Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegeezer
The first paragraph of the existing law is enough to satisfy the rights mentioned in RSA 270:1:II, the one Evenstar expresses concerns about. Safe and mutual enjoyment comes with speeds that are reasonable and prudent under existing conditions.
We are currently living under a good rule that we all should be able to agree on. It does not allow unlimited speed. The debate should be about enforcement of existing law, not extensions that create legitimate disrespect for the law.
From HB 0847: No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore. <-- Good enough!
The reason there is a public outcry against the proposed law is that it defines what is not reasonable or prudent, removing the responsibility and freedom from certified boat pilots. To imply that going over 45 mph is unreasonable or not prudent when it is 7AM in the broads, on a Tuesday in May, with no boat in sight; is just plain wrong. Yet, that is what the law is implying.
(b) Where no hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with subparagraph (a), the speed of any vessel in excess of the limit specified in this subparagraph shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful:
(1) 25 miles per hour during the period from 1/2 hour after sunset to 1/2 hour before sunrise; and
(2) 45 miles per hour at any other time.
|
This is one of the best posts on the subject that I have seen. I wish I could have said it like that LG but English Composition was not my best subject
.
If it make a difference to anyone I agree 100% with what Lakegeezer has said. BTW, as I've said before, the only way my boat can go as fast as 45 mph is DOWNHILL.