Serious Moultonboro Snowmobile Wreck...

[Skip]

Man injured in serious single sled wreck in Moultonboro, authorities supect speed & alcohol play part in incident.

Read all about it in today's Citizen:

Man seriously injured in Moultonboro snowmobile wreck (http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060215/CITIZEN0103/102150049/-1/CITIZEN)

Skip

[Woodsy]

As per the norm.... he had been drinking, wasn't wearing a helmet and didn't have any experience driving the sled! A seriously bad combination of circumstances. I hope he is ok.

Woodsy

[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.

[fatlazyless]

It really does not take an Albert Einstein to understand that the relative damage of any collision is directly related to its' speed. Speed does make a huge differance! Let me ask; do you want to drive a snowmobile into a large oak tree at 6mph or at 60 mph? It's a 'no-brainer."

Slightly off-topic comment.....hey Woodsy....to be correct English, shouldn't that be 'You can't fix stupidity' and not 'you can't fix stupid'!

[jimbob1603]

Looks like Darwin's Theory is once again proven correct.

[Cal]

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.


WOW:eek: , Listening to you on the BOAT speed limit subject is a whole lot different.
Let me take a guess here...you have a slow boat and a fast sled:D. Right??

[CHSLTD]

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.


I agree that alcohol was a factor from the news reports, and thats never a good thing. That said, impact at 6mph would have had a very diffrent result.
Wether under the influnce or not, speed ALLWAYS increases the probality of injury. No helmet and lack of experience does not help either.

[Woodsy]

Judging by the pix of the sled, I would guess he was about 25-30 MPH, maybe less when he hit the tree. The sled is still pretty intact from the handlebars back. Much faster than that and the sled would have disintegrated upon collision.

You can pretty much chalk this one up to AIS: Alcohol Induced Stupidity.

I hope he is going to be ok... haven't heard any reports as to his condition.

Woodsy

[Yankee]

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.


:confused: :confused: :confused: I guess it's a different issue when the same unfortunate occurance happens with a boat?

[codeman671]

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.

Sounds like open mouth insert HB162 to me...Can someone tally up the contradictions to this post that have been made???

[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.

[upthesaukee]

this thread is quickly getting off topic, in my humble opinion. I hope the gentleman survives his injuries, and would like to be able to check on reports of his condition on this thread.

I would respectfully request that you take the comments of speed vs alcohol tied into the HB 162 bill back to one of those threads. Thanks for your consideration.

Dave

[Woodsy]

I tend to agree with Upthesaukee... This thread isn't about HB-162. I don't think its all that easy to get a persons sense of humor when reading it on a forum.

This injured person was somebody's son, somebody's friend. It is an accident. Hopefully he will be alright.

I am not disparaging this poor guy. However, I don't think speed was the primary issue here, any more than it was with the Hartman accident. The issue here was AIS (Alcohol Induced Stupidity).

1. The guy was drinking with friends at the bobhouse (no harm or foul there)

2. The individual gets the bright idea he wants to drive the snowmobile after having a few drinks. (not saying he was legally intoxicated) He has little to no experience driving a snomobile. (1st clue that AIS has started)

3. The individual does not put on a helmet (2nd clue that AIS is happening)

4. The individual then starts the sled (3rd clue that AIS is happening)

Here is where AIS hits full blown proportions...

5. The individual decides to actually drive the snowmobile with no helemt and very little to no experience. (Full blown AIS)

6. The individual while in the process of driving the snowmobile, loses control and crashes... causing severe injury to himself and totaling the snowmobile. (the result of AIS)

In the scenario above there were 5 different opportunities for the individual to stop and think about his course of action. 5 chances not to do something stupid. This same scenario is repeated every day by drunk drivers. Its not the speed at which they drive... its the fact that they are driving under the influence of AIS.

Woodsy

[ApS]

Woodsy, two of your previous opinions are consistent:

1)
"...This is a state in which one has the right to choose if they want to wear a helmet or not. I support that choice..."

2)
"...That being said, I support the right of people to choose for themselves whether or not to wear a helmet..."

Now, today, with this 28-MPH crash...

"...3). The individual does not put on a helmet..."

Help me work this through:

Was it your prior intent to support the right of drunks to be helmet-free?

Or should only drunks wear helmets? :confused:


_____________________
My drinking club has a snowmobile problem.

[RumGuy]

Someone once told me that almost every accident is due to speed:
In this case, if he was drinking, he SHOULD have been going 0 MPH.
Anything more than that is (and proved to be) unsafe.

Just another view on the point.