Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Wakesurfing

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Brendan (kybool)      Join Date: Aug 2004       09-30-2005, 11:17 AM Reply   
Can anyone give me the run down on how to do this? I tried searching but didn't find much good info. Not sure if you can start right in off the swimstep without the rope or if you use the rope and kind of back yourself off with the rope in hand.

Thanks
Old    ryde4life            09-30-2005, 11:30 AM Reply   
Don't....it is illegal and not safe!
Old    Brendan (kybool)      Join Date: Aug 2004       09-30-2005, 1:09 PM Reply   
thanks Dad
Old    michale detillion (michale)      Join Date: May 2004       09-30-2005, 3:26 PM Reply   
\Don't do it. it is illegal and not safe,But if you were to do it; stand on the platform with the back of the board in the water Hold on to the rope and keep it tight. place your front foot first and then your back foot where it goes with all your weight on your front foot. Let go of the rope and just start putting more weight on your back foot. You will drop back quick so be ready to lean forward. Now of coarse I have never done it due to the fact it is illegal but I did see Bob Villa do it on this old house right after he stayed at a holiday inn express.
Old    Kevin McGuirk (ktmwakeboarder)      Join Date: Jun 2004       09-30-2005, 3:42 PM Reply   
My friends and I do it a bunch. I did not know it was illegal, but that probably won't stop us in the future. Put essentially all of your weight on your front foot which should be far forward on the board sitting on the deck. The driver gets going, then you shift weight back and you slide back into the wave. It can be abrupt so may take a bunch of tries. It can probably be done w'out the rope if you are a total baller, but seems wayyyyyy hard. Good luck
Old    Brett Fuller (nizzle77)      Join Date: Apr 2005       09-30-2005, 9:57 PM Reply   
I've never done anything but start off of the swimstep.....its nice on those cold days start on the swimstep end on the swimstep....and never get wet....highly recommended!
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       10-01-2005, 7:14 AM Reply   
I am disturbed by this thread. My guess is that I will be ignored or flamed, but to sit and be silent seems more cowardice than valor. At least two of you boys live in California, where since May 1, 2005 it is illegal to have the engine of a boat running while a person is on the swimdeck. If you wish to run the risk of a ticket and fine, that sure isn't my concern. Seems stupid to me, but I did stupid things in my youth also.

What is mostly disconcerting is that your total disregard for the sport and for others that enjoy the sport merely so that you can enjoy some self-absorbed and illegal thrill. It will be someone with a death wish, with a total selfishness, such as the behavior described here, that gets maimed or killed in California and causes the legislature to ban our sport. Or it will be the grieving parents unable to say: my son couldn't take personal responsibility and didn't care about anything or anyone but himself and so wound up dead, but instead say: the sport is TOO dangerous and must be stopped.

There are tons of OTHER illegal and dangerous things you can do that won't affect thousands when you get hurt or die. Don't mess up my enjoyment of a sport because you wish to break some ordinaces. Don't threaten the sport that so many enjoy in a state that is just BEGGING for a reason to ban it.
Old    marc (norcal72)      Join Date: Aug 2005       10-01-2005, 7:38 AM Reply   
couldn't have said it better my self.
Old    justsomeguy            10-01-2005, 8:14 AM Reply   
Wow, that is an incredibly chicken little-esque rant. "cowardice"? "valor"? Phulease...

Please explain the difference, from a safety standpoint (you're the one that claims a risk of death or maiming), of starting from the swim deck vs. wakesurfing a few inches from it.

Thanks.
Old    Tyler McCurdy (tyboarder03)      Join Date: Nov 2003       10-01-2005, 11:34 AM Reply   
good point justsomeguy
Old    marc (norcal72)      Join Date: Aug 2005       10-01-2005, 1:42 PM Reply   
i am no expert in the matter by any means, but if you are surfing a few inches from the deck you are probably doing something wrong. I know at least for myself that riding back aways is quite a bit better.
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       10-01-2005, 7:44 PM Reply   
Dude, it's illegal because it IS dangerous. You were thinking they just picked something at random to make it illegal?

Get informed, each of these talks of the dangers from CO, the attitude we face from the legislature which is dangerous when coupled with the attitude of folks that say: so? The dangers of riding on the swimdeck of a moving boat.

If you need more I have a database of about 550 articles. Knock yourself out.

http://www.dbw.ca.gov/BSRs/2004/

http://www.sierrasun.com/article/20050825/Opinion/108250013/-1/OPINION

http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=D3263F43-5918-4C54-993D-9E482385A091

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/07/18/MN128646.DTL&type=printable

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQK/is_2_10/ai_n13470107

http://www.nmma.org/news/news.asp?id=6814&sid=43

http://www.boatnevada.org/about/news/pr/092704.shtm

http://www.howtowakesurf.com/Swim_Platforms_and_Propellers.jsp

http://safetynet.smis.doi.gov/fae.pdf

http://www.boatpipes.com/Reports/CO_Pregnancy.htm

http://www.boatpipes.com/Reports/Summary%20of%20CO%20fatalities%20and%20injuries.ht m

BILL NUMBER: AB 2222 CHAPTERED
BILL TEXT

CHAPTER 565
FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE SEPTEMBER 17, 2004
APPROVED BY GOVERNOR SEPTEMBER 17, 2004
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY AUGUST 25, 2004
PASSED THE SENATE AUGUST 23, 2004
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 17, 2004
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 15, 2004
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 20, 2004
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 26, 2004
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 12, 2004

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Koretz
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Lieber and Negrete McLeod)
(Coauthor: Senator Soto)

FEBRUARY 18, 2004

An act to add Article 1.5 (commencing with Section 680) to Chapter
5 of Division 3 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, relating to
boating safety.



LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


AB 2222, Koretz. Boating safety.
The Department of Boating and Waterways regulates the operation of
vessels on inland and coastal waters of California. Existing law
makes all money in the Harbors and Watercraft Revolving Fund
available, to pay appropriations for, among other things, boating
safety.
This bill would enact the Anthony Farr and Stacy Beckett Boating
Safety Act of 2004. The act would make it unlawful to operate a
motorized vessel, or have the engine of a motorized vessel run idle,
while someone is teak surfing, platform dragging, or bodysurfing
behind the motorized vessel, or while someone is occupying or holding
onto the swim platform, swim deck, swim step, or swim ladder of the
motorized vessel, as specified. By making a violation of these
provisions an infraction, this bill would create a state-mandated
local program.
The act would specify certain requirements for state-sponsored
boating safety courses, require any new or used motorized vessel,
when sold, to bear warning stickers as to the danger of carbon
monoxide poisoning and boats, and require that certain informational
materials distributed by the Department of Motor Vehicles with
respect to renewals for boat registrations contain similar
information about the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning and boats.
The bill would make these latter 2 requirements regarding warning
stickers and informational materials operative on May 1, 2005.
The bill would permit the Department of Boating and Waterways to
use funds in the Harbors and Watercraft Revolving Fund appropriated
to the department to administer this act and to reimburse the
Department of Motor Vehicles for its costs to administer this act.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:


SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the
following:
(a) Carbon monoxide (CO) is a potentially deadly gas that is
odorless, colorless, and tasteless and is found as a byproduct of
internal combustion engines. CO enters the bloodstream through the
lungs and displaces the oxygen needed by the body with a resulting
hypoxia (suffocating) of body tissues. Symptoms of CO poisoning
include rapid onset of headache, fatigue, nausea, dizziness,
confusion, convulsions, and death.
(b) Marine engines are not subject to the same federal and
state-mandated emission controls as automobiles and therefore have
been able to emit dangerously high CO concentrations into the
atmosphere, increasing the chance of exposure to potentially lethal
amounts of CO.
(c) Federal officials have found that CO can gather in deadly
concentrations behind ski boats, cabin cruisers, and even personal
watercraft due to their propulsion engines.
(d) Dangerous levels of CO are often around swim decks and areas
where occupants frequently sit or swim at the stern of the boat
because the exhaust ports for both propulsion engines and generators
are located nearby.
(e) The new trends of "teak surfing," "platform dragging," or
"bodysurfing" seem to have increased the number of these poisonings.
Victims can be overcome by carbon monoxide in a matter of minutes,
even when monitored by other boat occupants.
(f) The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH) within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
the United States Department of the Interior, and the United States
Coast Guard have studied this issue extensively and have reported
that these poisonings have reached "epidemic proportions."
(g) These agencies have tracked 101 deaths and 402 poisonings
through October 2003, with 34 poisonings in California alone. These
numbers likely underreport the actual number of incidents because
many deaths may be misdiagnosed simply as a drowning.
(h) There is a lack of awareness and knowledge among recreational
boaters of the dangers of CO poisoning, which has resulted in many
deaths and injuries.
(i) Three California families have recently suffered a devastating
loss due to CO poisoning around boats. In May of 2003, 11-year old
Anthony Farr of El Dorado Hills died at Folsom Lake after being
overcome by carbon monoxide while bodysurfing behind a family friend'
s boat. In September of 2001, 62-year old Bruce Allen (Skip) Bauer
died while swimming near his boat at Lake Shasta. In July of 2000,
15-year old Stacy Beckett of Ontario died while platform dragging
behind a boat in Mexico. Many others have lost their lives or have
been poisoned in the same way around the country just in the last
three years.
SEC. 2. It is the intent of the Legislature to do all of the
following:
(a) Educate Californians and raise awareness about the dangers of
carbon monoxide poisoning while boating.
(b) Make it a crime to operate a motorized vessel, or have the
engine of a motorized vessel run idle, when someone is teak surfing,
bodysurfing, or platform dragging behind the motorized vessel, or
when someone is occupying or holding onto the swim platform, swim
deck, swim step, or swim ladder.
(c) Urge manufacturers of motorboats to invest in research and
development to do both of the following:
(1) Reduce the carbon monoxide emissions from their engines as
soon as possible.
(2) Design a motorboat that would better protect boaters from all
CO emissions.
SEC. 3. Article 1.5 (commencing with Section 680) is added to
Chapter 5 of Division 3 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, to read:


Article 1.5. Anthony Farr and Stacy Beckett Boating Safety Act
of 2004

680. This act shall be known as the Anthony Farr and Stacy
Beckett Boating Safety Act of 2004, and may be cited as Anthony and
Stacy's Law.
681. (a) It is unlawful to operate a motorized vessel or have the
engine of a motorized vessel run idle while an individual is teak
surfing, platform dragging, or bodysurfing behind the motorized
vessel.
(b) It is unlawful to operate a motorized vessel or have the
engine of a motorized vessel run idle while an individual is
occupying or holding onto the swim platform, swim deck, swim step, or
swim ladder of the vessel.
(c) Subdivision (b) does not apply when an individual is occupying
the swim platform, swim deck, swim step, or swim ladder for a very
brief period of time while assisting with the docking or departure of
the vessel, while exiting or entering the vessel, or while the
vessel is engaged in law enforcement or emergency rescue activity.
(d) "Teak surfing" or "platform dragging" means holding onto the
swim platform, swim deck, swim step, swim ladder, or any portion of
the exterior of the transom of a motorized vessel for any amount of
time while the motorized vessel is underway at any speed.
(e) "Bodysurfing" means swimming or floating on one's stomach or
on one's back on or in the wake directly behind a motorized vessel
that is underway.
(f) "Vessel" has the same meaning as set forth in subdivision (e)
of Section 775.5.
(g) A violation of this section is an infraction punishable by a
fine of up to one hundred dollars ($100). Nothing in this
subdivision shall be considered in relation to a suspension,
restriction, or delay of driving privileges, or in the determination
of a violation point count as provided in Section 12810 of the
Vehicle Code.
682. All state-sponsored boating safety courses and all boating
safety courses that require state approval by the Department of
Boating and Waterways shall incorporate information about the dangers
of being overcome by carbon monoxide poisoning at the stern of a
motorized vessel and how to prevent that poisoning.
683. (a) When a new or used motorized vessel is sold in
California, the two carbon monoxide poisoning warning stickers
developed by the Department of Boating and Waterways shall be placed
on the motorized vessel. The smaller sticker shall be placed in the
interior of the motorized vessel where it is immediately visible to
the person operating the motorized vessel the larger sticker shall be
placed facing out on the exterior of the stern or transom of the
motorized vessel, unless the motorized vessel is inflatable and the
sticker would not adhere to the surface of the stern.
(b) For a motorized vessel sold by a dealer, the dealer shall
ensure that both warning stickers have been affixed prior to the
completion of the transaction.
(c) For a motorized vessel sold by an individual, both stickers
shall be included by the Department of Motor Vehicles in the new
registration material provided to the new owner, and the new owner of
the motorized vessel shall be notified that he or she is required to
affix the smaller sticker in the interior of the motorized vessel
where it is immediately visible to the operator of the motorized
vessel and the larger sticker facing out on the exterior of the stern
or transom of the motorized vessel, unless the motorized vessel is
inflatable and the sticker would not adhere to the surface of the
stern.
(d) A warning sticker already developed by the boating
manufacturer may satisfy the requirements of this section if it has
been approved in advance by the Department of Boating and Waterways.

(e) This section shall become operative on May 1, 2005.
684. (a) The Department of Motor Vehicles shall insert the
Department of Boating and Waterways' informational brochure and
warning stickers about the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning and
boats into the registration renewal materials mailed by the
Department of Motor Vehicles to vessel owners for two consecutive
two-year registration cycles and, thereafter, upon the recommendation
of the Director of Boating and Waterways. These materials shall
instruct vessel owners to place the two stickers in the motorized
vessel so that the smaller sticker is visible to the person operating
the motorized vessel and the larger sticker is facing out on the
exterior of the stern or transom of the motorized vessel, unless the
motorized vessel is inflatable and the sticker would not adhere to
the surface of the stern.
(b) This section shall become operative on May 1, 2005.
685. The Department of Boating and Waterways pursuant to
subdivision (a) of Section 85.2 may use funds in the Harbors and
Watercraft Revolving Fund, created pursuant to Section 85, to
administer this chapter and to reimburse the Department of Motor
Vehicles for its costs to administer this chapter.
SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution.
Old    justsomeguy            10-01-2005, 8:50 PM Reply   
Are you really so naive that you equate starting from the swimdeck, WHILE STANDING, to teak surfing?

Perhaps you've spent too much time teak surfing and the CO2 fumes have made you more adled than the average bear.

Frankly I'm shocked that anyone who has wakesurfed could possibly compare a start from the swim platform with dumbass teak surfing/body boarding behind a boat.

Sidenote: Hey, the CO2 fumes while pregnant link was REALLY topical.

HERE'S A REVIEW FOR YOU CHICKEN LITTLE:

Teak surfing does not = starting from the swim platform.

This should be patently obvious to any rational adult.

p.s. Marc, many folks that wakesurf work the wake /wave from way back behind the boat to right up to the swimstep, and back out, during many of their sessions.



Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       10-02-2005, 5:58 AM Reply   
It's CO not CO2 as you refer to it, which is indicative isn't it?
Old    justsomeguy            10-02-2005, 8:55 AM Reply   
Yeah, my bad on the OC/CO2 thing. That doesn't change the fact that you're comparing apples and oranges.

What's also telling is that you apparently can't answer the simple question that I posed:

"Are you really so naive that you equate starting from the swimdeck, WHILE STANDING, to teak surfing?"

Starting from the swimdeck is a completely different activity than teak surfing, which your links refer to. "Dangerous levels of CO are often around swim decks and areas where occupants frequently sit or swim at the stern of the boat. " Duh. A swim deck start doesn't involve sitting or swimming at the stern of the boat.

Furthermore, it could even be agrued that a swim deck start complies with the Anthony Farr and Stacy Beckett Boating Safety Act of 2004, specifically 681 "(c)Subdivision (b) does not apply when an individual is occupying the swim platform, swim deck, swim step, or swim ladder for a very brief period of time while assisting with the docking or departure of the vessel, while exiting or entering the vessel,"

Anyway, it's obvious at this point that you originally confused a mundane swim deck start with teak surfing, which is a different, and dangerous, activity.

Hopefully you learned something about what a swim deck start really is and that will prevent you from being chicken little in the future.
Old    Larry Mann (niap101)      Join Date: Jul 2004       10-02-2005, 12:03 PM Reply   
Wow, what a hot topic. I don't want Jeff to feel I'm flaming him, but I felt I needed to weigh in because ya'll are missing some important things here.
1) The Carbon Monoxide levels while standing on a swim deck for a moment are far far less than the cumulative levels attained while sitting in the back of the boat for hours.
2) If you want to platform start, NEVER USE A ROPE. If you fall, it is too easy to become tangled in the rope. Just get in position, shift your weight and do it. If you fall, it is no worse than surfing into the back of the boat. I am sure that almost all beginners surf into the swim platform at least once.
3) It is probably legal in California to platform start as long as you just get back there, get set up, and do it. Like in any sport, hesitation is a bad thing.
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       10-02-2005, 12:18 PM Reply   
Larry, in multiple discussions with the two Sheriff offices and the Legislative Analyst office here in California, once underway, the engine must be off when changing riders in the lake. I have the details at my office with all of the AWA info and the quote is: "The deputies are trained with the following directive: away from the dock, the engine must be off when someone touches the swimdeck." If I am not mistaken, there was a skier down flag that was being distributed by the various Sheriff's offices that was clear about their interpretation of the law. As you know, until tested by a court case the law is available to interpretation by local authorities.

Justsomeguy, thanks for your input. We agree to disagree.




Old    Dennis (dennish)      Join Date: May 2005       10-02-2005, 2:14 PM Reply   
Justsomeguy,
I think that you are missing a very important point. I would think that 99% of the readers on Wakeworld would know the difference between teaksurfing and starting off the swim deck. However, I would also think that 99% of the legislators in California would not know the difference. In California the laws are not written by the posters on Wakeworld rather they are written by people in the legislature that are neither rational nor informed. The original law as proposed would have included a provision to ban any activity within 20 feet from the back of a boat. Fortunately informed people with the proper information convinced them that wakesurfing and teaksurfing were not equally dangerous. Maybe you should look at the bigger picture before going off on someone who is just trying to inform the public on what the law is in the State of California. If you owned property on a lake and they banned wakesurfing because the wakes were destroying the fishing and you went out and did it anyway because “rational” people know that wakesurfing doesn’t destroy the fishing. Well the “rational” rule makers ban all boating over 5 mph. I would think that you would be pretty upset that you are no longer able to do the activity that you love and your financial investment would be for nothing. Think about the other people around that would also be impacted.
I think that the more good information disseminated the better for all of us that do any activity that we love and don’t want restrictions placed it by “rational” politicians who are uninformed.
Flame on folks.
Old    Midwestwakeboarder.com (mjmurphy53711)      Join Date: Mar 2004       10-02-2005, 3:26 PM Reply   
i get the idea of not doing it for the sake of the percieved risk of co, but really......on my boat im surfing the majority of the time with the tip of my board over the swim deck anyways, what is the relative difference?

www.wakecoupons.com
Old    justsomeguy            10-02-2005, 3:59 PM Reply   
"I think that the more good information disseminated the better for all of us"

Sorry, I don't agree that the information that he was disseminating was topical to WAKESURFING. Sure, it was good info about the dangers of teak surfing but it might as well have been info about skin cancer and UV exposure while boating for it's relevance to the question at hand.

I'm still waiting to hear why a swim deck start carries with it the risk of "maiming or death" as claimed above.

Links to numerous articles about the dangers of teak surfing/C0 poisoning don't answer the question.

The hypothetical that 99% of legislators wouldn't know the difference between wakesurfing and teak surfing is irrelevant since one would expect someone posting as "surfdad" to know the difference, yet posted as if he is one of the clueless legislators.
Old    Dennis (dennish)      Join Date: May 2005       10-02-2005, 6:19 PM Reply   
Justsomeguy, What you missed was the fact that the California Legislature tried to ban wakesurfing but did not because a group that has not only a financial interest in seeing the sport continues but a love of the sport brought the data that convinced them not to ban wakesurfing also. The risk of maiming or death is possible in a swim deck start. It might not happen once you learn how but could occur from rope entanglement, falling into the swim deck or such. It doesn't only mean from body part into prop which would be remote. Prolonged exposure to CO from repeated attempts could pose a health risk a shown in numerous studies as cited.
The information about the illegality in Ca about starting from the swim deck is important information for someone who doesn't know the law. This would be very good information topical to wakesurfing. IMO I am sure that the parents of the kids killed while teaksurfing whould have appreciated the information above. Their children's deaths almost cost Californian's the ability to legally wakesurf. I think any discussion about CO and wakesurfing in CA will always find it's roots in those teaksurfing deaths. I'm not sure if you are new to Wakeworld or just hiding from your other posts as a new username but if you would read some of the other post in this section you would know for a fact that "surfdad" knows fully well the difference between wakesurfing and teaksurfing.
Old    justsomeguy            10-02-2005, 8:37 PM Reply   
"I'm not sure if you are new to Wakeworld or just hiding from your other posts as a new username but if you would read some of the other post in this section you would know for a fact that "surfdad" knows fully well the difference between wakesurfing and teaksurfing."

"hiding from your other posts as a new username"? You have to be kidding me. What a silly thing to post. This is my only username on wakeboarding/wakesurfing boards.

If "surfdad" truly knows the difference then his posts are incredibly disengenuous. Which is worse than being ignorant.

Teaksurfing does not = swim deck starts so why make specious claims and then try to equate the two activities?

"Prolonged exposure to CO from repeated attempts could pose a health risk a shown in numerous studies as cited"

Bull$h|t. That's merely your inference and the studies do not support your hypothesis. To claim that repeated swim deck starts WHILE STANDING are equivelent to teak surfing (LAYING IN THE WATER FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME DIRECTLY BEHIND THE BOAT HUFFING EXHAUST FUMES) is ludicrous.

To put things in perspective, there were 43 CO poisonings between 1990 and 2004 in CA.

How you chicken littles make the jump to swim deck starts being so risky (and self-absorbed...) that one is liable to be maimed or kill is incredibly paranoid, to a rational adult.

Old    lilredrider            10-02-2005, 8:51 PM Reply   
OK, here's something. The whole law seems centered around CO and not other issues such as prop impact, swim platform impact or rope entanglement. So what if you have a system installed such as the fresh air system?

Thank God I don't live in California where the hand wringing politicians strive to protect us from ourselves. Of course here in CT, it's not much better and someone did die from teak surfing last year. I heard the cops were ticketing for reckless endangerment for wake surfing. Geez. Education on the dangers is fine and good, but I say ban the banners.

BTW, my second start was a swim platform start. As a test, I tried to touch the prop with my feet (with the motor off, duh) and was able to by pretty much full extension with hands on platform (I'm 6' 4" tall), but my guess is that if the boat was underway, that would be hard to do. Should we ban trees at ski resorts too? Nuff said.
Old    Dennis (dennish)      Join Date: May 2005       10-02-2005, 10:40 PM Reply   
Wakesurfing to teaksurfing was linked by the Ca Legislature not anyone here. The law is what starting from the swim deck is in violation of not Wakeworld discussion group. I for one don't want to give any ammunition to law makers to change the way the law is presently written. I never claimed that the studies showed standing on the swim deck was equal to teaksurfing. My point was that in the DOI study http://safetynet.smis.doi.gov/fae.pdf
the CO levels at the stern of the boat when not moving was 549 ppm well over the NIOSH REL limit of 200ppm. At 5mph the exposure was 1137 ppm. After leaving the boat the levels drop of to a mean of 17ppm while wakeboarding. I don't believe that the study checking for teaksurfing levels which we all agree would be high hence illegal. As far as the total CO deaths it only took 2 to almost ban wakesurfing.
If you want to continue to start from the swimdeck go ahead just let others be informed totally before trying it.
Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       10-03-2005, 5:37 AM Reply   
Wow, what an interesting set of posts. I think the common ground through all of this is that no one wants "the man" dictating what we will do behind the boat.

Dennis, you get goofy wave props and time behind the boat for all your support and effort. :-)

Bill, sssshhhhhhhhhh don't give the legislature any ideas about trees! :-) I think folks that don't live in California have NO IDEA how regulated we are here. We have a full time legislature with nothing to do BUT make laws. You can travel out of California and it's not uncommon for the legislature to hold session only for a few weeks out of the year.

Justsomeguy, please quit with the name calling and attacks on personal character, as you admit you know nothing about the folks you are talking to, it doesn't help and takes away from the dialog at hand. You have excellent ideas, and I think it's GOOD for folks to hear them, but it's hard to take you seriously when you are being direspectful towards folks that disagree with your position. Plus, Dude, all of us here REALLY are the good guys.

All of this argument amongst ourselves is really moot. As Dennis pointed out, unless one of us is a member of the legislature we're just throwing rocks at our own. If you can imagine that we have THIS much disagreement amongst "US" do you think the layperson is going to have a clue? I'd guess not. Guess what the lawmakers do here in California? They regulate to protect ourselves from ourselves. We have helmet laws for motorcyclists, despite the incredible efforts of ABATE, one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the US. We wakesurfers have NOTHING! It was only the efforts of Rick Lee the owner of Centurion, and a handful of others, that prevented the legislature from banning wakesurfing not very long ago.

My only point through all of this is be proactive, don't allow the uninformed or the actions of a few take our sport away from us.

Toward that end. If there is anyone that fully believes that swimdeck starts are the next best thing to sliced bread, write up a request, get a recognized safety expert to comment positively and I will have it submitted to the National Boating Safety Advisory Council and the National Association of State Boating Law Adminstrators for an endorsement that swimstep starts are "blessed". I will even take that forward to the State of California in an attempt to insure it is clearly written into law. I will help stage an instance of Civil Disobedience (if need be), although NOT be the law breaker, and we can no doubt get the ACLU to defend the position.

What say folks? Shall we come together rather than tossing out hatreds which serve no purpose?

It's all good in the hood. :-)
Old    Dennis (dennish)      Join Date: May 2005       10-03-2005, 6:50 AM Reply   
AMEN
Old    justsomeguy            10-03-2005, 8:16 AM Reply   
Dennis, you're correct, you never claimed that swim deck starts = teak surfing. It was your pal Jeff who made those claims in this thread despite the fact that the activities are vastly different.

I think part of being "totally informed" is to acknowledge the difference between the two activities and to paint a realistic picture of the risks from a swim deck start, rather than a simplistic "don't do it because you'll get maimed or killed due to CO poisoning." Heck, even the study that you linked points out the HUGE difference in CO levels as the height above the water increases and the distance from the swim deck grows.

Jeff, "Justsomeguy, please quit with the name calling and attacks on personal character,"

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Perhaps you should read your posts again, lest your hypocrisy make you look even more foolish.

See: "stupid," "self-absorbed," and "selfish"

Have fun on the water.

Old    Jeff Walker (surfdad)      Join Date: Sep 2004       10-03-2005, 8:58 AM Reply   
So, I guess I am hearing you have no interest in resolving the issue? I have...I don't know, several hundred additional articles in that database I referred to above, that make clearer references to the issue. I don't remember making the projection, of teaksurfing = wakesurfing, it certainly feels like you did. Send me your name, address and a telephone number and I'll burn a CD with the relevant issues for your review. You sure you'd not be interested in getting a recognized expert to proclaim swimstep starts are "golden"? It certainly would put this whole issue to rest.
Old    justsomeguy            10-03-2005, 9:16 AM Reply   
" I don't remember making the projection, of teaksurfing = wakesurfing,"

Let's see if we can follow the bouncing ball here:

-You claim that swim deck starts carry a risk of maiming and death as well as being self-absorbed and illegal.

-When asked to clarify, you reply "Dude, it's illegal because it IS dangerous. You were thinking they just picked something at random to make it illegal?" and then post numerous links to CO poisoning due to teak surfing as well as the legislation that bans teak surfing.

If you don't think that Wakesurfing swim step starts carry the same risks that teak surfing do, then well did you respond as you did?

As far as "resolving the issue" a bunch of posts on Wakeworld, and a bunch of links regarding CO poisoning and teak surfing aren't going to settle the difference in opinion about wakesurfing. Merely countering the chicken little posts with a less paranoid analysis should help folks weigh the risks associated with wakesurfing and swim deck starts.

Old    Midwestwakeboarder.com (mjmurphy53711)      Join Date: Mar 2004       10-03-2005, 10:22 AM Reply   
wasnt this post supposed to be about how to do it? start another post on why or why not.

sheesh, i wanted some advice too.

www.wakecoupons.com
Old    02xrider            10-03-2005, 10:23 AM Reply   
Hey SurfDad, Thanks for all of the time and effort you have put into keeping the sport of wakesurfing alive.
No matter what we say or do, some people will never comprehend the extent or damage of their singular actions. This is why the legislature passes all of the laws "to protect ourselves from ourselves". The laws are passed to protect the lowest common denominator--the ignorant!

Again, thank you Jeff.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:06 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us