Speed doesn't matter if alcohol involved

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Speed had nothing to do with the accident.

Alcohol was involved, and that means how fast the vehicle was going had absolutely nothing to do with the outcome. No accident involving alcohol should EVER be blamed in any way on the speed of the vehicle. The same thing could have happened at 6 mph.

{Bold added by ITD}

Just saw this quote over in winter sports.
After so many entries saying that speed is an issue in an accident even when alcohol is involved, the story changes. Talk about inconsistency and an agenda. Based on that quote, there is NO justification for a speed limit on the lake, this is just a misguided attempt by a small group of people to remove types of boats they consider undesirable from the lake.

NH State Senators please pay attention to the inconsistency here, even the proponents of the speed limit don't believe their own arguments.

[Lakewinniboater]

i would second that

[Yankee]

I would concur also. That is a ridiculous statement to make!

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

{Bold added by ITD}
.... Talk about inconsistency and an agenda. Based on that quote, there is NO justification for a speed limit on the lake, this is just a misguided attempt by a small group of people to remove types of boats they consider undesirable from the lake. ... NH State Senators please pay attention to the inconsistency here, even the proponents of the speed limit don't believe their own arguments.

1.) You're really generalizing here: ONE person made that statement - so don't make out that all proponents of the speed feel that way!

2.) The proponents of the speed limit are not just a small group of people.

3.) The speed limit will apply to every vessel, not just certain types.

4.) Based on your statement, every person that is going faster than 45 in a boat is under the influence of alcohol.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by ITD

{Bold added by ITD}

Just saw this quote over in winter sports.
After so many entries saying that speed is an issue in an accident even when alcohol is involved, the story changes. Talk about inconsistency and an agenda. Based on that quote, there is NO justification for a speed limit on the lake, this is just a misguided attempt by a small group of people to remove types of boats they consider undesirable from the lake.

NH State Senators please pay attention to the inconsistency here, even the proponents of the speed limit don't believe their own arguments.

Hopefully, Senators have a sense of humor.

Island Lover's comment was the gold standard in sarcasm. (And backed up my previous observations as well).

Shortly afterwards he posted:

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I'm just repeating some of the things I learned on the HB162 forum. It doesn't make sense to me either. I guess its only boats where alcohol use negates all other violations.

[Fat Jack]

Guys,
Please tell me that you truly don't believe that IL meant that seriously. You can't be so clueless as to think that his/her comments were not made facetiously. He/she was clearly just poking fun at your side's rediculous use of that argument in the HB162 debate. Just read his/her very next post. You guys are really getting desperate.

IL,
Please go back and add a "wink" to your post, so that even the least intelligent of us can get it.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

You can't fix stupid.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Hopefully, Senators have a sense of humor.

Island Lover's comment was the gold standard in sarcasm. (And backed up my previous observations as well).

You think that's really funny huh? Someone is seriously hurt and he's making jokes? I don't believe it. IL slipped up again, hounded by his own words.

Once again Senators, read this thread. This is what happens when you point out inconsistencies and errors in the speed limit proponent’s arguments, when proven wrong they backtrack, joke and call you “stupid” (Fatjack). The speed limit is the beginning of a process by these people to limit access to the lake, first the GFBL boats, the next target will be the cruisers and Bass boats, finally the only powered boat not targeted will be pontoon boats. Classic case of I’ve got mine, you can’t have yours.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by ITD

The speed limit is the beginning of a process by these people to limit access to the lake, first the GFBL boats, the next target will be the cruisers and Bass boats, finally the only powered boat not targeted will be pontoon boats.

ITD,
You started this thread, supposedly to talk about the combination of drinking and dangerously high-speed boating. What happened to that topic? Let's get back on track.
Since many GFBL boaters like to imbibe while operating...should we leave it legal for them to go 90-100MPH at the same time, just because they are drunk? Do two wrongs make a right? I just don't follow that logic. And how does that relate to bass boats? Do they drink during the fishing tournaments too? Please explain.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

ITD,
You started this thread, supposedly to talk about the combination of drinking and dangerously high-speed boating. What happened to that topic? Let's get back on track.
Since many GFBL boaters like to imbibe while operating...should we leave it legal for them to go 90-100MPH at the same time, just because they are drunk? Do two wrongs make a right? I just don't follow that logic. And how does that relate to bass boats? Do they drink during the fishing tournaments too? Please explain.

Nope, wrong again Jack, read my first post, I was just pointing out the inconsistency and inaccuracy of the pro speed limit crowd. You slip up, get called on it and all of a sudden it is a joke or I'm stupid. Read it a couple times, maybe it will sink in. So yes Jack, let's stay on track, the track I started with my first post, not your track.

[Island Lover]

I really can't believe you people can't see what my comments were.

For about a year now every time we mention an accident we are told it doesn't have anything to do with speed. A recent FATAL accident at a speed greater than the proposed limit doesn't count because alcohol was involved.

And it was NOT a joke! I don't see anything funny about the life and death situation on the lake, summer AND winter.

SPEED KILLS! Every law enforcement agency in the country (except the NH MP) used that as their slogan!

SPEED KILLS in snowmobiles and in boats.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

A recent FATAL accident at a speed greater than the proposed limit doesn't count because alcohol was involved.

Correct , an ESTIMATED 3mph less wouldn't have made a difference. Some piloting the boat with FULL CONTROL of their facilties would probably made aBIG difference and you know it.

[Yankee]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

ITD,
Since many GFBL boaters like to imbibe while operating...

Your unsubstantiated opinion. Or can you state facts to support that statement?

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I really can't believe you people can't see what my comments were.

For about a year now every time we mention an accident we are told it doesn't have anything to do with speed. A recent FATAL accident at a speed greater than the proposed limit doesn't count because alcohol was involved.

And it was NOT a joke! I don't see anything funny about the life and death situation on the lake, summer AND winter.

SPEED KILLS! Every law enforcement agency in the country (except the NH MP) used that as their slogan!

SPEED KILLS in snowmobiles and in boats.

Let me see if I can try to explain this. Somebody who supports a speed limit brings up an accident above the proposed limit and with a drunk operator. They then try to say that this proves speeds above the proposed limit are unsafe. I say it proves nothing of the sort. I say this because, absent some other data, how can I determine if the accident was due to excess speed or excess drink ? We all know, or should, that people when drunk don't drive (boats, cars, whatever) as well as sober people. They will get into accidents at speeds which are safe when sober. So when excess alcohol is involved in a accident you can't prove that speed, and not alcohol, was the primary cause. Bringing up these accidents proves nothing other than BUI isn't a good idea, as if we all didn't already know that. Here's a hypothetical situation to think about. A drunk drives off the Rt 93 and into a tree at 65 mph. Does this prove the 65 mph speed limit is too high for us sober people ? If someone intent on restoring the 55 mph limit claimed this was proof that a 55 mph limit was needed would you agree ?

As to "Speed Kills" ... again it makes a nice sound bite but is so vague and thus meaningless. Exactly what speed kills ? If over 25 mph kills at night then why doesn't it kill during the day ? Aaaah betcha I know ... because speed too fast for the conditions (excess speed) "kills". Conditions at night are different from those at day. Conditions when crowded are different from when not crowded. Excess depends on the prevailing conditions. So what speeds are excessive ... >25/45 ... when ... why ... because you say so ? Sorry I need just a bit more reasoning than that. Remember when the safety authorities claimed that thousands more would be killed each year if the 55 mph speed limit was raised ? Well it was and they didn't occur. I'm not taking the word of self proclaimed safety authorites as gospel when it doesn't make sense to me. Paraphrasing Congressman Vandiver from Missouri, "Frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. You've got to show me." I've seen nothing showing 25*/45 are proper limits.

*FWIW - 45 more wrong than 25. I think 25 should be more like 30 or 35. When you do the math what do you come up with ?

[Cal]

You are Soooooo right Mee and Mac. Using that for an example is as redicules as say sitting in the back of a boat kills. After all you never know when a drunk is going to run over you

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Yankee

Your unsubstantiated opinion. Or can you state facts to support that statement?

You'll never guess where this poll originated.

View Poll Results: Drink of choice on the water
Water 96 25.00%
Soft drink 40 10.42%
Michelob GD 6 1.56%
Miller/Lite 52 13.54%
Coors 33 8.59%
Bud 52 13.54%
Specialty beer (Smirnoff Ice/Bacardi Silver/Skyy) 17 4.43%
Imported beers 32 8.33%
Vodka 22 5.73%
Rum (Bacardi/Malibu/Captain) 34 8.85%
Voters: 334.

Hint: It's the oldest, biggest website for speedboats.

[chipj29]

I am curious as to when the last time there was an accident on the lake where someone was killed or seriously hurt, and the sole cause was found to be speed? I would even like to go a step further. How many accidents have there been in the past 10 years where speed was the main cause?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

You'll never guess where this poll originated.





Hint: It's the oldest, biggest website for speedboats.

Yep, there it is, the statistics and data the pro speed limit crowd uses to proportedly show the need for a speed limit, except when I look at that data I see the need for BUI laws, which we already have.

[Island Lover]

Mee-N-Mac

You keep forgetting that a jury found that operator NOT GUILTY of DWI. You seem to know more about that accident than the jury.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

For about a year now every time we mention an accident we are told it doesn't have anything to do with speed. A recent FATAL accident at a speed greater than the proposed limit doesn't count because alcohol was involved.

Once again I don't believe what you say.
Every example you use is vague, if you a so sure, be specific. I think you are talking about the Littlefield accident, there is no proof that speed was an issue. There is one THEORY that the collision occurred at 28 mph (?) THIS IS NOT PROOF, it is a theory, impossible to prove, a guess, probably wrong. I would think by this time you would have multiple examples where boat speeds above your speed limit have caused fatalities in NH, you have nothing, not even one or two that you could use in your arguments.

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I really can't believe you people can't see what my comments were.

{snip}

And it was NOT a joke! I don't see anything funny about the life and death situation on the lake, summer AND winter.

SPEED KILLS! Every law enforcement agency in the country (except the NH MP) used that as their slogan!

SPEED KILLS in snowmobiles and in boats.

Once again I DON"T BELIEVE YOU!!!!!!!! You slipped up, admit it. I don't for one minute believe that anyone could be so crass, uncaring and low as to joke in a thread about someone who was seriously injured in an accident.

Slogans like SPEED KILLS is all you have to jam a ridiculous speed limit down our throats.

NH SENATORS look through these threads at the statements these people make, look at the counter statements and see what happens when they are challenged. You will see they can't support their arguments and have to resort to calling us stupid, "least intelligent" and so on. Defeat this bill.

[Woodsy]

Island Lover...

The jury didn't have much choice but to find him not guilty of BWI. They did not have the preponderance of evidence needed for conviction, to point the results of a breathalyzer or blood test. The loophole through which Mr. Littlefield was able to legally leave the scene of an accident has now been closed.

The jury did convict him of negligent homicide by failing to keep a proper lookout. He now sits in jail.

But lets go over some of the facts as they came out in the trial...

1. By his own admission and other witnesses, he was drinking at Braun Bay. (no harm or foul... yet)

2. He decides to drive his boat after consuming alcohol. This is where AIS (Alcohol Induced Stupidity) first appears. He may not have been legally drunk, but its the first sign of bad/impaired judgement.

3. He drives the boat to Meredith and goes to dinner. At dinner he orders 4 glasses of wine, but allegedly only drinks two. We don't know how much booze was actually ordered because convieniently Rusty's restaurant can't find the slip. (AIS is pretty much full blown at this point)

4. After dinner its time to drive home... (AIS is out of control at this point)

5. He collides with the Hartman boat. He drives away. We know sad reults.

In the above scenario, Daniel had several chances to reverse AIS. He chose poorly, and continued to imbibe alcohol.

The speed at which his Baja was traveling was irrelavent, as any speed over headway would have had little effect on the outcome. Had a speed limit been in place, in addition to getting convicted of negligent homicide, he might have gotten a $100 speeding ticket.

Woodsy

[Island Lover]

ITD

Your being silly now.

Go back and read my two posts in that thread again. Then perhapsd you should look up the word sarcasm.

You are correct that I wouldn't joke about it. People are dying, HB162 is life and death to future boaters. There is nothing funny about that.

Accident reconstruction experts testify in court that the speed was 28 mph. You responce is...

"There is one THEORY that the collision occurred at 28 mph (?) THIS IS NOT PROOF, it is a theory, impossible to prove, a guess, probably wrong."

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

ITD

Your being silly now.

Go back and read my two posts in that thread again. Then perhapsd you should look up the word sarcasm.

You are correct that I wouldn't joke about it. People are dying, HB162 is life and death to future boaters. There is nothing funny about that.

Accident reconstruction experts testify in court that the speed was 28 mph. You responce is...

"There is one THEORY that the collision occurred at 28 mph (?) THIS IS NOT PROOF, it is a theory, impossible to prove, a guess, probably wrong."

Ah, now we've graduated from stupid to "least intelligent" to "silly". Maybe we'll get to data that supports your position.

Accident reconstruction experts testify on information garnered from an accident scene. They "theorize" based upon their best "guess" as to what happened. This is not fact or hard science, it is an opinion given by an expert. Furthermore, if we accept that number as fact, it is well within the tolerance of most boat speedometers, in other words the boat speedo may well have read 25 mph, your speed limit, and the accident still occurred.

Since we're talking theories here, I theorize that had the victim's boat been travelling 10 mph faster, say 38 mph, the accident would have never happened. Flies in the face of your speed limit.


"People are dying", once again you speak in generalities bordering on untruths. I search and I look trying to do your job for you and I can't find all these people who have died on Winni. because of speeds greater than your speed limit. Once again you are wrong....

Pay attention Senators.......

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

You'll never guess where this poll originated.





Hint: It's the oldest, biggest website for speedboats.

This was on Boat US?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

ITD

Accident reconstruction experts testify in court that the speed was 28 mph.

I.L. ,
I believe you once again forgot the word ESTIMATED before the word SPEED
As a matter of fact I don't think I've ever seen you use it there. It was in the report I read

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Mee-N-Mac

You keep forgetting that a jury found that operator NOT GUILTY of DWI. You seem to know more about that accident than the jury.

I'm not forgetting anything. I am remembering that reasonable doubt gets an aquittal and an aquittal isn't the same as "didn't do it". Do you remember the OJ trial ? I'm remembering the published comments by Chief Jaran and Thomas and Diane Girard. I'm also remembering the published comments by one of the jurors who said that he thought that if Littlefield hadn't been drinking that day the accident wouldn't have happened.

But just for the moment let's say that alcohol wasn't a factor at all. How does a single accident prove anything ? Would a single accident by a sober person doing 65 on Rt93 prove that the 65 mph speed limit is too high ? What, and I'm asking for your opinion, makes 25 at night a safe speed and 30 an unsafe one ? Is your opinion based solely the Hartman incident ?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

You'll never guess where this poll originated.





Hint: It's the oldest, biggest website for speedboats.

Let's see the rest of it, what you posted does not mention if this is the actual drivers or passengers posting these responses. I like to have a few while I am on the water but this by no way means that I am the driver when doing so!!!

[Island Lover]

Sorry, but accident reconstruction IS a science. It is a hard science. Its taught at universities, you can get a masters degree.

Estimating speed is what a cop does when you drive by. In Forensic Accident Reconstruction the speed is CALCULATED by an expert.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Sorry, but accident reconstruction IS a science. It is a hard science. Its taught at universities, you can get a masters degree.

Estimating speed is what a cop does when you drive by. In Forensic Accident Reconstruction the speed is CALCULATED by an expert.

Wrong once again, although as usual this statement is very vague it is still wrong. You see I never said that the speed is not calculated by the expert, so technically you are correct there. What you forgot, ignore, or simply don't understand is that these calculations are based on assumptions, guesses and the best effort of the expert to figure out what happened. They don't have a crystal ball, there is not a course in their college called Perfect Speed Calculation 101 and if you asked this expert he/she would tell you that 28 is an estimate and the actual speed could have been higher or lower. In fact every account I've read states "approximately" or "estimated", maybe you should read them.

Laws, especially speed limit laws, should be based on actual data not hype, hype that borders on untruthfulness if not just plain lies. I keep asking (as should the NH State Sentators) for proof a limit is necessary. I have seen none, just vague inaccurate statements.

[Cal]

I didn't read any reports that said the speed was "EXACTLY" 28 mph. Yeah , so they are experts , and the base their answers on the evidence they can find , but they are the first to admit they are still ESTIMATES.
No way science acurate enough to say if a Baja hits a Wellcraft at 28 mph it will ride up the stern 6.23427 feet and at 24 mph it will only ride up 4.73433 feet. Wake up and smell the coffee.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

You'll never guess where this poll originated.

(snip)

Hint: It's the oldest, biggest website for speedboats.

Context, context, get yer context here
Read all about it "

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...p?t=28977&page

Wow after reading all the posts that really is scary stuff
I wonder if there's a poll that shows people like to have a glass of wine with dinner ?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Let's see the rest of it, what you posted does not mention if this is the actual drivers or passengers posting these responses. I like to have a few while I am on the water but this by no way means that I am the driver when doing so!!!

I've made no assumptions: Had the poll been, "What GPS do you use on your boat?", I doubt that a passenger would have answered. It is what it is.

The site is neither BoatUS, which needs to keep their towing capability up-front as possible, nor BoaterEd.

BoaterEd's motto, incidentally, is "Dedicated to Boater Education and Training". BTW, it was BoaterEd who turned up the nickname "GFBL", and the Moderator who said, "The ocean's only an hour away" (about Winnipesaukee's growing speed concerns).

Mee'n'Mac found it, and OSO will likely pull it as a result—probably because "It doesn't pertain to the issue", as these pulled threads seem to always be.

I found this quote honestly refreshing, but this—and the others—remain distressing:

Capt. Absolut checkng in! I know I'll catch hell for this. But we don't boat without the bottle. Absolut and Sprite or Orange soda for the women. I know this isn't PC on this board but I think some of the people on this board don't tell the truth about this subject. Right or wrong I answered the question HONESTLY!

Vodka is also difficult for the officers to smell on your breath.

When anchored or on a sandbar during the days it's Miller GDL but at night in the marina SKKY and any juice in the cooler.

Tanqueray Tonic & Lime..................MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM Crazy Tasty.
Or Captain Morgan's and Ice...I never put enough coke in to make it worth while anyway.

I usually don't drink and drive the boat but I have on a few occasions done so. Very stupid but luckily no one got hurt.

What I referred to is 1/3 of this poll is not drinking alcohol and 2/3 are.

I don't think these poll replies should be lightly dismissed.

I've already written Senators to read OSO. A whole new "take" on boating there, and not much on education. (It IS entertaining, though).

I REALLY hope the Senators are reading this one!

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...2&postcount=35

(Read it—quick!).

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I've made no assumptions: Had the poll been, "What GPS do you use on your boat?", I doubt that a passenger would have answered. It is what it is.

Assumptions ... naah you excel at insinuations.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I found this quote honestly refreshing, but this—and the others—remain distressing:

{snip}

I don't think these poll replies should be lightly dismissed.

Of course you don't think so. Gee a site that's known for it's un-PC'ness isn't 100% PC. News at 11 !

FWIW I see your 6 posts and raise you another six ...

Originally Posted by =

Water if I'm just out for the day and corona with a lime if staying overnight.

Originally Posted by =

Gatorade, ice cold, right out the cooler

Originally Posted by =

H2O-O-O-O-O-O !

Originally Posted by =

If I'm driving, water most of the time or a soda once in a while. Never any alcohol, no exceptions.

Originally Posted by =

Just Water I spent a lot of time on the Arabian gulf ,nothing else works !

Originally Posted by =

Gatorade

Originally Posted by =

Driving: water or Squirt

Not Driving: Absolute and tonic w/lime

Originally Posted by =

I'm a Diet Cokeaholic while running the boat. Once anchored or docked for the night, I'm a Miller Lite fan

Originally Posted by =

Gatorade when running and MGD or Corona at the dock or on the trailer.

Originally Posted by =

Water (or more often Gatorade) while I'm on the boat. Smirnoff Ice at the Turtle afterwards.

Originally Posted by =

If I'm driving, water most of the time or a soda once in a while. Never any alcohol, no exceptions.

Originally Posted by =

Driving:
Water

Not Driving:
1. Captain and ginger, or coke, or ice tea, or lemonade, or on rocks, or ......
2. Beer

I note that the captain is "speaking" and not the "passenger" in my quotes. I note a difference between drinking (insinuated to be drunk at the helm) and drinking at the dock. The difference that's notable between these 2 posts is that I'm saying upfront that I'm cherry picking the quotations and ApS isn't saying anything of the sort (even though he is cherry picking). I say, again, read all the posts. Get some context, I promise it won't hurt. Come to your own conclusions.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I REALLY hope the Senators are reading this one!

Well I doubt the good Senators are bothering to tune into here to make their vital decisions but let's hope that they are. Political people that they are, I'm real sure they know spin when they see it. Again I hope they read all the posts, though they have little bearing on HB162.

Again HB162 is about speed limits, their validity or lack thereof, and not BUI. This thread touches on BUI, which ApS would lead us to believe is rampant and exclusive to the GFBL crowd, and who thus being proven being naughty
(in his eyes), should be punished via HB162. Frankly I think speed limits are a poor substitute for BUI laws and enforcement. I think BUI is neither confined to nor rampant among the GFBL crowd. Arrest records on the lake are sufficient to prove or disprove the truth of this assertion. ApS may not have access to these but I'm sure any Senatorial body does. I'm not losing any sleep re:what such records say.

And so back to the original topic ... how does one distinguish excess alcohol from excess speed as being the prime causitive factor in an "accident" which is purported to have both ? Is a speed that's too fast for someone "under the influence" also too fast for a sober person ? How would an impartial Senator decide which was to blame ?

[Cal]

I , for one , already realize that APS uses partial quotes to his advantage. Someone who dosn't realize this could certainly be "swayed" by his "staggering" facts without even taking a drink. I think we need a law to protect us from THIS.

[ApS]

Speaking of partial quotes taken for advantage...

1) Why was my previous paragraph regarding the solicitation of a 12-year-old child to send letters to New Hampshire Senators ignored? http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...2&postcount=35

How much weight should a Senator place on the thrill-boating experiences of a Texas 12-year-old child anyway? It appears that the thrill-boaters don't care if a child assists a vote on their thrills—as long as it's favorably! Perhaps it's said best here:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Gee a site that's known for it's un-PC'ness isn't 100% PC. News at 11 !

Moreover, one of Fat Jack's URLs (requesting letters to NH Senators) will take you to a Brazilian Jet-Ski site!

2) Since you both regularly decry HB162 at the "World's Largest and Oldest Speedboat Forum", why wasn't your alcohol-use poll used as support for your contentions here?

Answer: Because it's NOT support! NHMP's Lt. Dunleavy says that 80% of NH boaters have alcohol aboard. (And added that alcohol-use appears to be on the increase).

Olympic skier Bode Miller famously stated just last week that he gets drunk to enhance the thrill of running the slopes. After hearing that...how shall we regard the 4½-ton thrill-boater as he imbibes—then departs—from a sand bar? I'm sorry, but alcohol and piloting any craft is bad news—as we will see next summer. (Or among snowmobiles this winter).

3) Here's another example of a partial quote taken for advantage:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Assumptions ... naah you excel at insinuations.
{snip}

What was removed with that {snip} is the following:

Capt. Absolut checking in! I know I'll catch hell for this. But we don't boat without the bottle. Absolut and Sprite or Orange soda for the women. I know this isn't PC on this board but I think some of the people on this board don't tell the truth about this subject. Right or wrong I answered the question HONESTLY!

Captain Absolut knows some of the other thrill-boaters? And they are NOT being truthful? It certainly appears so.

4) It's easy to answer this one:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

And so back to the original topic ... how does one distinguish excess alcohol from excess speed as being the prime causitive factor in an "accident" which is purported to have both ?

Remember that "80% of boaters have alcohol on board" quote?

Let's assume that it includes kayakers. What possible threat does a drunk kayaker pose?

5) Anyway, a speed limit is needed if for no other reason to discourage even faster boating on our scenic lake. What's next?

90-MPH in a 175-horsepower, 4-stroke, 290-pound, Jet-Ski offered recently?

Answer: Yes.

[Woodsy]

APS/InHarms Way/Chipmunk Whisperer...

I guess its ok for you to BREAK the law and endanger people...

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I used to outrun the local cops in my Karmann-Ghia (and never got caught). Sure, there were laws broken, but I didn't want a ticket! If they're going to nail me for 65 in a 45, I can always outdrive them in the curves, and say I didn't see or hear them. "I had the A/C on, Officer"..

So we have now established you have a penchant for small sports cars (BMW & Karmann) and by your own admission you routinely exceed the posted speed limits and you have run from the law! Yet you decry those who are driving thier boats within the scope of the law?

I have but one word for you... HYPOCRITE!

You try to paint an image of Hi-Performance boaters as reckless boozing cowboys. Lt. Dunleavey's old quote may be somewhat accurate, but those 80% of boaters also include family bowriders, sailboats, pontoon boats and other innoucous watercraft. His quote did not differentiate as to what type of boat.

DWI/BWI is a problem. Drinking and driving penalties are harsh, as they should be. DWI/BWI is a problem that a speed limit will do nothing to solve. HB-162 has no provisions for adding to the staff of the MP. In fact, given the fight over adding 7 State Troopers to the current SP roster, I doubt there is any money for any additional MP officers.

As far as what possible threat a drunk kayaker poses, well I guess that depends. A drunk kayaker or canoeist is an EXTREME hazard unto themselves. More people die in canoes and kayaks than ANY OTHER WATERCRAFT!

There have no daytime hi-speed collsions (above 45 MPH) between any boats here on Lake Winnipesaukee. In fact, I cannot reference to any daytime hi-speed collisions that occured on Lake Winnipesaukee at all. There has been one nightime collision, where alcohol/BWI was the suspected primary cause. Good thing ole Rusty's computer convieniently couldn't find the slip that told how much alcohol was really consumed that night! Nevertheless, he was convicted of negligent homicide and now sits in jail.

I fail to see how a 90 MPH PWC has anything to do with HB-162 or BWI as it has been discussed here. If you have enough cash Ken Warby will sell you his 200+ MPH boat he is building for the World Record Attempt.

Woodsy

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

but those 80% of boaters also include family bowriders, sailboats, pontoon boats and other innoucous watercraft.

It might just be me, but for some reason, I am not as fearful of a drunken kid paddling around in a kayak, an 80 year old having a couple of swigs before he heads out in his little 5HP fishing dingy, or my aunt putting around in her 45HP 22MPH pontoon boat after she has had one too many sips of wine. They are certainly all breaking the law and certainly all pose some danger, but I don't think they are nearly as dangerous to other boaters (not even in the same league) as the macho GFBL guy with the heavy throttle hand and the bikini babe at his side whose been pouring himself margaritas all day in a 12000 pound boat that can go over 100 MPH.
I'll take my chances with the drunken kayaker any day.

But I think we are getting off topic again here. Recall that this thread started after IL ridiculed your group's lame "drinking excuses speeding" argument, by sarcastically repeating it on another thread. ITD was "unable to recognize" (I'm being PC) the real intent of IL's post, and with foot-in-mouth, ridiculed IL and asked that the "Senators, please take note". I think we should return to a discussion about this most comedic of all errors and how it relates to Woodsy's tag;
You can't fix stupid..

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by chipj29

I am curious as to when the last time there was an accident on the lake where someone was killed or seriously hurt, and the sole cause was found to be speed? I would even like to go a step further. How many accidents have there been in the past 10 years where speed was the main cause?

I am now curious as to why my questions have gone unanswered. Surely someone here KNOWS the stats. Afterall, HB162 is to improve safety, right? If that is true, how will we measure the impact of HB162 IF it passes? You have to have a baseline to compare future results to, right?

[Woodsy]

Fat Jack

So when your Aunt runs over a kid at 22 MPH in her pontoon boat because she had a few too many sips of wine, thats acceptable behavior? I think the Hartmans might beg to differ with you! Danny Littlefield was drinking wine with dinner the night he ran them over and killed Mr. Hartman, at an estimated speed of 28 MPH! Perhaps had he not had a few too many sips Mr. Hartman might be here today?

Alcohol and driving do not mix. PERIOD! Your argument that people in smaller craft are not as dangerous is absolutely ridiculous. Quite FRANKly its the dumbest argument you have made yet!!

Woodsy

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by chipj29

I am curious as to when the last time there was an accident on the lake where someone was killed or seriously hurt, and the sole cause was found to be speed? I would even like to go a step further. How many accidents have there been in the past 10 years where speed was the main cause?

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.

[Woodsy]

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.

Fat Jack...

Wrong again... You don't need a speed limit for excessive speed to be the primary cause of an accident. The MP look at speed in every boating accident. In the Littlefield case, it wasn't Danny Littlefield that gave us the 28 MPH estimate. It was the MP accident reconstruction team. If the MP accident reconstruction team thought that 28MPH that night was excessive for the prevailing conditions, Danny would have been charged with negligent homicide as a result of reckless operation. You really ought to check your facts.

Lets assume you are in a brand new AWD Volvo traveling up Rt 93 at 55 MPH in a 65MPH zone during a rainstorm or snowstorm... you slide off the road and hit a tree, iinjuring yourself andf your passenger. You can bet excessive speed (for the prevalent conditions) will be listed as the primary cause of the accident as your signing the ticket for reckless operation of a motor vehicle with injury resulting.


The issue is that excessive speed is very rarely the primary cause of collisions. Usually there are other mitigating factors such as BWI. Most of the collision pix APS has posted in other threads have been the result of BWI. If a person is willing to run the risk of getting behind the wheel drunk, knowing how severe the penalties are, then a speeding ticket is of little consequence.

Woodsy

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

It might just be me, but for some reason, I am not as fearful of a drunken kid paddling around in a kayak, an 80 year old having a couple of swigs before he heads out in his little 5HP fishing dingy, or my aunt putting around in her 45HP 22MPH pontoon boat after she has had one too many sips of wine. They are certainly all breaking the law and certainly all pose some danger, but I don't think they are nearly as dangerous to other boaters (not even in the same league) as the macho GFBL guy with the heavy throttle hand and the bikini babe at his side whose been pouring himself margaritas all day in a 12000 pound boat that can go over 100 MPH.
I'll take my chances with the drunken kayaker any day.
{snip}

I can't say I worry much about the drunk kayaker either but the other statement above [emphasis added] indicates a lack of understanding about how dangerous a boat can be. There seems to be a sentiment that if someone gets T-boned by a "small" boat or a slow boat it'll probably all work out OK. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Littlefeild shows that you don't need speed to cause serious injury or fatality. Think it'll be OK if the boat is "small" ? Well if it were something the size of FLL's vessel then perhaps, but the majority of "lake sized" boats are already big enough, and HB-162 speeds fast enough, to cause serious injury or death. You seem to dismiss non-GFBL drunks, who have to compromise 95+% of the BUI problem, while concentrating on the remaining 5%. I wonder why

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

You seem to dismiss non-GFBL drunks, who have to compromise 95+% of the BUI problem, while concentrating on the remaining 5%. I wonder why

You selectively highlighted the wrong part of my quote if this was the point you were trying to emphasize. How about when I said "They...certainly all pose some danger, but I don't think they are nearly as dangerous to other boaters ".
As dangerous as my aunt might in fact be, I'm sure that even you would have to agree that your chances of survival would be much better with her hitting you at 22mph in her pontoon boat, than with that 12000 pound torpedo-shaped cigarette boat hitting you at 90mph (not that there's anything wrong with cigarette boats). If you don't have the honesty to admit even this, let's not bother.

[Mee-n-Mac]

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.

[overlook]

If someone comes into the dock, faster than the manuverability of the boat and crashes into it and injury resaults. Speed related accident...

If an operater takes for an example a 15' bowrider with a 45hp outboard and at WOTcuts the steering, causing the bow to dig in. The boat can flip over or through an occupant out causing injury. Speed related accident...

At night if somone was to come in to Rattlsnake Island and miss judge the location of the dock, crashing into rocks because they were traveling above visability and injury resulted. Speed related accidend.

All this without a posted speed limit WHO KNEW

Boat safe and boat smart, do not oporate beyond the capability of the boat or the pilot.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

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 ? 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 are. So are they ? As ong as they're actually paying attention to the task of driving, I'll agree and say no they aren'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.

A poll of drivers who exceed the highway speed limit by 5mph isn’t the same as a poll to see if people are in favor of a boating speed limit.

Do a poll and see how many think that we should do away with a highway speed limit.

My maximum speed is 5 or 6 mph (which is actually fast for a kayak) – the proposed speed limit is 8 or 9 times that. Isn’t that enough of a difference? After all, the maximum speed on the Interstate is less than twice what the minimum speed is. So, if you’re going to compare boating speed limits with highway speed limits, we should be trying to pass a maximum speed of 10 mph on lakes.

45 mph is a compromise! Personally I’d rather see it less than that, but I can accept 45 mph. There’s just no way that everyone’s going to be happy with any number – some will always want lower – others will always want it higher.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

90-MPH in a 175-horsepower, 4-stroke, 290-pound, Jet-Ski offered recently?

Answer: Yes.

Where'd you find that? That's so cool.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

It might just be me, but for some reason, I am not as fearful of a drunken kid paddling around in a kayak, an 80 year old having a couple of swigs before he heads out in his little 5HP fishing dingy, or my aunt putting around in her 45HP 22MPH pontoon boat after she has had one too many sips of wine. They are certainly all breaking the law and certainly all pose some danger, but I don't think they are nearly as dangerous to other boaters (not even in the same league) as the macho GFBL guy with the heavy throttle hand and the bikini babe at his side whose been pouring himself margaritas all day in a 12000 pound boat that can go over 100 MPH.
I'll take my chances with the drunken kayaker any day.

But I think we are getting off topic again here. Recall that this thread started after IL ridiculed your group's lame "drinking excuses speeding" argument, by sarcastically repeating it on another thread. ITD was "unable to recognize" (I'm being PC) the real intent of IL's post, and with foot-in-mouth, ridiculed IL and asked that the "Senators, please take note". I think we should return to a discussion about this most comedic of all errors and how it relates to Woodsy's tag;
You can't fix stupid..

Come on Jack, enough with the name calling, spin it how you like, but IL was being "refreshingly honest" in the quote I used to start this thread, true colors are hard to hide.........

I love the "(I'm being PC)" quote, you are priceless....

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

90-MPH in a 175-horsepower, 4-stroke, 290-pound, Jet-Ski offered recently?

Answer: Yes.

Yes, please do tell where I can get one too! Go buy one, it can be your Karmann-Ghia on water...

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by overlook

If an operater takes for an example a 15' bowrider with a 45hp outboard and at WOTcuts the steering, causing the bow to dig in. The boat can flip over or through an occupant out causing injury. Speed related accident....

But in fact this almost perfectly describes the Fountain accident in Alton in '04 and the Donzi fatal accident in Wolfeboro in '98, except that both of those occured while turning too sharply at over 70MPH and, contrary to your prediction, neither was classified as speed related... both "operator error" only according to MP records...no mention of speed.

Originally Posted by overlook

At night if somone was to come in to Rattlsnake Island and miss judge the location of the dock, crashing into rocks because they were traveling above visability and injury resulted. Speed related accidend.
.

But in fact this almost perfectly describes the boat crashing into and almost jumping Eagle Island one night in '01, except he was going "extemely fast" according to the patrolman on the scene when he initially talked to reporters. But, again contrary to your prediction, the final MP record shows "reckless operation" as the only cause...no mention of speed.

Now here's a better theoretical example;
We have a 25MPH nighttime speed limit. A boat going 28 runs into another boat and kills some poor old guy who is just out minding his own business. The striking boat's operator gets caught and admits he was going 28MPH, over the speed limit. He is charged for speeding, AND his civil liability is huge because he killed the victim while commiting a crime. He goes to jail for more than a year, and gets appropriately whacked in the civil trial.

[chipj29]

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.

Jack I am going to have to respectfully disagree with your 93 speeding analogy. Without a speed limit, it is possible for one to be "speeding". Traveling at a speed that is unreasonable and unsafe for conditions. Just throwing a speed limit out there doesn't mean that it will be obeyed. To me it appears as though there have been very few accidents that have been attributed to speed. Most are caused by driver inattention, BUI, etc. Putting a speed limit won't necessarily make an accident attributed to speed.

I also disagree with the Littlefield analogy. I believe that if a 25 mph speed limit were in place that it would be difficult to have given him a speeding ticket. No radar, only "estimated" speed. If the speed limit was 25, do you think he would have actually admitted he was going over that speed? How many boat speedometers do you know that are spot on with the speed of the vessel? Most are within +/- 3-5 mph. So Mr Littlefield could have said he was going 25 but his boat may have been going anywhere from 22-28 mph.

So my question still stands. What are the baseline numbers, and what is the expected result IF HB162 is enacted? I would like hard numbers. I am sure that the proponents have studied this.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by chipj29

I am going to have to respectfully disagree

Why am I not surprised? I think I could say that heavier boats weigh more than lighter boats and you guys would find some reason to disagree. But that's ok, I expect that those who are reading all this stuff and who are not meticulously searching for some iota of justification for the absurd notion that driving boats really fast around a crowded lake is reasonable and prudent behavior will recognize where the common sense lies.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

You selectively highlighted the wrong part of my quote if this was the point you were trying to emphasize. How about when I said "They...certainly all pose some danger, but I don't think they are nearly as dangerous to other boaters ".
As dangerous as my aunt might in fact be, I'm sure that even you would have to agree that your chances of survival would be much better with her hitting you at 22mph in her pontoon boat, than with that 12000 pound torpedo-shaped cigarette boat hitting you at 90mph (not that there's anything wrong with cigarette boats). If you don't have the honesty to admit even this, let's not bother.

I was trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to use your "aunt" as a metaphor for a more typical boat. So let me be more precise ... instead of your aunt in a pontoon boat doing 22 we consider an average lake boat going an average speed, how about 21' and 35 mph ? Now take that boat and ram it into, or over, your own. Would you try to tell me that this is somehow not life threatening ? If you want to claim that the cigarette boat is worse, OK fine, but it's a difference w/o a distinction. I say once the probability of injury or death is sufficiently high, and I claim it would be in this example, then discussions about how much more deadly the other boat is are silly. The chances of survival now depend a lot on the random particulars of the crash, where one boat hits another, where you are sitting, etc. In the same league, I would say yes. I wouldn't be arguing that a speed limit should be enacted to increase survivability in the rare occurance of a collision. Honest enough ?

Moreover I look at the issue of drunk boating, your slow aunt vs fast macho guy, this way. At pretty much any speed above NWS the drunk boater is a menace. I have no reason to believe the % of drunks vary between a "slow" group and a "fast" group. The "fast" boats make up less than 5% of the boating population. What % of boaters are BUI I can't say. Somehow it seems to me that I should be worried about the 95% more than the 5%. In any trip across the lake I'm more likely to run into a problem from the 95% than from the 5%.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Since you included my post in your response to Cal here's my reply...

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Speaking of partial quotes taken for advantage...

1) Why was my previous paragraph regarding the solicitation of a 12-year-old child to send letters to New Hampshire Senators ignored? http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...2&postcount=35

Because neither her commentary, nor generally yours, has an factual bearing on the matter. You seem to look at the whole HB-162 issue as a way to punish a group of boaters you don't like. You constantly bring up any excesses and then try to pass them off as typical behavior. You ignore the same excesses when they are exhibited by non-GFBL boaters. The technique of typecasting the many by the sins of the few is an old, well used ploy. I'm simply not buying into it.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

2) Since you both regularly decry HB162 at the "World's Largest and Oldest Speedboat Forum", why wasn't your alcohol-use poll used as support for your contentions here?

Answer: Because it's NOT support! NHMP's Lt. Dunleavy says that 80% of NH boaters have alcohol aboard. (And added that alcohol-use appears to be on the increase).

Olympic skier Bode Miller famously stated just last week that he gets drunk to enhance the thrill of running the slopes. After hearing that...how shall we regard the 4½-ton thrill-boater as he imbibes—then departs—from a sand bar? I'm sorry, but alcohol and piloting any craft is bad news—as we will see next summer. (Or among snowmobiles this winter).

So what are you trying to say ? Are you saying 80% of the boat captains out and about on the lake are drunk ? Are you saying that the Lt. Dunleavy & NHMP knowing letting drunk boaters off the hook when they stop them ? I agree wholeheartedly that "alcohol and piloting any craft is bad news", I just don't limit my concern on that issue to the GFBL crowd. How often to you express any concern or outrage over the excesses of anyone outside of the GFBL crowd ? Once, twice, ever ? Again, are you proposing that speed limits are a proper response to drunk boating ? If not, why are you bringing up alcohol in this discussion ? In direct response to your question above - It wouldn't occur to me to mention the aforementioned poll because I don't see how an alcohol use poll has anything to do with a speed limit discussion. Limiting drunk boaters to HB-162 legal speeds isn't going to make them safe.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

3) Here's another example of a partial quote taken for advantage: {snip}

The only "advantages" I take when I remove a parts of a quote are the ones of breveity and clarity. I indicate, by putting in the {snip}, that there's more to the post than what I've quoted. That's why I do it. I assume people can find the whole post in the thread (usually in close proximity to mine) and read it. When the whole quote / post is in another thread (and if I think there's any possibility of concern over a misquote) I include a URL to that post. There's no good reason to include long sections of previously posted material if I'm only responding to a portion of it. Tell you what though, I ask anybody on the forum to try to find a post where I've cut out a portion of it in a deliberate attempt to misconstrue the original poster's intention or message. You do the same. We'll see what results ... OK ?

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

4) It's easy to answer this one:

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

And so back to the original topic ... how does one distinguish excess alcohol from excess speed as being the prime causitive factor in an "accident" which is purported to have both ?

Originally Posted by ApS

Remember that "80% of boaters have alcohol on board" quote?
Let's assume that it includes kayakers. What possible threat does a drunk kayaker pose?

That's an answer to the question I asked ?!? I'm not worried about the drunk kayaker. How about answering the question (immediately above). Let me make it clear for you. Let's say a boater doing 55 mph runs into the only other boat out in the middle of the Broads. The MP test him and find his BAC to be .12. Would you think it's more likely the accident is due to excess speed or excess alcohol ?

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

5) Anyway, a speed limit is needed if for no other reason to discourage even faster boating on our scenic lake. What's next? {snip}

Like SilverDuck I have my theory as to what top speed is proper. It's higher than HB-162's 45.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

A poll of drivers who exceed the highway speed limit by 5mph isn’t the same as a poll to see if people are in favor of a boating speed limit.

Do a poll and see how many think that we should do away with a highway speed limit.

My maximum speed is 5 or 6 mph (which is actually fast for a kayak) – the proposed speed limit is 8 or 9 times that. Isn’t that enough of a difference? After all, the maximum speed on the Interstate is less than twice what the minimum speed is. So, if you’re going to compare boating speed limits with highway speed limits, we should be trying to pass a maximum speed of 10 mph on lakes.

45 mph is a compromise! Personally I’d rather see it less than that, but I can accept 45 mph. There’s just no way that everyone’s going to be happy with any number – some will always want lower – others will always want it higher.

You've missed my point. It wasn't about polling nor about boat vs auto speeds but rather about how to set a proper speed limit given safety is why you're doing it. HB-162 sets limits (let's stick to the 45 mph for the moment) that were determined by a Rep who thought that 45 "was thrilling enough". Does that mean 50 or 55 is automatically unsafe ? Following your reasoning above ... if somebody used the speed of a typical cyclist to set the speed for cars on the highway would you think that's right ? Would it make any sense to you ? Would you agree that anything above that speed would be unsafe ? Simply declaring a speed to be the limit and calling anyone who goes above that unsafe, or stating that any accident above that speed is due to speed, doesn't make it so. We set limits on our roadways (highways around these parts excepted) via engineering analysis not on best guesses or intuition. Why not do the same for the water ?

[ApS]

Woodsy: APS/InHarms Way/Chipmunk Whisperer...

ApS: Leaving off my most cogent user-name? (Which is TunnelVision, BTW).

Woodsy: So we have now established you have a penchant for small sports cars (BMW & Karmann) and by your own admission you routinely exceed the posted speed limits and you have run from the law! Yet you decry those who are driving thier boats within the scope of the law?

ApS: "Within the scope of the law" is a very kind phrase to describe those 100-MPH boats which operate outside of a closed course. All my 100MPH-thrills are in tons of traffic heading in the same direction—a closed course. (And we have brakes!)

BTW: "Driving a boat" suggests less responsiblity than "piloting a boat". A 6-year-old can "drive" a boat.

Woodsy: I have but one word for you... HYPOCRITE!

ApS: Even today I get an empathic thrill when reading of Wolfeboro Bay Donzis outrunning the "fish-cops".

But...those were my young-and-stupid days, when running from the cops was a thrill. Call it risk-taking behavior, but I'm no longer "stuck on stupid". (But the adrenalin!)

Besides, it was after work, drinking responsibly, and the road was empty after work at 1AM.

Also, it was I who was equipped for reasonable and prudent speeds, and not the town's overpowered Crown Vics. The Ghia had adjustable shocks, swaybars, camber compensator, was decambered and had grippy Dunlop Green Spot tires purchased from Austrian racer Jochen Rindt after the Bahama Speed Weeks. (The engine—at its factory 36HP—was untouched).

I'd ask Mee'n'Mac to vouch for the Dunlop Green Spots. (And also if he has a "dog in this fight").

Woodsy: You try to paint an image of Hi-Performance boaters as reckless boozing cowboys.

ApS: 'Lots of company at the Old Forum! (Though many appear to have left Golden Pond). A few remaining posters (who favored banning smoldering tobacco products) are against HB162—based on LFOD!

Fountains seem to get a lot of bad "press".

Leave it to Mee'n'Mac to have his suspicions of alcohol and boozing cowboys.

Woodsy: Lt. Dunleavey's old quote may be somewhat accurate, but those 80% of boaters also include family bowriders, sailboats, pontoon boats and other innoucous watercraft. His quote did not differentiate as to what type of boat.

ApS: But the Lieutenant didn't dismiss any.

Woodsy: DWI/BWI is a problem.

ApS: Not for me. Sailing fast requires concentration.

Woodsy: Drinking and driving penalties are harsh, as they should be. DWI/BWI is a problem that a speed limit will do nothing to solve.

ApS: Bode Miller would agree with you. He said he needs to be drunk to get a full thrill on the slopes.

Woodsy: HB-162 has no provisions for adding to the staff of the MP. In fact, given the fight over adding 7 State Troopers to the current SP roster, I doubt there is any money for any additional MP officers.

ApS: NH has relied on its citizens for voluntary compliance. HB162's opponents don't have to spend "other people's money" so generously. There will be those who violate the speed limit, but they can't escape our Constitution. We have a guaranteed right of "free-expression" which apparently is being used at Winnipesaukee docks. (Biggus keeps complaining about people "using just one finger" at OSO).

Woodsy: As far as what possible threat a drunk kayaker poses, well I guess that depends. A drunk kayaker or canoeist is an EXTREME hazard unto themselves. More people die in canoes and kayaks than ANY OTHER WATERCRAFT!

ApS: There are thousands of canoes! Rivers in tiny Vermont kill kayaks every year. How many "white-water" Donzis are there?

Woodsy: There have no daytime hi-speed collsions (above 45 MPH) between any boats here on Lake Winnipesaukee. In fact, I cannot reference to any daytime hi-speed collisions that occured on Lake Winnipesaukee at all.


ApS: No? Try "injuries, collisions with water".

You forgot this poor kayaker.

FWIW: Does a collision with a cottage count—with the only Cigarette on the Lake?

Woodsy: I fail to see how a 90 MPH PWC has anything to do with HB-162 or BWI as it has been discussed here. If you have enough cash Ken Warby will sell you his 200+ MPH boat he is building for the World Record Attempt.

ApS: That WOT Jet-Ski would exceed the speed limit by double. I can't afford Ken Warby's liability insurance.

Finally, and to partially answer Lake Geezer's thought on our "Victimhood Society":

What would our lakes be like if all boating liability insurance were banned?

Just a thought.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Why am I not surprised? I think I could say that heavier boats weigh more than lighter boats and you guys would find some reason to disagree. But that's ok, I expect that those who are reading all this stuff and who are not meticulously searching for some iota of justification for the absurd notion that driving boats really fast around a crowded lake is reasonable and prudent behavior will recognize where the common sense lies.

And still, my questions go unanswered.

Jack, to me common sense lies with the operator of a vessel. And if that fails, then it lies with MP. Period. The government should not regulate common sense. Traveling too fast for given conditions needs to be enforced. That I agree with.

But, can you define for me what you think is considered to be "really fast"? And why? Keep in mind that what you and I consider to be really fast may not be what someone else considers really fast. Also, consider that age may play a role in what one considers to be really fast. Quick example. When I was a kid, driving my first car on the highway, 80 seemed to be really fast. Now when I go 70, that seems really fast. And when I pass an elderly person at 60, they probably think I am going really fast. Get my point?

Why is 46 mph considered to be really fast, but 45 is ok?

[fatlazyless]

Please excuse me for interrupting here, but we got to go to a commercial and pay some bills, you understand.


"So, whether you have the need for speed or just are looking for a family fun boat, here at _______ Marine we have what you want!"


Now, back to the action here!

[ApS]

Hide A Beer Can? What speedboat driver would want to do that?

http://www.hideabeercan.com/

You'll never guess what "Un-PC" website features this product; but here's an abbreviated hint...quoting its oft-repeated and self-congratulating slogan:

"THE POWER OF __ __ __"

[Rayhunt]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

90-MPH in a 175-horsepower, 4-stroke, 290-pound, Jet-Ski

That jet ski is a fake!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Ray Hunt

That jet ski is a fake!

It's made of aluminum, and was featured in Popular Science magazine, page 18.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

There have no daytime hi-speed collisions (above 45 MPH) between any boats here on Lake Winnipesaukee.

That's being p-r-e-t-t-y generous to yourselves.

How about "total loss of control resulting in crash"?

(1997) http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=19176

(2001) http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=29832

(2002) Well, you know about this one...by the overall winner of the "Lake Winnipesaukee's Most Educated and Most Experienced Speedboater of 2002" award.
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=44782

(2003) http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=57562

(2004) http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...60&postcount=4

(2005) http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ad.php?p=19417

Extreme speeds take up too many acres-per-second of Lake Winnipesaukee.

If 5-ton behemoths can't keep the "Gelcoat-side-down" to save themselves, should they be trusted—at all?

[Lakewinniboater]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I've made no assumptions: Had the poll been, "What GPS do you use on your boat?", I doubt that a passenger would have answered. It is what it is.

The site is neither BoatUS, which needs to keep their towing capability up-front as possible, nor BoaterEd.

BoaterEd's motto, incidentally, is "Dedicated to Boater Education and Training". BTW, it was BoaterEd who turned up the nickname "GFBL", and the Moderator who said, "The ocean's only an hour away" (about Winnipesaukee's growing speed concerns).

Mee'n'Mac found it, and OSO will likely pull it as a result—probably because "It doesn't pertain to the issue", as these pulled threads seem to always be.

I found this quote honestly refreshing, but this—and the others—remain distressing:

I don't think these poll replies should be lightly dismissed.

I've already written Senators to read OSO. A whole new "take" on boating there, and not much on education. (It IS entertaining, though).

I REALLY hope the Senators are reading this one!

http://www.offshoreonly.com/forums/s...2&postcount=35

(Read it—quick!).

Most of the posts clearly state that they may have a couple during the day but wait until they are docked to drink.

HOWEVER, please explain to me what this has to do with HB162??? The bill has to do with "fear" based on speed. I would be all for an BWI bill. However, that ISN"T what is up for discussion right now.

NOR, does that poll have to do with Lake Winni or NH. Most of those posters are from well out of state! This in my mind provides NO statics or mind set of our boaters here in our state.

It is simply clouding the waters more. This is really and truly out of hand! This issue has divided the lake. Why can't we agree to disagree.... let the bill die and support the other Bills that are currently in the works to make things safer.

Boaters and Residents on both sides of this argument have AGREED that there are issues on the lake and that we ALL want safety for our families and friends.

Why does it come down to HAVING to be a speed limit. There are many other options that are in process right now that will acheive safety. WITHOUT a speed limit. These proposed bills will make the lake safer.... and that is supposedly what the real issue is.

All it would take is an agreement to take speed limits out, since there is no data to support it...... then both sides making an agreement on middle ground to END THIS.

Why does it come down to one side needing to be right, when there is NO BEING right.

The Opposer's have offered new bills for safety and compromises. Why can't the Supporter's. Honestly, can't we stop this insanity????