|
Rte. 6A, P.O. Box 57, Orleans MA 02653
508 255-0455
Senator Robert O’Leary
State House RM 413E
Boston, MA 02133
Representative O’Leary,
I am writing to express my opinion on House Bill #4551
AN ACT RELATIVE TO KAYAK SAFETY currently before the State Senate for
passage.
If you would bear with me I would like to introduce
myself to help you understand my vantage point on this bill. I am a
certified kayak instructor and also lead the Outdoor Adventure Program for
Goose Hummock in Orleans Massachusetts. I hold a CPR and First Aid
Certificate, and the following Kayaking certifications: BCU 2*, BCU 3*, BCU
4*, BCU Coach Level 2, BCU Coach Level 3T, and BCU Kayak/Canoe Safety. I
teach hundreds of students a year from age 8 to 80 from introductory courses
to surf courses.
I strongly agree with the section of this bill
requiring Personal Flotation Devices and a whistle and applaud the merits of
such a law however; I do have the following issues with the bill as it is
written:
1) I question why this bill is limited to kayaks. The
same issues arise with canoes, rowing sculls, rowboats, and any other hand
powered craft.
2) The requirement of a compass is a good idea but a
compass is only useful if the person who has it knows how to use it.
Reading the dial is a small part of the knowledge required to navigate your
craft back to shore should visibility deteriorate.
3) The requirement of ACA certification or equivalent
training is extremely vague. As you can see just in my case I hold many
certifications into which went much training, practice, and effort, none of
them are ACA. For reference, BCU stands for the British Canoe Union. If you
are interested in these certifications and what they mean you can find both
the certifications and courses we teach at
www.bcuna.com.
4) It is my opinion that the requirement you are laying
out for “so called wet exit training” will not achieve your desired effect.
I agree that wet exit training is important, having said that I can not
force people to capsize their kayak as an entry exam for a novice lesson.
Taking the position of an instructor with a student unwilling to or not
ready to capsize a boat what do I do? I could tell them by Massachusetts
state law they must do this if they wish to be trained or they can not take
this lesson. It would seem even the most safety dedicated individual can see
this is not realistic. I can get every 8 year old on the planet to capsize
a kayak, not so with the over 60 crowd.
I applaud individuals who come to take lessons in a
sport most people regard as leisure time activity. In my novice lessons I
teach efficient paddling, the ability to maneuver their craft, safety
information on how to cross boat channels, how to deal with wind and
current, how to dress for a kayak trip, the safety aspects of different
types of kayaks and where and how they should be used, use of safety
equipment such as whistles, compasses, bilge pumps, paddle floats, PFDs, tow
lines among other items and lastly water safety. In a typical class less
then half will actively participate, at least the other half get to watch.
It is my hope that should they find themselves in that position they will
remember what they saw, or better yet will go practice it themselves in the
local pond with a trusted friend when they are ready. Should an individual
not yet ready to capsize in a group setting for what ever reason, be denied
all the valuable training mentioned above? By virtue of this bill I have no
other option then to do just that.
5) In addition to the point above, “so-called wet exit
training” is only a small part of kayak safety. The second part is more
important. What do I do to get back in my boat?
6) The use of the term Open Water is extremely vague
and to be used as a basis for training requirements it would need to be much
more rigidly defined. For example the BCU definition of open water is where
you have the potential to be 1 mile from shore in all directions.
In closing I would like to offer an alternative
solution to the issue that this bill is attempting to address. I would
suggest that it is enough to require instructors to have proof of
insurance. My insurance requires me to have CPR, First Aid and kayaking
certifications. The level of certifications and experience I and my
instructors and guides have dictate the cost and availability of insurance
for our outfitter. Insurance is available to outfitters on the open market
and also to individuals through the ACA. This solution leaves the question
of liability and applicability of training to those who study it and
understand the sport and issues. I agree that kayak safety is important,
the first thing I was taught was a wet exit and my preference is for that
type of training however there is a reality check that needs to be taken
here regarding what you can and can not force people to do in a kayak. I
believe the outcome created by the passage of this bill will be for less
people to take formal training for “fear of the wet exit”. One of the
reasons many of us do this training at the end of a session is that we have
worked to gain the confidence of our charges through out the lesson and
hopefully that will increase the number of folks willing to take the swim.
The overriding theme in my introductory or novice
lessons is safety and common sense. The use of common sense would go a long
way in preventing kayakers from being in the wrong place in the wrong boat
and without the proper safety equipment in turn preventing mishaps and
accidents. You can not legislate common sense, but this bill as it is
written has the potential to limit our ability to impart common sense on
those willing to take the time and effort to learn even if it is at their
pace and comfort level.
I thank you in advance for your consideration. I would
be very happy to speak with you further on this matter, or should your
interest be peaked I invite you to join one of my lessons to observe the
learning environment for yourself first hand.
Julie Martin
Goose Hummock Shop |
