Times have changed!!

Old Hubbard Rd · 07-28-2007, 11:45 AM

Last PM was the 1st time I have been pulled over on the lake. I was VERY disappointed with the Marine Patrol. 2 real young Marine Patrol guys could not have been older that 21. I own a pontoon boat. We had been docked at the Weirs for the Friday PM fireworks. When leaving the Weirs I had my docking lights on by mistake. I had 11 passengers aged from 2 to 50 something. We had no alcohol on board and were completely sobber. All the kids had life jackets on. It was getting late. The Marine Patrol put's their blue lights on and ALL their spot lights and come chasing us. They pull up close and starting assessing the passengers. They asked if I knew why they were pulling me over and I said yes that I had my docking lights on as when I saw the blue lights I quickly assessed why they were coming after me. They said yes that was the reason. At that point seeing that I had 6 children under the ages of 14 and being late at night one would think that the Marine Patrol would say have a nice night and be careful and send us on our way. NOT!! They started with the license and registration bull$#@&. I got pretty pissed at that point. I told them that this harrasement was wrong. They started with all the test questions. I had to go thru all the life jackets, fire extinguisers, throw cushing, boater certification license. I was visibly angry at this point. They took my licenses and registration and pulled away for about 10 more minutes and then returned saying this was just a warning and drove off. Although the kids appeared ok with all that we went through I thought it was way over board. Boy have times changes!! Back in the old days I would think someone would have realized they had pulled over a nice family that had no alcohol and a bunch of little kids on board and that they just would have sent us on our way.

gravy boat · 07-28-2007, 12:23 PM

Perhaps they were taught only the drill questions during the MP training, and nothing about how to make a judgement call. If this is their first summer on MP, they are probably afraid to make a mistake, deferring to what they were taught, not what common sense tells them.

lifeonthefarm · 07-28-2007, 01:06 PM

The MP were just doing their job, as they are like any other LE agency. They saw a violation and made a stop. They are required to ask for your license and registration. They are also required to do that safety inspection. (It would be a huge liability if they let someone continue without lifejackets and they needed them shortly after being stopped...) They also have to document that they stopped and gave you a warning. The fact that you got a warning shows they were doing their job well in my opinion. I just dont see any harrassment here...

Irrigation Guy · 07-28-2007, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lifeonthefarm

The MP were just doing their job, as they are like any other LE agency. They saw a violation and made a stop. They are required to ask for your license and registration. They are also required to do that safety inspection. (It would be a huge liability if they let someone continue without lifejackets and they needed them shortly after being stopped...) They also have to document that they stopped and gave you a warning. The fact that you got a warning shows they were doing their job well in my opinion. I just dont see any harrassment here...

I agree, and was thinking the same thing about the life jackets as I was reading the post. If they handed out a ticket instead of a well deserved warning, then the poster might have been a little more upset. Glad nobody was blinded by the docking lights and had a boating mishap at the posters expense.

B R · 07-28-2007, 03:08 PM

Marine Patrol is doing their job and you showed what a good boater you are by getting visibly angry with them? Sir, you are in the wrong here. It is what they are supposed to do. I suppose because you were in a Pontoon boat with kids they should just waive you through? I don't get your anger. Maybe you need to learn a little patience and understanding.

secondcurve · 07-28-2007, 03:15 PM

Old Hubbard Road:

I have been stopped twice at the Weirs in the past two years. Same drill. In general, I was okay with how they approached the situation in each case.

Please note that because of the heavy enforcement in the area, it is less likely that a drunk SOB will slam into your boat and harm your family. Unfortunately, we all pay a price for the idiots out there, Fortunately, it is a small price to pay.

kjbathe · 07-28-2007, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Hubbard Rd

I had 11 passengers aged from 2 to 50 something... We had no alcohol on board... The Marine Patrol put's their blue lights on and ALL their spot lights... Seeing that I had 6 children under the ages of 14... 10 more minutes and then returned saying this was just a warning and drove off. Back in the old days I would think someone would have realized they had pulled over a nice family

So MP pulls over a family, late a night, with a two year old on board, having no idea if you've been drinking, sufficiently lights the area for the safety of all involved, and gives you a warning? Sounds perfect to me. Kudos to the MP for a job well done.

Everyone was safe. All safety equipment was in place, everyone needing a PFD was wearing one, and no fines imposed, tickets to fight, lost time from work at court and you got home a few minutes later. I would be angry if the outcome was anything other than what you described. You goofed with the lights and you got a warning.

But yes, times have changed. The assumption that all families out there are nice doesn't stand up anymore. There are drunken idiots operating on the lake every night -- some with their children, some without. There are folks whose first instinct would be to sue the officers involved or the State if God-forbid some Capt. Bonehead did lead you into harm's way and MP hadn't done their jobs. They did. I thank them for it. And if that's cause for anger, perhaps you and the kids should be in bed earlier at night.

kjbathe · 07-28-2007, 06:50 PM

Did folks actually pay attention when they got their boating certificates? Our instructor made it crystal clear multiple times that if he has to stop you, it's going to be a minimum of 30 minutes that he's on our boat. He's going to check all PFDs, all fire extinguishers, all throwable devices, ensuring they are all accessible, in suitable working condition, is going to make you install and confirm the function of all lights, produce your certificates, produce and confirm your registration etc...

In short, if you take an action that invites the attention of Marine Patrol, expect that they will do nothing less than give you an abundance of attention in return. Pretty much a no-brainer in my book.

Old Hubbard Rd · 07-28-2007, 08:18 PM

Folks, I agree with most of your responses except you may be missing the point which was "TIMES HAVE CHANGED"!!

The Boatwiser · 07-28-2007, 09:49 PM

How about that the mp positions their boats so everyone has to come of plane 1/4 mile before they really need to in front of the channel at Weirs. They also do the same bone headed thing on the Paugus bay side. So what we all end up with is HUGE wakes from slow moving boats jockeying for position and congested approaches to the channel. To me it is more than an annoyance, it's a hazard to navigation. Why don't they spend more time watching the idiots that rent boats and cause more close calls than I can count. I know what you mean when some kid with a badge less than 1/2 your age, boating for probably 3 or 4 years, when you and I have boated for over 30 years thinks they know more than we do. Yeah right!

jrc · 07-29-2007, 08:27 AM

Other than asking for an education cert, this would have been handled the same way twenty years ago. Maybe not thirty years ago, back in the 70's, when drunk driving was a sport.

You did something unsafe to draw their attention, the docking lights. They check it out, you give them attitude, they think drinking, it's wired in their brain. How are they supposed to know you have no alcohol on board? They pull up to a pontoon with 11 passengers including kids, they think overload and PFD. At that point they have to do a safety check. What if your boat was only rated for 10? They can't tell that from a distance.

Their big fear, a drunk driver with a pontoon full of kids crashes at night and they could have stopped it.

BTW Driving with docking lights or spot lights is dangerous and rude, but I don't think it's illegal.

The Big Kahuna · 07-29-2007, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Hubbard Rd

Folks, I agree with most of your responses except you may be missing the point which was "TIMES HAVE CHANGED"!!

I agree with you that times have changed, that is because law enforcement can no longer take a chance that they didn't get it right. I see both sides of this, you knew what was happening on your boat, no drinking, young children, typlical family night out seeing the fire works, not your typlical target for Marine Patrol. But you have look at it from MP's side, fireworks are over, there are probably a bunch of yahoo thugs out on a few of the bigger boats, makeing noise and a potential for big trouble. What do they do? Pull over the boat, that will give you the least amount of trouble, tie them up for 30 to 45 minutes so you can avoid really having to do your job dealing with the yahoo's. Just let them drive off and hope you don't have to deal with them any time again soon. Nice job, seen it happen at every gathering on this lake for the last 25 years!

NightWing · 07-29-2007, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Hubbard Rd

Back in the old days I would think someone would have realized they had pulled over a nice family that had no alcohol and a bunch of little kids on board and that they just would have sent us on our way.

Don't make it a personal issue. It had nothing to do with your family being "nice" or not. Even nice families leave the dock without enough PFDs on board. Even nice families can have a discharged fire extinguisher. Even nice families can overload their boat. Even nice families can have a boat with a dead horn.

To send you on your way without a safety check, based just on the appearance of a "nice" family with little kids on board would have been totally irresponsible. And the fact that there WERE little kids on board made it even more essential that everything was verified to be in order. The officer did it right.

NightWing · 07-29-2007, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Boatwiser

I know what you mean when some kid with a badge less than 1/2 your age, boating for probably 3 or 4 years, when you and I have boated for over 30 years thinks they know more than we do. Yeah right!

They probably DO because they had intensive training, are up to date on the latest boating laws and don't have your many years of predisposed ideas to cloud their judgment. Age is not an indicator of wisdom.

Bill25 · 07-29-2007, 10:24 AM

I think JRC brings up the correct problem here "Driving with docking lights or spot lights is dangerous and rude, but I don't think it's illegal". If MP didn't have a legal reason to stop the poster then he is correct they should have just said it's unsafe to driving with docking lights on and have a good evening folks. If it's in fact not illegal and they gave him a warning, that to me is even a bigger problem. If this is true he should report it to MP HQ. Maybe the force needs additional training in proper legal stops.

lifeonthefarm · 07-29-2007, 11:15 AM

docking lights obstruct from your red/green navigational lights. driving down the lake with them is illegal because if you cant see them then you arent displaying them.

jrc · 07-29-2007, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lifeonthefarm

docking lights obstruct from your red/green navigational lights. driving down the lake with them is illegal because if you cant see them then you arent displaying them.

The only thing close is this:

Saf-C 403.14 Time for Lights. Proper lighting, as required in Saf-C 403.15 and Saf-C 403.16, shall be displayed between sunset and sunrise. Lights shall be lighted at such times and no other lights which might be mistaken for the prescribed lights shall be exhibited.

You going to have a hard time convincing me that typical docking lights can be mistaken for the prescribed lights.

Now if you want to push it, you could look at:

270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

I doubt anyone would feel this applies. It might be enough for an articulatible suspicion.

hazelnut · 07-29-2007, 12:10 PM

That's a stretch. Who is to say that docking lights obstruct Nav lights. I have both docking lights and Nav lights and they most certainly DO NOT obstruct one from seeing my Nav lights. I realize that I should not drive with them on so i do not do it. If this was a case of something that was not illegal than Marine Patrol could have given the old "Excuse me sir, you left your docking lights on." "Oh thank you sir." "Have a good evening folks." Instead it turned in to a full scale stop.

So the main question is where is the RSA that states that it is ILLEGAL to drive with docking lights on? Do not feed me the obstruction of my Nav lights BS because I'll challenge anyone to a test on that.

You're up Skip this is usually your area of expertise.

secondcurve · 07-29-2007, 12:58 PM

Hazelnut:

Please give the MP a break. If Old Hubbard had been drunk and plowed his boat into another and in the process injured people, folks like you would be howling about why the MP didn't do something about the situation when it hadthe opportunity. It takes time to figure out what is going on after a stop and to evaluate the situation.

hazelnut · 07-29-2007, 03:05 PM

Secondcurve,
Did you even READ my post. I am not jumping all over Marine Patrol?!?! I am merely inquiring as to the motivation for the stop and the subsequent length of the stop. You also make huge assumptions as to what I would do:

"folks like you would be howling about why the MP didn't do something about the situation when it hadthe opportunity"

My original post was pointed towards those who thought that Nav lights were obscured by docking lights. Now you have twisted it into me dumping on MP and speculating what my reaction would be after a made up situation? Geesh.

secondcurve · 07-29-2007, 03:44 PM

Hazelnut:

My apologizes. I misread your post. I stand corrected.

Pineedles · 07-29-2007, 03:56 PM

"They started with the license and registration bull$#@&. I got pretty pissed at that point. I told them that this harrasement was wrong."

I don't know Hazelnut, you seem pretty pissed off at the MP? I too would not like to have been delayed that long, and their time would have been better spent looking for DUI boaters after seeing that you were not. I don't know what they are obligated to check for after a stop. I would think they would have some discretion.

Gavia immer · 07-29-2007, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

That's a stretch. Who is to say that docking lights obstruct Nav lights. I have both docking lights and Nav lights and they most certainly DO NOT obstruct one from seeing my Nav lights.

Operating with docking lights can "flash" the night vision of other boaters. You never know when there might be an unlighted kayak near Meredith.

hazelnut · 07-29-2007, 07:51 PM

Where did I say that?????

Please carefully reread the thread before you misquote me.

Secondcurve, No problemo... I was merely offering a counterpoint to the main theme of the thread. I want to know if the stop was warranted legally. I default to Skip on that one. If not a truly legal issue then I think the original poster can vent here and ask why not cut a little break here. just a friendly warning could have been issued in my humble opinion. Again just my opinion not based on law and procedure or anything official. Just a little human courtesy based on a visual assessment of the particular individuals involved. I mean haven't we all wished for a lenient State Trooper in our lifetime after being pulled over for going 5-10 over the posted? The offense in question here seems to be even less offensive than that considering there is no written law directly addressing that.

wildwoodfam · 07-29-2007, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineedles

"They started with the license and registration bull$#@&. I got pretty pissed at that point. I told them that this harrasement was wrong."

I don't know Hazelnut, you seem pretty pissed off at the MP? I too would not like to have been delayed that long, and their time would have been better spent looking for DUI boaters after seeing that you were not. I don't know what they are obligated to check for after a stop. I would think they would have some discretion.

That quote is from Old Hubbard - not Hazelnut...Better recheck your quotes and offer an apology -

Skip · 07-29-2007, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

...I want to know if the stop was warranted legally. I default to Skip on that one...

There are two reasons that the MPs could use to effectively initiate the stop as described.

The first reason is covered under the previously quoted Administrative Rule Saf-C 403.14 as this particular regulation is very broad in its scope.

The second reason is that if the auxilary lights obstructed the officer's ability, even momentarily, to ascertain the proper lights then the officer can also articulate and justify the stop.

Let's look at it using another example. Many times a motor vehicle stop will be initiated because an officer may not be able to clearly see an inspection sticker or misread a plate expiration sticker and so on. If the officer can articulate to the Court that the stop was made in good faith when an actual violation may not have occured then stop and a reasonable investigation is usually held as warranted.

Like the overnight anchoring regulation that we have discussed before, this is yet but another example where there is no direct regulation specifying an offense, but a violation is determined and a stop occurs by using a number of other related factors.

In my opinon, whether or not there is no direct regulation prohibiting the use of or possession docking lights (or any type of spot or flood or auxilary lighting) there is ample peripheral regulation to allow a stop to occur if the use of such lighting distracts another from ascertaining the employing boat's navigational intentions.

I won't comment on whether the actual scope and length of the stop exceeded the accepted norm as I was not witness to the event. However, I will venture to opine that if the MP boat was close enough to the boat in question to effect the stop because of its use of docking lights then most likely the Court would find the reason for the stop to be valid.

Silver Duck · 07-29-2007, 08:21 PM

If running with docking lights or a spotlight on (more than momentarily) is illegal, the MP needs to have a word with whoever was running either the Sophie C. or the Doris E. (couldn't tell which in the dark) Saturday night.

I was approaching the channel from Meredith at about 9:30 and whichever it was had her spotlight on way, way the heck before and after the channel. And, yes, it obscured her running lights; I saw something coming toward the channel, siad "what the Heck is that?" and stopped dead until she was past.

Silver Duck

Pineedles · 07-30-2007, 07:56 AM

I mistook Old Hubbard Rd's initial post as yours. I feel sooo stupid.

Weirs guy · 07-30-2007, 11:40 AM

I can see your frustration Old Hubbard Road, gone are the days when officer nice guy would follow the town drunk home from the bar instead of arresting him. I'll tell you what would help me feel better after this. Imagine it was your son or daughter on someone elses boat, are you sure they have all the proper safety gear? Are they sober? I guess I'd rather have the MP check then guess myself.

Pineedles · 07-30-2007, 08:30 PM

You are right Weirs Guy, about the old days when the officer followed you home once he determined you were drunk. I don't think this is the same situation. This cappy was not drunk, and yet he was fully examined. Do you think that time could have been better spent finding those DUI cappys? And I'm sure there were plenty of them after the show.

hazelnut · 07-30-2007, 08:53 PM

Pineneedles, No need to feel stupid, apology accepted.

Skip, thanks for the post. I had a thought last night. I feel like the offense in question is equivalent to driving a car with the High Beams on. So most cops would pull over a motorist for that? I also feel like most cops after pulling over that motorist, lets say in a mini-van with a bunch of kids would probably go easy on them. I don't know I guess I'm an optimist.

Rattlesnake Guy · 07-31-2007, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

I had a thought last night. I feel like the offense in question is equivalent to driving a car with the High Beams on.

Sorry but when someone on the road has high beams on you can still see the other cars. It is hard sometimes to pick the boats out of the shore lights. When someone's docking lights constrict you iris it is a lot worse than the headlights of one car being brighter than the others. We see you, but now can't see anything else in the dark.

Weirs guy · 08-01-2007, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pineedles

You are right Weirs Guy, about the old days when the officer followed you home once he determined you were drunk. I don't think this is the same situation. This cappy was not drunk, and yet he was fully examined. Do you think that time could have been better spent finding those DUI cappys? And I'm sure there were plenty of them after the show.

I guess you could make the argument that the time would have been better spent stopping other craft. I see both sides here, Old Hubbard Rd was very upset that he received what he felt was harassment while out with his "nice family" (and, Old Hubbard Rd, I would have probably felt the same way), but how is the MP to know that without making the stop in the first place? On the other hand, how many boaters took note of the floating-blue-lighted-buoy-of-safety and took it easier then they normally would have, even if the MP's were just wasting time?

I guess the bright side for me is that the MP's weren't violating the 150' rule by my beach while they were busy with Old Hubbard Rd.

hazelnut · 08-01-2007, 08:34 PM

Rattlesnake guy maybe I didn't make it clear but what I meant was the spirit of the infraction. Not trying to compare the visual aspect but the severity of the violation, if you know what I mean. High Beams and Docking lights as far as what type of violation vs speeding and 150 foot rule. If that makes sense at all.

bigpapi34 · 08-02-2007, 11:28 AM

i 2nd old hubbard rd on this...it was a late night and they all wanted to get home...like he said 5 years ago i bet this never would have happend....they should see that everyone under age had a life vest on and let them go...i would have been agry too if they made me go into everything and testing u...

-paul

07-28-2007, 11:45 AM	#1
Old Hubbard Rd Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 462 Thanks: 141 Thanked 54 Times in 33 Posts	Times have changed!! Last PM was the 1st time I have been pulled over on the lake. I was VERY disappointed with the Marine Patrol. 2 real young Marine Patrol guys could not have been older that 21. I own a pontoon boat. We had been docked at the Weirs for the Friday PM fireworks. When leaving the Weirs I had my docking lights on by mistake. I had 11 passengers aged from 2 to 50 something. We had no alcohol on board and were completely sobber. All the kids had life jackets on. It was getting late. The Marine Patrol put's their blue lights on and ALL their spot lights and come chasing us. They pull up close and starting assessing the passengers. They asked if I knew why they were pulling me over and I said yes that I had my docking lights on as when I saw the blue lights I quickly assessed why they were coming after me. They said yes that was the reason. At that point seeing that I had 6 children under the ages of 14 and being late at night one would think that the Marine Patrol would say have a nice night and be careful and send us on our way. NOT!! They started with the license and registration bull$#@&. I got pretty pissed at that point. I told them that this harrasement was wrong. They started with all the test questions. I had to go thru all the life jackets, fire extinguisers, throw cushing, boater certification license. I was visibly angry at this point. They took my licenses and registration and pulled away for about 10 more minutes and then returned saying this was just a warning and drove off. Although the kids appeared ok with all that we went through I thought it was way over board. Boy have times changes!! Back in the old days I would think someone would have realized they had pulled over a nice family that had no alcohol and a bunch of little kids on board and that they just would have sent us on our way.

07-28-2007, 12:23 PM	#2
gravy boat Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Gilford year round, West Alton summers Posts: 582 Thanks: 580 Thanked 194 Times in 99 Posts	MP Experience at Weirs Perhaps they were taught only the drill questions during the MP training, and nothing about how to make a judgement call. If this is their first summer on MP, they are probably afraid to make a mistake, deferring to what they were taught, not what common sense tells them.

07-28-2007, 03:08 PM	#5
B R Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 140 Thanks: 0 Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post	You were visibly angry Marine Patrol is doing their job and you showed what a good boater you are by getting visibly angry with them? Sir, you are in the wrong here. It is what they are supposed to do. I suppose because you were in a Pontoon boat with kids they should just waive you through? I don't get your anger. Maybe you need to learn a little patience and understanding. __________________ "You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know"

07-28-2007, 06:50 PM	#8
kjbathe Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 281 Thanks: 3 Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts	One more thing... Did folks actually pay attention when they got their boating certificates? Our instructor made it crystal clear multiple times that if he has to stop you, it's going to be a minimum of 30 minutes that he's on our boat. He's going to check all PFDs, all fire extinguishers, all throwable devices, ensuring they are all accessible, in suitable working condition, is going to make you install and confirm the function of all lights, produce your certificates, produce and confirm your registration etc... In short, if you take an action that invites the attention of Marine Patrol, expect that they will do nothing less than give you an abundance of attention in return. Pretty much a no-brainer in my book.

07-28-2007, 08:18 PM	#9
Old Hubbard Rd Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 462 Thanks: 141 Thanked 54 Times in 33 Posts	Times have changed!! Folks, I agree with most of your responses except you may be missing the point which was "TIMES HAVE CHANGED"!!

07-28-2007, 01:06 PM	#3
lifeonthefarm Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 17 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	The MP were just doing their job, as they are like any other LE agency. They saw a violation and made a stop. They are required to ask for your license and registration. They are also required to do that safety inspection. (It would be a huge liability if they let someone continue without lifejackets and they needed them shortly after being stopped...) They also have to document that they stopped and gave you a warning. The fact that you got a warning shows they were doing their job well in my opinion. I just dont see any harrassment here...

07-28-2007, 03:15 PM	#6
secondcurve Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,084 Thanks: 1,267 Thanked 557 Times in 286 Posts	Old Hubbard Road: I have been stopped twice at the Weirs in the past two years. Same drill. In general, I was okay with how they approached the situation in each case. Please note that because of the heavy enforcement in the area, it is less likely that a drunk SOB will slam into your boat and harm your family. Unfortunately, we all pay a price for the idiots out there, Fortunately, it is a small price to pay.

07-28-2007, 09:49 PM	#10
The Boatwiser Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 12 Thanks: 0 Thanked 5 Times in 2 Posts	Need More "Real World" Experience How about that the mp positions their boats so everyone has to come of plane 1/4 mile before they really need to in front of the channel at Weirs. They also do the same bone headed thing on the Paugus bay side. So what we all end up with is HUGE wakes from slow moving boats jockeying for position and congested approaches to the channel. To me it is more than an annoyance, it's a hazard to navigation. Why don't they spend more time watching the idiots that rent boats and cause more close calls than I can count. I know what you mean when some kid with a badge less than 1/2 your age, boating for probably 3 or 4 years, when you and I have boated for over 30 years thinks they know more than we do. Yeah right!

07-29-2007, 08:27 AM	#11
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	What's changed? Other than asking for an education cert, this would have been handled the same way twenty years ago. Maybe not thirty years ago, back in the 70's, when drunk driving was a sport. You did something unsafe to draw their attention, the docking lights. They check it out, you give them attitude, they think drinking, it's wired in their brain. How are they supposed to know you have no alcohol on board? They pull up to a pontoon with 11 passengers including kids, they think overload and PFD. At that point they have to do a safety check. What if your boat was only rated for 10? They can't tell that from a distance. Their big fear, a drunk driver with a pontoon full of kids crashes at night and they could have stopped it. BTW Driving with docking lights or spot lights is dangerous and rude, but I don't think it's illegal.

07-29-2007, 10:24 AM	#15
Bill25 Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Legal Stop? I think JRC brings up the correct problem here "Driving with docking lights or spot lights is dangerous and rude, but I don't think it's illegal". If MP didn't have a legal reason to stop the poster then he is correct they should have just said it's unsafe to driving with docking lights on and have a good evening folks. If it's in fact not illegal and they gave him a warning, that to me is even a bigger problem. If this is true he should report it to MP HQ. Maybe the force needs additional training in proper legal stops.

07-29-2007, 11:15 AM	#16
lifeonthefarm Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 17 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	docking lights obstruct from your red/green navigational lights. driving down the lake with them is illegal because if you cant see them then you arent displaying them.

07-29-2007, 12:10 PM	#18
hazelnut Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,348 Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 508 Thanked 462 Times in 162 Posts	Ummmmmm No That's a stretch. Who is to say that docking lights obstruct Nav lights. I have both docking lights and Nav lights and they most certainly DO NOT obstruct one from seeing my Nav lights. I realize that I should not drive with them on so i do not do it. If this was a case of something that was not illegal than Marine Patrol could have given the old "Excuse me sir, you left your docking lights on." "Oh thank you sir." "Have a good evening folks." Instead it turned in to a full scale stop. So the main question is where is the RSA that states that it is ILLEGAL to drive with docking lights on? Do not feed me the obstruction of my Nav lights BS because I'll challenge anyone to a test on that. You're up Skip this is usually your area of expertise.

07-29-2007, 12:58 PM	#19
secondcurve Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,084 Thanks: 1,267 Thanked 557 Times in 286 Posts	Hazelnut: Please give the MP a break. If Old Hubbard had been drunk and plowed his boat into another and in the process injured people, folks like you would be howling about why the MP didn't do something about the situation when it hadthe opportunity. It takes time to figure out what is going on after a stop and to evaluate the situation.

07-29-2007, 03:05 PM	#20
hazelnut Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,348 Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 508 Thanked 462 Times in 162 Posts	Huh? Secondcurve, Did you even READ my post. I am not jumping all over Marine Patrol?!?! I am merely inquiring as to the motivation for the stop and the subsequent length of the stop. You also make huge assumptions as to what I would do: "folks like you would be howling about why the MP didn't do something about the situation when it hadthe opportunity" My original post was pointed towards those who thought that Nav lights were obscured by docking lights. Now you have twisted it into me dumping on MP and speculating what my reaction would be after a made up situation? Geesh.

07-29-2007, 03:44 PM	#21
secondcurve Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,084 Thanks: 1,267 Thanked 557 Times in 286 Posts	Hazelnut: My apologizes. I misread your post. I stand corrected.

07-29-2007, 03:56 PM	#22
Pineedles Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Moultonborough & CT Posts: 2,535 Thanks: 1,059 Thanked 652 Times in 363 Posts	Robot MPs? "They started with the license and registration bull$#@&. I got pretty pissed at that point. I told them that this harrasement was wrong." I don't know Hazelnut, you seem pretty pissed off at the MP? I too would not like to have been delayed that long, and their time would have been better spent looking for DUI boaters after seeing that you were not. I don't know what they are obligated to check for after a stop. I would think they would have some discretion.

07-29-2007, 07:51 PM	#24
hazelnut Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,348 Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 508 Thanked 462 Times in 162 Posts	Pineneedles??? Where did I say that????? Please carefully reread the thread before you misquote me. Secondcurve, No problemo... I was merely offering a counterpoint to the main theme of the thread. I want to know if the stop was warranted legally. I default to Skip on that one. If not a truly legal issue then I think the original poster can vent here and ask why not cut a little break here. just a friendly warning could have been issued in my humble opinion. Again just my opinion not based on law and procedure or anything official. Just a little human courtesy based on a visual assessment of the particular individuals involved. I mean haven't we all wished for a lenient State Trooper in our lifetime after being pulled over for going 5-10 over the posted? The offense in question here seems to be even less offensive than that considering there is no written law directly addressing that.

07-29-2007, 08:21 PM	#27
Silver Duck Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Billerica, MA Posts: 364 Thanks: 40 Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts	If running with docking lights or a spotlight on (more than momentarily) is illegal, the MP needs to have a word with whoever was running either the Sophie C. or the Doris E. (couldn't tell which in the dark) Saturday night. I was approaching the channel from Meredith at about 9:30 and whichever it was had her spotlight on way, way the heck before and after the channel. And, yes, it obscured her running lights; I saw something coming toward the channel, siad "what the Heck is that?" and stopped dead until she was past. Silver Duck

07-30-2007, 07:56 AM	#28
Pineedles Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Moultonborough & CT Posts: 2,535 Thanks: 1,059 Thanked 652 Times in 363 Posts	Sorry Hazelnut I mistook Old Hubbard Rd's initial post as yours. I feel sooo stupid.

07-30-2007, 11:40 AM	#29
Weirs guy Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Weirs Beach, NH Posts: 1,067 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	I can see your frustration Old Hubbard Road, gone are the days when officer nice guy would follow the town drunk home from the bar instead of arresting him. I'll tell you what would help me feel better after this. Imagine it was your son or daughter on someone elses boat, are you sure they have all the proper safety gear? Are they sober? I guess I'd rather have the MP check then guess myself. __________________ Is it bikeweek yet? Now?

07-30-2007, 08:30 PM	#30
Pineedles Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Moultonborough & CT Posts: 2,535 Thanks: 1,059 Thanked 652 Times in 363 Posts	Weirs Guy You are right Weirs Guy, about the old days when the officer followed you home once he determined you were drunk. I don't think this is the same situation. This cappy was not drunk, and yet he was fully examined. Do you think that time could have been better spent finding those DUI cappys? And I'm sure there were plenty of them after the show.

07-30-2007, 08:53 PM	#31
hazelnut Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,348 Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 508 Thanked 462 Times in 162 Posts	No Problem Pineneedles, No need to feel stupid, apology accepted. Skip, thanks for the post. I had a thought last night. I feel like the offense in question is equivalent to driving a car with the High Beams on. So most cops would pull over a motorist for that? I also feel like most cops after pulling over that motorist, lets say in a mini-van with a bunch of kids would probably go easy on them. I don't know I guess I'm an optimist.

08-01-2007, 08:34 PM	#34
hazelnut Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,348 Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 508 Thanked 462 Times in 162 Posts	Point missed Rattlesnake guy maybe I didn't make it clear but what I meant was the spirit of the infraction. Not trying to compare the visual aspect but the severity of the violation, if you know what I mean. High Beams and Docking lights as far as what type of violation vs speeding and 150 foot rule. If that makes sense at all.

08-02-2007, 11:28 AM	#35
bigpapi34 Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: meredith Posts: 27 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	i 2nd old hubbard rd on this...it was a late night and they all wanted to get home...like he said 5 years ago i bet this never would have happend....they should see that everyone under age had a life vest on and let them go...i would have been agry too if they made me go into everything and testing u... -paul