the data look like?
DillonBW posted 05-13-2010 09:34 AM ET (US)
I agree with Pete, it is like a seat belt in your car. I use my seat belt 100% of the time and my life jacket when solo, running fast or anything other than the best conditions, inland waters etc.
I have a family, grandsons and plan to be around for as long as I can.
lizard posted 05-13-2010 11:57 AM ET (US)
In almost every boating fatality (an extraordinarily high percentage that I don't have time to look up right now), there is an association with failure to be wearing, not carrying, a PFD.
I don't drive my car without a seatbelt. The law and common sense tell me to.
I can not understand why people get so upset about the same concept for boating. Can someone help me out?
gnr posted 05-13-2010 12:29 PM ET (US)
I don't know the exact stats and I don't have time to look it up right now but I believe the majority of skin cancer is caused by exposure to the sun. I just can't believe how this backwards society has not MANDATED the use of sun screen or at least full skin coverage while outside.
LOL
rslsail posted 05-13-2010 12:49 PM ET (US)
Iteresting concept, seems everyone here agrees on wearing PFD's they just don't like to be told to wear one. I guess if you're wearing it all the time, it really doesn't matter if there is a law or not. I agree there are bigger fish to fry. I would say this law is aimed at the drunken or reckless and irresponsible boaters out there and they could probably careless about this law if they are even aware it might exist soon.
dfmcintyre posted 05-13-2010 12:55 PM ET (US)
Dear GNR -
I had to cool off before typing this. Currently it's one of my very few hot buttons.
As someone who has (so far, successfully) battled both squamous cell skin cancer a few years ago and spent a good portion of last spring undergoing daily radiation and chemo treatments for throat cancer for two months(some oncologists believe that there is a causal link) frankly, your feeble attempt at joking about cancer, whether oblique or not, left me cold.
We best not meet, sport.
gnr posted 05-13-2010 01:51 PM ET (US)
All due respect sir,
I was not joking.
The principal is the same when talking about government intervention under the guise of saving ourselves from ourselves.
My point being... how far does it go?
I'm sorry you and your family are going through this but the correlation between the mandated wearing of pfd's to save me from killing myself and the potential of a mandate to keep my bare skin out of the sun remains valid.
Best wishes and keep fighting!
PeteB88 posted 05-13-2010 02:21 PM ET (US)
The problem is that necessary and legitimate regulatory requirements have been undermined or eliminated (deregulation) resulting in more than one mess not only environmental but regarding the economy. No explanation necessary. So my theory is this results in overreactions encouraging control freaks in government. No law is worth much that cannot be enforced or that does not make sense to people.
PFDs are a difficult subject regarding mandatory use. My bet is we will see more and more of this stuff as long as citizens are only marginally involved.
Education is universal solution.
contender posted 05-13-2010 05:50 PM ET (US)
GNR is correct; Again the government telling me how to run my life, and were will it stop? This is out of control, If they really wanted to do something correct why don't they band smoking (its proven that it causes cancer, they will not because they make to much money from it) They really need to spend more time on things to improve society not make it more difficult. If I choose not to wear a lifesaver or wear a seatbelt, so be it. I do not see how it affects anyone else but me and my family. In Florida you have to wear a seatbelt but you do not have to wear a helmet on a motorcycle go figure...
fishgutz posted 05-13-2010 09:47 PM ET (US)
Contender

quote:
I do not see how it affects anyone else but me and my family.

I guess you've never been to a nursing home where they house people in a vegetative state with all their care paid for by the government. People who also thought it affected no one but themselves. Accident victims who didn't wear seat belts, helmets or PFDs. It affects us all.
jimh posted 05-13-2010 10:26 PM ET (US)

quote:
"...the Illinois General Assembly is set to pass an new mandatory life jacket law that would require solo boaters to wear a life jacket year-round."
Wouldn't it look silly having to wear a PFD in church? Shouldn't you only have to wear them when you are operating the boat?
cohasett73 posted 05-14-2010 07:57 AM ET (US)
DillionBW,
Research before posting such inflammatory news.
Read this link.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/96/house/09600SB3060_04282010_009000T.pdf
Synopsis; 32 Yeas 73 Nays 1 Present
Common sense prevails for the time being.
Tom from Rubicon,WI
gnr posted 05-14-2010 09:46 AM ET (US)

quote:
I guess you've never been to a nursing home where they house people in a vegetative state with all their care paid for by the government. People who also thought it affected no one but themselves. Accident victims who didn't wear seat belts, helmets or PFDs. It affects us all.
Oh Please...
What "affects" us more? Seatbeltless/helmetless
accident victims or fat lazy slobs who eat all wrong, smoke too much and can't find their way off the couch to the front door?
Or alcohol abusers?
If it was really about saving society from the consequences of not wearing a pfd/seatbelt/helmet then it would start with the most (by far) significant detrimental activities.
It's just too easy to go for the easy target so they can sleep soundly at night knowing that they "made a difference".
Going after the significant issues wouldn’t help the re-election bid….
DillonBW posted 05-14-2010 11:35 AM ET (US)
I didn't mean it in a bad way Tom from Rubicon.
I was just wondering if folks thought the idea of making it mandatory was good/bad. As I said before, I have a large and extended family and wish to be around them for a good long while. If wearing a life jacket helps extend my life, then I am wearing one. Just don't think I will be wearing it in church or at the grocery store, unless there is a flood!
I wear a helmet when motor cycling and rock climbing, not because of the laws, but because I want to stay alive.. Simple.
fishgutz posted 05-14-2010 12:36 PM ET (US)
gnr, I agree. I'm pointing out that it DOES affect everyone. I hate those laws as much as the rest.
contender posted 05-14-2010 03:15 PM ET (US)
fishgutz: I was a firefighter/paramedic for 31 years and on my days off I flew as an air medic all over the country and sometimes to foreign lands, I have seen more deaths due to burns, gunshots, stabings, drug overdoses, cancer, heart attacks, drownings, and traffic accidents far more than the average person. I have seen it all. And some the things that I have seen and done have made me cry. Probably the only people that have seen more death than me are real combat vets and doctors in the same. Every day that I worked I had to deal with a death in one way or another. Trust me you have no idea...
fishgutz posted 05-14-2010 03:17 PM ET (US)
Contender, check my profile.
fishgutz posted 05-14-2010 03:24 PM ET (US)
Contender, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I agree with you. I've been there. I'm just saying it affects everyone, one way or another. Not just "me and my family" as you said. Obviously everything we saw on our job has affected US some way.
L H G posted 05-14-2010 05:03 PM ET (US)
Just remember, people from Illinois are also running this country and it's deficit spending economy. You decide if they even have a clue about what they are doing. It's also 2nd in the "MOST BROKE" State listings. Life jackets are the least of our problems. This must be an idea that came from Greece.
sapple posted 05-14-2010 10:02 PM ET (US)
A more effective, but politically difficult, life and injury saving law would be to require all passengers in a cars to wear crash helmets. The worst car crash injuries are head injuries. Professional race car drivers wear them. Most states require motorcycle drivers to wear them. There is no question that they would reduce serious head injuries. So why aren't they required by law?
contender posted 05-14-2010 11:09 PM ET (US)
sapple: have you ever rode a motorcycle? The only helmet that will do any good is a full face helmet(Bell Star, Shoei). However, a full face helmet blocks your vision and your hearing, not to good when you are on a motorcycle. States that require helmet laws,(the hard core riders) you will see that usually they only wear a skull cap type helmet. Does not block the vision nor the hearing, but they really do not help in an accident, just covers the rider from the law...
OddManOut posted 05-15-2010 12:22 AM ET (US)
I believe that this should apply to children only. Those that have approached the age of reason should apply their own safety such as owning a Boston Whaler or wearing a PFD when conditions warrant. What's next, air bags, seat belts, helmets, and roll cages? We should also think about applying this to pedestrians. Or better yet, mandatory helmets for all toddlers. If Boat U.S. is championing this effort I am sure that West Marine will profit. How bout we start with seat belts on school buses?

cohasett73 posted 05-15-2010 08:59 AM ET (US)
DillonBW,
Sorry for the terse words.
I had the pleasure in the 70's organizing a repeal the mandatory helmet law in Illinois. It's amazing how a law maker will eat their words when faced with the fact that the citizens they wanted to protect would vote them out of office.
What a person does to ensure their personal safety is or should be a matter of choice. Unfortunately insurance companies and law makers looking to make name for themselves will always be looking for ways to restrict personal freedoms.
I fish on Lake Michigan where wearing a flotation devise mostly just makes recovery of a body less difficult.
Whew! I feel better now. ;-)
Enjoy your Whalers in what ever way makes you happy.
Tom from Rubicon,WI
gnr posted 05-15-2010 10:14 AM ET (US)

quote:
A more effective, but politically difficult, life and injury saving law would be to require all passengers in a cars to wear crash helmets. The worst car crash injuries are head injuries. Professional race car drivers wear them. Most states require motorcycle drivers to wear them. There is no question that they would reduce serious head injuries. So why aren't they required by law?
I use this same logic on the people who feel obligated to give me a hard time about wearing a 10 dollar skid lid. I would bet that more serious injuries/deaths are a result of head injuries suffered in car accidents then in bike accidents.

quote:
sapple: have you ever rode a motorcycle? The only helmet that will do any good is a full face helmet(Bell Star, Shoei). However, a full face helmet blocks your vision and your hearing, not to good when you are on a motorcycle. States that require helmet laws,(the hard core riders) you will see that usually they only wear a skull cap type helmet. Does not block the vision nor the hearing, but they really do not help in an accident, just covers the rider from the law...

That's me. Interestingly enough though... Even though I wear the minimum required by law while on the road I just a couple days ago bought a good MX helmet to wear on the dirt bike which spends 80 percent of it's time on my own property where I'm not required by law to wear anything.

number9 posted 05-15-2010 01:17 PM ET (US)

quote:
Sounds like Boat US is driving this. They need to slow this sucker down and get local experts - the boaters - involved.

I'm still a bit confused whether the above statement was meant to imply Boat US was lobbying for a mandatory requirement or to make boaters aware of the proposal so that their opinions could be heard.

quote:
sapple: have you ever rode a motorcycle? The only helmet that will do any good is a full face helmet(Bell Star, Shoei). However, a full face helmet blocks your vision and your hearing, not to good when you are on a motorcycle. States that require helmet laws,(the hard core riders) you will see that usually they only wear a skull cap type helmet. Does not block the vision nor the hearing, but they really do not help in an accident, just covers the rider from the law...

There is a large difference between a non-DOT Standard "skid lid" and shorty, 1/2 and 3/4 helmets that meet DOT standard. Many of the cheap lids don't meet the standard, the distributors just slap a counterfeit DOT on them. Most people including law officers are fully aware they don't comply with the law but enforcement would be next to impossible.
To say only a full face helmet will do any good is baloney. Almost like saying only a USCG Type I will do any good.

Hop to:

Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

Author	Topic: Life Jackets in Illinois
DillonBW	posted 05-12-2010 09:49 PM ET (US) Found this item on line somewhere today. Was wondering what thoughts any one else had, good or bad? "Springfield, Illinois. In a sweeping bill that could effect 96% of the states registered boats, the Illinois General Assembly is set to pass an new mandatory life jacket law that would require solo boaters to wear a life jacket year-round." I am looking for it again and some more information but seem to be unable to find it...Duhuh!
tjxtreme	posted 05-12-2010 09:59 PM ET (US) http://www.boatus.com/pressroom/release.asp?id=502
David Pendleton	posted 05-12-2010 10:15 PM ET (US) Oh, quit your crying. The State of Illinois knows what's good for you; even if you don't. Wear your life-jacket and obey. Or, you can contact your legistlator(s) and urge them to oppose this legislation. I recommend the latter.
PeteB88	posted 05-12-2010 11:01 PM ET (US) It troubles me that this legislation seems on the fast track and for what? Illinois ought to focus on Asia Carp and building relationships with their neighbors. Sounds like deflection off that issue. It is really concerning that they have had poor public involvement. We had the discussion last night w/ two highly experienced boaters and Whaler drivers about PFDs. I learned what I needed to know from whitewater and some experience in the Pacific when I lived out west. "Beyond This Point Your Life May Depend on Your Good Judgement" I keep two high quality PDFs snapped to the back of the RPS for quick access. I tend to wear mine when solo and going fast especially in 13. I tend to put them on as opposed to take them off. The fellas I was talking to agree wear PDF more often than not. Sounds like Boat US is driving this. They need to slow this sucker down and get local experts - the boaters - involved. I can see the issue from multiple sides - lots of drunks here compared to West where I used to boat. Dumb asses running wide open especially on PWCs and kids have created major concerns and I don't see that changing. I think for bigger boats it's captain's discretion. They should not be legislating something that is extremely difficult to enforce. What's the data look like?
DillonBW	posted 05-13-2010 09:34 AM ET (US) I agree with Pete, it is like a seat belt in your car. I use my seat belt 100% of the time and my life jacket when solo, running fast or anything other than the best conditions, inland waters etc. I have a family, grandsons and plan to be around for as long as I can.
lizard	posted 05-13-2010 11:57 AM ET (US) In almost every boating fatality (an extraordinarily high percentage that I don't have time to look up right now), there is an association with failure to be wearing, not carrying, a PFD. I don't drive my car without a seatbelt. The law and common sense tell me to. I can not understand why people get so upset about the same concept for boating. Can someone help me out?
gnr	posted 05-13-2010 12:29 PM ET (US) I don't know the exact stats and I don't have time to look it up right now but I believe the majority of skin cancer is caused by exposure to the sun. I just can't believe how this backwards society has not MANDATED the use of sun screen or at least full skin coverage while outside. LOL
rslsail	posted 05-13-2010 12:49 PM ET (US) Iteresting concept, seems everyone here agrees on wearing PFD's they just don't like to be told to wear one. I guess if you're wearing it all the time, it really doesn't matter if there is a law or not. I agree there are bigger fish to fry. I would say this law is aimed at the drunken or reckless and irresponsible boaters out there and they could probably careless about this law if they are even aware it might exist soon.
dfmcintyre	posted 05-13-2010 12:55 PM ET (US) Dear GNR - I had to cool off before typing this. Currently it's one of my very few hot buttons. As someone who has (so far, successfully) battled both squamous cell skin cancer a few years ago and spent a good portion of last spring undergoing daily radiation and chemo treatments for throat cancer for two months(some oncologists believe that there is a causal link) frankly, your feeble attempt at joking about cancer, whether oblique or not, left me cold. We best not meet, sport.
gnr	posted 05-13-2010 01:51 PM ET (US) All due respect sir, I was not joking. The principal is the same when talking about government intervention under the guise of saving ourselves from ourselves. My point being... how far does it go? I'm sorry you and your family are going through this but the correlation between the mandated wearing of pfd's to save me from killing myself and the potential of a mandate to keep my bare skin out of the sun remains valid. Best wishes and keep fighting!
PeteB88	posted 05-13-2010 02:21 PM ET (US) The problem is that necessary and legitimate regulatory requirements have been undermined or eliminated (deregulation) resulting in more than one mess not only environmental but regarding the economy. No explanation necessary. So my theory is this results in overreactions encouraging control freaks in government. No law is worth much that cannot be enforced or that does not make sense to people. PFDs are a difficult subject regarding mandatory use. My bet is we will see more and more of this stuff as long as citizens are only marginally involved. Education is universal solution.
contender	posted 05-13-2010 05:50 PM ET (US) GNR is correct; Again the government telling me how to run my life, and were will it stop? This is out of control, If they really wanted to do something correct why don't they band smoking (its proven that it causes cancer, they will not because they make to much money from it) They really need to spend more time on things to improve society not make it more difficult. If I choose not to wear a lifesaver or wear a seatbelt, so be it. I do not see how it affects anyone else but me and my family. In Florida you have to wear a seatbelt but you do not have to wear a helmet on a motorcycle go figure...
fishgutz	posted 05-13-2010 09:47 PM ET (US) Contender quote: I do not see how it affects anyone else but me and my family. I guess you've never been to a nursing home where they house people in a vegetative state with all their care paid for by the government. People who also thought it affected no one but themselves. Accident victims who didn't wear seat belts, helmets or PFDs. It affects us all.
jimh	posted 05-13-2010 10:26 PM ET (US) quote: "...the Illinois General Assembly is set to pass an new mandatory life jacket law that would require solo boaters to wear a life jacket year-round." Wouldn't it look silly having to wear a PFD in church? Shouldn't you only have to wear them when you are operating the boat?
cohasett73	posted 05-14-2010 07:57 AM ET (US) DillionBW, Research before posting such inflammatory news. Read this link. http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/votehistory/96/house/09600SB3060_04282010_009000T.pdf Synopsis; 32 Yeas 73 Nays 1 Present Common sense prevails for the time being. Tom from Rubicon,WI
gnr	posted 05-14-2010 09:46 AM ET (US) quote: I guess you've never been to a nursing home where they house people in a vegetative state with all their care paid for by the government. People who also thought it affected no one but themselves. Accident victims who didn't wear seat belts, helmets or PFDs. It affects us all. Oh Please... What "affects" us more? Seatbeltless/helmetless accident victims or fat lazy slobs who eat all wrong, smoke too much and can't find their way off the couch to the front door? Or alcohol abusers? If it was really about saving society from the consequences of not wearing a pfd/seatbelt/helmet then it would start with the most (by far) significant detrimental activities. It's just too easy to go for the easy target so they can sleep soundly at night knowing that they "made a difference". Going after the significant issues wouldn’t help the re-election bid….
DillonBW	posted 05-14-2010 11:35 AM ET (US) I didn't mean it in a bad way Tom from Rubicon. I was just wondering if folks thought the idea of making it mandatory was good/bad. As I said before, I have a large and extended family and wish to be around them for a good long while. If wearing a life jacket helps extend my life, then I am wearing one. Just don't think I will be wearing it in church or at the grocery store, unless there is a flood! I wear a helmet when motor cycling and rock climbing, not because of the laws, but because I want to stay alive.. Simple.
fishgutz	posted 05-14-2010 12:36 PM ET (US) gnr, I agree. I'm pointing out that it DOES affect everyone. I hate those laws as much as the rest.
contender	posted 05-14-2010 03:15 PM ET (US) fishgutz: I was a firefighter/paramedic for 31 years and on my days off I flew as an air medic all over the country and sometimes to foreign lands, I have seen more deaths due to burns, gunshots, stabings, drug overdoses, cancer, heart attacks, drownings, and traffic accidents far more than the average person. I have seen it all. And some the things that I have seen and done have made me cry. Probably the only people that have seen more death than me are real combat vets and doctors in the same. Every day that I worked I had to deal with a death in one way or another. Trust me you have no idea...
fishgutz	posted 05-14-2010 03:17 PM ET (US) Contender, check my profile.
fishgutz	posted 05-14-2010 03:24 PM ET (US) Contender, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I agree with you. I've been there. I'm just saying it affects everyone, one way or another. Not just "me and my family" as you said. Obviously everything we saw on our job has affected US some way.
L H G	posted 05-14-2010 05:03 PM ET (US) Just remember, people from Illinois are also running this country and it's deficit spending economy. You decide if they even have a clue about what they are doing. It's also 2nd in the "MOST BROKE" State listings. Life jackets are the least of our problems. This must be an idea that came from Greece.
sapple	posted 05-14-2010 10:02 PM ET (US) A more effective, but politically difficult, life and injury saving law would be to require all passengers in a cars to wear crash helmets. The worst car crash injuries are head injuries. Professional race car drivers wear them. Most states require motorcycle drivers to wear them. There is no question that they would reduce serious head injuries. So why aren't they required by law?
contender	posted 05-14-2010 11:09 PM ET (US) sapple: have you ever rode a motorcycle? The only helmet that will do any good is a full face helmet(Bell Star, Shoei). However, a full face helmet blocks your vision and your hearing, not to good when you are on a motorcycle. States that require helmet laws,(the hard core riders) you will see that usually they only wear a skull cap type helmet. Does not block the vision nor the hearing, but they really do not help in an accident, just covers the rider from the law...
OddManOut	posted 05-15-2010 12:22 AM ET (US) I believe that this should apply to children only. Those that have approached the age of reason should apply their own safety such as owning a Boston Whaler or wearing a PFD when conditions warrant. What's next, air bags, seat belts, helmets, and roll cages? We should also think about applying this to pedestrians. Or better yet, mandatory helmets for all toddlers. If Boat U.S. is championing this effort I am sure that West Marine will profit. How bout we start with seat belts on school buses?
cohasett73	posted 05-15-2010 08:59 AM ET (US) DillonBW, Sorry for the terse words. I had the pleasure in the 70's organizing a repeal the mandatory helmet law in Illinois. It's amazing how a law maker will eat their words when faced with the fact that the citizens they wanted to protect would vote them out of office. What a person does to ensure their personal safety is or should be a matter of choice. Unfortunately insurance companies and law makers looking to make name for themselves will always be looking for ways to restrict personal freedoms. I fish on Lake Michigan where wearing a flotation devise mostly just makes recovery of a body less difficult. Whew! I feel better now. ;-) Enjoy your Whalers in what ever way makes you happy. Tom from Rubicon,WI
gnr	posted 05-15-2010 10:14 AM ET (US) quote: A more effective, but politically difficult, life and injury saving law would be to require all passengers in a cars to wear crash helmets. The worst car crash injuries are head injuries. Professional race car drivers wear them. Most states require motorcycle drivers to wear them. There is no question that they would reduce serious head injuries. So why aren't they required by law? I use this same logic on the people who feel obligated to give me a hard time about wearing a 10 dollar skid lid. I would bet that more serious injuries/deaths are a result of head injuries suffered in car accidents then in bike accidents. quote: sapple: have you ever rode a motorcycle? The only helmet that will do any good is a full face helmet(Bell Star, Shoei). However, a full face helmet blocks your vision and your hearing, not to good when you are on a motorcycle. States that require helmet laws,(the hard core riders) you will see that usually they only wear a skull cap type helmet. Does not block the vision nor the hearing, but they really do not help in an accident, just covers the rider from the law... That's me. Interestingly enough though... Even though I wear the minimum required by law while on the road I just a couple days ago bought a good MX helmet to wear on the dirt bike which spends 80 percent of it's time on my own property where I'm not required by law to wear anything.
number9	posted 05-15-2010 01:17 PM ET (US) quote: Sounds like Boat US is driving this. They need to slow this sucker down and get local experts - the boaters - involved. I'm still a bit confused whether the above statement was meant to imply Boat US was lobbying for a mandatory requirement or to make boaters aware of the proposal so that their opinions could be heard. quote: sapple: have you ever rode a motorcycle? The only helmet that will do any good is a full face helmet(Bell Star, Shoei). However, a full face helmet blocks your vision and your hearing, not to good when you are on a motorcycle. States that require helmet laws,(the hard core riders) you will see that usually they only wear a skull cap type helmet. Does not block the vision nor the hearing, but they really do not help in an accident, just covers the rider from the law... There is a large difference between a non-DOT Standard "skid lid" and shorty, 1/2 and 3/4 helmets that meet DOT standard. Many of the cheap lids don't meet the standard, the distributors just slap a counterfeit DOT on them. Most people including law officers are fully aware they don't comply with the law but enforcement would be next to impossible. To say only a full face helmet will do any good is baloney. Almost like saying only a USCG Type I will do any good.