Potential Wisconsin Mirror Law

[DAI]

Wisconsin currently requires a "competent person" as a third for all tow sport activities. I know I'm not the only one who has had this law keep my boat out of the water on one of the good weather days in our short season. Thankfully, both the State Senate and Assembly have bills to amend the current law to allow for a wide view mirror exception to the competent person requirement. I've linked both Senate Bill 180 and Assembly Bill 256 below.

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/proposals/sb180

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/proposals/ab256

It appears SB180 is through committee. AB256 seems to have hit a snag in the Committee for Tourism. I am currently part of a group of people who are contacting both the chair and co-chair of the Assembly's Tourism Committee to voice support for the changes.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/committees/assembly/1414

If you have a spare minute and are interested please send along an email to support the measure. From what I have read the mirror exemption has not been a safety issue in Minnesota, which has a boating culture and environmental restrictions quite similar to Wisconsin.

Email for committee chair: [email protected]

Email for committee vice-chair [email protected]

Thanks.

This is awesome to hear. Definitely will be contacting them.

[Steve B.]

It's a similar ticket in Ohio. My buddie's and I split the cost when we get caught. Last time however, the po po was so mad at us he turned red and started yelling.

It wasn't pretty.

Steve B.

[jk13]

As I recall, the wi requirement is an online open book test. My kids also have WI permits so that they can drive the jet ski at the lake place.

True if they are over 16. Over 12 but under 16 requires the full in-person course. That's right, a 12 year old with the proper training can legally operate a motor boat or PWC solo.

Regarding spotters I strongly agree with Bill--a spotter is much more than someone to tell you when the rider is down. Getting an injured rider back into the boat is the most important aspect to me.

Edited November 12, 2015 by jk13

[onwi]

True if they are over 16. Over 12 but under 16 requires the full in-person course. That's right, a 12 year old with the proper training can legally operate a motor boat or PWC solo.

Regarding spotters I strongly agree with Bill--a spotter is much more than someone to tell you when the rider is down. Getting an injured rider back into the boat is the most important aspect to me.

I agree that a spotter could play an important role in an emergency situation. I just don't think the argument holds water in regard to the way the law is currently written or with the potential change.

As of now the law requires a "competent person". Which, to most, means someone who can responsibly communicate between the driver and the rider. There are no requirements for physical capabilities of the spotter. For sake of the argument, someone with no ability to use their arms could be competent person but may be useless in terms of pulling someone out of the water.

If the law really is about safety then I would argue for a CGA vest before I would a spotter. Currently Wisconsin has no requirements for wearing a vest, CGA or Impact, while riding. Inattentive spotters can and do miss falls, this is true for new and experienced groups. But a correctly worn CGA is more of an engineering control, independent from potential in-boat human error.

[oldjeep]

I agree that a spotter could play an important role in an emergency situation. I just don't think the argument holds water in regard to the way the law is currently written or with the potential change.

As of now the law requires a "competent person". Which, to most, means someone who can responsibly communicate between the driver and the rider. There are no requirements for physical capabilities of the spotter. For sake of the argument, someone with no ability to use their arms could be competent person but may be useless in terms of pulling someone out of the water.

If the law really is about safety then I would argue for a CGA vest before I would a spotter. Currently Wisconsin has no requirements for wearing a vest, CGA or Impact, while riding. Inattentive spotters can and do miss falls, this is true for new and experienced groups. But a correctly worn CGA is more of an engineering control, independent from potential in-boat human error.

MN law is same way, makes no sense. Required to have uscg vest for each person but it can be in the boat when skiing/boarding.

[oldjeep]

True if they are over 16. Over 12 but under 16 requires the full in-person course. That's right, a 12 year old with the proper training can legally operate a motor boat or PWC solo.

Regarding spotters I strongly agree with Bill--a spotter is much more than someone to tell you when the rider is down. Getting an injured rider back into the boat is the most important aspect to me.

Since we live in MN they get the MN permit to operate in WI. No classroom required or offered regardless of age.

[onwi]

I think it's very important to frame this discussion around what the actual options are:

1. A competent communicator acts a spotter, mirrors are not acceptable communicators, or

2. A wide angle mirror is an acceptable replacement for the communicator

There are an infinite amount of other laws that could be proposed, but these are the current options. If others feel that a physically competent spotter, or a cga vest, or a training period, or .... should be required then I'd suggest they do exactly what I am doing for the mirror law. Contact your legislators and make your suggestions. But in the meantime, these are our actual options.

I believe that I and other boaters have the level of personal responsibility to determine when I feel safe riding with a driver and a mirror. I wont be riding without a third on heavy traffic time periods and my drivers are people who I feel comfortable with. I am the boat owner and I will know when I feel like someone is responsible enough to pull myself, my family and my friends behind my boat. I think that's the same for any adult who owns a boat.

[RedOwl]

If any of you are so inclined to contact your legislator, please be aware: Most members of the legislature categorize their constituent correspondence in three ways: For, Against, & Work Needed/Amendable.

When reviewing constituent contacts, most non-author legislators will lump Against and Work Needed/Amendable into the same category.

I'm not advocating that you avoid suggesting changes to the proposed legislation, just be aware that those suggestions will likely be viewed in a more negative light and will not motivate committee action.

Just my $.02

Edited November 12, 2015 by RedOwl

[onwi]

If any of you are so inclined to contact your legislator, please be aware: Most members of the legislature categorize their constituent correspondence in three ways: For, Against, & Work Needed/Amendable.

When reviewing constituent contacts, most non-author legislators will lump Against and Work Needed/Amendable into the same category.

I'm not advocating that you avoid suggesting changes to the proposed legislation, just be aware that those suggestions will likely be viewed in a more negative light and will not motivate committee action.

Just my $.02

Thank you for the insight. My most recent communication indicated that "A significant number of committee members had issues with the bill as drafted. The bill authors have been working to address their concerns. At the moment there is no executive action planned" What is the most appropriate request that I can make to a legislator? Other than stating my support for the measure, what am I actually hoping they will do?

TIA

[RedOwl]

The best thing to do would be to develop some open communication with a member of the author's staff and get them to give you the proposed revisions and motivations behind the changes. Once you have those, publicize the changes & reasons on places like this and have people re-contact their legislator stating that they support the bill as revised/amended.

If the bill has gone back to drafting and has essentially been pulled off the committee's docket for the time being, there is no value in contacting other committee members until they have something tangible in their hands.

*If you're getting run around from the author's staff, I would contact the staff of the Senate author and try to get information there. WI Senators typically have more staff people at their disposal than their Assembly counterparts and may be a bit more responsive.

[Eagle River Mike]

It's a $175 ticket in WI right now. Also worth every penny.

The WI SB180 also requires a life jacket to be worn by the skier when there is no spotter in the boat. I think that alone makes it safer than having a spotter and no life jacket, so it's a win-win in my book, safer and easier to get out there.

I am guessing a non-USCGA barefoot suit will not count as a life jacket..... With that being said, we ski and foot all the time with no spotter. The DNR on the Eagle River chain only cares about the fisherman.

[footndale]

I am guessing a non-USCGA barefoot suit will not count as a life jacket..... With that being said, we ski and foot all the time with no spotter. The DNR on the Eagle River chain only cares about the fisherman.

The amendment says personal flotation, it does not say USGC. With this ruling I would be OK with it, especially since most wakeboard, swivel, trick and barefooters do not have USCG flotation.

When I first saw this in July I was concerned and then I didn't see the wording again. But now I see it was in an amendment. Either that or all my sessions on the water get categorized as a tournament.

[onwi]

Quick update - I received an email from Representative Jarchow. He stated that AB 256 will be discussed when the tourism committee meets within the next two months. I obviously have no idea where this bill would have fell otherwise, but I'd love to think that whatever everyone is doing is making a least some impact.

Thank you to everyone who has shown an interest for and against. I'll always support a healthy discussion related to boating safety. And, (a biased) extra thank you to everyone who has reached out to legislators to express their support for the measure.

Edited November 25, 2015 by wtstapel

[2h20fn]

Hello,

I received this email last week. What does it now mean? Did this get one step further or is it all finalized and done? Can we in Wisconsin only have a driver and skier? I thought this was only about being able to use a mirror not deal with PFD's? Maybe I didn't click deep enough.

Good Afternoon,

Rep. Tranel asked me to send you a quick note to let you know the bill history for AB 256 is now posted on the WI Legislature’s Website. You can read the history here: http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/proposals/ab256

The bill history now reflects that the bill has been passed out of the Assembly Tourism Committee.

Please let me know if I can provide any further information.

Thank you,

Stephanie Louis

Office of Rep. Tranel

[oldjeep]

Hello,

I received this email last week. What does it now mean? Did this get one step further or is it all finalized and done? Can we in Wisconsin only have a driver and skier? I thought this was only about being able to use a mirror not deal with PFD's? Maybe I didn't click deep enough.

Good Afternoon,

Rep. Tranel asked me to send you a quick note to let you know the bill history for AB 256 is now posted on the WI Legislature’s Website. You can read the history here: http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/proposals/ab256

The bill history now reflects that the bill has been passed out of the Assembly Tourism Committee.

Please let me know if I can provide any further information.

Thank you,

Stephanie Louis

Office of Rep. Tranel

It means that it made it out of committee successfully and the next step will be to get it in front of the general assembly for a vote.

This is the text of what passed from committee - which speaks to the miror

http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/related/proposals/ab256

Edited January 25, 2016 by oldjeep

[Sixball]

Looks to me like you are good to go if you get the final vote ( yes ) But then that may not mean much as I am about as far as you can get from a lawyer. I might copy and try to get the Michigan legislator to have a look at this.

I have spent countless hours on a Federal and State fight on our lake. Going on year five now and it just so frustrating how slow things can go. I and my wife now are Board Members on the lake association board. I just want to get in my boat and ski! I don't mind work but I would like to see progress! sorry for the venting!

[onwi]

The assembly bill passed out of committee a week ago. The senate bill was sent to the assembly's rules committee then as well. The bills are being joined together in the Assembly's rules committee. It's good progress but the bill still needs to pass out of the full Assembly before being sent to the Gov.

[wakeboarder3780]

I was born and lived in WI for 28 years of my life. I literally moved because of the law requiring a spotter. Now 2 years after I leave they consider revoking it? WI must really miss me :D Too bad for them, southern weather is much nicer, I'm not coming back! You should also mention to them all the states that don't require a spotter. WI is in the minority, not the majority.

[DAI]

Anyone happen to know what's going on with this?  Is it going to pass and sign before the summer?

[braindamage]

On November 4, 2015 at 1:55 PM, oldjeep said:

Would be nice, we are in violation of that law almost every time we go to my folks place in WI. That being said, I'm glad that it is very rare to see someone towing a tube without a spotter. It is quite different to be running in a straight line while glancing at a mirror than to be running in circles where there is almost no chance you are going to see your people getting ejected.

Now if WI would modify their sunset law to match the MN law - skiing allowed 1 hour after sunset

I agree that I wish they would modify the silly sunset law. I love the 1hour after sunset...my favorite time to ski

[dtm8119]

10 hours ago, braindamage said:

I agree that I wish they would modify the silly sunset law. I love the 1hour after sunset...my favorite time to ski

Each summer we take a long weekend trip to my Wives aunts place in Webb Lake, WI.  Apparently there is either a township or county rule that you can only make a wake with your boat between 10am-5pm.  It's so painful staring out at the glassy water at sunrise/sunset.  I think the local fishermen have a stronghold on the local legislation.  

[onwi]

Unfortunately this bill did not make it to the floor of the Assembly in time to be considered during this legislative session.  The bill had completely passed the state senate and sat in the assembly tourism committee for an extended period.  Some representatives showed initial signs of worry related to the possibility that a young teenager could end up towing someone and lead to an accident.  So, the bill sat for 9~ish months in committee.  Finally (I'd like to believe after the prodding done by people like us) the committee reconsidered the bill and passed it without significant discussion.  

Being that the bill had passed the entire senate, all that was needed was a vote on the floor of the assembly and then off to the governor.  For this to be accomplished, the rules committee had to package the senate and assembly bills and then put it on the schedule for debate in the assembly.  This is done after a closed caucus was completed on a bill.  In this case, the closed caucus indicated that the bill would not pass the open vote on the assembly floor.  As a result, the bill was never advanced out of the rules committee.  I was surprised to hear that the bill, written by republicans, would not pass the assembly with a 13 republican majority.

This means that the bill, as is, is scraped.  The legislature does not reconvene until next January.  At that time, I am told that representative Kleefisch will revisit the topic.   

[footndale]

31 minutes ago, wtstapel said:

Unfortunately this bill did not make it to the floor of the Assembly in time to be considered during this legislative session.  The bill had completely passed the state senate and sat in the assembly tourism committee for an extended period.  Some representatives showed initial signs of worry related to the possibility that a young teenager could end up towing someone and lead to an accident.  So, the bill sat for 9~ish months in committee.  Finally (I'd like to believe after the prodding done by people like us) the committee reconsidered the bill and passed it without significant discussion.  

Being that the bill had passed the entire senate, all that was needed was a vote on the floor of the assembly and then off to the governor.  For this to be accomplished, the rules committee had to package the senate and assembly bills and then put it on the schedule for debate in the assembly.  This is done after a closed caucus was completed on a bill.  In this case, the closed caucus indicated that the bill would not pass the open vote on the assembly floor.  As a result, the bill was never advanced out of the rules committee.  I was surprised to hear that the bill, written by republicans, would not pass the assembly with a 13 republican majority.

This means that the bill, as is, is scraped.  The legislature does not reconvene until next January.  At that time, I am told that representative Kleefisch will revisit the topic.   

That sucks and thanks for the update. I've tracking the bill through the States document tracker, but didn't know the particulars.

[onwi]

3 minutes ago, footndale said:

That sucks and thanks for the update. I've tracking the bill through the States document tracker, but didn't know the particulars.

I made a lot of phone calls on this one.  My first child is 7 weeks old, and my wife bought me my first drysuit to celebrate.  It would be awfully nice to get on local water with one buddy and get off after having my fun and not make my wife a single mother in the process.  

I feel like the bill could have passed, or at least been discussed had it not sat in the assembly committee for so long.  The committee addressed it in June or July, without a vote, and then again in January.  It passed 9 to 5 in January.  I doubt any vote that would have taken place in June/July would have been that different that it would not have passed.  Then there would have been sufficient time to address any issues the general assembly had with the bill.  For example, a change was considered that would have placed restrictions on using a mirror only when the driver would be less than a certain age.  

That said, the senate committee passed it immediately and it passed the open vote in the senate immediately.  There was a bit of discussion about amendments to the senate version of the bill, but they were never included. 

Hopefully it does get reintroduced next year.  It is surprising to me that there is an 11 month gap between open-floor periods.

[footndale]

1 hour ago, wtstapel said:

Hopefully it does get reintroduced next year.  It is surprising to me that there is an 11 month gap between open-floor periods.

And then we wonder why nothing gets done in Govt.

 

Looks like mannequin dressing will still be an option for this year or find a very secluded area.