Quote:
Originally Posted by sunset on the dock
EL,
Now I'm really getting confused. Airwaves says your Florida example has no relevance in part because boater education has now made boating safer but what if a boater on Lake Winnipesaukee who may have been drinking is also a graduate of a boater safety course (think Erica Blizzard)? Does that mean that boater safety courses are irrelevant because drunks may forget what they learned in the course? And what if they borrowed the boat without permission and are the graduates of such a course and do they teach you in the course that you shouldn't take out someone's boat without permission? But are you less responsable for taking the boat if you've been drinking? How about if the bartender who served excessive amounts of alcohol is also a graduate of a boater education course? Does that make it better or worse? What if the bartender is for or against the SL? What if the bartender is from another state like Florida, then does it negate the whole argument? Please get back to me with the answers before next summer.
|
More smoke and more spin!!
Come on folks! Now you are even making yourselves dizzy!
The point you folks are pretending to miss, by the way I seriously doubt you are missing anything, is that the laws that were in place before the SL were being broken, or would have been broken if the incidents actually happened in NH, by most of the operators responsible for the incidents you bring forward. Therefore, what is the real value in adding another law, other than to push a certain group of boaters off the lake? That is your real agenda now isn't it.
Facts are, if the boating public became more aware of the laws effective in 2008 and if MP had more resources to enforce these well thought out laws, the lake would be a better place.
I realize that as long as Fast Boats are on the lake, you and your buddies will not be satisfied. Therefore, we continue to get barraged with your smoke and mirror campaign.
R2B (Proud owner of a bow rider, top end 44 mph)