Should a motorized boat using public waterways be required to have insurance ...

dhays said:

At least here in WA, old-timers are grandfathered in and don't need to get a boating safety card. Anyone born prior to 1955 needs to get the card. So I had to do it since I was born in 1958. Didn't bother me a bit. I could do the course and take the test online, and getting a refresher never hurt anyone and could possibly help save someone from harm.

Click to expand...

Yeah...I get it...don't forget some here....actually most here are pretty smart.

The last guy I sat down with to get through the test probably never graduated grade school, reat at the 4th grade level and worked hard all, day, maybe in the hot sun at 65 and still struggled with the program. Never complained one tiny bit, like the rich, young punks who thought they knew it all.

While I agree with the issue of liability and being a fair society...the last thing this guy needed after a lifetime of decent, hard work would be to make his favorite pastime any more costly or complicated.

I am far from a bleeding heart but I really felt for this guy and many others I put through that course.

Boating for the most part is way easier than most want to make it....it often is only the arrogant and reckless that make it harder than it is.

I found an error in my post above, fixed it.

dhays said:

I found an error in my post above, fixed it.

Click to expand...

I guessed.....

Unfortunately NJ grandfathered in the old guys for a few years hoping that after around 60...most wouldn't be opersting boats...but ultimately EVERYONE had to get their card.. Again I get it in today's world....it was just tough seeing some struggle with classroom work when practical stuff on the water they knew just fine when questioned on the side.

psneeld said:

I guessed.....

Unfortunately NJ grandfathered in the old guys for a few years hoping that after around 60...most wouldn't be opersting boats...but ultimately EVERYONE had to get their card.. Again I get it in today's world....it was just tough seeing some struggle with classroom work when practical stuff on the water they knew just fine when questioned on the side.

Click to expand...

Yours must be much more complicated than the Ohio one. The gist of it was the laws about overboard discharge, overtaking, and red right returning.

WesK said:

If the risk is low, the premiums would be low. It's a matter of being responsible for your actions. Nothing more, nothing less.

Click to expand...

Think your missing the picture. The risk / liability is all but zero. The insurance companies have determined that. That's why my homeowners insurance covers my 16' boat for zero additional charge.

Nobody is arguing personal responsibility. We are discussing the need for a policy that the insurance industry determines is an insignificant risk.

Ted

devorenm said:

Yours must be much more complicated than the Ohio one. The gist of it was the laws about overboard discharge, overtaking, and red right returning.

Click to expand...

Could be a lot harder...but they all are hard when you haven't been in a classroom for more than a few years and not for over 50 or more years.

Hard to see the world sometimes through the eyes of some that share our passions but not out resources or educations by a longshot.

But the refreshing thing was when read the questions, even without the multiple guesses, the vast majority of these people who struggled with the written test had no problem answering the questions. Especially the operating related questions.

But back to the question of insurance for all boats...I guess if you force insurance companies to offer insurance to these groups of lower income boaters..like NJ did for cars....it might not be too restrictive...even though NJ has a large number of uninsured motorists on the road

RT Firefly said:

Greetings,
"...all the owner had to do was say that he sold the boat and doesn't own it any more." OK. Where's your receipt for the sale? Where is the documentation for the transfer of ownership?

In some jurisdictions, car ownership remains registered under the sellers name until said ownership is officially transferred at the local DMV office. Not a big deal to apply that to boat ownerships. That way, the seller would be fully responsible for any costs for removal of the derelict vessel. Pleading ignorance would not be an excuse and seldom is in the eyes of the law. No documentation? You're responsible!

Click to expand...

And next you will say that if you live in Ft. Pierce , that Ace mechanic must get to your boat in less than three weeks!

OK. I'll get serious.

If they force insurance on ALL boats, who do you think will end up paying??

YOU. Your insurance rates will DOUBLE. Why, because the pool of boats is so much smaller than for cars AND we who pay insurance, pay for those who don't.

Wxx3 said:

OK. I'll get serious.

If they force insurance on ALL boats, who do you think will end up paying??

YOU. Your insurance rates will DOUBLE. Why, because the pool of boats is so much smaller than for cars AND we who pay insurance, pay for those who don't.

Click to expand...

We already pay for those who don't. My policy has coverage for uninsured boaters, just like uninsured motorists.

It is a bit of a canard to say that, by having uninsured motorist or boater insurance we are "paying for those who don't [have insurance]. We are not. We are paying for coverage for us, whether medical expense, loss of income or whatever, when we are the victim of an accident with an uninsured. In the insurance world, when a guy hits you, his insurance company pays all the bills. If he has no insurance, you pay all your own bills. With uninsured coverage, your insurance company pays those bills. So, in a sense we "pay" for his refusal to have coverage, but he not only gets no benefit, your insurance company will immediately be after him for reimbursement. And the cost of uninsured coverage is a very, very small portion of your insurance bill, in my case, less than 3% of the total bill.

"the costs associated with environmental cleanup or disposal can be far higher that what one might guess."

These costs are mostly an open ended scam.

What is "clean enough". Before Adam & Eve?

To me clean enough is when the channel is open and not a danger.

In most cases a 1 lb bit of plastic explosive would do the trick for almost no bucks.

Might even be able to charge the viewing public , like knocking down old buildings ,or sinking boats for fish homes, a great local "event".

Perhaps the local TV stations could pay for the bang with an exclusive for their helicopter?

O C Diver said:

Think your missing the picture. The risk / liability is all but zero. The insurance companies have determined that. That's why my homeowners insurance covers my 16' boat for zero additional charge.

Nobody is arguing personal responsibility. We are discussing the need for a policy that the insurance industry determines is an insignificant risk.

Ted

Click to expand...

I'm not missing anything. You have insurance on your little boat but not everybody does. I think it should be a requirement.

It may be an insignificant risk to an insurance company but if you lose an arm or leg because of someone's negligent operation of a 16' boat, it's not insignificant to you.

BandB said:

We already pay for those who don't. My policy has coverage for uninsured boaters, just like uninsured motorists.

Click to expand...

Mine does also.

Wxx3 said:

OK. I'll get serious.

If they force insurance on ALL boats, who do you think will end up paying??

YOU. Your insurance rates will DOUBLE. Why, because the pool of boats is so much smaller than for cars AND we who pay insurance, pay for those who don't.

Click to expand...

That makes no sense. If all boaters are required to have liability insurance, our rates for uninsured boaters will go down.

The rest of the boaters will be paying their own way.

Kinda think that's Ted point.....

manyboats said:

Pgitug,
Free country? ... Less and less so.

That said I agree w you. People should be forced to pick up their garbage. Coffee cup or 50' boat.

So Pgitug try and come up w some solution to the problem that dosn't involve the good people paying for the irresponsible.

Click to expand...

manyboats in my view reflects the arguments going on in this country right now. Do we want a government that controls many if not all aspects of our actions including forcing boaters to pay for insurance, salvage costs, liability and derelict removal costs or do we let boaters figure that out for themselves.

Some people will not pick up their garbage nor will they follow any insurance requirements.

And to manyboats last statement: In any society the good people always pay for the irresponsible no matter what laws are in place.

I don't have an answer to the derelict boat problem in FL, but neither does the state. But I do think more can be done, the issue will then be do we make boating more expensive possibly eliminating some folks from boating or more likely forcing more boaters to disregard the law or is there a better way.

One possible way is for the state to contact any boat owner who does not re-register his/her boat and find out why. If after an investigation the boat is found to be at risk, the boat owner would then be required to move it.

But even still laws need to be changed to make it easier and less expensive to remove at risk boats. The EPA has been liken to the USA answer to the Gestapo.

WesK said:

I'm not missing anything. You have insurance on your little boat but not everybody does. I think it should be a requirement.

It may be an insignificant risk to an insurance company but if you lose an arm or leg because of someone's negligent operation of a 16' boat, it's not insignificant to you.

Click to expand...

I have it because it's free. For 20 years I didn't because I didn't know it was free and felt the risk was negligible. Look, life is full of risks. People get killed every year by bicyclists striking them accidentally. You going to make every kid have an insurance policy?

I have no problem holding people accountable for their actions. Just see no need for the government to burden people for risks that are statistically zero.

Ted

FF said:

"the costs associated with environmental cleanup or disposal can be far higher that what one might guess."

These costs are mostly an open ended scam.

What is "clean enough". Before Adam & Eve?

To me clean enough is when the channel is open and not a danger.

Click to expand...

Environmental requirements are annoying, inconvenient, and expensive. However, I am glad they are there. The waterways that I have boated in for the last 50 years are a lot healthier and pleasant than they were when I was a kid.

If I spill fuel, it will be very expensive to have cleaned up. I have insurance for that. I don't like paying my premiums, but I am glad to have the insurance. I think that all boaters should have similar insurance to cover damage they do to others persons and property, as well as the environment.

Actually...unless you are some place unusual or in a tight corner with the wind/tide pinning in the fuel....most of our vessels (say 400 gal on board) that spill diesel probably would not even have it cleaned up. Gasoline being even less of an issue.


Unless the boat is damaged to the point where the fuel tanks are ruptured...very little leaks out unless you pump it out. Second...even 400 gallons of diesel spreads so fast it is tough to contain and if contained...it still evaporates in all but the coldest climes or leaks through the boom openings.


Now motor oil is a different animal...but again...even in sinkings....many times none leaks out and what is in the average trawler here....what 12 gallons in 2 engines and a genset?


I have been to hundreds of salvages of sunk boats and fuel spills and other than a quick booming and some pads thrown in to "make it look good"...most have involved very little actual cleanup. That is because it is gone before we get there much of the time. That includes up to 80plus foot commercial fishing vessels.


Yes, I have $500,000 plus environmental cleanup like many yacht policies...and am glad...but the reality is unless in a special area or special circumstances...hard to imagine ever needing it unless I ram a fuel barge/megayacht.

When it comes to environmental cleanup on the water, the BT and Exxon Valdez are the first that come to mind. Then I think of a few recreational boat incidents on inland rivers and lakes that not properly handled could have done extensive damage because of the tight area the spill would have impacted. I'm glad on these instances we had regulatory authorities to step in.

As to environmental issues and the EPA which one member called a scam, I think of what if we didn't have these protective measures. Well, I can quickly think of a couple of things that would be far worse in our lives. The smog in major cities from vehicles would be overwhelming and the number of people with serious lung issues many times what it is today. Some of our rivers which supply drinking water would have serious issues. Now, recognize we still have a lot of issues in the country with water, but increase that many times. Then one that is very major is the lead and other metal poisoning we would have throughout the country if not for the EPA, for Superfund sites, and for tighter regulations on both operations and remediation. Take one industry, the lead smelter industry. The thousands of people, and I especially think of young kids...make that hundreds of thousands...who would have serious and permanent damage if that industry hadn't been cleaned up with still more work to be done. The entire battery manufacturing process.

Yes, the EPA isn't perfect, a lot of our environmental programs are illogical and the impact of boats so minor in the whole picture. But...if we had no EPA, if we had no government intervention in protection of our environment, our air and our water would be many times worse than it is today and people would be suffering from it. There is also not an industry we have that would have adopted the protections and controls had they not been forced. They are too driven by the pursuit of profits. It does put US manufacturing and Western Europe manufacturing at competitive disadvantages versus other areas but the answer isn't reducing the regulation and harming more people.

Comparing a smaller pleasure vessel incident environmentally to the BP Deepwater Horizon or the Exxon Valdez is like comparing a paper cut to 9/11.

No I don't like oil spills...but the average Lehman engine like mine probably puts more fuel in the water from a years normal operation than if my boat sank.


The sad thing is every time it rains...the parking lot and street at my marina put more pollutants and oil into the water than my boat all year or if it sank.


If we are gonna fix the world...lets start with the meaningful...maybe not penalize the few things that bring people pleasure by over reaction or high priced insurance or regulation in general when recreational boats are a low fraction of the problem.

psneeld said:

Comparing a smaller pleasure vessel incident environmentally to the BP Deepwater Horizon or the Exxon Valdez is like comparing a paper cut to 9/11.

No I don't like oil spills...but the average Lehman engine like mine probably puts more fuel in the water from a years normal operation than if my boat sank.


The sad thing is every time it rains...the parking lot and street at my marina put more pollutants and oil into the water than my boat all year or if it sank.


If we are gonna fix the world...lets start with the meaningful...maybe not penalize the few things that bring people pleasure by over reaction or high priced insurance or regulation in general when recreational boats are a low fraction of the problem.

Click to expand...

I wasn't comparing them. I was simply responding to the post calling the EPA a scam and pointing out the benefits we've gotten from environmental rules.

Recreational boats are clearly a small part. Still I think some degree of regulation is appropriate and I do believe in answer to the OP's question that motorized vessels should be required to have liability insurance. I believe it would be very inexpensive for small boats. However, a small boat can cause a death. They do occasionally run over swimmers. A small boat can cost a good bit to salvage.

A very standard and basic liability policy to cover a 16' fishing boat with a 25 hp motor should cost very little. Motorized vehicles, whether on the water or the road, have the potential to hurt other people badly. Someone ends up paying for that damage. It may be us through taxes, it may be us through uninsured coverage or it may be the family that loses everything they have paying for the medical bills of the injured swimmer or kayaker.

Funny...when you look back on life and everyone said...it's only a little more.....


Well My grandfather could not believe the cost of living jump from 1900-1985, my step dad couldn't believe the cost of living jump from 1940-2008...and I cant believe it from 1976 to 2016.


None of our 3 pensions come close to covering the cost of living increases. Fortunately all 3 of us were smart enough to know....the rest of the world would say...'it only a little bit more" ...so we saved beyond the recommended amounts...we know that most people don't.


It's only a little more..... yeah...right....if it only worked like it should.

B-all you said is so true. If one thinks the EPA and regulations are a scam, simply go to any major city in China. Where people must wear masks when outside, where there is seldom a blue sky, where the pollution indices are off the charts, where the incidence of lung and respiratory disease approaches epidemic proportions. Look at any major river in China, so polluted they are unusable, any fisheries have long since died, the incidence of various diseases again is close to epidemic. The first time we went to Guangzhou almost 20 years ago, during the day, the sky was a constant yellow, you never really saw the sun. Beijing has something like 150 days a year where residents are told not to venture outside. The Pearl River was brown, one was warned not to touch the water, all manner of living, dead and dying things floating down it. The Yellow River, the heart of China, is a totally dead ecological disaster for close to 900 miles. Only in the past few years has China recognized the damage done to her natural resources and began to make changes. Environmental regulation is no scam.