More from the west's 2nd-leading Nanny Government; Lifevests for all swimmers

[darin]

King County, Washington, is lead by absolutely ninnies. Worst part is, they represent the 'progressive' (oppressive/fascist) population.

Now - everybody who swims, floats, etc, on ANY river in the county must do so wearing a life-vest.

http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=174&sid=492274

SEATTLE (AP) - A divided King County Council has passed a measure to require all swimmers, floaters and boaters on the county's rivers to wear life vests.

This will change, eventually, to all lakes, too. Then, all swimming pools. eventually? Bathtubs.

[KSigMason]

This is just stupid. I wouldn't wear a lifevest while swimming in the river. Lifevests make it hard to even swim as it constricts movement.

[fj1200]

Lifevests make it hard to even swim...

They do however make it easy to float and not floating is a leading cause of drowning.

[Monkeybone]

Whatever happened to my choice and responsibility for the consequences? ugh! if I don't wanna wear a seat belt that is my problem. If I allow my kids or friends to ride in the back of my pickup truck, my or their problem. If I don't wanna wear a vest, my problem.

[CSM]

They do however make it easy to float and not floating is a leading cause of drowning.

Not true. Floating or not floating is irrelevant; it's the whole breathing water into the lungs thingy that is the leading cause of drowning. They should have made breathing underwater (without the aid of mechanical breathing devices) illegal.

[fj1200]

Not true. Floating or not floating is irrelevant; it's the whole breathing water into the lungs thingy that is the leading cause of drowning. They should have made breathing underwater (without the aid of mechanical breathing devices) illegal.

I defer to you sir. I guess not floating would merely be a contributing factor. They should consult you when drafting future legislation; murder could be eliminated by making it illegal to stand in front of a speeding bullet or thrusting knife.

[Abbey Marie]

Whatever happened to my choice and responsibility for the consequences? ugh! if I don't wanna wear a seat belt that is my problem. If I allow my kids or friends to ride in the back of my pickup truck, my or their problem. If I don't wanna wear a vest, my problem.

If you waive your rights to sue for any injuries, then that's fine.

[Abbey Marie]

King County, Washington, is lead by absolutely ninnies. Worst part is, they represent the 'progressive' (oppressive/fascist) population.

Now - everybody who swims, floats, etc, on ANY river in the county must do so wearing a life-vest.
...
This will change, eventually, to all lakes, too. Then, all swimming pools.
eventually? Bathtubs.

Are there a lot of minorities in this county? (sounds like an oxymoron, doesn't it?)

[LuvRPgrl]

They do however make it easy to float and not floating is a leading cause of drowning.

Too much govt control is the leading cause of dictatorships.

I guess the leaders are worried about being able to swim, like they are swimming in all the debt they have created.

[logroller]

If you waive your rights to sue for any injuries, then that's fine.

Waiving your rights? Only with great trepidation. I live near a very dangerous river, requiring search and rescue operations regularly and claiming multiple lives each year. Understanding the majority occurs among visitors to region; it costs the county inhabitants' tax dollars to provide rescue and recovery services. Of course the city could attempt to collect for the services, but its probably bad PR to sue a bereaved family-- so the county eats it! To protect those interests I can understand the origin and intent of such laws, though I don't readily agree.

[Abbey Marie]

Waiving your rights? Only with great trepidation. I live near a very dangerous river, requiring search and rescue operations regularly and claiming multiple lives each year. Understanding the majority occurs among visitors to region; it costs the county inhabitants' tax dollars to provide rescue and recovery services. Of course the city could attempt to collect for the services, but its probably bad PR to sue a bereaved family-- so the county eats it! To protect those interests I can understand the origin and intent of such laws, though I don't readily agree.

I am not against free choice when it comes to personal safety. But whenever I hear someone say it's their right to drive without a seat belt, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet, I think the same thing: Go for it, but then don't sue someone when you are paralyzed, etc., because you weren't wearing them. Unfortunately, the same people who want to "be free of encumbrances" will attempt to sue the pants off the other driver.

[LuvRPgrl]

I am not against free choice when it comes to personal safety. But whenever I hear someone say it's their right to drive without a seat belt, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet, I think the same thing: Go for it, but then don't sue someone when you are paralyzed, etc., because you weren't wearing them. Unfortunately, the same people who want to "be free of encumbrances" will attempt to sue the pants off the other driver.

I've paid about $50,000 or so in insurance fees and never got a penny back.

[SassyLady]

I've paid about $50,000 or so in insurance fees and never got a penny back.

insurance isn't a savings account

[LuvRPgrl]

insurance isn't a savings account

No kidding, Ive been paying for others to have their cars fixed. I would much rather have those funds in Qualcomm or MSFT stocks.

[Monkeybone]

If you waive your rights to sue for any injuries, then that's fine.

well duh. If something happens and then it is found out that I wasn't taking recomended precautions, then it is my own dumbass fault. Then when that is proven, they can say "so sorry"

I am not against free choice when it comes to personal safety. But whenever I hear someone say it's their right to drive without a seat belt, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet, I think the same thing: Go for it, but then don't sue someone when you are paralyzed, etc., because you weren't wearing them. Unfortunately, the same people who want to "be free of encumbrances" will attempt to sue the pants off the other driver.

it is their right. It should also be the right of the people to say to them " You didn't have (blank) when doing (blank) even though it was recommended that you should. Sorry" In the two post, recommended.. not required. Now, if they are under 18, then by all means make it required. It just comes down to people not wanting to accect responsibility for their actions, and understandable trying to protect stupid people.

But I do know what you mean. those classic people of "I didn't know that pulling the trigger on a loaded gun would without the safety on would make it go off".