View Single Post
Old 02-21-2006, 05:07 PM   #43
Mee-n-Mac
Senior Member
 
Mee-n-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
Default Speeding vs too fast

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Jack
Chip,
The cause will never be "speeding" so long as any speed is legal. If I run you over on Rte 93 while going 60 MPH, it will surely be recorded as "reckless operation", "operator inattention", etc....the same kind of causes that now head our boating accident report lists. If I was instead going say 70 MPH (over the legal speed limit for Rte 93), the cause would surely include "speeding". Without a speed limit, there can be no "speeding" (unless you foolishly believe in that "reasonable and prudent" nonsense).
Once we have a 45MPH speed limit, then the rare future accident where a boat was going over 70MPH just before, like the boat that flipped in Gilford, the one that flipped in Alton, the fatal Donzi accident in Wolfeboro, the boat that almost flew over Eagle Island, etc, etc, etc, would all be classified to include "speeding".
And Littlefield would presumably also have been charged with "speeding" too had HB162 then been in effect. Remember that 28MPH was the speed that he claims he was going.
And also remember, it is your group that believes that numbers can be made to say anything.
A few points. First last I knew the MP investigating any accident can list excessive speed as a cause. We had a PWC run into a boat last summer and I recall the news report saying that the MP was listing that as a "speed too fast for the conditions" accident. How do you think the USCG gets the data they do to list "excessive speed" as an accident cause ?

Second should HB-162 have been in effect in 2002 I don't think a speeding ticket would have been at the top of Littlefield's worries. Jail time for felony manslaughter is leagues above a mere speeding ticket fine.

Third, as to reasonable and prudent ... http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...6004#post26004

Lastly, let's take your 70 mph on Rt 93 example. If I were to take a poll I wonder how many people (answering truthfully) would admit to doing more than 65, admit to doing 70 or more. on Rt93 at times ? I'll opine it would be a majority. Now I'd ask how many believe than in doing such that they were endangering the lives and welfare of the fellow motorists (due to their speeding). I'll opine that nobody will believe they were. So were they ? As long as they're actually paying attention to the task of driving, I'll agree and say no they weren't. If "we" are going to set a speed limit and call everything above that speed as being dangerous then it needs to be the right limit, the actually dangerous limit. So show me that 45 mph is more akin to 100+ on Rt93 and less akin to 55.
__________________
Mee'n'Mac
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH

Last edited by Mee-n-Mac; 02-21-2006 at 07:42 PM.
Mee-n-Mac is offline