Author Topic: pfd ***UPDATE*** California style  (Read 7500 times)

pdxmike

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 6186
    • View Profile
Re: pfd ***UPDATE*** California style
« Reply #15 on: February 09, 2018, 09:02:10 PM »
Now if paddleboards were perhaps considered recreational boats, we would still be required to carry a Type I-III PFD on board.
I find this interesting... Under Section Code 6565.3, and in the context in which it's written, it implies that CA would deem a paddleboard as a "recreational boat". So like I stated in my quote above, Section Code 6565.5 would then be in effect.
https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I5F64EED0D48611DEBC02831C6D6C108E?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)
So on that note, if one were to not carry a Type I-III that's easily accessible, then they would be in violation of two section codes... 6564 and 6565.5
First of all, you have to be pretty weird to be interested in this stuff...

Thanks for the link to the definitions.  Just so it's handy, I copied what seems to be the whole relevant section below.

The first thing that pops out is that you're right, a SUP is a "vessel", because it is definitely NOT a "recreational boat" because those carry more than 6 passengers.

So the whole email that hbsteve got is wrong, because the person who wrote it didn't check the definitions, and gave him the regulations for the wrong type of craft. 

However, the big one to me is that most SUPs would clearly meet the definition of a "racing shell, rowing scull, racing canoes and racing kayak" and those are exempt from needing to carry ANY pfds.


Here's the code:

§ 6565.2. Definitions.


As used in sections 6565.2 through 6565.8:

(a) “Boat” means any vessel manufactured or used primarily for noncommercial use; leased, rented, or chartered to another for the latter's noncommercial use; or engaged in the carrying of six or fewer passengers.

(b) “Recreational boat” means any vessel manufactured or used primarily for noncommercial use; or leased, rented, or chartered to another for the latter's noncommercial use. It does not include a vessel engaged in the carrying of six or fewer passengers.

(c) “Vessel” includes every description of watercraft other than a seaplane on the water, used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on the water.

(d) “Use” means operate, navigate, or employ.

(e) “Passenger” means every person carried on board a vessel other than:

(1) The owner or his representative;

(2) The operator;

(3) Bona fide members of the crew engaged in the business of the vessel who have contributed no consideration for their carriage and who are paid for their services; or

(4) Any guest on board a vessel which is being used exclusively for pleasure purposes who has not contributed any consideration, directly or indirectly, for his carriage.

(f) “Racing shell, rowing scull, racing canoes and racing kayak,” means a manually-propelled boat that is recognized by national or international racing associations for use in competitive racing and one in which all occupants row, scull, or paddle, with the exception of a coxswain, if one is provided, and is not designed to carry and does not carry any equipment not solely for competitive racing.

Note: Authority cited: Sections 652 and 669, Harbors and Navigation Code. Reference: Section 652, Harbors and Navigation Code.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2018, 09:14:03 PM by pdxmike »

pdxmike

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 6186
    • View Profile
Re: pfd ***UPDATE*** California style
« Reply #16 on: February 09, 2018, 09:33:20 PM »
Now if paddleboards were perhaps considered recreational boats, we would still be required to carry a Type I-III PFD on board.
I find this interesting... Under Section Code 6565.3, and in the context in which it's written, it implies that CA would deem a paddleboard as a "recreational boat". So like I stated in my quote above, Section Code 6565.5 would then be in effect.
https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I5F64EED0D48611DEBC02831C6D6C108E?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)
So on that note, if one were to not carry a Type I-III that's easily accessible, then they would be in violation of two section codes... 6564 and 6565.5
To me,  that doesn't imply that a paddleboard would be considered a "recreational boat" because by definition "recreational boats" have more than 6 passengers. 

lucabrasi

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1813
    • View Profile
Re: pfd ***UPDATE*** California style
« Reply #17 on: February 10, 2018, 09:16:04 AM »
for whatever it's worth, Idaho has a little line specifically for sup's in their rule book that if you strap your pfd down to your board it is not readily accessible and therefor not in compliance. Throw it on deck (non inflatable pfd) you are good, but once you throw a bungee around it you are not. I kind of think it is in there because of some debating at some point between users and law enforcers.

pdxmike

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 6186
    • View Profile
Re: pfd ***UPDATE*** California style
« Reply #18 on: February 10, 2018, 12:05:35 PM »
for whatever it's worth, Idaho has a little line specifically for sup's in their rule book that if you strap your pfd down to your board it is not readily accessible and therefor not in compliance. Throw it on deck (non inflatable pfd) you are good, but once you throw a bungee around it you are not. I kind of think it is in there because of some debating at some point between users and law enforcers.
That makes a lot of sense. ???  So if it's under a bungee, so it stays on your board but can be pulled out with one hand in a second, that's bad, but if it's lying there so it falls off out of reach as soon as you fall, or gets washed off without you even knowing by the first boat wake, you're great. 

I do think they'd have a point if you strap it down with five yards of duct tape, as I've seen before.


I wonder what they allow if it's in a boat, stuffed under a seat so nobody can see it, behind the beer cooler--fine as long as no bungee?
« Last Edit: February 10, 2018, 12:10:56 PM by pdxmike »

hbsteve

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1701
    • View Profile
Re: pfd ***UPDATE*** California style
« Reply #19 on: February 10, 2018, 01:07:55 PM »
MAYBE, I can answer the tied down question.
One day this week, there were several officers on the Harbor Patrol dock.  So, I stopped to ask a question.
The officer that spoke said that I was okay with my type III strapped under my bungee cord.  He seemed to understand the wash off potential.
An officer in a bad mood could say otherwise.
But, that is like caring, or not, about the pfd being worn backwards.  Everyone I know that has shown they are wearing a pfd have had it backwards and never had a problem. YET.

lucabrasi

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1813
    • View Profile
Re: pfd ***UPDATE*** California style
« Reply #20 on: February 10, 2018, 09:22:12 PM »
I probably shouldn't have said "throw a bungee around it". Here is what it says tho.
The comment about "leash can not be used in lieu of a life jacket" is the line that makes me think there have been people challenging their tickets and I think there is enough vagueness in "strapped" that a bungee might get you a ticket, common sense or not. Some would write you up, some wouldn't and might depend on how their day is going and all that.

Can't find an easier link to post this from.

In the middle of the screen "My boat, What's required"
I clicked out of state. Choose "stand up paddleboard", and "display and print" and the rules will show up on your screen.
https://parksandrecreation.idaho.gov/activities/boating

I found this as well and skimming through there was an interesting thing or few.
http://sca.nasbla.org/2016/05/16/stand-up-paddleboards-leashes-life-jackets-legislation/

photofr

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 771
  • Dakine… fun
    • View Profile
    • Extreme Outdoor Photography
    • Email
Re: pfd ***UPDATE*** California style
« Reply #21 on: February 11, 2018, 01:54:01 AM »
The part about RACING CRAFTS written in law a long time ago may be the best way to get out of it all- as long as that law is still valid in your state.

I know that in Hawaii, that's how we got away with not wearing a vest - for years.

Perhaps the real debate shouldn't be about the law but should be based on circumstances.
Do you want to make a lifeguard wear a PFD and will that really make him more agile to render help to you?
Do you want to wear a leg leash in a river, or would it be better to be without a leash, or at least with a waist leash (with a quick release)?
If you are going to make someone wear a PFD, are you sure that 50, 60 or 70 newtons of buoyancy is gonna be enough?
If you are uncomfortable and/or afraid of the water, should you really wear a 70 newtons PFD and venture 2 miles offshore, with offshore wind?
Should you really paddle with the best PFD on a nice DW, yet not have to put on a leash?
Better yet, how about putting the best PFD and best leash money can buy - to find yourself attaching your leash with a shoelace???
Last one I can think of: has your leash plug gone though testing for reliability? Are you sure?

Blindly passing a PFD law, or blindly using a PFD may help with your safety, but clearly: we have a long way to go. It may all start with education - instead of laws (or dare I say STUPID LAWS)

Nelo SUP - 14' x 23"
Nelo Surfski 560M - 18'4" x 17"

2Rivers

  • Rincon Status
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
    • View Profile
Re: pfd ***UPDATE*** California style
« Reply #22 on: February 14, 2018, 07:47:53 PM »
First of all, you have to be pretty weird to be interested in this stuff...

Thanks for the link to the definitions.  Just so it's handy, I copied what seems to be the whole relevant section below.

The first thing that pops out is that you're right, a SUP is a "vessel", because it is definitely NOT a "recreational boat" because those carry more than 6 passengers.

So the whole email that hbsteve got was wrong, because the person who wrote it didn’t check the definitions, and gave him the regulations for the wrong type of craft.

I'll admit that I'm a bit weird about the PFD laws around here. Where I paddle is commonly in State and County parkways and I often encounter the rangers that are patrolling the launch areas and waterways. I also have some ranger friends that have some mixed interpretations of the established laws. It seems like there's always a new ranger though that has their own perceptions, so being precise and knowing the exact laws has paid off thus far.

So I have to ask where is it defined that a “recreational boat” carries more than six passengers? All it says is that it’s a vessel that’s not engaged in carrying six or fewer passengers like a “boat”, nothing more.
As it’s written it could be interpreted that a “recreational boat” is neither a vessel engaged in carrying six or fewer passengers nor a vessel engaged in carrying more than six passengers and is something completely else. 

Also the Feds and CA have nearly identical definitions for “recreational boats/vessels”…

Under US Section Code 175.3 the definitions are identical to the State’s Section Code 651(d) and (t) when combined. Both also deem “recreational vessels” as vessels for pleasure purposes only, so couldn’t a paddleboard be considered as a “recreational vessel” in this context?

Under US Section Code 175.11/175.11(c) and CA Section Code 6565.3 the PFD requirements are applicable to “recreational vessels” that can be propelled by “paddles”, so couldn’t this be interpreted that a paddleboard is considered as a “recreational vessel” in this context as well?

My point with these questions is to highlight that these “grey” areas are exactly what the authorities are misinterpreting.

Btw, you mentioned that hbsteve got the wrong regulations from the state. I’ve looked into it and there’s only one state regulation within CA’s legislation regarding PFDs (under Title 14) and it’s directed at “boats” and mainly “recreational boats”, not “vessels”.
Nowhere can I find any language and the associated regulations directed at “vessels” such as paddleboards, kayaks, and other watercraft of this type. Even CA's Section Code 6564 only pertains to PFD equipment requirements as prescribed in sections 6565 to 6566 which are also not directed at "vessels".

I should point out that the US Section Code 175.15 would also not be applicable to paddleboarders then if they are not defined the same as a “recreational vessel”. The Feds uses nearly identical language as CA does under Section Code 6565.5 and it's only referencing a “recreational boat/vessel” and the PFD carriage requirements upon them.
Nowhere does it mention the PFD requirements for “vessels” as defined by both the Feds and the State.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2018, 08:36:24 PM by 2Rivers »
King's Type-S 14' | Soul Firestorm 8'9
ZRE Power Surge ZX4 80sq" | Kialoa Big Eddy
Larry Allison Dolphin Keel

pdxmike

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 6186
    • View Profile
Re: pfd ***UPDATE*** California style
« Reply #23 on: February 14, 2018, 09:15:45 PM »
First of all, you have to be pretty weird to be interested in this stuff...

Thanks for the link to the definitions.  Just so it's handy, I copied what seems to be the whole relevant section below.

The first thing that pops out is that you're right, a SUP is a "vessel", because it is definitely NOT a "recreational boat" because those carry more than 6 passengers.

So the whole email that hbsteve got was wrong, because the person who wrote it didn’t check the definitions, and gave him the regulations for the wrong type of craft.

I'll admit that I'm a bit weird about the PFD laws around here. Where I paddle is commonly in State and County parkways and I often encounter the rangers that are patrolling the launch areas and waterways. I also have some ranger friends that have some mixed interpretations of the established laws. It seems like there's always a new ranger though that has their own perceptions, so being precise and knowing the exact laws has paid off thus far.

So I have to ask where is it defined that a “recreational boat” carries more than six passengers? All it says is that it’s a vessel that’s not engaged in carrying six or fewer passengers like a “boat”, nothing more.
As it’s written it could be interpreted that a “recreational boat” is neither a vessel engaged in carrying six or fewer passengers nor a vessel engaged in carrying more than six passengers and is something completely else. 

Also the Feds and CA have nearly identical definitions for “recreational boats/vessels”…

Under US Section Code 175.3 the definitions are identical to the State’s Section Code 651(d) and (t) when combined. Both also deem “recreational vessels” as vessels for pleasure purposes only, so couldn’t a paddleboard be considered as a “recreational vessel” in this context?

Under US Section Code 175.11/175.11(c) and CA Section Code 6565.3 the PFD requirements are applicable to “recreational vessels” that can be propelled by “paddles”, so couldn’t this be interpreted that a paddleboard is considered as a “recreational vessel” in this context as well?

My point with these questions is to highlight that these “grey” areas are exactly what the authorities are misinterpreting.

Btw, you mentioned that hbsteve got the wrong regulations from the state. I’ve looked into it and there’s only one state regulation within CA’s legislation regarding PFDs (under Title 14) and it’s directed at “boats” and mainly “recreational boats”, not “vessels”.
Nowhere can I find any language and the associated regulations directed at “vessels” such as paddleboards, kayaks, and other watercraft of this type. Even CA's Section Code 6564 only pertains to PFD equipment requirements as prescribed in sections 6565 to 6566 which are also not directed at "vessels".

I should point out that the US Section Code 175.15 would also not be applicable to paddleboarders then if they are not defined the same as a “recreational vessel”. The Feds uses nearly identical language as CA does under Section Code 6565.5 and it's only referencing a “recreational boat/vessel” and the PFD carriage requirements upon them.
Nowhere does it mention the PFD requirements for “vessels” as defined by both the Feds and the State.
Don't worry, when I said you have to be weird, remember I've probably got a couple hundred pfd posts on old threads here myself.

Earlier in this thread ( https://www.standupzone.com/forum/index.php/topic,33097.msg372443.html#msg372443 ) I put the code section that says passenger boats are defined as carrying more than six passengers:

§ 6565.2. Definitions.

As used in sections 6565.2 through 6565.8:

(b) “Recreational boat” means any vessel manufactured or used primarily for noncommercial use; or leased, rented, or chartered to another for the latter's noncommercial use. It does not include a vessel engaged in the carrying of six or fewer passengers.


So there is no "gray area" as far as a SUP being considered a "recreational boat"--it can't be because it doesn't meet the code's own definition of one due to not carrying more than 6 passengers.

When I said hbsteve got the wrong regulations from the State, I didn't mean they used the wrong code.  I meant they gave him the correct code's wrong section.  They gave him the rules for "recreational boats" instead of the rules that apply to SUPs, which meet the definitions of vessels and boats (per the link above) but not "recreational boats".


I didn't look up the pfd requirements for "boats" or "vessels" because that exemption for racing equipment (from the link above again) should apply to most SUPs, meaning they don't have to carry any pfds at all.



« Last Edit: February 14, 2018, 09:27:29 PM by pdxmike »

 


SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal