Re: x
To: Massachusetts state reps & senators <br /><br />This petition is to let Massachusetts legislators know that we support House Bill 5019, which would give towns the right to decide for themselves whether to ban polluting personal watercrafts (otherwise known as jet skis) from their own waterways. Currently, the director of the environmental police is the sole person who can decide whether a town has the right to keep these hazardous crafts off their waterways. Towns know their own waterways best, and in most cases are tasked with law enforcement on waters within their town so they should have the right to make this decision themselves. <br /><br />The facts: <br /><br />-The personal watercraft industry has recalled more than 280,000 watercrafts during the past 10 years because of production and design problems with the potential to cause fires and explosions. Problems in tens of thousands of these machines have not been repaired. <br /><br />Item 1:<br />I always thought there were a whole lot more automobiles that had been recalled for reasons as bad or worse than this and I'm sure there are plenty of them still on the road that have have never had repairs made. Hmmmmmmmm, looks like we will have to get a petition for this too.<br /><br />-The Massachusetts Environmental Police has received free loaner personal watercrafts (PWCs) from local watercraft manufacturers. This is a clear conflict of interest.<br /><br />Item 2:<br />So what, Good for them. I wish someone would give me one <br /><br />-The federal government recently determined that PWCs are different from other motorboats and additionally reported that there was substantial evidence proving the damage they cause to air and water quality, visitor enjoyment, public safety, and wildlife. <br /><br />Item 3:<br />Crap, Here we go back to planes, trains and things. Gonna take a heck of a petition for this one.<br /><br />-The National Transportation Safety Board criticized the design of PWCs and recommended that manufacturers implement design changes, such as off-throttle steering and braking. <br /><br />-While operator education helps reduce accidents, the real safety problems are inherent in the craft and their designated use. PWC operator manuals instruct users to allow at least 348 feet -- longer than a football field -- to allow the craft to come to a safe, complete stop. This endangers others on the water. In addition, they have no brakes or off-throttle steering. If you're in their path, and the rider instinctively releases the throttle, the vehicle will not be able to avoid a collision. <br /><br />Item 3:<br /><br />Yup, science has proven it to be true. For every action there has to be an equal opposed reaction. Again a automobile going 60 mph can't stop on a dime either. (here we go again) By the way, don't they have steering on these things.<br /><br />-A 2001 study funded by the U.S. Coast Guard tested a range of PWCs in their ability to avoid an obstacle. The vehicles were operated by an equal number of novice, intermediate, and expert PWC users, with the following findings: <br /><br />At 20 MPH, they were unable to avoid the obstacle 21% of the time <br />At 30 MPH, they were unable to avoid the obstacle 51% of the time <br />At 55 MHP, they were unable to avoid the obstacle 86% of the time <br />At 60 MPH, they were unable to avoid the obstacle 100% of the time <br /><br />Item 4:<br /><br />I wonder if the guys preforming the test were the guys that said just before they got on, (HERE HOLD MY SIGN),<br />Hmmmmm, they didn't mention what distance they had to be able to miss whatever object they were aiming at did they. I've never ridden one of these things but I see a lot of em. And it looks like they could out maneuver anything I've ever owned.<br /><br />-More than 70 percent of PWC accidents are collisions with other vessels. <br /><br />Item 5:<br /><br />What the heck else are you gonna hit out on an open lake, shucks.<br /><br />-Unlike traditional boats, PWCs have no braking mechanism, endangering others on small ponds, lakes, and estuaries. <br /><br />Item 5: <br /><br />I'd like to know what idiot thinks someone will try to ride one of these on a small pond and if they do who else will be there.<br />and the brakes are a lot better than an airplane in the air. Heck, we gotta band airplanes now. There will be no fly zones over every town in Ma now.<br /><br />-The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has confirmed that a single personal watercraft can dump up to 6 gallons of raw fuel into the water in a mere two hours.<br /><br />Item 6: <br /><br />I work on an offshore oil and gas production platform. We produce more than 30,000 barrels of oil per day from this platform alone. These people ain't seen nothing have they. If the chance of spilling a mere 6 gallons of fuel worries them then I guess I'm in big trouble too.<br />Don't get me wrong on this one guys. We don't pollute. We are under strict guidlines and have safety systems that makes Star Trek look ancient. But there is always the possibility of a BFK.<br /> <br /><br />-Manufacturers' claims that direct-injection engines will resolve pollution problems is erroneous. According to the California Environmental Protection Agency, emissions from direct-injection two-stroke engines are still four times higher than four-stroke engines with the same horsepower. <br /><br />Item 7 & 8: <br /><br />Get a life will ya. Tell em what. We will shut down a dozen 18 wheelers. That will probably make up the difference for all the jet skies in the country.<br /><br />-Personal watercraft emit significantly more pollution than equivalent motorboats. The National Marine Maufacturers Association admitted that since PWCs have small engines and operate at higher speeds -- and generally are operated at closer to full throttle -- this results in higher emissions than equivalent motorboats. <br /><br />-Personal watercrafts emit 85 to 105 decibels of sound per unit -- more noise than any motorboat in any speed category. The American Hospital Association recommends hearing protection above 85 decibels.<br /><br />Item 9:<br /><br />85 is all. darn that's not bad. I wish my chain saws and lawn mowers were that low but hey, they do still make hearing protection (for those of us who choose of their own free will to use it)<br /><br />-Personal watercrafts can and often do ride into shallow, remote areas close to shore, wreaking havoc on swimmers and surrounding wildlife. This past summer, a swimmer at Mashpee-Wakeby Pond was critically injured when she was struck by a personal watercraft that was reportedly riding too close to shore.<br /><br />Item 10:<br /><br />I hate to hear of anyone getting run over but it is a great tactic for BS like this. <br />But here we go once more. Trains, planes & things. We got another reason to ban em. Lots more folks get ran over by them than do jet skies. <br /><br />-Some have suggested that more stringent safety rules, such as higher age limits for users, would prevent future injuries. However, U.S. Coast Guard statistics indicate that the largest number of injuries are of people 23 to 29 years old, so raising the age of users will not make the problem go away.<br /><br />Item 11:<br /><br />Maybe they ought to bump the Min age up to 62. That ought to help.<br /> Who do they think they are kidding anyway. <br /><br />Sincerely, <br /><br />The Undersigned <br /><br />You know, This looks real familiar. It seems like the same thing I've been dealing with about firearms for the past many years.<br /><br />Really, I believe that the people that come up with a lot of this stuff really just don't have much to do. Their IQ is probably not that high either. I also believe most of them were raised on concrete and never have been off of if it you get my drift.
<br /><br />So my boat must be untraditional and is also a hazard because I don't have brakes. 
