Quote:
Originally Posted by gtagrip
My point being, what's wrong with "reasonable prudent" based on conditions? If it's good enough for the CG why is it not good enough for NH? Or do we live in our own little "bubble" here in NH?
|
Because we are not on the High Seas under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard.
I've spent my entire boating life here on the seacoast boating alongside the Coast Guard and a number of other law enforcement agencies. The Coast Guard seldom, if ever, employs this regulation except after the fact in the investigation of a collsion or accident. The sponsors of this Bill are keenly aware of that.
And remember, when the Coast Guard cites you for an offense under this regulation you receive an administrative fine usually via mail with a very limited appeal and hearing process. You don't get to run down to the corner District Court to appeal your ticket.
In NH we have the District Court system. You will be allowed a trial in front of a judge if cited for the offene as written. But being a totally subjective RSA based stricttly on the experience and opinion of the issuing officer prosecutions and convictions will be rare if alnmost non-existent, as is currently with the Reckless Operation statute.
SBONH knows this and knows that if the current speed limit law is repealed, as they propose, there once again will be little or no control of boaters that want to travel at whatever speed they desire.
It is as blunt, honest and simple as that.
Finally I would be very careful about touting regulations that are promulgated on the high seas and inland waterways. Once again the opposition will readily point out if you want high seas regulations, then trailer your boats to the ocean.
Lame argument? Yeah....but it sells easily to the majority of non-boating legislators and citizenry that will ultimatley scuttle this proposal.
Anyway, I'll save the rest of the arrows in my quiver for the appropriate public hearings....
Skip