This page continues the publication of responses to the PWC conflict article.

Date: 3 Feb 1998
From: Brackney
Newsgroups: rec.sport.jetski
Subject: Re: Boaters vs. PWCs Conflict Research Paper

>Boating accidents do not have anything to do with the conflict.
>PWC accidents do, so I included some statistics about them.

Since I did not take the time to read your article, I may be speaking out if
turn. But, since there have been hundreds of articles written on the issue, I
rather doubt you have produced any stats or information that I, or others in
this forum have not already seen.

Here is the problem. The conflict has NOTHING to do with accidents. The issue
is how annoyed boaters and land owners get at pwc users. As you have admitted
to not being an enthusiast, you would, at best, be getting second hand
information with no personal experience to further make your case. 

While the number of accidents is always something to consider, it has almost
nothing to do with the conflict you are addressing. As a matter of fact, I wish
it were the accident rate that was in question. Reason, the rate is on the
decline, and if it were based on the accident rate only, the boaters who are
annoyed by them would have no case. However, the boaters/landowners who wish to
have them regulated have had to bring in sound levels and public nuisance laws
to bolster their case. The accident rate and pollution factors have all but
been eliminated as a tool in supporting bans/heavy regulation.

The main reason I choose not to read your piece was because in the last 5 or so
years, almost every article written was done so by a non-boater. This lends
itself to biases and is of little use to those who participate in the sport of
boating.

While I always find it interesting to read articles that claim to want to solve
a problem, I find that most are just slam pieces that just end up being another
persons round about way of adding their two cents worth. If you really want to
fix the conflict, urge the legislators to consider education before bans and
restrictions. If we do not give education a chance to work, then I feel that we
are selling ourselves short as a whole. 

While I am certainly correctable on this, I would bet that if you spent an
appreciable amount of time as an active participant in the great sport of
boating, you would have a much better platform to work from. Compiling data is
an easy task, and much of the time the stats do not reflect the conditions or
events that lead up to an accident or injury.

Case in point. The JAMA article that surfaced several months ago was nothing
more than a compilation of emergency room stats.By their own admission, such
factors as alcohol and weather conditions were not factored into their
findings. Do you believe that this was a fair representation of their findings?
Most did not.

If you want to truly find a solution to the conflict, thats great. But
concerning yourself with the accident rate is a waste of time. It, by itself is
a non-issue. While it may scare the general public, the rate is, by the
numbers, much lower than other recreational pasttimes that are generally
considered to be safe. Check the bike riding accident rate. The death rate is
far higher than boating deaths. When I refer to boating deaths, I am including
pwc, as by law, they are boats.

*************************************************

Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998
From: Gary Polson
Newsgroups: rec.sport.jetski
Subject: Re: Boaters vs. PWCs Conflict Research Paper


The comments below are regarding the PWC Conflict
Research Paper on RBBI at:

http://www.virtualpet.com/rbbi/white/conflict/conflict.htm

3 Feb 1998 BrackneyC wrote:
> Since I did not take the time to read your article,
> I may be speaking out of turn. But, since there have
> been hundreds of articles written on the issue, I
> rather doubt you have produced any stats or information
> that I, or others in this forum have not already seen.

Glad to see you have such an open mind :)

I sincerely doubt that any readers of this newsgroup have
been priorly exposed to the Recreational Conflict 
studies from the 1970's that are reviewed in the paper.

gary

******************************

Date: 4 Feb 1998 
From: BrackneyC 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.jetski
Subject: Re: Boaters vs. PWCs Conflict Research Paper

>Glad to see you have such an open mind :)

Sir, in the interest of giving you a fair shot, I went ahead and read the
paper. As a matter of fact, I copied it and posted it to this group, something
you neglected to do yourself.

As a matter if record, I was exactly right in my assesment of the article you
wrote. It was little more than a slam piece on the industry. The only thing I
was not aware of was that your were a puppet of Genmar industries. You made
some outrageous claims about who and how PWC are ridden. 

Your article was one sided and factually incorrect. 

You have not provided any new information, as I said you would not. I have an
open mind sir,however, your page was carefully crafted to frame PWC in a
negative light.

Furthermore, you listed a few articles for further reading, all but one written
by Irwin Jacobs. I wonder, what will they be about. 

As far as your statement concerning my open mind, you have displayed the exact
same attitude towards the PWC industry and those who ride them. Please refrain
from masking your true intentions by claiming to want to resolve the conflict.
You offered nothing in the way of solutions, as I see it.

Why did you neglect the industries push for more education. Why did you neglect
to mention that the industry supports age limits and cleaner burning engines?
Why did you fail to mention that at least 50% of the PWC owners also own
traditional boats. Why did you fail mention that the average age group who owns
PWC is over 30 years old with an average income of 90,000+ per year? Was it
lack of research, or lack of interest. These statistics have not been disputed
by anyone in either the boating or the PWC industry. 

>I sincerely doubt that any readers of this newsgroup have
>been priorly exposed to the Recreational Conflict 
>studies from the 1970's that are reviewed in the paper.

How could you possibly know that? I would further contend that this article was
little more than an attempt to stir the pot and create more hostility where we
need it the least.

Thank you for being part of the problem, as opposed to part of the solution.

***************************************

Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998
From: Gary Polson
Newsgroups: rec.sport.jetski
Subject: Re: Boaters vs. PWCs Conflict Research Paper


comments below are regarding the PWC conflict article 
on RBBI at:
http://www.virtualpet.com/rbbi/white/conflict/conflict.htm


On 4 Feb 1998, BrackneyC wrote:

> 
> Sir, in the interest of giving you a fair shot, I went ahead and read the
> paper. As a matter of fact, I copied it and posted it to this group, something
> you neglected to do yourself.

In copying the paper, first you only copied the front page of a multi-
paged article, 2nd you broke about every copyright law known to man.
Could you not read the word COPYRIGHT and the copyright symbol
that appeared not once, but twice above the article? I hope you 
obey the laws of the water better than you obey US copyright laws,
3rd the proper method is to establish a LINK to articles such as
that one, which is what I did when I announced the paper to the 
news group.
 
> As a matter if record, I was exactly right in my assesment of the article you
> wrote. It was little more than a slam piece on the industry. The only thing I
> was not aware of was that your were a puppet of Genmar industries. You made
> some outrageous claims about who and how PWC are ridden. 

If you think I am a Genmar puppet, It is apparent you have not read
the article or the feedback.

> Your article was one sided and factually incorrect. 
> You have not provided any new information, as I said you would not. I have an
> open mind sir,however, your page was carefully crafted to frame PWC in a
> negative light.

You did not see the new information because you did not get off the first
page. DO you know how to follow a link? Follow them to the other 
sections of the paper.

> Furthermore, you listed a few articles for further reading, all but one written
> by Irwin Jacobs. I wonder, what will they be about. 
> 
You have not read the full paper or seen the extensive 
Bibliography. You are looking at the small section of
articles giving a little back ground on the current 
conflict and especially about the Jacobs/Genmar issue.
Also they were not written BY Jacobs, they were written
about him. I suggest you read the entire paper.

It obvious they will be about the conflict as he sees it.
Does it not make sense to include them?

> As far as your statement concerning my open mind, you have displayed the exact
> same attitude towards the PWC industry and those who ride them. Please refrain
> from masking your true intentions by claiming to want to resolve the conflict.
> You offered nothing in the way of solutions, as I see it.

I'm not to sure you read the same paper. There are many ideas
offered as possible places to begin in resolving the conflict.
Did you miss the large section titled, "Suggestions for Resolution
from the Research Literature" and the section after it too??

> Why did you fail to mention ....

Because it was irrelevant to the issues. The same reason I
didnt talk about butterflies and meatloaf.

> >I sincerely doubt that any readers of this newsgroup have
> >been priorly exposed to the Recreational Conflict 
> >studies from the 1970's that are reviewed in the paper.
> 
> How could you possibly know that? I would further contend that this article was
> little more than an attempt to stir the pot and create more hostility where we
> need it the least.

I will find it very incredible if you can produce even one reader of 
this newsgroup that was familiar with that research.

> 
> Thank you for being part of the problem, as opposed to part of the solution.
> 

How about you read the whole article and we both work
toward being a part of the solution. 

gary




Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 
From: Harry Krause 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.jetski
Subject: Re: Boaters vs. PWCs Conflict Research Paper

Eric wrote:
> 
> Gary Polson wrote:
> 
> >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
> >
> 
> The comments below are after I read the article.  I'm quoting parts of it
> for review purposes. I won't comment on the referenced studies.
> 

Good grief! And I thought I was long-winded.

My guess is that the minority of PWC'ers who cannot behave are going to ruin the
sport for the majority that does.

More and more restrictions and regulations are going to be passed, and whether
they target PWC's specifically or boats generally, these restrictions will
mostly impact PWC's. Regulations limiting speed, outlawing repeated wake-jumping
for the sake of wake-jumping, outlawing operating a boat inshore at so high a
speed that it bounces entirely out of the water, general speed limits inshore
(like 35 mph at most inlets and within a mile of them), and so on and so forth
will impact on PWC'ers more than any other class of boater, and will depress PWC
sales even further. 

Note that *I* am not promoting these regs. But I do pay attention to local
governmental meetings, and these are what I see being discussed and passed.




Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998
From: "X*2 & XPL Fan (Dennis Copfer)" 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.jetski
Subject: Re: Boaters vs. PWCs Conflict Research Paper

Gary Polson wrote:

>Boating accidents do not have anything to do with the conflict.

I have yet to read the complete study, evaluate whether bibliographic
references were taken in context, and most importantly identify
whether important bibliographic sources were missed.  It's unlikely I
ever will.  That said, if PWCers feel it is part of the conflict, then
it is (whether it is later deemed valid or not).  You aren't
suggesting PWCers must only listen to boater complaints?  That's not a
conflict, it's one-sided bitching.

>PWC accidents do, so I included some statistics about them.

And now, I'd be VERY interested in an explanation of why only an
anaylsis of PWC accidents relate to conflict.....especially since they
are ALWAYS compared to traditional boating by both sides of the
conflict.........

dc



Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998
From: Gary Polson 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.jetski
Subject: Re: Boaters vs. PWCs Conflict Research Paper

On Wed, 4 Feb 1998, X*2 & XPL Fan (Dennis Copfer) wrote:

> Gary Polson wrote:
> 
> >Boating accidents do not have anything to do with the conflict.
> 
> I have yet to read the complete study, evaluate whether bibliographic
> references were taken in context, and most importantly identify
> whether important bibliographic sources were missed.  It's unlikely I
> ever will.  That said, if PWCers feel it is part of the conflict, then
> it is (whether it is later deemed valid or not).  You aren't
> suggesting PWCers must only listen to boater complaints?  That's not a
> conflict, it's one-sided bitching.
> 
What do boating accidents have to do with the conflict???
They are a secondary response from the PWC crowd to boaters who feel 
conflict with PWCs and voice their conflict. If that original conflict did
not occur you would never be talking about boating accidents.

I am suggesting that PWCers listen and respond to the "one-sided
bitching" of boaters. Only by addressing some of those complaints
and issues, will the conflict go away. 

> >PWC accidents do, so I included some statistics about them.
> 
> And now, I'd be VERY interested in an explanation of why only an
> anaylsis of PWC accidents relate to conflict.....especially since they
> are ALWAYS compared to traditional boating by both sides of the
> conflict.........

PWC accidents are relevant because major boat companies fear loss of 
sales from the "dangerous" image the press is pushing on PWCs.
As a result of that and conflicts with boaters (their end users)
some manufactures are in process of escalating the conflict.
Ala, Jacobs/Genamr.

Boating accidents are not escalating the conflict. PWC accidents are.

gary




Date: 4 Feb 1998 
From: WHardy
Newsgroups: rec.sport.jetski
Subject: Re: PWC conflict paper

What a pile of rot.


****************************************

Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 08:34:39 -0800
From: Gary Polson 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.jetski
Subject: Re: PWC conflict paper

Thank you for your well formulated opinion.

gary

On 4 Feb 1998, WHardy wrote:

> What a pile of rot.
> 

*********************************************

Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998
From: Harry Krause 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.jetski
Subject: Re: PWC conflict paper

WHardy wrote:
> 
> What a pile of rot.
> 
This is one area where I bow to your expertise, Hardless, since you *are* the
Pile of Rot poster boy.

Perhaps you can find someone to read the material aloud to you, so you don't
have to waste all your phonetics in one place.



Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998
From: Gary Polson 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.jetski
Subject: Re: Boaters vs. PWCs Conflict Research Paper

On 4 Feb 1998, BrackneyC wrote:
Gary wrote: 
> >I agree that if the PWC companies were subsidiaries of the traditional
> >boating companies that the boating companies interests in the conflict
> >would be different. You say the interest of the people on the water
> >would not be different, I disagree. Just take the Jacobs/Genmar issue
> >for an example, it has heightened tensions on the water.
> 
> Actually, I was glad to read this part. It confirms exactly what we thought all
> along. Genmar is upset about losing customers. You openly admit that if PWC
> were manufactured by the companies already making boats, that this would be
> less of a problem. 
> 
> I hope that when Rep. Hasskamp reads this, that she will see that the dispute
> is less about safety, and more about money.  I have written her and directed
> her to your web page and this NG in particular.

I think "ADMIT" is a bit harsh. I certainly am not a boat
building company. I do think that any well informed person 
would come to the same conclusion. 

Some of the earlier posting by other individuals,
thought the boat companies were "irrelevant to the conflict",
I don't have time to endlessly bash the issues (especially when you 
guys can't decide which side you are coming from.)

First I was accused of being a "boating enthusiast", then when 
I admitted I was a computer geek and researcher instead, I was 
criticized for not being a boater and told I couldn't know anything
about the isssues.

I'm tryin got do something constructive with the paper 
and appreciate you mentioning it to your representative.

How about somebody making a comment about the real research
brought forward by the paper (the 1970's articles on Recreational
Conflict)?????

gary 



Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 
From: Eric 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.jetski
Subject: Re: Boaters vs. PWCs Conflict Research Paper

Gary Polson wrote:
>On 4 Feb 1998, BrackneyC wrote:
>> Actually, I was glad to read this part. It confirms exactly what we thought all
>> along. Genmar is upset about losing customers. You openly admit that if PWC
>> were manufactured by the companies already making boats, that this would be
>> less of a problem. 
>
>I think "ADMIT" is a bit harsh. I certainly am not a boat
>building company. I do think that any well informed person 
>would come to the same conclusion. 
>
>Some of the earlier posting by other individuals,
>thought the boat companies were "irrelevant to the conflict",
>I don't have time to endlessly bash the issues (especially when you 
>guys can't decide which side you are coming from.)
>
If you're referring to my post, I said: "...whether it was a division of 
another boating company stealing their customers or a division of a 
ATV/snowmobile company should be irrelevant to the conflicts on the water."

Note: "On the water".  It is relevant to the boardroom conflict, as stated 
above in the "if the PWC companies were subsidiaries of the boat companies" 
comments.

If you're going to quote, please put the quote in proper context. Thanks.

Eric



Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 
From: Drew 
To: Gary Polson
Subject: Re: Boats vs. PWC Conflict Research Paper

Gary Polson wrote:
> 
> I started this thread to announce a new research
> paper on RBBI at:
> 
> http://www.virtualpet.com/rbbi/white/conflict/conflict.htm
> 
> The recent posts are just ranting and raving
> about the conflict.
> 
> Why don't you try reading the paper and maybe making
> some useful constructive comments so we can all enjoy the
> water together.
> 
> The paper was also announced in the jetski newsgroup
> (rec.sport.jetski) and at least they are attacking the paper
> and not just ranting and raving.
> 
> Does anybody "out there" have any constructive ideas
> about the concepts discussed in the paper?
> 
> gary

Looks like you hit the nail on the head Gary. Alot of whining and
bitching on rec.boats, but folks in rec.sport.jetski are working on
solutions.

FYI,
You may want to look at the work David Gaskins (and myself) and the
other PWC'ers have done in Virginia Beach. Last summer Vice Mayor
Sessoms attempted to BAN PWC- guess what didn't happen? ;)
As a result, we have all worked together with our municipalities and our
legislators and propsed ( at the General Assembly now) laws that *will*
work. Distance from shore, mandatory age limits, rental issues.. it's
*all* covered!

Write me if you need URLS-
Check this out for starters:
http://www.pilotonline.com/webx/cgi-bin/WebX?13@^4023@.ee6b7ae

You may want to search the archives to see how this all came about last
summer.

-Drew



Date: 4 Feb 1998
From: BrackneyC 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.jetski
Subject: Re: Boaters vs. PWCs Conflict Research Paper

>I'd agree that the
>average owner of a PWC is over 30. It is just as important to know the
>average
>age of the PWC user. I find the income figure hard to believe. But I'm ready
>to
>be convinced by a legitimate survey, conducted by normal independent survey
>rules.

Well, I fit into both categories, but that isn't suffiecient evidence as we
both know. The only thing I have to go on is a few serveys that I participated
in that I ran across in a PWC Magazine (I know, but I liked the survey, so I
sent it in). These same statistics showed up in another boating magazine (I
forget the name right now, but I could find it). I don't know if it was just a
copy of the results made available by the PWC magazine or an actual study done
by the boat mag. I would bet on the first one though. I can testify that most
of the people I boat with fall in, or near that same age/income group. 

One interesting point to consider though. If you cruise through our marina (one
of the largest on the entire Mississippi), you will see that almost every
cruiser has a pwc tied off or in the slip next to it. When the studies are
done, are they taking into account that a huge percentage of boat owners have
PWC also? I have two PWC and a boat, so what am I? I call myself a boater, but
while on my PWC, I am considered by some to be one of hells angels. Still, even
though this is true, I would never think twice about helping a guy in trouble,
even if he is in one of Genmars boats.  



Date: 4 Feb 1998 
From: BrackneyC 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.jetski
Subject: Re: Boaters vs. PWCs Conflict Research Paper

>I do think that any well informed person 
>would come to the same conclusion.

Gary, the only group that has denied this is the reason for the conflict is the
Genmar company itself. We have, since the beginning of the topic, said that the
reason Genmar is mad is because of the sales, not the safety. Do a check in the
Deja News, and you will read hundreds of posts saying this exact same thing. I
even heard that Genmar attempted to break into the PWC industry, but failed. I
have no documentation to back this, so I will leave it open. I am not so
concerned with whether or not you are an enthusiast or a computer guy, all we
want is fair, even handed reporting. 

Perhaps I missed the section that addressed what the PWC industries are doing
to police itself, but they are doing something and I think it is worthy of
mention. Some would say it is too late, but I disagree. The states have been
reluctant to pass legislation due to insuffient evidence on the subject. I have
dialogue with our local DNR agents and our state reps on a regular basis
concerning the issue and they are convinced that the problem, while worse in
some areas than others, is not out of control. Thankfully, these agents are
readily available to testify to the state of boating since they deal with the
problems everyday. The Representatives trust them to be fair and truthful when
they present themselves to the committees that make the decisions.



Date: 4 Feb 1998 
From: Christopher Paull 
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Boats vs. PWC Conflict Research Paper

 (Jim Hill) writes:
|> Here's some ideas for PWCers to deal with the conflict.  I'm pointedly not
|> addressing this to the boaters, since boaters are generally not the ones
|> being subject to multiple legislative attempts to ban or restrict their
|> sport.  That fact alone points to the main "concern"-PWCers-that's just
|> reality.

I think these are reasonable suggestions.
I have added some comments to let you know that this 
kind of thing is already being done.

|> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|> Establish PWC "citizen" patrols to monitor safety and regulatory
|> behavior-similar in concept to Coast Guard auxilary functions. 
|> "Self-police" your own group.

I SJ I know at least one member of the Coast Guard Aux. is an
active PWC operator.  There have been attempts to create 
a "citizen" organization to deal with some of the issues regarding
the Monterey Bay Santuary area.

Also many local PWC clubs perform these types of functions in
a less formal manner.

|> Insist that PWC rental operations either cease operation or have
|> established licensing and safety programs.

I have been supporting such ideas consistantly, as have many 
other of the PWC operators that post here.
|> 
|> Demand PWC manufacturers start producing quieter, cleaner PWC.  The old
|> noise levels are causing too many concerns, the old carburated 2-strokes
|> are starting to get you banned from waters for (very real) pollution
|> problems.  Insist on DFI (it's not the same as ordinary fuel injection)
|> 2-strokes or 4-strokes.

The number 1 reason I will most likely NOT buy a new PWC this year
is exactly becasue I am waiting for the improved intake systems, and
quieter exhaust systems to become more widely available.

These types of technologies are available this year on some selected
new models like the SeaDoo GTX RFI that not only has a much improved
intake system, but also an exhaust system that makes it significantly 
quieter.
|> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|> The irony here, is that operated in a responsible manner; a quiet,
|> new-tech DFI 2-stroke or 4-stroke PWC would be a terrific boat.  They
|> would be fun, relatively cheap (compared to traditional boats), offer
|> great performance, be fuel efficient, low polluting, not require gas
|> guzzler tow vehicles, and open up the sport of boating to more people.
|> 
|> But.........the way things are right now, PWC and PWCers are hurting both
|> themselves and boating in general, with too little concern for their
|> public image, their noise and pollution problems, bad safety and accident
|> record, and "in your face" attitude.  I sincerely hope they get their act
|> together, before the bans and restrictions effectively cripple the sport.

Many PWCers are very aware of the bad image cause by those in the
visible MINORITY that cause these problems.  This is why we post
in this group...  It is necessary that the rest of the boating
community be made aware that we are working to fix our share of
these types of issues.
|> 
|> PS  I fully understand "boaters" aren't blameless in this conflict, but,
|> fact is, boaters generally aren't the ones being targeted by legislation
|> and public dislike, PWC(ers) are.  The PWC community, just screaming
|> "bias" and not addressing the problems, is not going to resolve the
|> situation.  As has been said, "We've met the enemy, and they are us".

As I said earlier, the PWC is doing much more than just screaming
bias.  Most of what you read here is in response to the exaggerations
and outright lies that some of the anti-PWC crowd has posted.

It would be much more helpful if more people would make
suggestions like the ones you made above and help implement them
rather than the continuous finger pointing that the anti-PWC crowd
engages in which also does nothing to resolve the situation.

Chris Paull



Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 
From: Jim Hill
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: Boats vs. PWC Conflict Research Paper

(Christopher Paull) wrote:
>snip
> It was the anti-PWC crowd that first made the claims that 
> PWC were louder than other boats.  Yet they provided ZERO evidence
> that this claim was true.  We have provided some evidence that this
> is in fact NOT True.
>snip

Here's what that anti-PWC crowd the PWIA (Personal Watercraft Industry
Association) has to say about PWC noise:

> Point #2: Noise Reduction
> 
> PWIA member manufacturers have taken an aggressive stance in product 
> development to reduce noise; accordingly, *current* PWC are significantly 
> quieter than models from only 10 years ago. Improvements have come from 
> increased sophistication in exhaust system design, the increased exhaust 
> system volume allowed by the larger two- and three-person models which 
> now dominate the PWC market, and attention to significant engineering 
> details like tuned intake silencers and materials selection for noise 
> and vibration reduction. *Current* PWC meet all applicable state noise 
> requirements, and are no noisier *than other boats of comparable power or 
> performance levels*.
> 
> *Despite this effort, noise does continue to be a source of conflict with 
> PWC. This is largely due to use patterns such as operating too close to 
> a shoreline*. This is one reason the PWIA endorses the use of so-called 
> shoreline noise measurement laws, as contained in the National Marine 
> Manufacturers Association (NMMA) Model Noise Law, and also endorses 
> establishment of slow-speed/no-wake zones near shore for all boats.
> 
> *Other contributions to noise conflicts can come from repetitive 
> operation of any powerboat in a limited area*. PWC manufacturers will 
> continue their national communications programs which seek to educate 
> users about courteous use practices which can reduce impacts to 
> shoreline residents and recreationists.

Please note I added the * (emphasis)*.

Perhaps they should be contacted and told noise isn't a problem after all,
and they can remove this from the website.  Here's the link:

http://www.pwcclubusa.com/pwia/pwia5point.html

jh



Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 
From: Harry Krause 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.jetski
Subject: Re: Boaters vs. PWCs Conflict Research Paper

BrackneyC wrote:
>
> Why did you neglect the industries push for more education. Why did you neglect
> to mention that the industry supports age limits and cleaner burning engines?
> Why did you fail to mention that at least 50% of the PWC owners also own
> traditional boats. Why did you fail mention that the average age group who owns
> PWC is over 30 years old with an average income of 90,000+ per year? Was it
> lack of research, or lack of interest. These statistics have not been disputed
> by anyone in either the boating or the PWC industry

I've asked many times to see the underlying documents for this survey that
supposedly reports on the demographics and psychographics of PWC'ers. The only
thing I've found is a reference to a "fact" that some 2,000 California PWC'ers
were surveyed. What was the questionnaire like? How were participants selected?
Who conducted the survey? What other documents accompanied the survey? 

It's very easy to "cook the books" in survey work. And it isn't up to the
general public to prove or disprove a survey...it is up to the surveyor.

For the two stats publisher here, age of owner and income, I'd agree that the
average owner of a PWC is over 30. It is just as important to know the average
age of the PWC user. I find the income figure hard to believe. But I'm ready to
be convinced by a legitimate survey, conducted by normal independent survey
rules.



Date: Wed, 04 Feb 1998 
From: Drew 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.jetski
Subject: Re: Boaters vs. PWCs Conflict Research Paper

Gary Polson wrote:
> 
> I think all of your comments have been solidy addressed before.
> 
> Yes, I think it was a nonbiased approach.
> 
> It was meant to bring the earlier research to light.
> Not one single person has mentioned the Recreational
> Conflict research. Everybody just wants to bash.
> I don't have any more time for bashing.
> 
> gary

No person has commented on your "Recreational Conflict" research because
no one has a problem with that. Some of us  (I don't use *all* for a
good reason :)  ) have a problem with the way your facts were presented
in your paper. Your failure to list facts that address the conflict
issues you put forth (i.e. PWC industry using RFI & baffled exaust,
working for mandatory education) lead me to believe you are either on
the payroll of a *conventional* boating company, or your research is
outdated or incomplete.

I have zero problem with your approach to the recreational conflict and
it's historical rellevance.

-Drew



Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 
From: "X*2 & XPL Fan (Dennis Copfer)" 
Newsgroups: rec.sport.jetski
Subject: Re: Boaters vs. PWCs Conflict Research Paper

Gary Polson  wrote:

Your *opinion*:
>What do boating accidents have to do with the conflict???
>They are a secondary response from the PWC crowd to boaters who feel 
>conflict with PWCs and voice their conflict. If that original conflict did
>not occur you would never be talking about boating accidents.

My reality:

I'm scared sh*tless that a cig boat will run over me on Lake
Lewisville TX.  Have been for several years....

Your definition:
PWCers may only react and not have feelings of their own.  And this
must be so, just because non-tolerant (old farts) boaters complained
first.

Fact:
Boating accidents are the benchmark used to compare PWC accidents to
"acceptable" levels.  The MUST be included to state a case and move
discussion from complaints to valid concerns.

>PWC accidents are relevant because major boat companies fear loss of 
>sales from the "dangerous" image the press is pushing on PWCs.
>As a result of that and conflicts with boaters (their end users)
>some manufactures are in process of escalating the conflict.
>Ala, Jacobs/Genamr.

True.....but not exclusively for this reason.  Some swimmers and
boaters (IMNSHO) have valid safety fears from newbies (regardless of
whether they're on a PWC or in a boat).

>Boating accidents are not escalating the conflict. PWC accidents are.

But this is not the only front of the conflict, unless you intend to
continue defining conflict as: "Boater complaints must be pacified
*irrespective* of whether their complaints are valid."

That's similar to a rapist arguing that your mother's sexuality is
tempting him and she must compromise to his desires.

The conflict is more than traditional boaters' desires.....if this is
all you've reviewed, you've looked at this one-dimensionally..........
there were lots of "Mom & Pop" store owners who desired that the
supermarkets did not succeed......and all their shouts were in
vain.....sure they're still around...but the conflict was bigger than
their "one-sided" complaints.

dc

Continue to Feedback Page 4

Return to Boaters vs. PWCs Page

Return to Recreational Boat Building Industry Home Page

---