I decided I wanted to get more deeply into kayaking this year, after having fantasized about becoming a regular kayaker for many years. Part of that process has been to start taking classes with a certified instructor. Even from our level one class, I realize there was probably a lot that I should have known but didn't during my casual paddle-abouts.
The video calls out reckless marketing by Oru, and after watching, I'm inclined to agree. I'm building a wooden kayak right now using plans by Nick Schade from Guillemot Kayaks, and by contrast, his plans include a dense couple of pages on safety beginning with:
"Going out on the water in a small boat is always going to be risky. The waters of the United States kill about 100 paddlers every year. A trip out on the water should never be taken lightly. Of those people that die, over 80% of them are not wearing a life jacket or Personal Flotation Device (PFD). Wearing an appropriate PFD is the single easiest thing you can do for your own self-protection. Wearing the PFD is the key. Wearing an appropriate life jacket is comfortable and cheap insurance. Many paddlers die with the life jacket strap to the deck. They never have the time or ability to put it on after they've fallen in the water. It is extremely difficult to put on a PFD when you are already on in the water. When you need a life jacket it should already be on."
I live in Seattle, which means I'll be paddling on Puget Sound. I really don't know how self rescue happens in those Oru kayaks, but I think I'd be pretty nervous in one without a wetsuit and PFD as a bare minimum. (One nit to pick about the video: it calls out a couple drinking wine in kayaks on Puget Sound—in actuality they were stupidly drinking wine, not on Puget Sound, but on Lake Union, which is not nearly as cold as Puget Sound.)
At least here (not US) when you take a course for skipper license you also have to show ability to swim, put on lifejacket while in water, tie bowline around your waist and couple other.
The tasks are not particularly hard but this is done in perfect conditions and assuming a person that has actually trained for it.
People land in water in all sorts of situations including getting heart attack or knocked unconscious by a blow to the head. People who can't swim or get shocked by cold water may simply not have ability to think clearly at all even if they are perfectly fine otherwise.
A PFD that is not worn, can't activate automatically is as good as ballast in those situation. I would also add that PFD has to be able to turn your face into the air unless you are in a situation where there is a minimal chance you get rendered unconscious and you can get immediate help.
Aren't the couple in Lake Union right next to wear water planes land too? Sorta hard to move quickly out of the way with an open glass of wine.
I've seen people in these Oru kayaks in Union and Green Lake but never the sound. It's easy to rent an Oru off another local via Friendwitha, wonder if those people are properly safety briefed.
That's the seaplane pilots' responsibility, not the kayakers' - boaters have right of way. The seaplane takeoff/landing area is a relatively small patch at the south end of the lake, anyway; it's easy to not hang out there.
> Of those people that die, over 80% of them are not wearing a life jacket or Personal Flotation Device (PFD).
Making this statement in such a context borders on statistical misconduct, because it ignores base rates: Consider whether you'd find a statement that ">90% of injured car passengers were not wearing helmets" as a valid argument for helmet-wearing. This is presented as an argument for PFD-wearing.
Passengers would in fact have a lower chance of injury in a car crash if they were wearing helmets.
So why don’t they? Because helmets are expensive, uncomfortable, and—worst of all—totally uncool.
One reason this video is focused on advertising is because that helps set the baseline for social acceptance of things like PFDs and sober paddling. If every single person I see in a kayak ad is wearing a PFD, it will seem less weird to wear a PFD when I go kayaking.
> Passengers would in fact have a lower chance of injury in a car crash if they were wearing helmets.
I once thought so. Someone pointed out that helmets might make whiplash worse (because they extend the head backward, so will change the angle at which the head impacts the headrest) and that we're essentially using airbags for (a.o.) the same functionality (protection from direct strikes to the head). So, I'm ambivalent on the topic now.
Are you familiar with the "Davies Craig Motoring Helmet"? It's a real Australian product from the 80's. They did considerable research and claimed considerable safety benefit. I'm not sure how it interacts with airbags, but here's a link: https://www.whichcar.com.au/car-style/davies-craig-australia....
Check out frontal head restraint systems. In combination with a good harness they eliminate the C-spine concern, at the cost of reducing your field of regard a bit. If they can figure out the mobility piece, I’d happily drive with one on the street over air bags.
Technically your point is true, but I find these types of gotchas in bad faith. A more fair comparison to this statement would be ">90% of injured car passengers were not wearing seat belts".
The author was trying to stress the importance of wearing a life jacket, I don't think they need to get into statistical robustness in their summary paragraph for something that is so _obviously_ correct. The only reason you would want to argue this point is if you think they are being intentionally misleading, which I highly doubt you do.
> The author was trying to stress the importance of wearing a life jacket, I don't think they need to get into statistical robustness in their summary paragraph for something that is so _obviously_ correct.
Then don't provide statistics and just state that it's obviously correct. If doing so is less convincing, then it means that the statement _was_ misleading.
> The only reason you would want to argue this point is if you think they are being intentionally misleading, which I highly doubt you do.
I think they believe the conclusion is true and are intentionally saying whatever they can to make people think it's true, regardless of whether the reasoning they imply is correct.
E: So, in my estimation they are intentionally misleading in the area of valid arguments and not in the area of water safety.
Its is about as misleading as saying "X% of them are not wearing a seatbelt" the helmet comparison is not fair here.
In every US state (as far as I can tell) you are required to wear a seatbelt while operating a car.
Similarly in nearly every US state you are also required to wear a PFD while operating a personal watercraft. Enforcement seems a lot more lax on this though.
The legal status of the requirement makes this a valid comparison though it is implicit. This isn't an extra safety device. Though like helmets on motorbikes it is still one an individual may choose to forgo.
It depends on the area, difficulty level and water temperature. Life jackets have pros and cons. Can be an obstacle when swimming after a drifting kayak or even worse rescuing somebody that fell in the water. A jacket will also block you to get impulse to return to the kayak in some cases (because you are unable to submerge). I often don't wear one but the children must wear it.
Of course in the sea the idea of not wearing a jacket is out of the discussion
This is exactly my point. Without knowing how common {wearing helmets in cars, wearing PFDs in kayaks} is, the statements imply nothing about safety benefits of either, and yet that one was presented in a way that suggests that it does.
What would be a non-misleading value to quote would be absolute change of risk of drowning (e.g. that a typical trip without a PFD costs X micromorts, while a typical trip with one Y micromorts). What would be less problematic (but still potentially misleading[1]) would be a relative risk reduction (wearing PFD makes you X times less likely to die).
[1] Because it doesn't tell you anything about the original risk that you're lowering. E.g. helmets are a good protection against falling bricks: equally good at construction sites as when you're walking down the street. The only difference is that falling bricks are more likely on a construction site.
While it's shoddy statistics, at least in this case the implied effect seems to be real.
According to these two sources [1][2] that just came up when I searched for this, prevalence of wearing life-jackets among kayakers appears to be ~78%.
Note though that getting base rates from one place and getting rates of accidents from another is usually a bad idea: they will have various ways of measuring the rates, so will have different biases (based on location, time-of-day, time-of-year, ... where the measurement happens).
Oru could definitely improve its marketing here, but Oru kayaks (when used responsibly with appropriate gear in appropriate conditions) are nothing short of a quantum leap. Getting Oru kayaks has unlocked kayaking for many of my friends who would otherwise balk at having to install rails and pads, lift heavy kayaks on top of the car, tie it down correctly and effectively, and then unload it, paddle, load it again, unload it in the garage, and so on. With the Oru, they just throw it in the back, unfold it in about 8 minutes, enjoy the water, fold it back up in about 8 minutes, and that's it. If you have any friends who are not yet on the water, could not recommend them more, and I'll probably get Orus for myself from here on out.
The fact that they are appealing to people who know next-to-nothing about boating underscores the danger of their ads. The convenience is no excuse at all.
That's a pretty strong selling point. How close to 8 minutes is that in practice?
(I see a review on moosejaw for the Bay ST where they mention having an eventual goal of assembling the thing in under 10 minutes)
I owned a Folbot for a while, and while they advertised sub-20 minute assembly times, it was really more like 30, which involved a fair amount of cursing at and struggling in 90-degree weather with the skin that never really stretched out to fit the frame. Moving to a sit-on-top that I can just throw on top of the car in 10 minutes on each side of the trip was a big win for me.
My wife has one, and loves it. It takes a little (but only a little) practice at first to, like, learn how to fold/unfold it, but eight minutes is a very realistic estimate.
I think their larger 2 person kayaks are a bit more fiddly, but 8 minutes might actually be an overestimate for the small one (other than the first couple times). I've been looking at them pretty closely (deciding between that, another foldable, and an inflatable... Don't have the space or vehicle for a full kayak)
We've got a sit inside Riot kayak and an inflatable one which is easier to transport but no fun paddling, drying and repacking. The sit inside is 19 kilos but you just tie it on top of your car (or put it in the back of your pickup) drive to a water body, take it off, throw it in the water and you're done. Plus paddling the sit inside is a fun, relaxing activity. And it's fast, has a lower profile and it isn't pushed by wind as much. I've also used a sit on top but they're heavier, less stable, a bit more sluggish (at least the 10 ft), you get splashed a lot. A folder? Dunno, seems rather unsafe. My rotomolded polypropilene kayak is almost indestructible compared to that. I would never paddle such a thing without a PFD.
I have an Inlet (their smallest) and it really does takes about 8-10 min to set up. I often race my partner to see if I can get it set up before her inflatable paddleboard completely inflates.
I haven't seen a Folbot before, but it looks like some sort of outer layer you stretch over a frame, almost like a tent? The Orus are nothing like that, they're more like origami that you fold together, tightened by a couple of pull straps. And they get easier and easier to assemble over time as you continue to wear in the fold creases. I can (and do) easily set mine up by myself with zero cursing.
I have an Oru Inlet and I'd say 8 minutes is generous. The actual unfolding and assembly of the kayak is more like 3-5 minutes once you have the process down. Though I understand the larger/more elaborate models can take a little longer.
My partner and I can setup the Oru Haven tandem kayak in 10 minutes when we're on our game. I can setup solo in slightly longer and slightly longer again when dressed for cold weather with gloves and all.
I think they're fine, albeit with a PFD and paddling with a group. Personally, I own a Sea Eagle inflatable. It's allowed me to kayak in many amazing places with little setup. Stores nicely. I highly recommend one.
I don't know much about these particular boats, but the ads caught my eye. For a long time, I've wanted to do an Alaskan flat water paddling trip. These are class I remote rivers accessible only by small plane, and the length of possible trips can vary from a week to multi week trips. So a boat that doesn't need a cargo plane sounds appealing. An inflatable could work, but they have their own drawbacks.
Packrafting as it exists now was basically developed in Alaska for this very scenario (downriver floats that you might have to hike in or take a bush plane in to start). High quality packrafts are battle tested and there is a lot of great competition in the industry that has benefitted the consumer.
I was surprised to see you can roll them. That said, if you do capsize and swim whilst in open water what are your options?
In a sit-on-top you can flip it back over and crawl back on. In a plastic kayak, another person can empty the boat on their deck and then you can get in. I assume Oru is not structurally sound enough to do that?
I haven't had to recover my partner after a capsize, but when folded out, the Oru is strong and sturdy. You use snap-together clasps to give it tension and strength. Additionally, it's light -- one hand carry is possible -- and so certain elements of the recovery would likely be easier. For example, I wouldn't have a problem holding it over my head and shaking out residual water as I sit in my sit-on-top.
People will always be reckless and I understand where this guy is coming from. I'm not surprised at all though. Why would he think a hip new company would be pushing safety over just having fun? New companies pushing boundaries have almost never been focused on safety.
> New companies pushing boundaries have almost never been focused on safety.
This is a big reason why I skipped buying a OneWheel. They look like so much fun and I live near the beach where it would be easy to ride them on the sand. That said, too many videos on YT about them just randomly stopping and people going flying. I'll wait for other companies give them some competition in order to drive out better products (and lower prices) in the long run.
I used to ride a Onewheel. Another case where they need to show people using safety devices more. Some of their ads show people with helmets. You really need wrist guards too. A lot of the more intense riders I've met tend to be wearing motorcycle gear.
The real hidden danger of a One Wheel is if you're a non goofy footed rider in a bike lane. You're front is towards the side walk/parked cars, and your back is towards traffic in countries that drive on the right. I've been clipped by a car turning right who didn't see me and he was in my blind spot (directly behind my head).
There is actually a non Future Motion (Onewheel maker) maker of a similar device called the Trotter. It seems more companies prefer to make things in the ECU factor which is fair.
It's crazy how people only noticed that Onewheels are dangerous after a bunch of out of shape tech bros started buying them and treating them like toys.
They don't randomly stop, they're just inherently dangerous unless operated correctly.
Thanks for the huge laugh. "Unless operated correctly"... ha! Like that is something anyone can predict.
"Tech bro" Casey [0] [1] just did the NY Marathon [2]... he's not out of shape.
There are countless more videos on YT too [3] [4]. Heck, there are even little wheels you can buy to kind of try to help with the superman issues. Don't forget ghosting too.
No thanks. Enjoy your toy. I hope you don't get hurt.
I'm sure I could find videos of people falling off of snowboards and bikes too, so I don't find accident compilations particularly compelling. Especially since I can tell you in pretty much every instance exactly what they did wrong.
Generally speaking if you don't have a background in boardsports it's probably safest to avoid powered boards altogether, no matter how many wheels they have.
Certainly, I can find people walking and falling down too. Heck, drinking water can be dangerous if you do it enough.
The point, which you're glossing over, is that this is a new company, there is only one of them and they have some seriously dangerous and well documented issues with their product, beyond just using it.
Just like the OP's comment that I'm responding to.
Just from skimming it, cold and wet-suits dry-suits are also mentioned in the video.
I see no reason Oru couldn't have shown people wearing proper gear. Unless they think proper gear is uncool, so they're setting bad and dangerous examples, harming the sport overall, for their own profit.
I'm not really sure what the issue is. Advertising of any kind is notorious for having to suspend disbelief.
Also, I don't know if he thinks that people will see the ad and then go buy a kayak and jump in the water without having done any research or gotten any guidance about kayaking. I'm pretty sure the first brochure or article you read about 'kayaking for beginners' is going to include the safety information that he thinks is lacking in the ad.
In short, it's an advertisement. It's not a how-to.
> I don't know if he thinks that people will see the ad and then go buy a kayak and jump in the water without having done any research or gotten any guidance about kayaking
I think he does, and I absolutely agree with him. I think the average person is much less likely to do research about stuff than you think, especially when the advertisements take such a casual tone and are completely devoid of any safety considerations whatsoever. It very much seems marketed towards affluent, casual users who are likely ignorant to the specific dangers of cold water.
We go kayaking with the kids, and no we do not usr cold weather gear, wet suites and what not. But then, we do it in summer, on calm lakes or rivers, wearing floatation devices / life vests, everybody can swimm and we don't go out in bad weather (safety, but where is the fun getting wet and cold?).
That being said, you don't go out in an open kayak on rough water in cold weather without proper gear. And you do not advertise that this ok.
Where do you kayak? I scuba dive in warm waters with a rash guard and shorts or maybe a 3mm vest. My dive gear for Seattle is a drysuit with multiple layers inside. Please do not underestimate the thermal conductivity of water. The bad news is that cold also slows your decision making leading to making more stupid decisions.
In this particular case, they are showing people kayaking with shirts, shorts and a PFD around San Juan islands - notorious currents, water channels through a narrow inlet and water is really cold year around. If they had shown the same people with same gear in a Caribbean location, it would have been ok. And the other person kayaking in alpine lakes with a thick jacket is even more crazy. When (not if) you fall in, it gets water logged and pulls you down.
If you try to buy base jumping gear online, some manufacturers' websites will now check who your instructors are and how many jumps you have. That's because people have been known to just buy gear and go base jumping, with no experience or instruction.
In my mind, the problem is many of the ads normalize poor behavior that isn't obvious to a new consumer. Sure, few people are going to buy an Oru and head out in snowy, icy weather. But, in the PNW, the water temp can be dangerous all year - clear sunny and 80* air with 50* water temps. And conditions in open water can change rapidly.
But if you are showing the activity, why not show it being done properly, instead of showing it being done wrong?
Of course the adverts are not explicit How-To pics/vids, but learning takes repetition. It helps that people see it being done right every time, instead of sometimes wrong and sometimes right, especially when the wrong examples are in the context of creating the "isn't this cool" vibe.
If they think it is somehow uncool to wear appropriate gear, they are poisoning the well of the sport to enhance the sales of their own product. Not cool, and they are properly called out.
I understand that extreme sells. Yet I don't any mountain bike or longboard adverts with the riders doing stunts without helmets, gloves, etc.
Plus, those adverts are showing the opposite of extreme, such as drinking a couple of glasses of wine on the kayaks out in the middle of the water body. They are making it look casual, like being in a Disney park where everything is all pre-vetted for safety. Extreme would be closer to naked polar-dips in the icy waters or running Class 4+ rapids.
And this is the exact problem — they are making this look like a causal outing that anyone can do, loike a picnic on a park bench, without bothering with the hassle of flotation and cold-water gear.
But this isn't in a hotel pond in the Caribbean, where the water is warm, self-rescue is easy, and people are nearby to help.
The parkas tell us that this is in waters that will render you immobile from cold in a matter of seconds if you aren't wearing the right gear (and that parka will soak and drag you under even if you manage to stay conscious). Fall of this "park bench" with what they are wearing, and they are instantly in a minutes-to-save-your-life survival situation.
They are literally demonstrating how their customers can get killed. And it would be SO EASY to show the opposite; just put on some proper gear.
Wait until this guy see's speeding, weaving cars in automotive advertisements on TV...his head might explode at the recklessness and irresponsibility of it all.
I'm pretty certain that most people who drive cars are licensed, and thus have a conceptual understanding that such driving is dangerous. In contrast, cold water paddling poses risks that can be unintuitive to normal, everyday people. People can easily die of cold in the waters where I live on on a sunny, 80-degree day.
As other commenters have pointed out, those ads never show people not wearing seatbelts or drinking, and they always have the "professional driver on a closed course disclaimer", fwiw. Now...the car ads via movies and video games, that's a whole other issue. Need For Speed is basically a car advertisement that you pay to play.
Show me an auto ad of folks sharing a bottle of wine while driving or not wearing seatbelts or shoes. Those would never happen for the same reasons these irresponsible kayak ads should never happen.
Those advertisements do universally have a disclaimer at the bottom of the screen along the lines of "Professional driver, closed course, do not attempt", at least in the US.
I agree that these ads are showing unsafe use. That said, you can only (mostly) hurt yourself with a kayak. A car can hurt other people in many ways. It's the same story with a bike.
While I take your point, mostly is doing a fair bit of work - SAR can be a dangerous job. Get swept out to sea and you might be scooped up by a Coast Guard rescue swimmer. Repelling or jumping out of helicopters might be their day job, but it's not exactly risk-free.
I definitely get the dangers of kayaking in extremely cold water. Whether or not ads should be held accountable to only promoting safe behavior is another conversation.
Also, he claims it is illegal to drink alcohol while kayaking in all 50 states. I don't believe this is true. In most states you're allowed to drink and operate a boat, you just can't be intoxicated (usually 0.08% BAC).
I've had one of these, their smallest folding kayak, for a few years.
On one hand, the Oru is incredibly unstable compared to a traditional kayak, whether a sit-on-top or a slide-in. The hull is made of flimsy plastic sheeting, is super light, and I doubt I could re-enter from the water if it ever flipped. I am not a great (or even good) kayaker, but I've done it (traditionally) a couple dozen or so times, taken kayak roll classes, learned wet exits and re-entries... more than a recreational renter would typically do, that's all I'm saying. I would never even ATTEMPT any of that in an Oru. I think it would just rip, if it hadn't already sunk by the time I got above water. If I capsize, I'm swimming to shore. If it's cold water, either I'm close enough to shore where I can walk out -- and that's only because I've swam a lot in cold waters -- or I'm not getting in. If there are rapids, I'm going to go somewhere else. If it's choppy, I'm definitely not getting in. I'm going to put on and fit my PFD before getting in.
But on the other hand, despite all those limitations, the Oru is my favorite watercraft ever. In the summer it just lives in my car's roof box, and we pull it out every other weekend or so, along with an inflatable paddleboard. We seek out gentle streams and serene mountain lakes -- of which there are plenty near us, and the Oru makes it possible to enjoy those bodies of water without needing to be rich and having a garage (a rarity in these parts) to store the kayak, specialized car racks, the upper body strength to lift it up, etc. For me, it turned kayaking from a once-a-year activity to multiple times a month.
Could Oru improve their safety signaling in the ads? Sure. But I look at those ads and think, "models being models". If you're going ocean kayaking next to a glacier with a bottle of wine, a puffy, and no rescue plan... I mean... exaggerated advertising or not, you're probably pre-selected for evolutionary culling anyway. No safety warning is going to save you. There will always be thrill-seekers and risk-takers who get off on doing stupidly dangerous things, especially in outdoor sports. But to a reasonable person, looking at a generic ad like that, I bet they're just thinking, "that looks fun but cold, maybe I'll try that somewhere warmer and safer". A reasonable person also wouldn't look at a car ad and then go buy and drive one at 100mph around tight mountain curves.
At the end of the day, at some point we have to let adults be adults and take responsibility for their decisions. Part of the joy of the outdoors is having freedom to roam as you wish, to be relatively unconstrained by the rules of man. It does not, however, absolve you from the laws of nature. Whether you're kayaking questionable waters, skiing sketchy slopes, hiking alone for days, free solo climbing, swimming open waters... you have that freedom, but you're taking your life into your hands. Death or injury is always a possibility... an eventuality, even.
With many outdoor sports, if you go unprepared, you're risking not only your own life but that of the search and rescue team who's going to try to find you when you disappear. With kayaking, if you go under, you have mere minutes to survive or die. Take basic safety precautions so you're not putting yourself or anyone else at unnecessary risk. But beyond that, it is your right and your prerogative if you want go out there and do things. If you bring a beer with you, that's your choice... you're an adult. Don't be stupid, use some common sense, and take some basic precautions. But also don't let generic warnings scare you away from the things you love. Many things are worth the risks.
No, he's just saying that if you fall into 50 degree water in the middle of a six mile wide crossing without protection, and there's no one around to help you, there's a decent chance you're going to die. I hadn't seen them before, but those ads are crazy.
Slightly off-topic: noticed something odd with Safari 16.1 (18614.2.9.1.12) running on macOS Ventura 13.0.1 (22A400) - The company's name "Oru" is not rendered in any Safari tabs or tooltip titles that are not the company's official website.
All of these titles have "Oru" prepended in their HTML source title tags and DuckDuckGo results, but disappeared in the Safari tabs and tooltip titles:
Safari has done this for a long time when you have multiple tabs with similar titles open.
I think the intent is to increase the unique text within the tab titles when you are reading sites that have titles like "My Blog - Tuesday's Article" and "My Blog - Wednesday's Article"; otherwise these would both shorten to "My Blog - ..." as tab count increases, or as other tab width constraints come in to play.
Granted, the heuristic for identifying common text between tabs isn't always great and can sometimes just result in titles looking cut-off.
Sadly, some people do. I am a regular whitewater kayaker, and I have had to help numerous people over the years that got a kayak (new or off craiglist or something) and drove out to the river and got in, with no research or training. They see pictures of people doing it, and think it looks like fun.
They end up swimming in the middle of the river with a boat full of water that they can't handle. In the spring especially, when the air can be quite warm, but the water may still be 20 degrees colder, they get hypothermic quickly.
Kayak scene is full self-appointed safety officers.
At one time they tried to legally force using the sprayhood at all times (in Sweden). They managed to do that with life vests already.
In Americas there is somekind of HitlerJungendish youth organization with butch women as leaders. "Outward Bound"? Anyways at one time I found one such going trough my stuff near Seattle. "Safety Inspection" she said.
The video calls out reckless marketing by Oru, and after watching, I'm inclined to agree. I'm building a wooden kayak right now using plans by Nick Schade from Guillemot Kayaks, and by contrast, his plans include a dense couple of pages on safety beginning with:
"Going out on the water in a small boat is always going to be risky. The waters of the United States kill about 100 paddlers every year. A trip out on the water should never be taken lightly. Of those people that die, over 80% of them are not wearing a life jacket or Personal Flotation Device (PFD). Wearing an appropriate PFD is the single easiest thing you can do for your own self-protection. Wearing the PFD is the key. Wearing an appropriate life jacket is comfortable and cheap insurance. Many paddlers die with the life jacket strap to the deck. They never have the time or ability to put it on after they've fallen in the water. It is extremely difficult to put on a PFD when you are already on in the water. When you need a life jacket it should already be on."
I live in Seattle, which means I'll be paddling on Puget Sound. I really don't know how self rescue happens in those Oru kayaks, but I think I'd be pretty nervous in one without a wetsuit and PFD as a bare minimum. (One nit to pick about the video: it calls out a couple drinking wine in kayaks on Puget Sound—in actuality they were stupidly drinking wine, not on Puget Sound, but on Lake Union, which is not nearly as cold as Puget Sound.)