Propane Locker
- Thread starter Solitude 1
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
psneeld
Guru
Well....according to our currently commenting surveyor...that really isn't compliant because the vent isn't below the gunnels....
I think that is reasonable as long as the vent isn't over a door or window...but the wizards at ABYC seem to think it isn't SAFE enough....
RT, we still don't disagree, If you are familiar with my posts over the years (and I am sure you are) you will recall that I have blamed the underwriters on many occasions for the sad state of affairs of the surveying business. The underwriters could put the fly by night surveyors out of business overnight if they so chose by simply refusing to accept shoddy work.
Unfortunately I can't do anything about that and just go about my business doing as honest a job as I know how and trying my best to offer my somewhat informed opinion through my website.
Last edited:
go-planing
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2015
- Messages
- 204
Wait a dang second. SAMS/NAMS have exclusive billing with my insuruance company. When I asked the insurer why that was so, they told me that in exchange for locking out non-SAMS/NAMS surveyors, these surveyor organizations promised to up the qualifications of it's membership, provide some standardization among it's membership, and provide the company with a standardized report format. So now SAMS/NAMS haven't kept their side of the bargain and you blame the insurance companies??? You can't do anything about it? What, the organization puts a gag on you? I dismissed a card carrying SAMS member who couldn't find the pointy end without his ACYB book, and had to get a waiver for a surveyor with a list of credentials as long as your arm because your organization sold the insurance companies a bill of goods...and that's the fault of the insurance company? I fault the carriers for enabling this mess, but that doesn't absolve SAMS/NAMS. It you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Thanks again for the quotes. Fascinating reading from one of the top few in Canada if I understand you correctly. I'll pass this along.
Last edited:
I don't claim to be among the top, I'm just a guy trying to do an honest job.
SAMS made no such promise to any of the hundreds of insurance companies and if you think a lowly surveyor living on a boat in Mississauga, Ontario can influence hundreds of insurance companies and their billions of dollars ...... well I just don't know what to say to that.
go-planing
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2015
- Messages
- 204
Sorry sir, but that is exactly what my insurance company told me when I hired a non-SAMS/NAMS surveyor. SAMS gets exclusive access in exchange for providing a qualified, well managed surveyor community. Of course you've failed. I was suggesting you try to do your part to fix your own organization, not the insurance companies...the membership qualifications problem is not theirs...it's yours. Sure sounded like you were counting yourself as one of that top tier. In any case, you're absolutely sure you're not part of the problem...
Al
Guru
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2012
- Messages
- 2,206
- Location
- usa
- Vessel Name
- 'SLO'~BELLE
- Vessel Make
- 1978 Marben-27' Flybridge Trawler(extended to 30 feet) Pilothouse Pocket Cruiser[
I gather from the comments that insurance and surveyors count more than common sense. If the damn tanks are on the fly bridge, how will having a vent below the cabin roof line be any better than a vent at near the top of the house exiting out the side of the fly bridge wing or what ever the proper name is for the shear side of the fly bridge.
Anyway, the boat was constructed in 78 and it hasn't shown signs of blowing up!! Or the occupants being 'Gassed'. Lucky I guess according.
In a nut shell, I would given knowing these fellows who are harping on ABYC, a wide berth. They don't seem someone sharing a glass of sweet wine with for fear it would turn sour. Some one who has a lawyer, insurance adjuster and incident surveyor on speed dial.:lol::lol:
Your insurance company can tell you whatever they like, they don't speak for me. If you don't like what they tell you or how they do business the answer is simple ..... change to a company that does. The market speaks louder than than a few hundred SAMS surveyors.
catalinajack
Guru
Jeff, I bet you had knob and tube wiring as do lilterally hundreds of thousands of homes in the US. From Wikipedia : "Knob-and-tube wiring (sometimes abbreviated K&T) was an early standardized method of electrical wiring in buildings, in common use in North America from about 1880 to the 1930s.[1][2] It consisted of single-insulated copper conductors run within wall or ceiling cavities, passing through joist and stud drill-holes via protective porcelain insulating tubes, and supported along their length on nailed-down porcelain knob insulators. Where conductors entered a wiring device such as a lamp or switch, or were pulled into a wall, they were protected by flexible cloth insulating sleeving called loom. The first insulation was asphalt-saturated cotton cloth, then rubber became common. Wire splices in such installations were twisted together for good mechanical strength, then soldered and wrapped with rubber insulating tape and friction tape (asphalt saturated cloth), or made inside metal junction boxes. Knob and tube wiring was eventually displaced from interior wiring systems because of the high cost of installation compared with use of power cables, which combined both power conductors of a circuit in one run (and which later included grounding conductors). At present, new knob and tube installations are permitted in the US only in a few very specific situations listed in the National Electrical Code, such as certain industrial and agricultural environments."
Electrical codes (codes, not RECOMMENDATIONS for new builds) are continually being updated. If homeowners were required to rip out wiring that met code when installed, then hundreds of thousands of homeowners would be saddled with huge retrofit bills. Jeff, assuming you had knob and tube wiring, the insurance inspector may have required a wiring update out of profound ignorance. The electrical code is an apt analogy to ABYC recommendations for new builds. Merely because something on a boat does not meet current ABYC recommendations is NOT, per se, a valid reason for a surveyor to "fail" inspection. However, the recommendations are good GUIDELINES for identifying potentially unsafe issues. But to cite ABYC recommendations as "absolutes" is just wrong. It seems to me that much of this surveyor angst is just CYA for a potential lawsuit.
To the readers of this post I urge you to Google knob and tube wiring for pictures of what it is. It will frighten many just looking at how the wiring was done. But, keep in mind the many, many old homes that were wired this way. And, yes, occasionally some burn down but almost always (opinion) the cause is an overloaded circuit because of human ignorance or stupidity, not because of inherently bad interior wiring.
I've been in this business for a long time and have never told anyone that ABYC Standards were absolute or mandatory. Neither have I known another surveyor who made such a claim and I know hundreds of them.
The statements below are cut and pasted from my own survey reports of which I have samples on my website.
MANDATORY STANDARDS USED
Canada Shipping Act (CSA2001)
All regulations under the Act including “Small Vessel Regulations, "Construction Standards for Small Vessels" – TP1332E and "International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 with Canadian Modifications" are mandatory.
Transport Canada, TP1332E, Construction Standards For Small Vessels
American Boat and Yacht Council® AC and DC Systems on Boats, E-11 and Storage Batteries, E-10 are a requirement of TP1332E.
Any other provision in the American Boat and Yacht Council® Standards referred to in TP1332E that is expressed as a recommendation shall be read as a requirement unless it is incompatible with the vessel’s construction.
TP1332E requires that this vessel be fitted with a number of Safety, Caution and Compliance labels. These labeling requirements can be found at Marine Safety - Transport Canada
US Code of Federal Regulations
For vessels to be USCG Documented, State Registered or exported to the USA, United States Code of Federal Regulations Title 33 and 46 requirements will be applied.
VOLUNTARY STANDARDS USED
American Boat and Yacht Council® – ABYC® "Standards and Technical Information Reports for Small Craft" are generally voluntary with many standards incorporated into TP1332E
National Fire Protection Association - NFPA302 "Fire Protection Standard for Pleasure and Commercial Motor Craft" are generally voluntary with some of its standards mandated by TP1332E.
COMMENTS
Comments based on a specific authority are cited as such. Other comments are based on the opinion of the surveyor as being of "good marine practice". Standards used are the latest editions and may not have been in place when this vessel was built.
Last edited:
Not withstanding my above post ........ Transport Canada announced earlier this year .....
In February 2011, President Obama and Prime Minister Harper launched the Canada / United States Regulatory Cooperartion Council" (RCC) ". What does this mean for boating ? Well it looks like there is (finally) a move afoot to discontinue our Small Vessel Construction Standards and have ABYC Standards take it's place. This is part of a world wide attempt to standardize all requirements (that may take a while). Transport Canada reports that either ABYC or TP1332E will be acceptable standards in July of 2015 with the complete demise of TP1332E to follow at some point.
So all ABYC Standards will be mandatory in Canada in the near future.... a little bit of government doublespeak in there but apparently this is due to another conspiracy between SAMS and ABYC .
In February 2011, President Obama and Prime Minister Harper launched the Canada / United States Regulatory Cooperartion Council" (RCC) ". What does this mean for boating ? Well it looks like there is (finally) a move afoot to discontinue our Small Vessel Construction Standards and have ABYC Standards take it's place. This is part of a world wide attempt to standardize all requirements (that may take a while). Transport Canada reports that either ABYC or TP1332E will be acceptable standards in July of 2015 with the complete demise of TP1332E to follow at some point.
So all ABYC Standards will be mandatory in Canada in the near future.... a little bit of government doublespeak in there but apparently this is due to another conspiracy between SAMS and ABYC
.
Last edited:
catalinajack
Guru
Last edited:
psneeld
Guru
The big question will be....what requirements will be for ALL boats and what will be the requirements for new builds?
My example would be...in cars...after a bit, seat belts were required for all cars new and old....but energy absorbing bumpers were never required to be retrofitted on older cars.
The big deal with many is not whether ABYC standards are good or bad....just how they are applied to older vessels and who is the "authority" who says it is something as a seat belt....or just something that's nice like a energy absorbing bumper.
With propane lockers.....I would agree that having a tank mounted or stored inside certainly meets my threshold for being unsafe...but venting that HAS to be gunnel or below on a boat without a cockpit or area that can collect fumes is where I think retrofitting is over the top unless statistically an otherwise compliant installs have been the cause of a high percentage of accidents.
This is the kind of situation where my personal rub with the whole circular mess gets me on step.
My example would be...in cars...after a bit, seat belts were required for all cars new and old....but energy absorbing bumpers were never required to be retrofitted on older cars.
The big deal with many is not whether ABYC standards are good or bad....just how they are applied to older vessels and who is the "authority" who says it is something as a seat belt....or just something that's nice like a energy absorbing bumper.
With propane lockers.....I would agree that having a tank mounted or stored inside certainly meets my threshold for being unsafe...but venting that HAS to be gunnel or below on a boat without a cockpit or area that can collect fumes is where I think retrofitting is over the top unless statistically an otherwise compliant installs have been the cause of a high percentage of accidents.
This is the kind of situation where my personal rub with the whole circular mess gets me on step.
Last edited:
The image below is cut/paste from Transport Canada Standards and they clearly are the authority in Canada. As I said I have never (other than this forum) heard of a surveyor saying ABYC was mandatory and if he did, he's an idiot.
I think TP1332 and the CFR's are absolute minimums and often miss the mark. The photos I posted earlier of the insane propane installations are completely legal in Canada and the US. But while I still note the ABYC standards for propane as voluntary in my reports, I feel I must point out that a 20.lb. propane tank stored in the bilge of a sailboat or a side loading propane locker that opens over a diesel(non-ignition proof) engine compartment is dangerous and this must be pointed out to the insurer and the owner as such. I have gone to great length on my website to show people exactly what to expect if they hire me. Some choose not to hire me, some do. It's their choice.
Do I have some CYA stuff in my reports, of course I do as any responsible business person would. Remember your society is the one that gave a woman $5,000,000 for spilling hot McDonalds coffee on herself.
Last edited:
O C Diver
Guru
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 12,865
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Slow Hand
- Vessel Make
- Cherubini Independence 45
I glad you're better with boat surveying than your are with story facts.
Jury award was for $2.86 million which was reduced by the trial judge to $640,000, which was then further reduced to a non disclosed amount prior to an appeal decision.
From Wikipedia Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants.
Liebeck (the burn victim) was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for 3 weeks, provided by her daughter. Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years.
Ted
I glad you're better with boat surveying than your are with story facts.
Jury award was for $2.86 million which was reduced by the trial judge to $640,000, which was then further reduced to a non disclosed amount prior to an appeal decision.
From Wikipedia Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants.
Liebeck (the burn victim) was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for 3 weeks, provided by her daughter. Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years.
Ted
Numbers aside, my point stands. order hot coffee (she didn't order cold coffee did she ? ), spill it on yourself and blame McDonald, collect money. Accept no responsibilty for your own actions. ..... omit due diligence, hire a lousy surveyor then rant.
O C Diver
Guru
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 12,865
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Slow Hand
- Vessel Make
- Cherubini Independence 45
She order hot coffee, not coffee that would cause injury if she drank it when served. The part of the suit that was lost in the settlement hype was that a restaurant has an obligation not to serve you an item that is hazardous to consume at the time it was served, or at the very least warn you.
Ted
What you're forgetting is that the ones who were blown up or gassed aren't around to tell about it.
It's similar to the seatbelt situation mentioned earlier. I drove for years before seatbelts were commonly installed in cars. I was never killed or injured in an accident so based on my personal experience, seat belts are a waste of money and time, right?
I never drive or ride in a car without wearing my seat belt. Common sense tells me I'm safer if I do.
The same common sense tells me to make whatever changes I can to my boat systems to keep me as safe as possible.
I glad you're better with boat surveying than your are with story facts.
Jury award was for $2.86 million which was reduced by the trial judge to $640,000, which was then further reduced to a non disclosed amount prior to an appeal decision.
From Wikipedia Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants.
Liebeck (the burn victim) was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for 3 weeks, provided by her daughter. Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years.
Ted
But she should have known that coffee is normally served hot. If she had burned herself with her own home made coffee she would have had nobody to blame. The accident was her fault not McDonalds.
If McDonalds or any other restaurant sold someone a hamburger and they took too big a bite and choked on it and died, should the restaurant be held responsible?
Life comes with risks and responsibilities. Not everything bad that happens to you is someone else's fault.
The Value of ABYC Compliance
The "manual on-off at the back of the stove" lacks, dare I say, ABYC compliance.
This is worthy and important discussion, one that most assuredly benefits the Forum.
To clarify, some ABYC Standards actually do have the force of law, albeit indirectly, where gasoline powered vessels are concerned. Standards that address electrical and fuel systems on these vessels are, for the most part, parallels of the CFR laws. The ABYC electrical standard (there are several electrical related chapters), E-11, is analogous to the National Electric Code, whose merit and legitimacy are undeniable. Why should a boat's electrical system be exempt? Some would argue there's more reason for it to comply, if your home catches fire, tragic though it would be, you can run outside and immediately be safe. I once asked a Coast Guard Marine Safety Officer why diesel powered vessels were exempt, he said, "Because statistically they don't blow up like gasoline powered vessels do, which gives people time to get off in the event of a fire, which in turn lowers the injury and death rate and that's what we look at". Draw your own conclusions, however, where existing vessels are concerned it would be foolish to overlook potential causes for fire, explosion, electrocution, flooding etc just because the standards are voluntary or because they weren’t in effect when the boat was built (in most cases they were, the builder simply was unaware of them or chose not to comply).
Also, contrary to popular belief, ABYC Standards are established, for the most part, only when a clear statistical need for a particular standard can be demonstrated, and there's definitely push back from boat builders, more standards means more cost, and they are involved in the process. In some cases members clamor for a new standard only to be told by ABYC, "the statistics do not support the need for a standard regarding... fiberglass scantlings" for instance. Having been part of the standards writing process, while it's not perfect, I can say standards are created and modified almost with reluctance.
With the potential for explosion so very great, and with deaths and injury having resulted from them, clearly there was a need to create and maintain this LPG standard, just as there was a need for the electrical, carbon monoxide detector, lightning, firefighting equipment, navigation lights, reboarding means, steering systems and many other ABYC standards.
While I have my differences with the organization, I've been in this business for nearly 30 years and no other single entity has represented more of a force for good, and positive change in the marine industry, than the ABYC. Before ABYC's widespread adoption what was "right" was open to interpretation and speculation. I rely on these standards nearly every day to reinforce my experience-derived observations and recommendations (by the way, knee-jerk compliance is, in my opinion, undesirable). And before ABYC there was little or no measure for a technician's competence, now there are training classes and certifications in half a dozen different disciplines, each of which requires the recipient to pass a rigorous 200 question exam (some of which I've helped write, trust me they are difficult to pass). With that, a boat owner or yard can have much greater confidence in a craftsman's or woman's skills.
Insurers rely heavily on actuarials to determine insurance worthiness, and actuarials are based on facts and statistics. While, again, the system isn't perfect, there is little or no agenda where ABYC is concerned beyond ensuring boats are seaworthy, reliable and safe (there's one exception, in spite of a demonstrable need for it they have yet to produce a smoke detector standard, the reasons remain unclear. In spite of that I believe no vessel with an enclosed cabin should leave the dock without one or more).
While it is voluntary, many new boat builders have realized the value in building to ABYC standards. Through a program administered by the National Marine Manufacturer's Association (NMMA), vessels can be certified compliant, you can review a (long) list of them here https://www.nmma.org/certification/boats/certified-manufacturers These builders wouldn't go through the trouble, and expense to comply if there wasn't a clear value and return on the investment.
Those who roundly condemn the ABYC Standards as flawed and agenda or insurer/surveyor-driven, are setting back what may very well be the most worthy cause in the world of boat building and repair in the last half century. Think of this one standard alone, the one that calls for GFCI receptacles to be used in galley, head, engineering and on deck areas. I'm convinced this voluntary guideline has saved countless lives, including my own. It's the law of the land in every home and business building standard, without complying with it you are unable to obtain approval from a building inspector. Yet no one would suggest it's the result of collusion between building inspectors, the NEC and GFCI manufacturers. Why, again, should a boat be any different? In fact, if ever there was a need for a GFCI it's aboard a vehicle floating in a conductive medium, yet, only ABYC Standards compliance calls for it.
Finally, Australia, NZ, the EU and Canada have all codified into law standards that are very similar and in many cases more stringent than ABYC. When my boat building colleagues in these countries find out that our standards are voluntary they are aghast.
The "manual on-off at the back of the stove" lacks, dare I say, ABYC compliance.
This is worthy and important discussion, one that most assuredly benefits the Forum.
To clarify, some ABYC Standards actually do have the force of law, albeit indirectly, where gasoline powered vessels are concerned. Standards that address electrical and fuel systems on these vessels are, for the most part, parallels of the CFR laws. The ABYC electrical standard (there are several electrical related chapters), E-11, is analogous to the National Electric Code, whose merit and legitimacy are undeniable. Why should a boat's electrical system be exempt? Some would argue there's more reason for it to comply, if your home catches fire, tragic though it would be, you can run outside and immediately be safe. I once asked a Coast Guard Marine Safety Officer why diesel powered vessels were exempt, he said, "Because statistically they don't blow up like gasoline powered vessels do, which gives people time to get off in the event of a fire, which in turn lowers the injury and death rate and that's what we look at". Draw your own conclusions, however, where existing vessels are concerned it would be foolish to overlook potential causes for fire, explosion, electrocution, flooding etc just because the standards are voluntary or because they weren’t in effect when the boat was built (in most cases they were, the builder simply was unaware of them or chose not to comply).
Also, contrary to popular belief, ABYC Standards are established, for the most part, only when a clear statistical need for a particular standard can be demonstrated, and there's definitely push back from boat builders, more standards means more cost, and they are involved in the process. In some cases members clamor for a new standard only to be told by ABYC, "the statistics do not support the need for a standard regarding... fiberglass scantlings" for instance. Having been part of the standards writing process, while it's not perfect, I can say standards are created and modified almost with reluctance.
With the potential for explosion so very great, and with deaths and injury having resulted from them, clearly there was a need to create and maintain this LPG standard, just as there was a need for the electrical, carbon monoxide detector, lightning, firefighting equipment, navigation lights, reboarding means, steering systems and many other ABYC standards.
While I have my differences with the organization, I've been in this business for nearly 30 years and no other single entity has represented more of a force for good, and positive change in the marine industry, than the ABYC. Before ABYC's widespread adoption what was "right" was open to interpretation and speculation. I rely on these standards nearly every day to reinforce my experience-derived observations and recommendations (by the way, knee-jerk compliance is, in my opinion, undesirable). And before ABYC there was little or no measure for a technician's competence, now there are training classes and certifications in half a dozen different disciplines, each of which requires the recipient to pass a rigorous 200 question exam (some of which I've helped write, trust me they are difficult to pass). With that, a boat owner or yard can have much greater confidence in a craftsman's or woman's skills.
Insurers rely heavily on actuarials to determine insurance worthiness, and actuarials are based on facts and statistics. While, again, the system isn't perfect, there is little or no agenda where ABYC is concerned beyond ensuring boats are seaworthy, reliable and safe (there's one exception, in spite of a demonstrable need for it they have yet to produce a smoke detector standard, the reasons remain unclear. In spite of that I believe no vessel with an enclosed cabin should leave the dock without one or more).
While it is voluntary, many new boat builders have realized the value in building to ABYC standards. Through a program administered by the National Marine Manufacturer's Association (NMMA), vessels can be certified compliant, you can review a (long) list of them here https://www.nmma.org/certification/boats/certified-manufacturers These builders wouldn't go through the trouble, and expense to comply if there wasn't a clear value and return on the investment.
Those who roundly condemn the ABYC Standards as flawed and agenda or insurer/surveyor-driven, are setting back what may very well be the most worthy cause in the world of boat building and repair in the last half century. Think of this one standard alone, the one that calls for GFCI receptacles to be used in galley, head, engineering and on deck areas. I'm convinced this voluntary guideline has saved countless lives, including my own. It's the law of the land in every home and business building standard, without complying with it you are unable to obtain approval from a building inspector. Yet no one would suggest it's the result of collusion between building inspectors, the NEC and GFCI manufacturers. Why, again, should a boat be any different? In fact, if ever there was a need for a GFCI it's aboard a vehicle floating in a conductive medium, yet, only ABYC Standards compliance calls for it.
Finally, Australia, NZ, the EU and Canada have all codified into law standards that are very similar and in many cases more stringent than ABYC. When my boat building colleagues in these countries find out that our standards are voluntary they are aghast.
kulas44
Guru
Really off subject, but I recall "trying" to drink mikky'd coffee back in the day. That stuff was dangerous. And they were sued multiple times and ordered to lower the temp. They did not comply. They are now in compliance. As to marine surveyors, my opinion (from personall experience, first hand, $$$ outa my pocket) is that they are incompitent, all of them that I know anyway, and apparently most other knowledgeable boat owners feel the same way. I understand the insurers desire to know what they are assuring, it only makes good business sense. EXCEPT that they have this army of (add descriptive expletive) trying to tell them if the boat in ? is a good risk. Knowing this, and the fact that I'm paying, suggests to me that I get what I want. I have been "written up" a time or 2 for minor things that ended up being major expenses to satisfy the insurer. Now I just tell my guy what I want, over the phone during the initial contact. I suppose if he doesnt want to do it my way he can opt out. They never do. And, I normally have to tell them what they are looking at, what it does, etc. Then, I want to see the finished survey befor I approve it. They always have mistakes, usually from plain ignorance or lack of knowledge. The last fellow called my planing hull sportfisher a "full displacement hull" in his report. After fixing that his survey was submitted, and he recieved favorable remarks from the insurer. He was happy, I was happy, insurer was happy. I like that pattern.
If you're smarter than all the marine surveyors, why are you hiring them?
O C Diver
Guru
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Messages
- 12,865
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- Slow Hand
- Vessel Make
- Cherubini Independence 45
Simply, you're permitted to burn yourself on your own coffee because you screwed up. When a business sells you a product, there is an assumption that the product will be safe for the intended purpose at time of delivery unless otherwise stated. The hamburger analogy falls flat as most could eat the the burger as served without incident. Nobody could have consumed the coffee in that situation without burning themselves.
Ted
psneeld
Guru
What you're forgetting is that the ones who were blown up or gassed aren't around to tell about it.
It's similar to the seatbelt situation mentioned earlier. I drove for years before seatbelts were commonly installed in cars. I was never killed or injured in an accident so based on my personal experience, seat belts are a waste of money and time, right?
I never drive or ride in a car without wearing my seat belt. Common sense tells me I'm safer if I do.
The same common sense tells me to make whatever changes I can to my boat systems to keep me as safe as possible.
But do you wear a 5 point harness for that one in a million accident?
No.....simplify the obvious and that is exactly where we are....safety is a moving target and for every side...there is some other extreme argument.
Thus the birth of risk management where brains are allowed to overcome blind rules.
The extreme would be mandatory life rafts for all vessels, kayaks and canoes included if they wind up a certain distance offshore....who determines the distance? The size of the vessel? The water temp?
Lots of deaths statistically? Why aren't they mandatory?
Professionals ARE supposed to have little lattitude...otherwise.....why have professionals?
No....overregulation is no better than underregulation. Police state versus anarchy....and for right now....the system seems a little broke to me. Not a lot...but a little.
Last edited:
I think we're trying to make the same point. The important thing is that we understand the risks and that's where the standards come in. ABYC has more experience than we do as individuals. We can look at their standards and compare them to our situations and make our decisions. Without their standards we have no place to start.
psneeld
Guru
but that is how this discussion got going somewhat.....
When a rule that works for new construction fine but is hard to apply in its entirety to an older boat. It is when they are applied in full force by an insurance company through a survey because they believe that non compliance of 100 percent of the standard puts you in the same risk category as a boat that is in almost zero percent of the standard.
That is the rub and doesn't allow for real risk management. However to be clear...as I posted way earlier....some insurance companies will allow discussion. Thankfully.....
A few times a year I do get requests for survey from people with an opinion similar to yours. My response has been consistent over the decades .....
"Sorry I'm booked for the forseeable future".
