Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander
Who to blame? I'm not trying to blame anyone. I'm simply saying that the accident happened and anybody that says different is wrong. I know you guys will come up with a long list of reasons why that accident doesn't count or has no connection with speed limits. That is what you do.
But it doesn't alter the fact that it did happen and when someone posts that it didn't they are in error.
And I think you are way off base with your idea that lakefront owners are all in favor of speed limits. Several of the top people fighting speed limits are waterfront owners.
The old forum is at http://www.winnipesaukeeforum.com/ you can search August 2003 but you will find the old forum is not as user friendly as the current forum. |
BI, given that alcohol was a key factor do you honestly think a speed limit would have done anything to change the drivers thought process that night?
And if you need to bring up something from the 70s to maintain relevance to today's current problems then I will call you out on it. The article does not say how fast they were going but it would appear the chain of events that led to the crash is too much to drink.
So what data exists showing 45 MPH will make any difference for daytime boating?
The SL proponents desire to link some of these accidents is a prime example of how correlation does not imply causation. Suggested reading for the pro-SL crowd:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correla...mply_causation
We could spend hours just discussing the lack of correlation. I frequently post things as a tongue-and-cheek way for people to see the fallacies of their logic but it often goes over people's heads.