Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander
The single word answer to why we have a speed limit is fear. The fear of a camp director to send out his boats. The fear of a kayaker to come to this lake. The fear of an elderly couple to leave their island home on a weekend. That last one is VERY real. The fear of a parent to let their child take out a boat or canoe. The fear that our beautiful natural resource is being taken over by a small minority of "get out of my way" boaters.
|
Not to drag out an old post but BI is correct in that it was "fear" that drove the SL bill. But what was it that the above people were afraid of ? If it's getting runover by a too fast boat then the SL may be a solution. If it's some "cowboy behavior" (?) then I don't see it getting addressed by the SL. The question should be was this fear justified in the 1'st place and then whether a SL truthfully addresses it. That's why people cite the various stats as to accidents and boat speeds. To believe the SL will address the fear issue is to believe that an incredibly small number of "fast" boaters are causing all the problems listed. It's akin to having the Dalton gang in town and causing all the ruckus. Moreover it ignores the ill done to all the responsible people who aren't causing problems when boating in excess of the now posted SL. I prefer the sniper rifle to the shotgun for these problems. Go after the specific people who are causing the problems. Leave to non-problem people alone. I don't see this as being any harder or more costly to do than passing and enforcing a SL law.
Just an analogy for people to think about ... We all see moronic and dangerous driving while on the roads. It's not restricted to any class or type of vehicle, nor any age or gender or other type of driver, that I can see. Is the answer to reduce speeds, say on the highway, to some low limit in hopes that the more fleet of these drivers would go elsewhere ? I doubt people would allow that ... as it would actually
affect them as well as the fast, moronic drivers ! And it only deters (at best) the "fast" moronic drivers, leaving the "slow" moronic drivers still on the road to cause accidents and generally sow dissatisfaction and aggrevation. I would agitate for a more comprehensive and fairer solution myself.
And now to the anti-SL people ... I continue with the above analogy. I note the roads we all drive on have some SL. We can argue whether it's the proper limit but arguing that there shouldn't be any limits; anywhere, anytime is a losing argument. You'd have been much better off (IMO) settling for limit(s) that have some demonstrable basis as being both safe and reasonable. You left open the possibility that some innocent kayaker, just sitting there in the Broads, could possibly be run over by a non CaptB boater just because he couldn't see and take action in time due to his (truely) excessive speed. Logic and reason rarely win the day in politics but you have a stronger position to argue from with them on your side. You needed to show, both in theory and in practice, just where the above fear is and isn't justified.