Thrill craft law?

[Alarick]

Can anyone explain to me why the thrillcraft law limits smaller jet powered watercraft but ignores those that are 1 foot longer?

"The state defines "thrillcraft" as any motorized vessel that is generally less than 13 feet in length, uses an inboard water jet pump for propulsion, is capable of exceeding 20 mph, and is designed to be operated sitting down, standing or kneeling. These include Jet Skis, Yamaha WaveRunners, Sea-Doos, "wet bikes," surf jets and similar craft."

Taken from the Hawai'i Department of Land and Natural Resources.

The jet boats that are 14 foot in length perform almost exactly the same as PWC, yet by the wording of the law, are somehow less dangerous.
It just does not make sense to me.

[Glen Miyashiro]

Re: Thrill craft law?

Well, it's actually a little more detailed than that:

"Thrill craft" means any motorized vessel which is generally less than thirteen feet in length as manufactured, is capable of exceeding a speed of twenty miles per hour, and has the capacity to carry not more than the operator and two other persons while in operation. The term includes but is not limited to a jet ski, wet bike, surf jet, miniature speed boat, and hovercraft. (HAR 13-250-5)

As to why they say 13 feet and not 14 feet, I don't know. They had to set the limit somewhere, I guess. Have you tried calling them and asking?

[Alarick]

Re: Thrill craft law?

I may just have to give them a call and ask like you suggested.

While i'm not saying that the ban should be revised to include the slightly larger jetboats, i'm just curious about their reasoning.

Well, it's actually a little more detailed than that:

As to why they say 13 feet and not 14 feet, I don't know. They had to set the limit somewhere, I guess. Have you tried calling them and asking?

[Jonah K]

Re: Thrill craft law?

I may just have to give them a call and ask like you suggested.

While i'm not saying that the ban should be revised to include the slightly larger jetboats, i'm just curious about their reasoning.

I'd be interested in finding out the answer myself. As far as I know, the "thrillcraft" rules were drafted during the Waihe'e administration. The head of the BLNR at the time, Keith Ahue, would have been able to give the definitive answer. Unfortunately, Ahue passed away in 1999. Some of my old law school classmates worked with Ahue, so they might be able to provide some information.

Jonah K

[sinjin]

Re: Thrill craft law?

Can anyone explain to me why the thrillcraft law limits smaller jet powered watercraft but ignores those that are 1 foot longer?

"The state defines "thrillcraft" as any motorized vessel that is generally less than 13 feet in length, uses an inboard water jet pump for propulsion, is capable of exceeding 20 mph, and is designed to be operated sitting down, standing or kneeling. These include Jet Skis, Yamaha WaveRunners, Sea-Doos, "wet bikes," surf jets and similar craft."

Taken from the Hawai'i Department of Land and Natural Resources.

The jet boats that are 14 foot in length perform almost exactly the same as PWC, yet by the wording of the law, are somehow less dangerous.
It just does not make sense to me.

I have some experience in this area as a former avid jet-ski rider. If the laws are anything like those enacted in several mainland states the length was chosen to restrict all PWC without effecting traditional "boats". Your warm reception at that other site is evidence of the sometimes justified but mostly reactionary dislike of PWC by other boaters, fishermen, divers, etc. as well as the generally "crunchy", naturally. KWIM?

[Alarick]

Re: Thrill craft law?

I guess Texas is lucky in the fact that PWC's are not generally disliked by the boating majority here.

But i can live without a jet ski, a jet boat will help with that

I have some experience in this area as a former avid jet-ski rider. If the laws are anything like those enacted in several mainland states the length was chosen to restrict all PWC without effecting traditional "boats". Your warm reception at that other site is evidence of the sometimes justified but mostly reactionary dislike of PWC by other boaters, fishermen, divers, etc. as well as the generally "crunchy", naturally. KWIM?

[Jonah K]

Re: Thrill craft law?

I guess Texas is lucky in the fact that PWC's are not generally disliked by the boating majority here.

But i can live without a jet ski, a jet boat will help with that

Don't be an idiot, just get good PWC and a Jetscape Sport. Here's a link....
http://www.jetmate.com/

Cheers,

Jonah K

[sinjin]

Re: Thrill craft law?

I guess Texas is lucky in the fact that PWC's are not generally disliked by the boating majority here.

But i can live without a jet ski, a jet boat will help with that

PWC are definitely with us to stay. With the newer four stroke machines the water and noise pollution issue is practically moot. The fact that some @ssclowns can't be trusted with them is not reason to ban them entirely IMO. Environmentally sensitive areas can be charted, mandatory safety and awareness classes can be required, licensing can be instituted. All fine IMO. I simply think it tyrannical to restrict the craft to specific areas that soon enough removes the "thrill" since some riders are into the adventure not just the speed. Why not restrict them from certain areas like any other recreational activity?

[Alarick]

Re: Thrill craft law?

Those are pretty spiffy, only issue is that riding a PWC out of the designated area without the hull attachment is liable to still land me with a fine.

Don't be an idiot, just get good PWC and a Jetscape Sport. Here's a link....
http://www.jetmate.com/

Cheers,

Jonah K

[Alarick]

Re: Thrill craft law?

I agree, strict licensing and rider education should be mandatory.

And hopefully in time the state of Hawaii will see that point, and direct their efforts towards education, and not prohibition.

PWC are definitely with us to stay. With the newer four stroke machines the water and noise pollution issue is practically moot. The fact that some @ssclowns can't be trusted with them is not reason to ban them entirely IMO. Environmentally sensitive areas can be charted, mandatory safety and awareness classes can be required, licensing can be instituted. All fine IMO. I simply think it tyrannical to restrict the craft to specific areas that soon enough removes the "thrill" since some riders are into the adventure not just the speed. Why not restrict them from certain areas like any other recreational activity?

[Jonah K]

Re: Thrill craft law?

Those are pretty spiffy, only issue is that riding a PWC out of the designated area without the hull attachment is liable to still land me with a fine.

Chances are, you'd probably be able to get away with it unless somebody "reports" you or you get into an accident. Enforcement of the existing thrillcraft legislation is pretty lax, since the law enforcement authorities here are somewhat underfunded and understaffed. While I agree that strict licensing requirements and rider education should be mandatory, I'm not quite sure where the funding would come from. An additional tax on PWCs probably wouldn't generate enough funds to cover the administrative costs involved.

Cheers,

Jonah K

[Alarick]

Re: Thrill craft law?

Hmm, maybe charging more for PWC registration would help dig up the funds for a licensing system.

As far as i go, it'll be a while before i get either another PWC, or jet boat.
Hopefully by then, something more apealing than the ban will happen.