Kali's law requires boaters to wear a kill switch lanyard

abc7 ^ | Sept. 1, 2019 | Maria Serrano

[bgill]

A new law requires boat operators to wear an emergency engine cutoff switch or a kill switch lanyard starting Sept. 1, 2019.

So what should you know and how can this affect you?

State Game Warden Shane Lewis told ABC 7, kill switches are just as important as wearing a life jacket, and he's glad now they’re legally required. “I’m actually surprised the law hadn’t been into effect prior to this, it’s a very important law and its going to really improve the safety of boating on the water,” said Lewis. “Let’s say that you were ejected from a boat and you were not wearing that kill switch, your boat could then violently stay in motion depending on the speed that is already set in.”

[bgill]

A friend got his outboard stuck so the boat was going in a tight circle. He jumped out and timed it to swim away before it circled back. Thankfully, he was right beside his dock. Somehow, the boat stayed pretty much in one spot as there wasn’t much current so didn’t hit anything. Circle, circle, circle until it ran out of gas.

[DoughtyOne]

What is it you hope to gain here other than make a compress ass of yourself?

I told you what my perception was. It was obvious I didn’t realize this was addressing an issue in Texas.

I explained why. You can’t accept it.

It would be comical at this point if it wasn’t so pathetic, your refusal to accept reality.

The link at the bottom was there. I didn’t see it. That’s obvious. What more is there to be said?

You’re a person who has been here long enough to know this is not a major issue.

Whether you like it or not, whether you can accept it or not, I was talking about California’s leadership, which we all know is terrible.

Evidently you think the snark is proving you’re a real tigervher. No, it’s just proving you’re acting like a child.

You could have said something like, oh, you were talking about California’s leadership, no this is Texas. I can see why you would say those things about California’s leadership.

Instead you have refused to accept my stated perception as truth, and have tried to charge me for willfully ignoring the was a Texas issue.

Mistaken as I was, it was not an intentional act to besmirch Texas’ leadership.

As I’ve said a number times now, you need to act like an adult and accept my explanation.

[TexasGator]

“You could have said something like, oh, you were talking about California’s leadership, no this is Texas. I can see why you would say those things about California’s leadership.”

I wasn’t responding to your post about CA leadership.

[jaydubya2]

I read the article and it does not say it is a “Texas” State law, so one might assume it is a federal law.

[DoughtyOne]

So what you are saying is that as an adult you couldn’t accept that I didn’t see any mention of Texas on the page.

I specifically mentioned the title, text, and source at the top.

And here we are the next day you still unable to accept a like minded fellow Conservative’s word for it.

[TexasGator]

“So what you are saying is that as an adult you couldn’t accept that I didn’t see any mention of Texas on the page.”

I always accepted that you didn’t see any mention of Texas on the page.

[DoughtyOne]

Then why did you waste both of our time to this point?

[TexasGator]

I didn’t waste your time. You did.

[DoughtyOne]

You poor thing.

You really think that don’t you.

You take a look at your performance on this thread and tell me why you felt it necessary to act like a child throughout.

[TexasGator]

LOL! Check a mirror!

[DoughtyOne]

Okay, lets check a mirror.

Here’s the mirror reflecting your first attempt to ding people for not reading the first line of the article, because it clearly stated the source.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3776080/posts?page=64#64

Here’s the mirror reflecting your second attempt to ding people for not reading the first line of the article, to read the source.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3776080/posts?page=70#70

Here’s the mirror reflecting your first mention of the source link at the bottom of the article.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3776080/posts?page=80#80

So you spent your time trying to get people to link to the article to read the source in the first line, when it was on the thread already, as the source link at the bottom.

So I’m not the only one who didn’t notice the source link at the bottom of the article. You spent from 02:57pm until 04:34 talking about linking to the article as a putdown to others, for making the same mistake you made.

Neither of us noticed the source link at the bottom of the post.

And you’ve been acting the part of a spoiled little brat since.

[Redwood71]

This came right off their site:

https://tpwd.texas.gov/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_bk_l2000_0014.pdf

§ 31.106. Personal Watercraft
(a) No person shall operate a personal watercraft in the following manner or under the following circumstances:
(1) unless each person riding on or towed behind the vessel is wearing a U.S. Coast Guard approved Type I, II, III, or V personal flotation device;
(2) if the vessel is equipped by the manufacturer with a lanyard type engine cutoff switch, unless such lanyard is attached to the person, clothing, or personal flotation device of the operator as appropriate for the vessel involved;

https://tpwd.texas.gov/fishboat/boat/safety/vessel_requirements/

§ 31.1071. Operation Of Motorboat With Emergency Engine Cutoff Switch
(a) In this section, “engine cutoff switch” means an emergency switch installed on a
motorboat that:
(1) is designed to shut off the engine if:
(A) the motorboat operator using a lanyard attachment activates the switch by falling
overboard or otherwise moving beyond the length of the lanyard; or
(B) the motorboat operator or a passenger using a wireless attachment activates the
switch by falling overboard and submerging a man-overboard transmitter; and
(2) attaches:
(A) physically to the motorboat operator through the use of a lanyard worn by the
operator; or
(B) wirelessly through the use of a water-activated man-overboard transmitter worn by
the motorboat operator or any similarly equipped passenger on the motorboat.
(b) A motorboat operator may not operate a motorboat less than 26 feet in length and equipped by the manufacturer with an engine cutoff switch while the motorboat is underway and moving at greater than headway speed without first verifying that the switch is operational and fully functional and properly attaching the lanyard or wireless attachment, as appropriate for the specific motorboat, to the operator s’ body or to the clothing or personal flotation device being
worn by the operator.

https://tpwd.texas.gov/fishboat/boat/safety/vessel_requirements/

Texas law does not require the retrofitting of any vessel that has not come equipped with an ECOS. This does not allow for someone to remove the ECOS if the vessel was originally equipped.

__________________________________________________

So, no boats has to have them even within the size description if they are not installed by the manufacturer. But if they boat has one, it must be installed by the manufacturer and be used.

One person was talking about making and installing one which would not qualify under Texas law. And there is still a lot of misinformation on the web as to the intent and description of the need taken by the state. For the state to put it on their site, is good. But there is confusion out there right now.

rwood

[Redwood71]

Apologise, I missed the intent.

rwood

[Beagle8U]

No problem.

[TexasGator]

“So you spent your time trying to get people to link to the article to read the source in the first line, when it was on the thread already, as the source link at the bottom.”

Wrong.

[rhombus10]

Thanks, Mommy. ;-)

[DoughtyOne]

Let me quote you from an earlier post on the thread.

LOL

Pathetic..

[TexasGator]

You still dont get it!

[DoughtyOne]

Oh I get it just fine.

The projection is a nice touch touch though.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3776080/posts?page=111#111

[TexasGator]

LOL!

“Here’s the mirror reflecting your first attempt to ding people for not reading the first line of the article, because it clearly stated the source.”

That post was to you! Why do you refer to ‘people’, Sal?