Please tell us what you think of this article and any constructive ideas or experiences you have had that might help those working to reduce this recreational conflict. Just click on the mailbox to email us.It is very apparent from the early postings that a strong conflict exists. Instead of being thanked for spending almost a hundred hours to bring this research to light, I have been accused of being "one of them" (a boating enthusiast) and then when I confessed to being a computer geek and research type instead, I was accused of not being a boater and thus knowing nothing about the topic. I was accused of posting biased research, presenting inaccurate data, of omitting pro PWC references, and of being Iwin Jacob's "puppet." Does "Shoot the Messenger" begin to sound familiar? Future researchers in this area better be pretty "thick skinned" or they might really e-mail some of the responses I prepared before I toned them down (removed all references to "meathead", "butt head" and bodily functions.)
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 From: Gary Polson Newsgroups: rec.boats Subject: Boats vs. PWC Conflict Research Paper Today (2 Feb 98) RBBI posted an extensive research paper on the Boaters vs. PWCs Recreational Conflict. www.rbbi.com go on in and look for the PWC sign. gary *************************** Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 From: Gary Polson Newsgroups: rec.sport.jetski Subject: Boaters vs. PWCs Conflict Research Paper Today (2 Feb 98) RBBI posted an extensive research paper on the Boaters vs. PWCs Recreational Conflict. http://www.virtualpet.com/rbbi Is a temporary link in from the entry page or you can go on in and look for the PWC sign. garyDate: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 From: ariosa Newsgroups: rec.boats Subject: Re: Boats vs. PWC Conflict Research Paper Gary Polson wrote: > > Today (2 Feb 98) RBBI posted an extensive research paper > on the Boaters vs. PWCs Recreational Conflict. > It's interesting that the writers of the material on this page consistently distinguish between "PWCs" and "boaters." The implication is that PWCs are not boats. Ariosa
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 From: Mike Newsgroups: rec.boats Subject: Re: Boats vs. PWC Conflict Research Paper ariosa wrote: > The implication is that PWCs are not boats. > Ariosa > They are most certainly not boats. You wouldn't call an inflatable toy a boat, so why call a PWC a boat?
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 From: David Newsgroups: rec.sport.jetski Subject: Re: Boaters vs. PWCs Conflict Research Paper Gary Polson wrote: > > Today (2 Feb 98) RBBI posted an extensive research paper > on the Boaters vs. PWCs Recreational Conflict. The only thing I found extensive about this paper was that it was extensively biased against PWC. It only showed the cons of PWC. Nothing negative about boats. Strange, here lately it has been boats killing people. A proper paper would have done parallels between the two and probably would have shown you have idiots in both groups. The paper did list one correct attribute, Negative effect on current boat sales. So I wonder what the real worry is here. Dave
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 From: Gary Polson Newsgroups: rec.sport.jetski Subject: Re: Boaters vs. PWCs Conflict Research Paper On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, David wrote: > Gary Polson wrote: > > > > Today (2 Feb 98) RBBI posted an extensive research paper > > on the Boaters vs. PWCs Recreational Conflict. > > The only thing I found extensive about this paper was that it was > extensively biased against PWC. It only showed the cons of PWC. > Nothing negative about boats. Strange, here lately it has been boats > killing people. A proper paper would have done parallels between the > two and probably would have shown you have idiots in both groups. > The purpose of the paper was to show that a lot of research has been done in similar recreational conflicts (snowmobiles vs. cross country skier for example). This research consistently shows the conflict is "one way" in that the "faster more mechanized activity" tends to anger some who look for more tranquil experiences. While the snowmobilers are not really bothered by the skiers. Obviously there are some things wrong with boaters and boating. The point is that statistically PWC operators are not as hacked at them as they are at PWCs. The conflict is "one way" like in the other studies. It was hoped that some of the ideas forwarded in other similar conflicts might be able to be applied to this one so every body could get a long and have a good time together on the water. It was an attempt to bring some useful tools and ideas to discussion. gary
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 From: David To: Gary Polson Subject: Re: Comments Gary Polson wrote: > > On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, David wrote: > > > I believe you need to go back and do more research before publishing a > > slanted article. > > > > In regards to PWC are made by ATV and snowmobile business. Seadoo does > > make boats and has recently bought out a boat manufacturer. Yamaha also > > makes boats and engines. Mastercraft also makes boats. > > > > Iwin Jacobs is mad because he lost out on the PWC market. He tried at > > one time to get into the market. Now that it is affecting his bottom > > line, he wants to ban them. > > > > Your demographics is a little off. Most buyers of PWC is over 30 years > > of age. > > > > The study at the CDC was based on numbers and not actual hours of usage > > which tends to throw off the numbers. > > > > The noise factor you quote is also bogus as PWC have gotten quieter. > > Tell me open headers on that jetboat is quieter than the PWC currently > > on the market. > > > > Your figures on accidents are not reflecting the current trend. While > > more PWC's are in use, there has been a decrease in the number of > > accidents and deaths. Look at the current news in Florida, all those > > people killed when the speedboat hit that cruiser. In Louisiana, six > > people killed. Somewhere else, a sailboat hit some rocks killing a > > couple of people. > > > > The only factual statement you made was the NEGATIVE effect on current > > boating sales. > > > > As far as lifestyle, I am a 35 year old male, who is a business owner > > and a Security Compliance Specialist at a nuclear power station. I have > > completed the USCG and Louisiana WL&F safe boating courses. So I guess > > you have lifestyle incorrect also. > > > > Again as previously stated, go back and do more research from a > > non-biased approach. You might have better results and find a totally > > different outcome. > > > > David > > Hello! > > Thanks a lot for your ideas. I certainly did not try to slant the article > and in terms of "outcome", I thought the outcome was to suggest > some ideas that might ease the conflict and to offer a "base" for future > research. > > The atv/snowmobile manufacturer comment came from Kawasaki, Polaris, > and others. It seems like the industry certainly "began" from outside > the boating industry. > > I mentioned the hours of usage bias in my suggestions for > lessening the conflict. > > I know some boats are very noisy and some PWC owners are grandpas, > but statistically PWCs are noisier (especially noisier than the > boats of the boaters that are complaining) and PWC owners (and > especially users) are younger than boaters. > > It was my hope that increasing the awareness these previous > studies would "calm the conflict" not heat it up. > > Thanks again for your comments. > > gary Gary, The obvious answer that everyone is avoiding is mandatory education. Right now anyone can go down and buy a boat or a PWC and go right out onto the water and not have a clue on how to operate the machine. I hate government intrusion as much as the next guy. (Like I said in my previous email, I am a Security Compliance Specialist. It is my job to ensure that we meet and follow all the government regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations). By having mandatory licensing, you can at least get some of the folks off waterways that are causing the problems (for both groups). In addition, the fees could be used to increase the number of officers to oversee the waterways. This presence alone would prevent some of the behavioral problems from occurring. As you said in your article, the waterways are going to get more crowded. I am constantly telling my customers to go take a safe boating course as they can benefit from the material presented. Plus, I discourage customers from modifying the waterboxes on their PWC. (I have been racing PWC since 1989 so from experience I can tell them it does not increase the horsepower of the PWC). While on the water, I also try to set the example (3 years USMC). I have towed in several boaters who have broken down while other boaters ignored them. Many are surprised that I offered to help or more surprised that my PWC could tow their boat or party barge. The PWC loaner programs to various police departments have saved many lives. Not many boat manufacturers have this program. Plus it gives the law enforcement personnel the experience of riding a PWC and seeing first hand their versatility. One thing I have learned through life, is there is always 10% who screw it up for the other 90%. (I used to race three wheelers also before they were banned). An interesting side note is go compare the number of deaths, lets say for bikes, skateboards, roller skates/blades. The numbers will amaze you, yet there are relatively few for PWC and folks are up in arms. Don't get me wrong, one death is too many. On the other hand you have to look at the type activity taking place. There is risk in everything we do in life. A parting comment: Research is the major cause of cancer in rats. (Just goes to show statistics can be twisted to show anything you want it to, just depends on what you want the outcome to show.) Dave
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 21:42:34 -0500 From: Drew Newsgroups: rec.sport.jetski Subject: Re: Boaters vs. PWCs Conflict Research Paper Gary Polson wrote: > > It was hoped that some of the ideas forwarded in other similar > conflicts might be able to be applied to this one so every body > could get a long and have a good time together on the water. > > It was an attempt to bring some useful tools and ideas to discussion. > > gary If you had taken a more neutral stance you might have accomplished your above *suppossed* goals. The animated gifs showing the universal "no sign" over the PWC got me started off on the wrong foot. Despite your claims, your paper was severely slanted. It's obvious you are a conventional boater with a problem with PWC's. So obvious, that I seriously looked over your sources. I was very interested in where your information came from....
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 From: Gary Polson Newsgroups: rec.sport.jetski Subject: Re: Boaters vs. PWCs Conflict Research Paper On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Drew wrote: > If you had taken a more neutral stance you might have accomplished your > above *suppossed* goals. The animated gifs showing the universal "no > sign" over the PWC got me started off on the wrong foot. Despite your > claims, your paper was severely slanted. It's obvious you are a > conventional boater with a problem with PWC's. So obvious, that I > seriously looked over your sources. I was very interested in where your > information came from.... > The animated gif icons were created to help people find the page. It is a huge website and they provide a strong visual "cue" to the basic topic of the paper. The "no" part is being alternated with the "ok" part of the sign to show there is a conflict or difference of opinion. If you have a better icon that symbolizes PWCs and conflict I'd be happy to use it. I am most definitely NOT a conventional boater. I am a computer and information geek who happens to run a web site that reports on the boating industry. Additionally, I have been involved in the engineering of several high-tech sport and recreational devices that make PWCs look like a "rubber ducky" in comparison. I have absolutely no bias against PWCs. I am just reporting on what is happening in the field and trying to offer some tools that might reduce the conflicts and allow you to continue to enjoy your sport. You thought the paper was so obviously slanted that you looked over the sources. That is what the paper was all about! Trying to increase the awareness of those sources. gary
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 From: Doug To: polsong@virtualpet.com Subject: Boats vs PWCs In general, I feel this is a well-written article. I'd like to know what the following is based on: PWC companies need to continue to encourage safety. But additionally, they could point out that most comparison safety studies fail to point out PWCs are used many more hours than boats. Accident studies usually point out accidents per thousand craft, not per thousand hours of operation. If boats and PWCs are compared on this basis, the discrepancy between the two is much less. How do you accurately assess the number of hours of operation? I've seen this argument raised before by pro-PWCers, but do not believe it for a second. PWCs are fair-weather craft. Fisherman and sailors (to name only two) tend to be rather weather-tolerant. At the lakes I sail on, when there's a crowd of PWCs there are at least twice as many conventional boats. At the shore, PWCs and boats tend to seperate as there is so much more area to spread out (except for the jetskiers who get kicks by irritating boaters). One area that could offer documentation: liability insurance on different types of boats. This could even be broken down by age and geographic locale. Doug
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 From: Doug To: Gary Polson Subject: Re: Boats vs PWCs Gary Polson wrote: > > Hello! > > Thanks for your input on the PWC article. > > I have seen "national" hours of use data > showing PWC's operate many more hours than > recreational boats. It may not be true in > your area. > > thanks again for the note > > gary Hi Gary- Yes, I've seen the same thing said many times in many places including some of the national mags. I'm not saying it isn't true, I just wondered how this data was derived. For my own part, I don't believe it at all. Fisherman and sailors are a LOT more weather-tolerant; furthermore the claims I've seen say this is based on "ease of use" which doesn't include ANY in-water boat. PWCs are only used in fine weather and only in limited areas. Until I see some hard numbers, I tend to regard this as opinion, not fact. Don't take this personally, that's the way I am about everything (especially money;) Regards- Doug
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 From: Gregg Newsgroups: rec.sport.jetski Subject: Re: Boaters vs. PWCs Conflict Research Paper Gary Polson wrote in message ... > It was hoped that some of the ideas forwarded in other similar > conflicts might be able to be applied to this one so every body > could get a long and have a good time together on the water. > > It was an attempt to bring some useful tools and ideas to discussion. It might bring some useful information to the table, but your site is by no means objective. Look at your quotes over the PWC related headlines, where you insinuate that this will harm the industry (none of which really concern accident information...just a disgruntled boat builder that is losing sales). Contrast this to the lack of any similar commentary regarding the accident/fatality headlines involving boat accidents. Just one of those boating accidents resulted in more fatalities than the operation of 12,000 pwc in Maryland, 10,000 pwc in Connecticut, and close to the same amount of pwc operation in New Jersey all combined. Their was only ONE pwc related fatality in these three states in 1997. Gregg
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 From: Gary Polson Newsgroups: rec.sport.jetski Subject: Re: Boaters vs. PWCs Conflict Research Paper On Tue, 3 Feb 1998, Gregg wrote: > It might bring some useful information to the table, but your site is by no > means objective. > > Look at your quotes over the PWC related headlines, where you insinuate that > this will harm the industry (none of which really concern accident > information...just a disgruntled boat builder that is losing sales). > Contrast this to the lack of any similar commentary regarding the > accident/fatality headlines involving boat accidents. > > Just one of those boating accidents resulted in more fatalities than the > operation of 12,000 pwc in Maryland, 10,000 pwc in Connecticut, and close to > the same amount of pwc operation in New Jersey all combined. Their was only > ONE pwc related fatality in these three states in 1997. > Boating accidents do not have anything to do with the conflict. PWC accidents do, so I included some statistics about them. The paper was not written to argue the conflict or to talk about how many accidents boats have. I tried to show the facts, information, and prior research that: (1) point out why the conflict exits (2) offer some tools that might help reduce the conflict (3) provide a base to build future research upon Boating accidents have absolutely nothing to do with the conflict. But if you are interested in them, we have extensive coverage of them in our ACCIDENT FOLDER at:
http://www.rbbi.com/folders/acc/acc.htm
gary
Return to Boaters vs. PWCs Page
Return to Recreational Boat Building Industry Home Page