Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Island Lover
...By your theory the statement would be correct if there were 100 fatal accidents involving speeds up to 200 mph.THE STATEMENT IS INCORRECT!...
|
Again, you make an incorrect assumption. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt....explain to me how any Court in this State would find that 200 Mph in a 25/45 Mph zone was reasonable and prudent given any current condition that you could come up with.
However, you actually sweetened the pot by stating "
100 fatal accidents involving speeds up to 200 mph".
Obviously there are no boaters operating at 200 mph on Lake winnipesaukee, but you are saying that if one did, then struck a boat at night in a 25 Mph zone or in the day at 45 Mph, that it wouldn't be unreasonable?
I am kicking myself for even responding to such an absurd proposition....but only do so to point out how obtuse your supposition is!
Again, there are many factual points that either side can make to reinforce their positions on whether or not fixed speed limits will enhance water safety, but the Littlefield example...no matter how it is spinned...is not germane to the core arguments of this debate.
To me the hyberbole invoked when trying to implicate the Littlefield crime within the framework of the HB 162 debate is truly disrespectful to the victims involved.
Enough said....as usual, I suspect you'll get in the last word!
Good evening,
Skip