Change Is Coming: Mandatory Kill Switch Use

[Bobcat]

From the Hull Truth


I am going to be the bearer of what some will consider bad tidings. Most of you are familiar with the spending bill that was recently passed. This language was contained in the bill. I'll note that this is due to take effect 90 days following the passage of the bill. As time goes on I will keep everyone posted here and as always will be available to answer questions. I may not have answers yet, but after a few meetings with our headquarters team should be able to answer any of them. Go ahead and ask the questions now so that I can get the answers for you in the upcoming meetings.

SEC. 8316. ENGINE CUT-OFF SWITCHES; USE REQUIREMENT.

(a) In General.--Section 4312 of title 46, United States Code, is

amended--

(1) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), and (d) as

subsections (c), (d), and (e), respectively; and

(2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:

``(b) Use Requirement.--

``(1) In general.--An individual operating a covered

recreational vessel shall use an engine cut-off switch link while

operating on plane or above displacement speed.

``(2) Exceptions.--The requirement under paragraph (1) shall

not apply if--

``(A) the main helm of the covered vessel is installed

within an enclosed cabin; or

``(B) the vessel does not have an engine cut-off switch and

is not required to have one under subsection (a).''.

(b) Civil Penalty.--Section 4311 of title 46, United States Code,

is amended by--

(1) redesignating subsections (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g) as

subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h), respectively; and

(2) inserting after subsection (b) the following:

``(c) A person violating section 4312(b) of this title is liable to

the United States Government for a civil penalty of not more than--

``(1) $100 for the first offense;

``(2) $250 for the second offense; and

``(3) $500 for any subsequent offense.''.

(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made in subsections (a) and (b)

shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this

section, unless the Commandant, prior to the date that is 90 days after

the date of the enactment of this section, determines that the use

requirement enacted in subsection (a) would not promote recreational

boating safety.

[Bobcat]

covered recreational vessel
(1) Covered recreational vessel .— The term “covered recreational vessel” means a recreational vessel that is— (A) less than 26 feet overall in length; and (B) capable of developing 115 pounds or more of static thrust.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/46/4312

[Bobcat]

Who here doesn't want the G up Your Ass on everything You do?

[john acosta]

women in power ,the results will only get worse.

the men in office are too scared too not do as told.

[rschap1]

Heard that yesterday too...
You know it is BS when it has to be snuck in and hidden like that.
No way, no how is MORE Gov't a good thing.
For or against, I would rather have it be a choice, a freedom, NOT a law !!!

[MOBILEMERCMAN]

Pretty sure its already law in Texas.

Easy to complain. Guess you guys have never witnessed a boat running around with no operator. Or have a friend nearly killed by his own boat after being thrown out of it.

There are no requirements to operate a boat, there are no requirements to insure a boat. Whats wrong with a rule that would stop a boat running free of operator?

[Ratickle]

Reminds me of the seatbelt laws beginning in some ways.

[Ratickle]

I do hate mandatory government anything pretty much though.

MAybe instead of kill switches they should mandate seats that turn the boat off if you leave your seat. Kind of like a garden tractor or riding lawnmower.....

[MOBILEMERCMAN]

All boats since when ever it was decades ago have the kill switch. Seems like a small ask that you actually use it.

[Ratickle]

Yep, but people who don't wear them is kind of like natural selection thinning the herd, isn't it????

[MOBILEMERCMAN]

That's one way to look at it. Another is your boat gets destroyed, your passengers get hurt, no fault of your own and the person operating the boat that hits you has no liability insurance.
Lucky you.

[fund razor]

That's one way to look at it. Another is your boat gets destroyed, your passengers get hurt, no fault of your own and the person operating the boat that hits you has no liability insurance.
Lucky you.

That person will need health insurance.

[john acosta]

Lanyards for our facemasks will be next.
new laws are fine if they serve the people.


On a serious note .this can only do good.
I have known three different instances where loss of life was due to falling overboard while running in gear(. assumed as no witnesses just a run away boat )

[Bobcat]

It's only for Boats under 27' ...It's a useless Law..I can see it would great Tool for Inland Water Patrol to have one more excuse to Board You.

The USCG doesn't need an excuse.

[john acosta]

of the incidents i know

one 19 footer
one 22 footer
one 24 cat

[Ratickle]

I see no way they can catch you without it if that is your choice. They hang low in the boat, and by the time you get pulled over it is easy to put it on, or say you removed it when you stopped.

Seems like one of those feel good laws with no enforcement possible.

However, if the education is done properly, it may make a lot of people who do not wear theirs now actually put it on?

[john acosta]

all good questions .

i never have owned one ,tho i think i should..

enforcement ? = have the switch hooked to transom light so it flashes rapidly when ignition is on but lanyard is not attached .

and then figure out how to bypass that switch making it not work.

in other words yes you are correct .
no way to enforce it.

soon insurance companies will put it in their policies denying coverage if not attached at time of incident.

then again what % of us are insured boaters ?

[rschap1]

Still amazed that something so unrelated to covid relief gets turned into law in such a underhanded manner.
Like cheating or something...
If it was really felt as a necessary, needed, and wanted LAW; wouldn't it have been done in a transparent manner?

[john acosta]

i totally agree with that .
and there is much more to come of un neccesary restrictions on our freedom