My fave part of it is the extensive research taken into it, never mind so many of those wave riding at popular offshore reefbreaks will be breaking the law. It's a nanny state law for the lowest common denominator with clearly no thought, research or care about anyone else.
www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/kite-and-wind-surfers-forced-to-wear-life-jackets-20140802-zzr1j.html
"There have actually been some deaths of kite surfers. For them a life jacket is a life preserver" "but we don't have official records because until now kite surfing was not recognised as a marine activity." legit!
Select to expand quotedusta said..
you even admit that DOT has said that . Then read what darren has stated .
These laws have been on the cards for years . It was going to happen with or without consultation between WWA and WAKSA and DOT . DOT have made up their own mind on what is the required level of safety gear . That level was not endorsed by either WWA or WAKSA as it says so in the statemement on the waksa page or WWA's tumblr page .
WAKSA had given their suggestion on safety gear but this has obviously not been listened to . Also bear in mind blackbeard that this announcement has alot of errors in it , so don't go on the offensive about alerting members when even WAKSA or WWA had no idea this was being announced on friday .
like others have said the only way you are going to get fined if you try and corss from rotto to the mainland with no gear or get rescued a couple of k's out to sea and have no safety gear with you , otherwise it's business as usual as DOT does not even have enough resources to patrol one beach let alone the entire metro area .
hmmmm so who's telling the truth WAKSA or DOT?
At the end of the day WWA and WAKSA were just giving their opinion . DOT doesn't have to listen to either body . Stop being an idiot blackbeard . Use your noggin and realise that this law, while stupid will never be enforced .
Or better yet how about you join the waksa committee and help fight this law.
The hysteria over this is laughable .
So does WAKSA endorse this or is DOT making false claims of WAKSA endorsing it DUSTA seeing as tho you know everything?
Select to expand quotelaurie said...
I think the 400m rule requiring life jackets has already been there, so some people might be experiencing a bit of histeria/knee jerk reaction.
Probably won't affect 99.9% of kiters, and hopefully (hopefully!) there are exclusions for particular wave spots.
Surprised at how quick you guys are to point the finger at WAKSA?
WAKSA have a fantastic history of helping kiters. They have done more to save spots & keep access open than anybody. Have some faith people. 
Hmmmmmmmmm
All sounding a little bit politically correct there Laurie. I think what members need to hear are statements from organizations like waksa saying what input they have had (if any) or what objections they raised. People like waksa should be pointing out the difference between kiting and say...... Boating which is where these regulations originated.
Have faith you say?
Faith by very definition is the denial of all observation and evidence so that beliefs can be preserved!
Don't want to wee on your fire Laurie, but political correctness never succeeds when following majority rules. We need the kiting equivalent of Che Guevara to come along and 'force' sense into maritime authorities. Not saying we shouldn't have safety gear etc..... As long as it's gear that is 'designed' for the sport. Most of the safety gear available off the shelf which would actually keep you inside the law would actually be dangerous in a kiting application.
Wouldn't it be the most horrible thing to have to have fellow kiters injured or worse just to show that compliant 'safety' gear may actually be the exact opposite for our sport.
Select to expand quoteparrotdroppings said..laurie said...
I think the 400m rule requiring life jackets has already been there, so some people might be experiencing a bit of histeria/knee jerk reaction.
Probably won't affect 99.9% of kiters, and hopefully (hopefully!) there are exclusions for particular wave spots.
Surprised at how quick you guys are to point the finger at WAKSA?
WAKSA have a fantastic history of helping kiters. They have done more to save spots & keep access open than anybody. Have some faith people.
Hmmmmmmmmm
All sounding a little bit politically correct there Laurie. I think what members need to hear are statements from organizations like waksa saying what input they have had (if any) or what objections they raised. People like waksa should be pointing out the difference between kiting and say...... Boating which is where these regulations originated.
Have faith you say?
Faith by very definition is the denial of all observation and evidence so that beliefs can be preserved!
Don't want to wee on your fire Laurie, but political correctness never succeeds when following majority rules. We need the kiting equivalent of Che Guevara to come along and 'force' sense into maritime authorities. Not saying we shouldn't have safety gear etc..... As long as it's gear that is 'designed' for the sport. Most of the safety gear available off the shelf which would actually keep you inside the law would actually be dangerous in a kiting application.
Wouldn't it be the most horrible thing to have to have fellow kiters injured or worse just to show that compliant 'safety' gear may actually be the exact opposite for our sport.
My comment was about people attacking a volunteer organisation, and assuming they were out to harm kitesurfing.
If you've got real info, then share it, or seek it, but don't think it right to drag somebody through the mud if you're simply guessing (or assuming) about what has happened.
If you'd like to change DoT policy then anyone of us can choose to do that by either going direct to DoT, or by emailing WAKSA & offering to help.
Perhaps you can be that person that takes it on & gets the rule tossed out?
Select to expand quotelaurie said...parrotdroppings said..laurie said...
I think the 400m rule requiring life jackets has already been there, so some people might be experiencing a bit of histeria/knee jerk reaction.
Probably won't affect 99.9% of kiters, and hopefully (hopefully!) there are exclusions for particular wave spots.
Surprised at how quick you guys are to point the finger at WAKSA?
WAKSA have a fantastic history of helping kiters. They have done more to save spots & keep access open than anybody. Have some faith people.
Hmmmmmmmmm
All sounding a little bit politically correct there Laurie. I think what members need to hear are statements from organizations like waksa saying what input they have had (if any) or what objections they raised. People like waksa should be pointing out the difference between kiting and say...... Boating which is where these regulations originated.
Have faith you say?
Faith by very definition is the denial of all observation and evidence so that beliefs can be preserved!
Don't want to wee on your fire Laurie, but political correctness never succeeds when following majority rules. We need the kiting equivalent of Che Guevara to come along and 'force' sense into maritime authorities. Not saying we shouldn't have safety gear etc..... As long as it's gear that is 'designed' for the sport. Most of the safety gear available off the shelf which would actually keep you inside the law would actually be dangerous in a kiting application.
Wouldn't it be the most horrible thing to have to have fellow kiters injured or worse just to show that compliant 'safety' gear may actually be the exact opposite for our sport.
My comment was about people attacking a volunteer organisation, and assuming they were out to harm kitesurfing.
If you've got real info, then share it, or seek it, but don't think it right to drag somebody through the mud if you're simply guessing (or assuming) about what has happened.
If you'd like to change DoT policy then anyone of us can choose to do that by either going direct to DoT, or by emailing WAKSA & offering to help.
Perhaps you can be that person that takes it on & gets the rule tossed out?
I get your point and agree that one shouldn't point fingers at volunteer organizations that on the whole do good work!
Will this effect me? Not really, I use a seat harness because I have a bad back.
BUT......
The point I make is a lot of people on here who are a lot more experienced than me are pointing out that general PDF's (for the boating demographic) which is where these rules are coming from are actually more dangerous because of the nature of our sport.
Point being in short that an organization volunteer or not should:
1 - stand up for the rights of its members
2 - make it clear that 1 rule doesn't blanket cover every water sport
3 - rather than post a link of new legislation, should in fact inform it's members of any negotiations it has had or objections it has raised with the governing body.
There is no blanket answer for the PFD issue unless kite brands release something that will work for our sport and harness types and have it approved.
If an organization be it waksa or other doesn't raise objections (successful or not) regarding legislation that just doesn't work for its members what exactly is the point of it existing?
If there was an organization that stood for the common sense and safety and freedom of our sport and publicized it's negotiations and objections with marine authorities I would happily join and proudly pay my money knowing that they (again successful or not) are at least being heard to object to blanket marine rules that just don't work for our sport.
I merely point out that the politically correct path is never going to get a very small minority (in comparison to other water users) anywhere. Waksa need to be at least seen to be vocal in this issue so that when something goes wrong due to the type of PFD's being proposed for our sport which are not compatible (and something will go wrong) then at least they (waksa) can say "we told the DOT this would happen, will you at least listen to us (the actual participants in this sport) now?"
Organizations NEED to stand up and be counted for their members.
Agree don't finger point, but yes do hold to account!
Select to expand quoteparrotdroppings said..
laurie said...
parrotdroppings said..
laurie said...
I think the 400m rule requiring life jackets has already been there, so some people might be experiencing a bit of histeria/knee jerk reaction.
Probably won't affect 99.9% of kiters, and hopefully (hopefully!) there are exclusions for particular wave spots.
Surprised at how quick you guys are to point the finger at WAKSA?
WAKSA have a fantastic history of helping kiters. They have done more to save spots & keep access open than anybody. Have some faith people.
Hmmmmmmmmm
All sounding a little bit politically correct there Laurie. I think what members need to hear are statements from organizations like waksa saying what input they have had (if any) or what objections they raised. People like waksa should be pointing out the difference between kiting and say...... Boating which is where these regulations originated.
Have faith you say?
Faith by very definition is the denial of all observation and evidence so that beliefs can be preserved!
Don't want to wee on your fire Laurie, but political correctness never succeeds when following majority rules. We need the kiting equivalent of Che Guevara to come along and 'force' sense into maritime authorities. Not saying we shouldn't have safety gear etc..... As long as it's gear that is 'designed' for the sport. Most of the safety gear available off the shelf which would actually keep you inside the law would actually be dangerous in a kiting application.
Wouldn't it be the most horrible thing to have to have fellow kiters injured or worse just to show that compliant 'safety' gear may actually be the exact opposite for our sport.
My comment was about people attacking a volunteer organisation, and assuming they were out to harm kitesurfing.
If you've got real info, then share it, or seek it, but don't think it right to drag somebody through the mud if you're simply guessing (or assuming) about what has happened.
If you'd like to change DoT policy then anyone of us can choose to do that by either going direct to DoT, or by emailing WAKSA & offering to help.
Perhaps you can be that person that takes it on & gets the rule tossed out?
I get your point and agree that one shouldn't point fingers at volunteer organizations that on the whole do good work!
Will this effect me? Not really, I use a seat harness because I have a bad back.
BUT......
The point I make is a lot of people on here who are a lot more experienced than me are pointing out that general PDF's (for the boating demographic) which is where these rules are coming from are actually more dangerous because of the nature of our sport.
Point being in short that an organization volunteer or not should:
1 - stand up for the rights of its members
2 - make it clear that 1 rule doesn't blanket cover every water sport
3 - rather than post a link of new legislation, should in fact inform it's members of any negotiations it has had or objections it has raised with the governing body.
There is no blanket answer for the PFD issue unless kite brands release something that will work for our sport and harness types and have it approved.
If an organization be it waksa or other doesn't raise objections (successful or not) regarding legislation that just doesn't work for its members what exactly is the point of it existing?
If there was an organization that stood for the common sense and safety and freedom of our sport and publicized it's negotiations and objections with marine authorities I would happily join and proudly pay my money knowing that they (again successful or not) are at least being heard to object to blanket marine rules that just don't work for our sport.
I merely point out that the politically correct path is never going to get a very small minority (in comparison to other water users) anywhere. Waksa need to be at least seen to be vocal in this issue so that when something goes wrong due to the type of PFD's being proposed for our sport which are not compatible (and something will go wrong) then at least they (waksa) can say "we told the DOT this would happen, will you at least listen to us (the actual participants in this sport) now?"
Organizations NEED to stand up and be counted for their members.
Agree don't finger point, but yes do hold to account!
How the f@ck would you know if someone did or didn't stand up for the kiters if you are not on the committee, don't attend agm's and basically have no f$cking idea what you are talking about ?
It really pisses me off the whinging and finger pointing at waksa when not one of you dip****s have offered to join the committee and help fight this law. All to easy to just point the finger at WAKSA .
type 2 and type 3 are compatible with kiting , you with a seat harness especially . NPX make one with a harness hook .
SH!ts me
If you want to attack waksa pay more membership fees and make the committee paid members, then you would have something to bitch about . Until then join the committee and the more hands the more that can be achieved .
Dusta:
I don't want to hit a nerve with you here but I fear I will.
I'll also make it short and sweet.
You've illustrated my point exactly.
How would I know if wakes a have done a thing.
Exactly!!!
They haven't released any information apart from the DOT link. That's sort of exactly the point I was making.
I'm sorry I hit a nerve with you, but you may have to go back and re-read my last post and see how many times I refer to the sharing of information.
^^^ Fair call and the point I was trying to make also.
FYI Dusta I have offered to join WASKA committee to offer to represent my local area however they were not really interested as my area doesn't have a very big membership base of which I have also tried to boost. Sorry if this offends you!
WA Today
This person clearly needs educating about kitesurfing.
_____________________________________________________________
I might have missed it, but it is pretty lame if anyone knew that this was in process and didn't take the opportunity to announce it here to enable submissions from the more general kiting population regardless of affiliation.
I am going to suggest adding at minimum "unless in the active persuit of waveriding". I'd wait to see stats on offshore kite rescues before I commented on the rest. I know of no offshore drownings in WA ever while kiting as a result of no life jacket.
If you have constructive criticism of the regulations please email DOT (marine.safety@transport.wa.gov.au) and remember these regulations have essentially existed for the last few years for "sailboarders" (definition now includes kites) so construct your argument around that. AND BE CAREFUL not to suggest anything that will lead to more regulation (helmets,etc.).
There has been significant commentary on SB over the past couple of weeks since the Dep’t of Transport released the news that some kiters may need to wear PFD’s & carry other equipment with them if kiting more than 400m offshore. I would have posted this in a more timely manner but the first posts emerged whilst I was kiting in Indonesia, hence the delay.
In order to hopefully clarify some of the inaccuracies in some of the comments here, I posting this to provide some historical background and perspective on the issue(s). In doing so, I am reporting this history based on my attending meetings and discussions with Dep’t of Transport whilst I was WAKSA president for seasons 2010/11 & 2011/12.
History:
DoT initiated discussions with WAKSA during 2011 as the dep’t wanted to make amendments to the Navigable Waters Regulations. DoT had received a number of complaints about kitesurfing/boarding (both on the river & the ocean), and had realised at that time there was no regulatory basis for kiting to be banned/restricted because the Regs did not actually include/list kitesurfing/boarding as an aquatic activity that could be ‘managed’ by the department as such. As an example of the types of complaints DoT had received that led to the realisation that kiting was not covered by the regs, complaints from Melville Beach Road residents & various bird watching groups were listed as the sources of specific complaints.
The WAKSA committee agreed to participate in discussions on the basis that it was better to be influencing the decision makers as best we could, to ensure decisions were made on an informed basis, rather than by departmental staff with no understanding of the sport. During the course of the ‘discussions’ Transport indicated that PFD’s were also on their agenda, so that there would be a consistent approach taken for both windsurfing requirements and kiting requirements, given that the Regs at that time, clearly outlined that windsurfers going more than 400m offshore were required to wear an appropriate PFD.
WAKSA indicated very clearly that PFDs were not going to be necessary for the majority of kiters, and would be seen as overkill in the majority of cases. DoT was advised that this decision was not going to be popular within the kiting community. Despite WAKSA proposing alternative distances (initially 750m offshore, subsequently 500m offshore) over the course of discussions, meetings & email exchanges, it was, and remains my opinion that that Transport had pre-determined what they wanted, and what the outcome was going to be, regardless of any external input into the process. The alternative offshore distances were not accepted as DoT didn’t want one set of rules for windsurfing, and another for kitesurfing. It was also discussed that PFDs were not appropriate in certain situations such as wave riding etc.
[UPDATED @ 11.35am] - Discussions about EPIRBS & flares were 'difficult' to say the least - at the time, I recall telling Transport that this was overkill, but in light of what I say below re: Safety & offshore kiting, it's difficult now, not to acknowledge them, but only in the context of "offshore" kiting.
In these meetings, DoT advice indicated that as a ‘rule of thumb’ measure, that 400m was approximately the location of the yellow shark monitoring buoys off most Perth beaches & that those buoys could be used to judge that distance. I cannot comment on whether or not those buoys are still roughly 400m offshore.
A number of commentators on the various threads have mentioned that WAKSA has not advised of this news – I do not accept that as in both reports made at the WAKSA AGMs in 2011 & 2012 I brought up this information in the context of what work WAKSA had done/was doing over the course of the previous year. The Reg changes simply weren’t finalised by the time my term expired.
The kicker in Transport's argument:
Despite advocating our concerns about some of the practicalities of these Reg changes, it was clear that Transport had an outcome in mind. And there is one real, actual argument that cannot IMO be reasonably argued against – safety.
How many kiters actually go “offshore” on a regular basis? I’d argue that it’s a particularly small niche of kiters who regularly go “out to sea”. If a PDF & flares are a requirement for Lighthouse to Leighton, is it not at least, common sense for an individual doing a similar distance/style of kiting to be prepared appropriately?
Let’s say a kiter choses to go “offshore” (let’s say 2km) and experiences a gear failure, should that kiter have been appropriately prepared? We can all talk up the importance of being able to swim a certain distance but there’s no actual obligation to be able to swim 400m let alone 2km if there’s a gear failure. Sure, we should all know how to do a deep water pack down, but again ‘should know’ how v ‘can do’ are two different things. In a situation like this, those pain in the backside PFD & flares however would make the difference.
Certainly, many of the formula race board crew go offshore, but in my experience, those guys actually prepare for that distance & usually wear some type of PFD just in case something goes wrong.
Picture this unlikely but possible scenario: kiter goes 2km offshore, no PFD, gear malfunction; no signal equipment; and unfortunately, drowns. Imagine the general public/media/government/kiting community backlash if there were no appropriate safety standards, and if the sports’ representative body had argued against “safety” equipment for this type of kiting. It’s not a particularly exciting image that comes to mind is it?
I can't count the number of threads we've all read on SB about 'safety' - kiters coming too close to the beach; too close to swimmers; too close to boats; too fast etc. As kiters, who honestly isn't interested in safe kiting, and kiting safely? Is it safe to kite 2km offshore for example, without appropriate gear? If someone has an answer to that question starting with "Yes", please advise?
In saying this, IMO Transport has been massively inaccurate in their recent media comments about these new Regs. We all know there have been deaths in the sport, but those deaths have NOT been related to drowning’s, and the reliance on those deaths to justify the Reg changes is misleading in the extreme.
Of course, the usual naysayers are going to complain loud & long about the fact that WAKSA didn’t or couldn’t achieve a pro-kiter outcome, but those voices don’t want WAKSA doing anything on behalf of kiters. Absolutely, I was disappointed that I couldn’t deliver a better result on behalf of the members and the sport. Despite the outcome, I am of the view that it’s better to be inside the tent pissing out, than not consulted at all. To the naysayers, what would you suggest as an alternative – refuse to participate in the process & still get upset at this outcome?
I am prepared for the criticism for not being able to deliver a better result is going to bring, and the criticism this post will inevitably also bring (flame suit is freshly washed & ironed). 
Some Perspective:
So where do these changes leave us now? Perhaps it’s worth thinking about these issues:
1) These changes only apply if you go beyond 400m.
2) Does anyone know of a windsurfer actually being charged by Transport for being more than 400m offshore without a PFD?
3) These changes aren’t going to have an impact on comps (as someone has suggested) - when was the last time a wave comp or freestyle comp was held that far off shore?
4) And here’s the actual fundamental practical outcome - departmental resourcing – do we actually think that they have the resources to have one boat off every beach every day of the season to issue warnings or tickets if Johnny Kiter (or Jenny Kiter) does a tack out to 500m? However, if Johnny or Jenny Kiter decides on a whim (and doesn’t have appropriate gear with him/her) and goes out 2km, and experiences a gear failure, gets rescued & gets a warning or ticket, IMO it might not be an unreasonable outcome.
I am hoping that this post will shed some light on how things got to where they are now.
Juddy
"AND BE CAREFUL not to suggest anything that will lead to more regulation (helmets,etc.)."
god help us. but u gotta b prepared for fwits, and that is why they should not be making laws that will make kiters at many wave locations breaking the law, cos that is the exact kind of thing fwits try and go after because they got nothing better to do with their sad lives - don't create laws that are not needed or that put riders at risk of breaking them. If people want to wear a lifejacket cool, but to tell experienced kiters to wear a lifejacket/flare/epirb in the waves is beyond a joke - regardless if it is enforced or not - because any fwit member of the public will be able to enfoce it.
Many waveriding spots in WA involve being further out than 400m.
Nothing wrong with some buoyancy in big waves - eg wetsuit/ impact vest even - but we need to be able to judge for ourselves using our own kitesurfing experience.
Potential problems -
Flares going off next to our bodies and burning up - we can crash very ghard from high up
Where to store flares epirb - extra cost - more risk of lines tangling on up - kite dragging us
Affordability of epirb - useless in waves anyway - epirbs cannot transmit through water and if ever tred getting to a hook knife u know it is probably going to be too late - you gotta get into action dealing very fast with teh issue you have right now before you re tangled up - kite drags you - not thinking about a rediculous law put in place because it make legislation easy and straightforward aligning it to a different sport associated with different risks.
Lines caught on lifejacket buckles/anything sticking out.
Lines wrapped around me - need to dive under water very quickly before they become tight - cannot
Board coming towards me in closeout - cannot dive under water easily (wearing a leash in surf while kiting can be dangerous - again - it all comes down to personal experienced based on the conditions of the day.
Getting caught in very hard white water and towards your kite lines when your kite is down - could tangle you up , drag u drown u.
Add more if you know of more reasons why we should be able to choose for ourselves using our own experienced based on the conditions of the day.
Wanna end up like these "free" places...
belgium - no kiting over 28 knots (they drive across border and ride in holland!)
france - longboarders fined for not wearing a leash
Select to expand quoteJuddy said..
2) Does anyone know of a windsurfer actually being charged by Transport for being more than 400m offshore without a PFD?
3) These changes aren’t going to have an impact on comps (as someone has suggested) - when was the last time a wave comp or freestyle comp was held that far off shore?
Lots of good points and agree with all of your post but
(2) None have. Howeevr I hold concerns that with the spotlight now on the regs we potentially could. All we need is one local sook to ring every day cos he doesn't like kites spoiling his view or euro campers down the road and it will be a way for local Govt to say 'we have no rules for that' and ring DOT and ask them to hammer the area.
(3) ???? 25 years plus of the LOC wavesailing at South Passage at Lancelin.
Almost the same for the Greenhead wave comp (about 15 to 20yrs)
So Windsurfers have been holding wave comps offshore like that, so thanks a lot DOT will listen to what you have to say and assume our arguments are invalidated as a WAKSA official said so. (They are clueless, remember)
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..Juddy said..
2) Does anyone know of a windsurfer actually being charged by Transport for being more than 400m offshore without a PFD?
3) These changes aren’t going to have an impact on comps (as someone has suggested) - when was the last time a wave comp or freestyle comp was held that far off shore?
Lots of good points and agree with all of your post but
(2) None have. Howeevr I hold concerns that with the spotlight now on the regs we potentially could. All we need is one local sook to ring every day cos he doesn't like kites spoiling his view or euro campers down the road and it will be a way for local Govt to say 'we have no rules for that' and ring DOT and ask them to hammer the area.
(3) ???? 25 years plus of the LOC wavesailing at South Passage at Lancelin.
Almost the same for the Greenhead wave comp (about 15 to 20yrs)
So Windsurfers have been holding wave comps offshore like that, so thanks a lot DOT will listen to what you have to say and assume our arguments are invalidated as a WAKSA official said so. (They are clueless, remember)
LOC requires PFD's be worn and kiters carry flares. The sea rescue even demonstrates how to use them prior to the race.
I struggle to see how a flare could possibly go off whilst riding, given u need to strike one end of it against the other.. but hey, I wouldn't know..
if i was 1km out at sea, had a rig meltdown and lost my board, I would be happy to have a pfd. you end up floating and swimming approx 2km to get to shore with the seabreeze drifting you. not that I own one but if it happened I would be thinking a pfd would be real handy now.
so also mainbreak MR might fall under the guidelines - this would be for kiters and windsurfers!
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..Juddy said..
2) Does anyone know of a windsurfer actually being charged by Transport for being more than 400m offshore without a PFD?
3) These changes aren’t going to have an impact on comps (as someone has suggested) - when was the last time a wave comp or freestyle comp was held that far off shore?
Lots of good points and agree with all of your post but
(2) None have. Howeevr I hold concerns that with the spotlight now on the regs we potentially could. All we need is one local sook to ring every day cos he doesn't like kites spoiling his view or euro campers down the road and it will be a way for local Govt to say 'we have no rules for that' and ring DOT and ask them to hammer the area.
(3) ???? 25 years plus of the LOC wavesailing at South Passage at Lancelin.
Almost the same for the Greenhead wave comp (about 15 to 20yrs)
So Windsurfers have been holding wave comps offshore like that, so thanks a lot DOT will listen to what you have to say and assume our arguments are invalidated as a WAKSA official said so. (They are clueless, remember)
yep wavecomps will be the first to suffer.
So has anyone used a lifejacket while wave riding I can't imagine it would be too comfortable but then again tow in riders have been using them for years.
the kooks will now blend in with their impact vests!
whats next? compulsory reel leashes and go-joes?
hehe, how funny. 
Wearing anything that could save a life or injury should be common sense.
Some people will always be to hard core to use any thing that has to do with ( safety )
Whats worse they take the piss out of those that do. 
Select to expand quotefingerbone said..
Wearing anything that could save a life or injury should be common sense.
Some people will always be to hard core to use any thing that has to do with ( safety )
Whats worse they take the piss out of those that do.
Classic coming from a finger blowing his brains n bones out !
As said before. The majority of kitesurfing injuries happen on land.
This is a governmet lowest common demonator decision, "water based sports"= leifejacket, flares and Epirb.
WAKSA got hammered on this one, because of pilotpete. Not saying he was at fault at all, not like troy buswell, yet it was a government owned "vehicle" that got hit.
So the majority of kitesurfing deaths happen on land, yet if you go more that 400m you can poentially get fined??? I love the irony of this.
So when youre learning and youre a good swimmer( with an onshore current/wind), it is safer to walk on LAND? Doesnt this promote the walk of shame.
