Journal of Accident Investigation

an adult PFD wear requirement. The survey indicated that
86 percent of the respondents opposed a requirement for adult
boaters to wear PFDs while underway in all boats. When asked for
all the reasons why they would not support such a requirement,
76 percent of the respondents indicated that the skipper can
make the decision, 64 percent indicated that wearing PFDs was
not necessary in all types of boats, and 61 percent indicated that
additional regulations were not necessary. More than a third
indicated that they would boat less if they were required to wear
PFDs while underway. However, in the same survey, 62 percent
of the respondents supported a PFD wear requirement based on
certain types of boats, and 78 percent supported a requirement
that all children 12 and under wear a PFD while underway.
When the organizers of the International Boating and Water
Safety Summit in March 200 surveyed attendees, they found
that 6 percent of the 23 respondents agreed or strongly agreed
that PFDs should be mandatory for those in boats under 22 feet.
Personal choice appeared to be the basis for resistance to any
Federal or State legislation, but was tempered by the realization
that some boating activities are more risky than others and may
require more aggressive action.
Personal choice—whether stated in terms of boat captain
discretion or as freedom of choice—was of primary concern to
many forum participants. Balancing government oversight with
intervention and individual freedom and responsibility was a
common theme, especially in light of the perceived economic
impact of a mandatory PFD requirement on boaters and the
boating industry. Participants were concerned, too, that a
mandatory wear requirement would be difficult to enforce and
would divert limited enforcement resources from potentially
more dangerous boating activities. Forum participants wished to
proceed cautiously on untested policy solutions and not divert
attention from targeted law enforcement, boater education,
and an emphasis on personal responsibility.
Presentations of PFD technology by the Coast Guard and the
Personal Flotation Device Manufacturers Association (PFDMA)
illustrated the wide range of PFDs and the work being done to
improve the comfort and style of PFDs. Options range widely—
from the traditional “lifejacket” style to float coats and suits, and
a variety of water sports-related designs for specific applications.
Of particular interest was the new line of inflatable PFDs that,
according to the presenters, are more comfortable and wearable
(but are not approved for all recreational boating activities,
such as riding a personal watercraft). Forum participants agreed
that most boaters are not aware of the extensive range of PFD
technology that is available.
Although the BOAT/US survey provided some insight into
why boaters do not wear PFDs, there apparently has been no
comprehensive research to date that specifically considers
boater attitudes towards PFD wear or attempts to uncover
factors that would lead to increased PFD wear, especially among
PERSONAL FLOTATION DEVICES IN RECREATIONAL BOATING
boaters in small boats on calm waters where the risks are not
apparent. The personal watercraft experience does provide
some anecdotal evidence showing that, when a mandatory
PFD wear requirement is combined with a concerted effort
by industry to integrate PFDs into all aspects of recreational
boating, resistance to PFD use by adults can be reduced and
compliance increased. The Personal Watercraft Industry
Association (PWIA) presentation illustrated the use of a
marketing model to integrate PFD use into personal watercraft
recreational boating. In that approach, PFD use was promoted
by manufacturers, retailers, and personal watercraft media,
and PFD design and fashion were integrated into the sale of
boats and accessories. Before personal watercraft legislation
was introduced requiring everyone aboard personal watercraft
to wear PFDs, they accounted for a disproportionate number
of recreational boating deaths and injuries. By 2003, all States
had enacted legislation requiring everyone aboard personal
watercraft to wear PFDs. As a result, despite a more than
0 percent increase in the number of registered personal
watercraft from 1997–2003, the number of injuries and the
number of deaths due to drowning and other causes declined
(table ). Further, the rates for drowning, other types of fatalities,
and injuries in accidents per 100,000 registered personal
watercraft in 2003 were less than half those of 1997. The Coast
Guard’s observational study during 1998–2002 found PFD wear
among adults on personal watercraft to be the highest among all
boaters, ranging between 93 to 97 percent.
Forum discussions revealed that much more can be done
by the recreational boating industry. Boat shows often do not
prominently display PFDs, and manufacturers, retailers, and
recreational boating organizations rarely make available boating
safety literature that addresses or advocates PFD use. Only the
personal watercraft industry, and to some extent the paddle
sports industry, have successfully integrated PFD use into the
recreational boating experience.
TAKING ACTION TO IMPROVE ADULT PFD USE
A mandatory PFD wear requirement was not opposed by
all of the forum participants. In its presentation, the Coast
Guard’s National Boating Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC)
stated its concern that the proportion of fatalities resulting
from drowning had not changed. Initially, NBSAC believed
that boater education efforts would positively affect PFD use,
and requested that the Coast Guard coordinate with NASBLA
to develop a program to encourage mandatory safe boating
education. NBSAC also recommended that the Coast Guard
engage in PFD public awareness campaigns targeting specific
risk groups such as hunters, anglers, paddlers, and personal
watercraft operators. Unfortunately, data continue to show
that PFD use has not increased despite these public safety
campaigns. At the forum, NBSAC reiterated its 2003 resolution
NTSB JOURNAL OF ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION, SPRING 2006; VOLUME 2, ISSUE 1 71