Many Jet boats in 1970 were equipped with safety lanyards. Sanger, Avenger, Eliminator, Glastron Carlsons, to name a few, had safety lanyards due to liability issues.
Many of them had return to idle foot throttles.
All outboard manufacturers Mercury, Mariner, Johnson and Evinrude had safety lanyards switches on their throttle and shift control boxes in and around 1970.
Every boat in the first Bass Master Classic in 1971 was equipped with and required to be worn, safety lanyards or "kill" switches.
APBA (American Powerboat Association) required them in the late 60's for anybody entering one of their races.
SDBA (Southern Drag Boat Association) founded in 1974 required any boat to be equipped with a safety lanyard on any contestants boats.
Also in 1970 there was no production 400 HP outboards available that would have been able to be put on that 17' bass boat you are talking about.
Most every sanction or sponsored bass tournament since 1970 has required all boats to be equipped with safety lanyards worn by all operators.
So I think it's well proven to be a necessary safety device to save lives that's been around a very long time. . To think otherwise is just obtuse reasoning.
Here is a novel idea…..to stop this so called " revenue stream" of millions of dollars from no safety lanyard tickets…..how about everyone wear them. Then the gov can't make all that money.
That way everybody will be safe boat operators and we will be sticking it to the government cause they won't get any money from no kill switch tickets.

Cool. I can tell you our 80-something Wellcraft didn't have it, nor did any of the boats my parent's friends had...everything from Bass Tracker pontoons to Scarabs, and even the aforementioned jet boats. The only thing with one were the jetskis, and even then, the ones you stood up on didn't have it...they'd just idle in a circle.

Quote:

---

Most every sanctioned or sponsored bass tournament since 1970 has required all boats to be equipped with safety lanyards worn by all operators.

---

So, a professionally sanctioned tournament with tons of liability and boaters that go full throttle across the lake at first light requires specific types of equipment? No way! Next you'll tell me that NASCAR has requirements for their cars. If it's good enough for them, then it's good enough for the average Corolla!

Quote:

---

So I think it's well proven to be a necessary safety device to save lives that's been around a very long time. . To think otherwise is just obtuse reasoning.

---

So are helmets yet you can cruise down the highway without one. Make it make sense?

Quote:

---

Here is a novel idea…..to stop this so called " revenue stream" of millions of dollars from no safety lanyard tickets…..how about everyone wear them. Then the gov can't make all that money.
That way everybody will be safe boat operators and we will be sticking it to the government cause they won't get any money from no kill switch tickets.

---

Just roll over and accept it while ignoring the silliness of the exceptions...like a good little tax payer. And let's say that could actually happen. Do you not think they will find some other way to generate revenue while cloaking it in the same idea? In the end, it's no different than making dumb laws because of "the children" or "if it saves just 1 life."

NWA

Gunny456 said:

---

NWA

---

Cared enough to respond...own it. You know there are tons of boats out there that don't have them and probably see the silliness of them getting an exception.

aTm2004 said:

---

Cool. I can tell you our 80-something Wellcraft didn't have it, nor did any of the boats my parent's friends had...everything from Bass Tracker pontoons to Scarabs, and even the aforementioned jet boats. The only thing with one were the jetskis, and even then, the ones you stood up on didn't have it...they'd just idle in a circle.

Quote:

---

Most every sanctioned or sponsored bass tournament since 1970 has required all boats to be equipped with safety lanyards worn by all operators.

---

So, a professionally sanctioned tournament with tons of liability and boaters that go full throttle across the lake at first light requires specific types of equipment? No way! Next you'll tell me that NASCAR has requirements for their cars. If it's good enough for them, then it's good enough for the average Corolla!

Quote:

---

So I think it's well proven to be a necessary safety device to save lives that's been around a very long time. . To think otherwise is just obtuse reasoning.

---

So are helmets yet you can cruise down the highway without one. Make it make sense?

Quote:

---

Here is a novel idea…..to stop this so called " revenue stream" of millions of dollars from no safety lanyard tickets…..how about everyone wear them. Then the gov can't make all that money.
That way everybody will be safe boat operators and we will be sticking it to the government cause they won't get any money from no kill switch tickets.

---

Just roll over and accept it while ignoring the silliness of the exceptions...like a good little tax payer. And let's say that could actually happen. Do you not think they will find some other way to generate revenue while cloaking it in the same idea? In the end, it's no different than making dumb laws because of "the children" or "if it saves just 1 life."

---

If you ride down the highway without a helmet and wreck and kill yourself or turn into a vegetable, you aren't taking anybody with you on the basis of not wearing a helmet. If you are driving your boat on a crowded lake and fall away from the controls or go overboard and you aren't using a kill switch lanyard, your boat is a moving weapon aimed at everybody on the lake until it runs out of gas, runs aground, or somebody risks their life to get aboard it somehow and stop it. Same reason they require brakes or retention straps on skis and snowboards in Colorado.

If you choose to run all the boats in your life, regardless of brand, without a return to idle device or safety lanyard, it's your choice. Laws are for folks to obey or disobey… and that's an individuals choice.
In my many years in the marine business I have witnessed the tragedy and death/permanent injuries from the choices or negligence of boat operators not utilizing a kill switch.
In some cases it affected just them ….and again it was their choice to not use it or negligence to use it….but in many, many cases it causes death/injury to totally innocent people.

Quote:

---

If you ride down the highway without a helmet and wreck and kill yourself or turn into a vegetable, you aren't taking anybody with you on the basis of not wearing a helmet.

---

I guess you've never seen a high side or tank slapper that sends the rider off the bike while it continues down it's path until it either comes to a stop or hits something/one.

Quote:

---

If you are driving your boat on a crowded lake and fall away from the controls or go overboard and you aren't using a kill switch lanyard, your boat is a moving weapon aimed at everybody on the lake until it runs out of gas, runs aground, or somebody risks their life to get aboard it somehow and stop it. Same reason they require brakes or retention straps on skis and snowboards in Colorado.

---

I understand, so why is it not a requirement on boats that are larger than 26'? There are plenty of boats that size running around the lakes in Texas, so why is a 26' pontoon boat exempt while a 24' pontoon one isn't?

You see, I'm not saying the kill switches don't work and shouldn't be on boats. I'm calling out the absurdity of the law and the silly exceptions allowed which shows it's really not about safety but money.

Gunny456 said:

---

If you choose to run all the boats in your life, regardless of brand, without a return to idle device or safety lanyard, it's your choice. Laws are for folks to obey or disobey… and that's an individuals choice.
In my many years in the marine business I have witnessed the tragedy and death/permanent injuries from the choices or negligence of boat operators not utilizing a kill switch.
In some cases it affected just them ….and again it was their choice to not use it or negligence to use it….but in many, many cases it causes death/injury to totally innocent people.

---

Talk to a cop, fire fighter, etc and see if they've ever responded to calls where a driver had a medical episode (heart attack, stroke, seizure, etc) while driving and crashed into other vehicles or buildings. It happens quite a bit. If cruise control is engaged when it does, the vehicle will act much like a boat...continue down it's path until it either runs out of gas or hits something. Applying this same logic, cruise should not be in any vehicle going forward because of this risk, correct?

In response to your boats not having them. If a boat was built under the auspices of the NMMA it was required to have a kill switch or return to idle requirement. If an outboard was OEM'd with the engine manufacturer, Mercury, Mariner, Johnson Evinrude control box it had a kill switch on the control box. Even tiller handle outboards had them in the 80's.
Did every single manufacturer use them prior to the BIA or NMMA requirements? Both NMMA and BIA state they require it for boats under 26'. So is there boats built over 26 that don't utilize it? I have no idea. There were a lot of manufacturers that did not choose to build under those standards in those days. That didn't just show up in using kill switches but also fuel systems, wiring, lamination and flotation requirements.
My initial response to you was because you said Jet Boats never had them and your far reaching comparison of your 400 HP 17' bass boat in 1970. Whereas marine kill switches have been on consumers boats for many decades….its not a new safety device.
My point is kill switches have been around since the early 1970's. You compared the bass tournaments equipment to NASCAR.
All the boats/engines used in bass/saltwater tournaments are the same engines and model boats that any normal consumer buys. In fact most guys fishing those tournaments buy the boats right off the marine dealers showrooms. Absolutely no comparison NASCAR race cars that that are not sold in car dealerships.
Bottom line kill switches save lives. It's isn't cloaked in controversy….its been proven. Same as safeties on a firearm.
I'm fine if a person decides he/she doesn't want to use it. Just as long as not using just kills him and not someone innocent.

I know of no outboard powered pontoon boat built today, that is outboard powered, that does not have a safety lanyard….regardless of length.
Boats over 20'1" per the coast guard, are unlimited in HP restrictions. Yet some manufacturers chose to limit HP on their boats over 20'1". Why?
Boats over 20'1" per the coast guard, are not required to have flotation. Yet some manufacturers chose to put level flotation on all their boats over 20'1" Why?
Most performance boats over 26' do in fact now have engine kill/return to idle devices if the operator is ejected. Why?
If all of the above is not required by the CG why do almost all reputable manufacturers chose to do otherwise?
I think you know the answer ?

Quote:

---

In response to your boats not having them. If a boat was built under the auspices of the NMMA it was required to have a kill switch or return to idle requirement. If an outboard was OEM'd with the engine manufacturer, Mercury, Mariner, Johnson Evinrude control box it had a kill switch on the control box. Even tiller handle outboards had them in the 80's.
Did every single manufacturer use them prior to the BIA or NMMA requirements? Both NMMA and BIA state they require it for boats under 26'. So is there boats built over 26 that don't utilize it? I have no idea. There were a lot of manufacturers that did not choose to build under those standards in those days. That didn't just show up in using kill switches but also fuel systems, wiring, lamination and flotation requirements.

---

Given no boat I saw when I was a kid had them, including many well known brands, I'm going to say the answer is "no."

I'm sure some boats 26' and over have them as they probably utilize many of the same components of a smaller boat in the lineup that will require it, but that's a cost decision by the manufacture for economies of scale more so than them doing it for safety.

Quote:

---

My initial response to you was because you said Jet Boats never had them and your far reaching comparison of your 400 HP 17' bass boat in 1970. Whereas marine kill switches have been on consumers boats for many decades….its not a new safety device.

---

I never said jet boats never had them. You should go re-read what I stated and you'll see that both that and the large engine on a small bass boat are nothing more than extreme examples of exempt boats. Also, how is my example of a 400 Merc on the back of a small bass boat a far reaching example? What is stopping someone from slapping one on an old boat? If people can put motorcycle engines in go-karts, they can slap giant outboards on small boats, and regardless of engine size, the point being made is still valid...a point you have yet to directly address.

Quote:

---

My point is kill switches have been around since the early 1970's. You compared the bass tournaments equipment to NASCAR.

All the boats/engines used in bass/saltwater tournaments are the same engines and model boats that any normal consumer buys. In fact most guys fishing those tournaments buy the boats right off the marine dealers showrooms. Absolutely no comparison NASCAR race cars that that are not sold in car dealerships.

---

You specifically called out the Bassmaster Classic, which is a professional fishing tournament where most people who fish in it do so as their primary job, which makes them professionals. I just compared it with another professional organization that has it's own safety requirements.

But if you want to compare OEM/showroom models, World Superbike has it's own safety requirements for it's riders, who are also professionals.

Quote:

---

Bottom line kill switches save lives. It's isn't cloaked in controversy….its been proven. Same as safeties on a firearm.
I'm fine if a person decides he/she doesn't want to use it. Just as long as not using just kills him and not someone innocent.

---

Never argued they don't save lives. Just pointing out the dumbassary of the law and how grandpa in a 23' Bass Tracker is required to have one while .com bro in a 26' Malibu isn't.

I will respond to your post as respect to a fellow AG. Much of my family is/was in LE for many years and made many accidents. On pretty rare occasions on circumstances as you speak.
Compare the number of automobiles and drivers to the number of boats used for recreation and then compare the percentage of boat accidents attributed to accidents of folks falling out of or being ejected from boats versus auto accidents caused by those items above.
I will add that if a boat operator has a heart attack, seizure, falls asleep etc….. he is probably going to fall out of his seat or standing behind a console and, if, he is diligent wearing his kill switch, will, in high probability going to activate the safety lanyard and stop the boat….

aTm2004 said:

---

Quote:

---

If you ride down the highway without a helmet and wreck and kill yourself or turn into a vegetable, you aren't taking anybody with you on the basis of not wearing a helmet.

---

I guess you've never seen a high side or tank slapper that sends the rider off the bike while it continues down it's path until it either comes to a stop or hits something/one.

Quote:

---

If you are driving your boat on a crowded lake and fall away from the controls or go overboard and you aren't using a kill switch lanyard, your boat is a moving weapon aimed at everybody on the lake until it runs out of gas, runs aground, or somebody risks their life to get aboard it somehow and stop it. Same reason they require brakes or retention straps on skis and snowboards in Colorado.

---

I understand, so why is it not a requirement on boats that are larger than 26'? There are plenty of boats that size running around the lakes in Texas, so why is a 26' pontoon boat exempt while a 24' pontoon one isn't?

You see, I'm not saying the kill switches don't work and shouldn't be on boats. I'm calling out the absurdity of the law and the silly exceptions allowed which shows it's really not about safety but money.

---

Wearing or not wearing a helmet has no influence on whether a tank slapper or high side happens and the helmet won't stop it if it does.

TPWD and other state agencies are often hamstrung by policies that require new regulations to be revenue neutral or have minimal financial impact. If the choice is between requiring them to be used on boats where they are already installed and grandfathered on boats where they would have to be installed or not requiring them at all, they chose the one that made an impact on safety with neutral or minimal cost.

Gunny456 said:

---

I know of no outboard powered pontoon boat built today, that is outboard powered, that does not have a safety lanyard….regardless of length.
Boats over 20'1" per the coast guard, are unlimited in HP restrictions. Yet some manufacturers chose to limit HP on their boats over 20'1". Why?
Boats over 20'1" per the coast guard, are not required to have flotation. Yet some manufacturers chose to put level flotation on all their boats over 20'1" Why?
Most performance boats over 26' do in fact now have engine kill/return to idle devices if the operator is ejected. Why?
If all of the above is not required by the CG why do almost all reputable manufacturers chose to do otherwise?
I think you know the answer ?

---

Yeah, I do...it's all about money.

Economies of scale run rampant in production as does eliminating the number of SKUs carried in inventory. They all use similar parts across models to keep production costs down. It's no different than hopping in a GMC pickup and it looking identical to a Chevy, or going from a Chevy truck to a GMC Yukon and seeing a lot of the same parts. Remember the 90s Ford Rangers? The Mazda version was nothing more than a rebadged Ranger. Go drive a new Toyota Supra and the interior will make you think you're in a BMW Z4. It's the same reason Southwest only flies 737s.

Your point about engine sizes is also about money. Put in low powered basic engines and charge for larger and more powerful engines. No different than a surcharge on a diesel in a F250. They do it because people are paying for it.

I know you want to think it's all for safety, but the accountants beat the lawyers.

Gunny456 said:

---

I will respond to your post as respect to a fellow AG. Much of my family is/was in LE for many years and made many accidents. On pretty rare occasions on circumstances as you speak.
Compare the number of automobiles and drivers to the number of boats used for recreation and then compare the percentage of boat accidents attributed to accidents of folks falling out of or being ejected from boats versus auto accidents caused by those items above.
I will add that if a boat operator has a heart attack, seizure, falls asleep etc….. he is probably going to fall out of his seat or standing behind a console and, if, he is diligent wearing his kill switch, will, in high probability going to activate the safety lanyard and stop the boat….

---

Once again, you missed my point. If we're going all in on safety, we shouldn't pick and choose where we do it, right?

txags92 said:

---

aTm2004 said:

---

Quote:

---

If you ride down the highway without a helmet and wreck and kill yourself or turn into a vegetable, you aren't taking anybody with you on the basis of not wearing a helmet.

---

I guess you've never seen a high side or tank slapper that sends the rider off the bike while it continues down it's path until it either comes to a stop or hits something/one.

Quote:

---

If you are driving your boat on a crowded lake and fall away from the controls or go overboard and you aren't using a kill switch lanyard, your boat is a moving weapon aimed at everybody on the lake until it runs out of gas, runs aground, or somebody risks their life to get aboard it somehow and stop it. Same reason they require brakes or retention straps on skis and snowboards in Colorado.

---

I understand, so why is it not a requirement on boats that are larger than 26'? There are plenty of boats that size running around the lakes in Texas, so why is a 26' pontoon boat exempt while a 24' pontoon one isn't?

You see, I'm not saying the kill switches don't work and shouldn't be on boats. I'm calling out the absurdity of the law and the silly exceptions allowed which shows it's really not about safety but money.

---

Wearing or not wearing a helmet has no influence on whether a tank slapper or high side happens and the helmet won't stop it if it does.

TPWD and other state agencies are often hamstrung by policies that require new regulations to be revenue neutral or have minimal financial impact. If the choice is between requiring them to be used on boats where they are already installed and grandfathered on boats where they would have to be installed or not requiring them at all, they chose the one that made an impact on safety with neutral or minimal cost.

---

If that's the case, why is the cutoff for requiring them at 26'? Why is it not required for all boat lengths? I get someone in a 65' Hatteras is a low risk of falling over while at the helm, so I understand there has to be length limits, but there's not much difference between a 24' boat and a 26' boat. I'd venture to say it's because majority of boats on Texas lakes fall within that length, which further goes to the point that it's about money.

Gunny456 said:

---

Whenever I'm running our boats and going to be up on plane I have a pfd on. Most quality high performance or Mustang type vest have D-rings specifically to hook the safety lanyard into.
So it's double safe to develop a habit of slipping on the pfd when on plane and leave the safety lanyard hooked to it. When you stop to fish slip it off and hang the pfd on the steering wheel.
When I put the boat on the trailer I loop the safety lanyard around the steering wheel and hook it. That keeps it from blowing around and messing up your gel coat or boat finish and it assures you won't forget it.

---

Same here. Always have an inflatable pfd on with lanyard attached to d ring now.

Just want to add that yesterday I was with a good Ag that came by to visit on his way to Beaver Lake by Eureka Springs for family vacation. He has a 2023 Malibu 26 LV. It has a kill switch. You are correct in one way. It is a money thing…liability. That's why many boat manufacturers who build boats over 26' have been installing them.
There was a pretty notable negligence suit from an accident at LOTO in MO. In regards to the manufacturer not installing one on a 36' go fast boat.
My family member was a factory rep for a well known high end offshore boat company from 1995-till they retired couple of years back. The smallest boat they built was 26' and built up to 35' Since 1992 they have had safety lanyards in every length and model they build.
So my point is that many manufacturers that build boats over 26' have kill switches as OEM.
It's a liability thing for sure.
I think if the number of recreational boats built over 26', that can obtain any level of moderate performance, was researched, we would find that the majority of those boats do indeed have kill switches.
It's indeed sad that we have to pass silly laws to try to make folks be safe and use common sense.
Law or not I have/ and always will wear one…and will not operate a power boat without one.
Peace.

I'm sorry sir. With all due respect intended…and not trying to be condescending in any way. ….and I mean that to you as fellow Ag…. you do not know or understand the marine business at all.
It is nothing like the automobile business because it is actually a very small industry in comparison.

With that being said I respect your thoughts and opinions….and have enjoyed the discussion sir.

I'm team Gunny

To sum up: just wear the lanyard attached when you are at the helm. It's easy and safer and avoids a -$250 ticket. It's the law, so if you don't wear the lanyard to the kill switch, you are risking a ticket, plus the rest of the safety inspection when you are stopped.

We all agree that a boat or car at speed without someone at the controls is dangerous, so it is common sense and thoughtful to others who may be at risk to take the most basic easiest prevention measures where they are available.

Law or not.... Dad taught us very well. Do it or lose your boating privileges. Law and fines changed nothing. Some things are just smart. Teach your kids to wear them. All boaters need to use them. Not because it is the law. Teach them because it is senseless not to. If your kid is not wearing the kill switch and wants to fight a ticket for it then you have failed as a teacher and failed to lead the way by example. Everytime. No matter what. Make it a habit like brushing your teeth.

Ive seen people riding motorcycles barefoot and no shirt. They look just as stupid.

Nothing more terrifying than a boater in the water with their boat circling around to maim or kill them.....or someone else.

Could not agree more Steve.

Gunny456 said:

---

I'm sorry sir. With all due respect intended…and not trying to be condescending in any way. ….and I mean that to you as fellow Ag…. you do not know or understand the marine business at all.
It is nothing like the automobile business because it is actually a very small industry in comparison.

With that being said I respect your thoughts and opinions….and have enjoyed the discussion sir.

---

Economies of scale are not specific to certain businesses or industries, and you not understanding the point that's being made is why you're so dug into it being for safety. For common items found in different models/products, it's cheaper to just do the same in all vs design, manufacture, and carry model specific common items.

I only used Chevy/GMC because it's common and in your face.

aTm2004 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

aTm2004 said:

---

Quote:

---

If you ride down the highway without a helmet and wreck and kill yourself or turn into a vegetable, you aren't taking anybody with you on the basis of not wearing a helmet.

---

I guess you've never seen a high side or tank slapper that sends the rider off the bike while it continues down it's path until it either comes to a stop or hits something/one.

Quote:

---

If you are driving your boat on a crowded lake and fall away from the controls or go overboard and you aren't using a kill switch lanyard, your boat is a moving weapon aimed at everybody on the lake until it runs out of gas, runs aground, or somebody risks their life to get aboard it somehow and stop it. Same reason they require brakes or retention straps on skis and snowboards in Colorado.

---

I understand, so why is it not a requirement on boats that are larger than 26'? There are plenty of boats that size running around the lakes in Texas, so why is a 26' pontoon boat exempt while a 24' pontoon one isn't?

You see, I'm not saying the kill switches don't work and shouldn't be on boats. I'm calling out the absurdity of the law and the silly exceptions allowed which shows it's really not about safety but money.

---

Wearing or not wearing a helmet has no influence on whether a tank slapper or high side happens and the helmet won't stop it if it does.

TPWD and other state agencies are often hamstrung by policies that require new regulations to be revenue neutral or have minimal financial impact. If the choice is between requiring them to be used on boats where they are already installed and grandfathered on boats where they would have to be installed or not requiring them at all, they chose the one that made an impact on safety with neutral or minimal cost.

---

If that's the case, why is the cutoff for requiring them at 26'? Why is it not required for all boat lengths? I get someone in a 65' Hatteras is a low risk of falling over while at the helm, so I understand there has to be length limits, but there's not much difference between a 24' boat and a 26' boat. I'd venture to say it's because majority of boats on Texas lakes fall within that length, which further goes to the point that it's about money.

---

I would assume they picked that seemingly arbitrary number because 26' is the top end cutoff for Class I boats. I have no idea why it is not applied to Class II boats (26' to 40'), other than many of them would be considered to have a closed cockpit, which is an exemption under the rule. I don't know who you think is making a bunch of money off of this. The money is for the lawyers who sue boat manufacturers for not having them installed, which was the point I think Gunny was making. Liability concerns are likely what drove the manufacturers to start adding them, but safety is the reason behind the law, particularly as lake boating is getting more crowded and more incidents are occurring with choppy criss-crossing wakes and boat captains looking backwards at wake boarders, etc.

SweaterVest said:

---

I'm team Gunny

---

As many are because it's easier to just go along with the flow than it is to actually answer questions that make you question what you've thought to be true for many years. We all like to claim that we're open minded and that our minds can be changed if a good case is made, but in reality, we're not. We're all conforming in our own ways and digging our heels in.

Again, I'm not saying they don't add to safety. I'm just asking for a legit reason as to why it's only for certain lengths of boats while others within the required lengths are exempt that doesn't point to it being a money grab.

schmellba99 stated it best earlier in the thread:

Quote:

---

Which leads many to come to the conclusion that it is just another tax for not following some law somewhere that whatever government agency has decided we all need to follow to keep the king happy and fed.

---

Quote:

---

The older I get, the more I realize how much every level of government does everything possible to find a way to separate you from your money, as if they don't do good enough on that with taxes. If things were really about safety as they are claimed, operations would be significantly different than they are now.

---

aTm2004 said:

---

SweaterVest said:

---

I'm team Gunny

---

As many are because it's easier to just go along with the flow than it is to actually answer questions that make you question what you've thought to be true for many years. We all like to claim that we're open minded and that our minds can be changed if a good case is made, but in reality, we're not. We're all conforming in our own ways and digging our heels in.

Again, I'm not saying they don't add to safety. I'm just asking for a legit reason as to why it's only for certain lengths of boats while others within the required lengths are exempt that doesn't point to it being a money grab.

schmellba99 stated it best earlier in the thread:

Quote:

---

Which leads many to come to the conclusion that it is just another tax for not following some law somewhere that whatever government agency has decided we all need to follow to keep the king happy and fed.

---

Quote:

---

The older I get, the more I realize how much every level of government does everything possible to find a way to separate you from your money, as if they don't do good enough on that with taxes. If things were really about safety as they are claimed, operations would be significantly different than they are now.

---

---

I'd be willing to bet that nobody is making a pile of money off of writing these tickets. I know any time somebody gets fined for doing something abjectly stupid and unsafe, the popular thing is to accuse the officer writing the ticket (who sees none of the ticket revenue personally) of just doing it for the money. But that is a stupid hill to die on. The law is unquestionably an effort to make boating safer and requires next to no effort on the part of boaters except to use their safety lanyard.

I gave you the reason in the post right above the one I am replying to. They cutoff the length at class 1 powerboats, which are the type most often used for public recreation, particularly on crowded lakes.

txags92 said:

---

aTm2004 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

aTm2004 said:

---

Quote:

---

If you ride down the highway without a helmet and wreck and kill yourself or turn into a vegetable, you aren't taking anybody with you on the basis of not wearing a helmet.

---

I guess you've never seen a high side or tank slapper that sends the rider off the bike while it continues down it's path until it either comes to a stop or hits something/one.

Quote:

---

If you are driving your boat on a crowded lake and fall away from the controls or go overboard and you aren't using a kill switch lanyard, your boat is a moving weapon aimed at everybody on the lake until it runs out of gas, runs aground, or somebody risks their life to get aboard it somehow and stop it. Same reason they require brakes or retention straps on skis and snowboards in Colorado.

---

I understand, so why is it not a requirement on boats that are larger than 26'? There are plenty of boats that size running around the lakes in Texas, so why is a 26' pontoon boat exempt while a 24' pontoon one isn't?

You see, I'm not saying the kill switches don't work and shouldn't be on boats. I'm calling out the absurdity of the law and the silly exceptions allowed which shows it's really not about safety but money.

---

Wearing or not wearing a helmet has no influence on whether a tank slapper or high side happens and the helmet won't stop it if it does.

TPWD and other state agencies are often hamstrung by policies that require new regulations to be revenue neutral or have minimal financial impact. If the choice is between requiring them to be used on boats where they are already installed and grandfathered on boats where they would have to be installed or not requiring them at all, they chose the one that made an impact on safety with neutral or minimal cost.

---

If that's the case, why is the cutoff for requiring them at 26'? Why is it not required for all boat lengths? I get someone in a 65' Hatteras is a low risk of falling over while at the helm, so I understand there has to be length limits, but there's not much difference between a 24' boat and a 26' boat. I'd venture to say it's because majority of boats on Texas lakes fall within that length, which further goes to the point that it's about money.

---

I would assume they picked that seemingly arbitrary number because 26' is the top end cutoff for Class I boats. I have no idea why it is not applied to Class II boats (26' to 40'), other than many of them would be considered to have a closed cockpit, which is an exemption under the rule. I don't know who you think is making a bunch of money off of this. The money is for the lawyers who sue boat manufacturers for not having them installed, which was the point I think Gunny was making. Liability concerns are likely what drove the manufacturers to start adding them, but safety is the reason behind the law, particularly as lake boating is getting more crowded and more incidents are occurring with choppy criss-crossing wakes and boat captains looking backwards at wake boarders, etc.

---

A government agency is issuing the ticket, so I would say the government is the one making the money off of it. It's no different than a traffic violation, and I'd imagine most boating fines outside of BWI just get paid and not challenged.

Gunny wasn't making any point about it being because of lawyers. I bet if you go look at pontoon boats, wake boats, deck boats, etc from the same manufacture that have models where the law requires them vs not, you're going to see a lot of the same components at the helm, which is all efficiencies for the manufacturer, and efficiency = money.

Now, could some put it in there when not required for liability reasons? Yeah. But once again, that's money driven vs. safety driven because the accountants put pencil to paper and said it's cheaper to add it vs go to court.

aTm2004 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

aTm2004 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

aTm2004 said:

---

Quote:

---

If you ride down the highway without a helmet and wreck and kill yourself or turn into a vegetable, you aren't taking anybody with you on the basis of not wearing a helmet.

---

I guess you've never seen a high side or tank slapper that sends the rider off the bike while it continues down it's path until it either comes to a stop or hits something/one.

Quote:

---

If you are driving your boat on a crowded lake and fall away from the controls or go overboard and you aren't using a kill switch lanyard, your boat is a moving weapon aimed at everybody on the lake until it runs out of gas, runs aground, or somebody risks their life to get aboard it somehow and stop it. Same reason they require brakes or retention straps on skis and snowboards in Colorado.

---

I understand, so why is it not a requirement on boats that are larger than 26'? There are plenty of boats that size running around the lakes in Texas, so why is a 26' pontoon boat exempt while a 24' pontoon one isn't?

You see, I'm not saying the kill switches don't work and shouldn't be on boats. I'm calling out the absurdity of the law and the silly exceptions allowed which shows it's really not about safety but money.

---

Wearing or not wearing a helmet has no influence on whether a tank slapper or high side happens and the helmet won't stop it if it does.

TPWD and other state agencies are often hamstrung by policies that require new regulations to be revenue neutral or have minimal financial impact. If the choice is between requiring them to be used on boats where they are already installed and grandfathered on boats where they would have to be installed or not requiring them at all, they chose the one that made an impact on safety with neutral or minimal cost.

---

If that's the case, why is the cutoff for requiring them at 26'? Why is it not required for all boat lengths? I get someone in a 65' Hatteras is a low risk of falling over while at the helm, so I understand there has to be length limits, but there's not much difference between a 24' boat and a 26' boat. I'd venture to say it's because majority of boats on Texas lakes fall within that length, which further goes to the point that it's about money.

---

I would assume they picked that seemingly arbitrary number because 26' is the top end cutoff for Class I boats. I have no idea why it is not applied to Class II boats (26' to 40'), other than many of them would be considered to have a closed cockpit, which is an exemption under the rule. I don't know who you think is making a bunch of money off of this. The money is for the lawyers who sue boat manufacturers for not having them installed, which was the point I think Gunny was making. Liability concerns are likely what drove the manufacturers to start adding them, but safety is the reason behind the law, particularly as lake boating is getting more crowded and more incidents are occurring with choppy criss-crossing wakes and boat captains looking backwards at wake boarders, etc.

---

A government agency is issuing the ticket, so I would say the government is the one making the money off of it. It's no different than a traffic violation, and I'd imagine most boating fines outside of BWI just get paid and not challenged.

Gunny wasn't making any point about it being because of lawyers. I bet if you go look at pontoon boats, wake boats, deck boats, etc from the same manufacture that have models where the law requires them vs not, you're going to see a lot of the same components at the helm, which is all efficiencies for the manufacturer, and efficiency = money.

Now, could some put it in there when not required for liability reasons? Yeah. But once again, that's money driven vs. safety driven because the accountants put pencil to paper and said it's cheaper to add it vs go to court.

---

And I would bet by the time you factor in the cost of issuing the ticket, collecting on the ticket, processing the payment, etc. the "profit" to the agency writing the ticket is miniscule. Nobody is out there writing these tickets to create a new revenue stream. It is laughable that you think that is the case.

Quote:

---

I'd be willing to bet that nobody is making a pile of money off of writing these tickets. I know any time somebody gets fined for doing something abjectly stupid and unsafe, the popular thing is to accuse the officer writing the ticket (who sees none of the ticket revenue personally) of just doing it for the money. But that is a stupid hill to die on. The law is unquestionably an effort to make boating safer and requires next to no effort on the part of boaters except to use their safety lanyard.

---

Why is it a stupid hill to die on? Because it's for "safety?" Anytime a government fines someone for anything, it should be questioned and the underlying reason be challenged. The fact that we just accept something because the government tells us it's safer is not a legit reason. It's no different than a dumb law that further restricts rights or choices because of "the children" or because "it saves 1 life," or shutting down a business to slow the spread.

And the reason people say something about the officer is because there are times where a warning and education work as much or more than a ticket, and if what the OP is stating is accurate, this would have been one of those times.

aTm2004 said:

---

Quote:

---

I'd be willing to bet that nobody is making a pile of money off of writing these tickets. I know any time somebody gets fined for doing something abjectly stupid and unsafe, the popular thing is to accuse the officer writing the ticket (who sees none of the ticket revenue personally) of just doing it for the money. But that is a stupid hill to die on. The law is unquestionably an effort to make boating safer and requires next to no effort on the part of boaters except to use their safety lanyard.

---

Why is it a stupid hill to die on? Because it's for "safety?" Anytime a government fines someone for anything, it should be questioned and the underlying reason be challenged. The fact that we just accept something because the government tells us it's safer is not a legit reason. It's no different than a dumb law that further restricts rights or choices because of "the children" or because "it saves 1 life," or shutting down a business to slow the spread.

And the reason people say something about the officer is because there are times where a warning and education work as much or more than a ticket, and if what the OP is stating is accurate, this would have been one of those times.

---

in this scenario, is it safer for boat drivers to be wearing a lanyard or not?

aTm2004 said:

---

Quote:

---

I'd be willing to bet that nobody is making a pile of money off of writing these tickets. I know any time somebody gets fined for doing something abjectly stupid and unsafe, the popular thing is to accuse the officer writing the ticket (who sees none of the ticket revenue personally) of just doing it for the money. But that is a stupid hill to die on. The law is unquestionably an effort to make boating safer and requires next to no effort on the part of boaters except to use their safety lanyard.

---

Why is it a stupid hill to die on? Because it's for "safety?" Anytime a government fines someone for anything, it should be questioned and the underlying reason be challenged. The fact that we just accept something because the government tells us it's safer is not a legit reason. It's no different than a dumb law that further restricts rights or choices because of "the children" or because "it saves 1 life," or shutting down a business to slow the spread.

And the reason people say something about the officer is because there are times where a warning and education work as much or more than a ticket, and if what the OP is stating is accurate, this would have been one of those times.

---

Wearing safety lanyards unquestionably makes boaters safer and there is no rational argument to be made that it doesn't. This law costs the boater nothing to comply with. If their boat isn't equipped with one, the law does not require them to add one. If it is equipped with one, you clip it to your wrist or belt and voila, you are compliant. It takes no effort or cost on the part of the boater and they are safer for having done it.

If the kid had gotten a warning, he probably would have laughed it off with his buddies and forgotten about it next time he went out. After paying the ticket, he won't forget next time.

txags92 said:

---

aTm2004 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

aTm2004 said:

---

txags92 said:

---

aTm2004 said:

---

Quote:

---

If you ride down the highway without a helmet and wreck and kill yourself or turn into a vegetable, you aren't taking anybody with you on the basis of not wearing a helmet.

---

I guess you've never seen a high side or tank slapper that sends the rider off the bike while it continues down it's path until it either comes to a stop or hits something/one.

Quote:

---

If you are driving your boat on a crowded lake and fall away from the controls or go overboard and you aren't using a kill switch lanyard, your boat is a moving weapon aimed at everybody on the lake until it runs out of gas, runs aground, or somebody risks their life to get aboard it somehow and stop it. Same reason they require brakes or retention straps on skis and snowboards in Colorado.

---

I understand, so why is it not a requirement on boats that are larger than 26'? There are plenty of boats that size running around the lakes in Texas, so why is a 26' pontoon boat exempt while a 24' pontoon one isn't?

You see, I'm not saying the kill switches don't work and shouldn't be on boats. I'm calling out the absurdity of the law and the silly exceptions allowed which shows it's really not about safety but money.

---

Wearing or not wearing a helmet has no influence on whether a tank slapper or high side happens and the helmet won't stop it if it does.

TPWD and other state agencies are often hamstrung by policies that require new regulations to be revenue neutral or have minimal financial impact. If the choice is between requiring them to be used on boats where they are already installed and grandfathered on boats where they would have to be installed or not requiring them at all, they chose the one that made an impact on safety with neutral or minimal cost.

---

If that's the case, why is the cutoff for requiring them at 26'? Why is it not required for all boat lengths? I get someone in a 65' Hatteras is a low risk of falling over while at the helm, so I understand there has to be length limits, but there's not much difference between a 24' boat and a 26' boat. I'd venture to say it's because majority of boats on Texas lakes fall within that length, which further goes to the point that it's about money.

---

I would assume they picked that seemingly arbitrary number because 26' is the top end cutoff for Class I boats. I have no idea why it is not applied to Class II boats (26' to 40'), other than many of them would be considered to have a closed cockpit, which is an exemption under the rule. I don't know who you think is making a bunch of money off of this. The money is for the lawyers who sue boat manufacturers for not having them installed, which was the point I think Gunny was making. Liability concerns are likely what drove the manufacturers to start adding them, but safety is the reason behind the law, particularly as lake boating is getting more crowded and more incidents are occurring with choppy criss-crossing wakes and boat captains looking backwards at wake boarders, etc.

---

A government agency is issuing the ticket, so I would say the government is the one making the money off of it. It's no different than a traffic violation, and I'd imagine most boating fines outside of BWI just get paid and not challenged.

Gunny wasn't making any point about it being because of lawyers. I bet if you go look at pontoon boats, wake boats, deck boats, etc from the same manufacture that have models where the law requires them vs not, you're going to see a lot of the same components at the helm, which is all efficiencies for the manufacturer, and efficiency = money.

Now, could some put it in there when not required for liability reasons? Yeah. But once again, that's money driven vs. safety driven because the accountants put pencil to paper and said it's cheaper to add it vs go to court.

---

And I would bet by the time you factor in the cost of issuing the ticket, collecting on the ticket, processing the payment, etc. the "profit" to the agency writing the ticket is miniscule. Nobody is out there writing these tickets to create a new revenue stream. It is laughable that you think that is the case.

---

I mean, all LEO agencies budget for revenue, which comes from...?

aTm2004 said:

---

Quote:

---

I'd be willing to bet that nobody is making a pile of money off of writing these tickets. I know any time somebody gets fined for doing something abjectly stupid and unsafe, the popular thing is to accuse the officer writing the ticket (who sees none of the ticket revenue personally) of just doing it for the money. But that is a stupid hill to die on. The law is unquestionably an effort to make boating safer and requires next to no effort on the part of boaters except to use their safety lanyard.

---

Why is it a stupid hill to die on? Because it's for "safety?" Anytime a government fines someone for anything, it should be questioned and the underlying reason be challenged. The fact that we just accept something because the government tells us it's safer is not a legit reason. It's no different than a dumb law that further restricts rights or choices because of "the children" or because "it saves 1 life," or shutting down a business to slow the spread.

And the reason people say something about the officer is because there are times where a warning and education work as much or more than a ticket, and if what the OP is stating is accurate, this would have been one of those times.

---

Tell me you haven't spent a lot of time in boats without actually saying it.

ought1ag said:

---

aTm2004 said:

---

Quote:

---

I'd be willing to bet that nobody is making a pile of money off of writing these tickets. I know any time somebody gets fined for doing something abjectly stupid and unsafe, the popular thing is to accuse the officer writing the ticket (who sees none of the ticket revenue personally) of just doing it for the money. But that is a stupid hill to die on. The law is unquestionably an effort to make boating safer and requires next to no effort on the part of boaters except to use their safety lanyard.

---

Why is it a stupid hill to die on? Because it's for "safety?" Anytime a government fines someone for anything, it should be questioned and the underlying reason be challenged. The fact that we just accept something because the government tells us it's safer is not a legit reason. It's no different than a dumb law that further restricts rights or choices because of "the children" or because "it saves 1 life," or shutting down a business to slow the spread.

And the reason people say something about the officer is because there are times where a warning and education work as much or more than a ticket, and if what the OP is stating is accurate, this would have been one of those times.

---

in this scenario, is it safer for boat drivers to be wearing a lanyard or not?

---

Go back and read my previous posts. It's been answered several times and I've also tried to be as clear as I can as to why I have a problem with it.