Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bear Lover
When two boats are converging on a collision course, if you change the speed of either boat the collision does not occur. This would not be true if the boats were on the SAME course, however one look at the accident recreation photo shows you they were not on the same course.
Also a slower boat speed would have given BOTH drivers a little more time to see the other boat.
Thirdly, the cruiser was going at a slower speed. Possibly the driver picked this speed because he thought it to be reasonable and prudent for the conditions that night.
We will never know if a speed limit would have changed anything. What we can say is that the accident involved a speed greater than the proposed 25 mph "fixed" limit. And that the reasonable and prudent limit may have been even lower than 25.
We have been asked by the opposition to provide facts and evidence. Clearly the "fact" of this accident is "evidence" in a HB162 discussion.
|
Sure, if we change the speed or the timing then the collision won't occur. But that's not the idea behind this thought exercise. To play the what if scenario to see if speed was the issue we need to alter the timing (which is purely coincidental in any case) to allow a possible collision for the new speed. Then we ask if the collision is likely to still occur or not. Of course we can never be 100% sure of anything but we can perhaps extract some tentative conclusions from the exercise.
I see it this way. Littlefield had ample time to see the Hartman boat. It's not like they were in fog or rain or that visibility was obscured. I state this as fact as I was out that night. Now we replay the incident at 2 different speeds. In what we think is the original case we have a differential speed of lets say 25 mph. At 500 ft distance between the 2 boats, Littlefield has 13.6 secs to see and react accordingly. At 400 ft it's 10.9 secs, at 300 ft it's 8.2 secs and at 200 ft it's 5.5 secs. Of course the times go up as we slow Littlefield down but when was the last time you were out at night and didn't see a properly lighted boat until you only 200 ft away ? Do you think you need more than 5.5 secs to react ? Sure if we give Littlefield more time, he might, maybe have seen the Hartmans but then again maybe not. My thinking is that if you're going to make the assertion that Littlefield is a case for speed limits you need to make the case that the above reasoning is wrong. That the average joe,and not Capt B, needs more time or wouldn't see the Hartman's boat until a closer distance. So at what distance do you think a reasonable person would see the Hartman boat ? How much time does this person need to react. I think 5 secs is more than sufficient time to perceive and react in this case and more importantly 500 ft is more the norm min distance to see another vessel at night. Otherwise the only way I see that someone can make a case for Littlefield to be a "speed" accident is to say that we should set speed limits to allow the most incompetent, most negligent (due to whatever underlying cause) person to set the bar that we must all now duck under.
Again to anyone reading ... what are the factors the make R&P, well, reasonable and prudent ? And maybe we can start specifically with night boating re: boat-boat collision advoidance since "we" can probably find some common ground in this limited scenario. May I ask that only after we've exhausted this scenario that "we" meander into other scenarios (ie - daytime) ?
WRT coincidence : I'm reminded of a story where a man goes to cross the street. He looks down and sees that his shoe is untied. He bends over and re-ties it and then goes to step into the street only to see a car pass in front of him. He then thinks, "Boy, tying my shoe saved my life". Well he might be right for this instance but do we think that stopping for the amount of time to tie a shoe before we cross the road will save us or should we just look before we cross the street ?