View Single Post
Old 12-31-2005, 11:27 AM   #34
Island Lover
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 213
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post
Default

codeman671

I don't think I have slung any mud. But that might depend on your definition. If so I apologize.

I am looking at the USCG data differently than you are. It seems to me the opposition is making the point that we don't need a speed limit because speed is not the problem on Winnipesaukee, and that speed has not caused accidents. At least this is my interpretation.

The reply to this argument is that speed is a problem, and is a major contributing factor in accidents. The USCG calls speed the #4 contributing factor in boat accidents. That declaration, in and of itself, is my argument.

I am not analyzing every point of the data, just taking it at face value. Speed is a major contributing factor, therefore a speed limit will help. I see this as a logical conclusion, you disagree.

HB162 will not solve all speed problems. It will do nothing to prevent low speed accidents where the speed is in fact excessive for the situation. It will not prevent a high speed accident when the operator ignores the law. Drinking, inexperience and stupidity will, unfortunately, continue.
Island Lover is offline