View Single Post
Old 08-05-2009, 04:47 PM   #42
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default BI Is Right

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
NO! There was NO "Reasonable and Prudent" law before HB847. This is one point that I have been trying to make to the opposition for years and they simply will not believe it. Again, there was NO Reasonable and Prudent law before January 1, 2009.

HB847 IS the Reasonable and Prudent speed law. Before that all you had was the "Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats" law quoted above. That is a catch all law that can mean just about anything and doesn't mention speed in any way.

That is why this accident is such a good example of what the SL law is trying to prevent. Even if the speed was below 25 the boat was in violation because it was not Reasonable and Prudent speed AND not operated in a way to prevent hitting the shore. Two other important parts of the speed limit law.
You're spot on with that comment. The previous law allowed way too much wiggle room by being ambiguous. The new wording is much more like a general Rule 6. They should have passed that change, and left it at that. I'll always support a "Reasonable and Prudent" law, no problems at all.

but..... and you knew there would be a butt somewhere

You go on to say
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander
Last years accident is and must be part of any SL debate. It's clear to me that the accident would not have happened if the speed limit law was in place and being adhered to. Obviously there is no guarantee that it would have been adhered to, but that is true of any law. You pass a law, set a standard, punish the abusers, and hope people comply.
Fine, Then stop saying that "It's Clear To Me". It most certainly isn't clear to anyone. That's like saying that the murderer wouldn't have shot the person if he had adhered to the law. You also lose it on punish the abusers, then hope.


Quote:
The outcome of the trial is not important to the debate. The basic circumstances of the accident are important to the debate. The boats operation was not reasonable and prudent considering the conditions. That is the relevant point in my opinion. The outcome of the trial will not change my opinion on that point.
I agree with you on all points there. The outcome of the trial is not something that SL supporters are anxiously awaiting. It's pretty apparent to most, if not all people, that something was done improperly on the boat that night. Even if it's something as innocent as they followed a GPS and trusted it when they couldn't see anything does not fly either. (BTW, just an example)

I agree with you're general premise that the wording changes in the new law are good ones, long time coming. Makes it easier to actually get a conviction. Unfortunately, when you went off in all directions during the SL debate, your most salient points were lost in a sea of boat wakes, NWZ's and other such rubbish. But you're too smart to not know that

At any rate, most of us agree with the bulk of the wording's intent, and also with the general framework of boating safety. Until the MP is not living hand to mouth, most of it is a moot discussion. The folks that are strict supporters of only the speed limits themselves? They have no data, never had any data, and can't even hang their hats on accidents that support their only cause. We know this because we'd be inundated with data on an hourly basis if they had something, anything.


I'd prefer to stay on track with the safety thread myself, at least it's constructive.
VtSteve is offline