Mandatory Kill Switch Use- anybody else see this??
01-14-2021 | 02:10 PM
#21
Registered
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,825
Likes: 612
From: Clarkston, Michigan
It would be near impossible to prove non-compliance as the clip could come off your clothing/body without tripping the cut-off.
01-14-2021 | 02:44 PM
#23
Registered
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 627
Likes: 408
From: Indiana
May be. This is also part of my "trust no one" attitude that seems to be creeping in. Side note....I do wear mine any time I'm on plane.
01-14-2021 | 03:47 PM
#24
Registered
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 5,008
Likes: 752
From: Traverse City, Michigan
Just more government rules and regulations because us peasant just can`t think for ourselves and we need to be told what to do at every step.
Some welcome it , I call those people sheeple.
Some people would welcome a law that says you have to stay in your house so you don`t get hurt or hurt others in a car, bike atv, boat , etc etc accident.
I refuse to give up my liberty for a little security. Life is tough, people die, facts of life .
Ive gotten many tickets but I`ll never wear a seat belt. My choice.
Some welcome it , I call those people sheeple.
Some people would welcome a law that says you have to stay in your house so you don`t get hurt or hurt others in a car, bike atv, boat , etc etc accident.
I refuse to give up my liberty for a little security. Life is tough, people die, facts of life .
Ive gotten many tickets but I`ll never wear a seat belt. My choice.
01-14-2021 | 04:13 PM
#26
Registered
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 996
Likes: 189
From: Red Oak, Texas
Insurance is about actuarials. It doesn't have to help them every time, just a percentage of the time that is worth the cash they crammed in the legislator's pockets to do this. Witnesses, accident investigations (switches engaged?) lanyard broken, clothes torn, etc.etc. It's all about the transfer of negligence AWAY from them and onto someone else, or some exclusion in the policy(not wearing a lanyard) to not pay the claim at all. "Safety" is the buzzword--because...how are you going to argue with 'safety'?
01-15-2021 | 01:39 AM
#28
Charter Member # 55
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 20,241
Likes: 2,490
From: Omaha/LOTO
Yep. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/46/4312
(1)Covered recreational vessel.—The term “covered recreational vessel” means a recreational vessel that is—
(A)
less than 26 feet overall in length; and
(B)
capable of developing 115 pounds or more of static thrust.
46 U.S. Code § 4312 - Engine cut-off switches
(d)Definitions.—In this section:(1)Covered recreational vessel.—The term “covered recreational vessel” means a recreational vessel that is—
(A)
less than 26 feet overall in length; and
(B)
capable of developing 115 pounds or more of static thrust.
01-15-2021 | 06:06 AM
#29
Registered
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,038
Likes: 227
From: TR, NJ
Not really true. You have to thank the politicians who are willing to take the gain from the Insurance Lobbyists. Lobby Groups might bait the trap, but greedy politicians grab it.
01-15-2021 | 06:59 AM
#30
Registered
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 627
Likes: 408
From: Indiana
I think everyone should use a lanyard/kill switch. Don’t know that it needs to be a law, but if so why 26’ and under?? I have a 27’ Powerquest. I’m exempt? That makes as much sense as by law I have to wear a seat belt but do not have to wear a motorcycle helmet!
