Boating Accident/Death off Diamond Island

[tis]

When a person is being charged with something another incident has nothing to do with it-legally. It cannot be admitted in a court of law.

[Newbiesaukee]

Originally Posted by tis

When a person is being charged with something another incident has nothing to do with it-legally. It cannot be admitted in a court of law.

You are correct, but can it not be brought up in a sentencing hearing which seems to have more latitude and would be more relevant in this situation?

[Airwaves]

Interesting story in today's Boston Globe.

I am not sure how long it will be there before being archived, but this would certainly put a damper on evidence that is presented by prosecutors being accepted as fact without question!

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by tis

When a person is being charged with something another incident has nothing to do with it-legally. It cannot be admitted in a court of law.

I won't state it as fact but I believe that while other actions and even convictions cannot be brought up during the trial I believe it IS legitimate for them to be considered during sentencing. The judge is often allowed quite a bit of latitude if he thinks the circumstances warrant it and he is allowed to consider her whole record in making his decision. If this wasn't true you couldn't have "3 strikes and you're out" laws. Her showing flagrant irresponsibility right after having been convicted would certainly make me wonder if she has really learned anything from the accident.

[RI Swamp Yankee]

I just read the story about Ms Blizzard.

At the risk of being banned from this forum I have to say her actions and disregard for others defines the word stupid.

The day after her conviction she is speeding, negligent vehicle operation, almost hits a Trooper standing next to the road while fiddling with her cell phone instead of paying attention to the road.

That, to me, is a stupid, self centered, irresponsible attitude.

[Bear Island South]

Originally Posted by RI Swamp Yankee

I just read the story about Ms Blizzard.

At the risk of being banned from this forum I have to say her actions and disregard for others defines the word stupid.

The day after her conviction she is speeding, negligent vehicle operation, almost hits a Trooper standing next to the road while fiddling with her cell phone instead of paying attention to the road.

That, to me, is a stupid, self centered, irresponsible attitude.

I think there might be a lot of people who agree with your statement, read the comments from the Union article.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...3-5f55f22b88f0

[pah]

Drivers license was pulled this morning, pending sentencing on the boat charge.
Bail terms were revoked, she had to spend some time in jail while her family went to get the cash for the bail.

[hancoveguy]

Originally Posted by pah

Drivers license was pulled this morning, pending sentencing on the boat charge.
Bail terms were revoked, she had to spend some time in jail while her family went to get the cash for the bail.

Nice...I guess there may be some justice in NH after all...albeit a modicum of justice but justice none the less.

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by Bear Island South

I think there might be a lot of people who agree with your statement, read the comments from the Union article.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...3-5f55f22b88f0

The comments posted under the article in the Union Leader are truly brutal...almost disturbing. Far worse than anything that has ever been posted on this forum, about any subject, at any time. And this coming from someone (me) who enjoys stiring the pot, and a good controversy. The worst ones are posted at the bottom...as they were the earliest.
Certainly not to be read by any members here, who might considered themselves thin skinned.
Some are just way way way over the line.

[jrc]

I wonder how many people here have posted there, a lot of common themes. One name look very familiar but he has denied being the same person before.

It's amazing how crazy people get when they think they are anonymous.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by jrc

One name look very familiar but he has denied being the same person before.

No, that's definately not me posting as F.L.Less in the Union Leader. I have no idea who it might be? Every once in a blue moon, I'll post in the Union Leader and always use my real first name.

The six o'clock WMUR tv news tonight had about a 60-second video report on this morning's Belknap Superior Court hearing which included footage inside the court room and showed most all involved; defendant, prosecutor, defense, judge, and state trooper as he testified. Could be it will be replayed at 11-pm?

[NoBozo]

I can tell you one thing: ...I have been Biting My Lip BIG Time.. watching this thread progress. I wonder how many others feel the same....?? NB

[WinnDixie]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

The comments posted under the article in the Union Leader are truly brutal...almost disturbing. Far worse than anything that has ever been posted on this forum, about any subject, at any time. And this coming from someone (me) who enjoys stiring the pot, and a good controversy. The worst ones are posted at the bottom...as they were the earliest.
Certainly not to be read by any memebers here, who might considered themselves thin skinned.
Some as just way way way over the line.

_____________________________________
Said to myself I would not get into this thread at all...ever...but...here I am. I have to agree with sa meredith. I have been reading the articles and comments in the Monitor and the Union Leader as this has gone on. I am amazed that a couple of them in this latest article...and you can easily tell which...have not been taken off. Highly inappropriate, and only a few "voices in the wilderness" seeming to point that out. A bad situation made worse.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Just Sold

"...From WMUR - it does not sound as if the officer was standing in the road on 93 or on the side in any way. Operative word "steer" Note that the high speed and breakdown lanes are referenced in the quoted report below so I doubt an officer ran across the highway...The trooper said he realized she wasn't paying attention, and he had to steer "back into the high-speed lane to prevent being struck by her..."

Regarding this traffic stop:

I checked Google for every possible news source referencing "steer".

WMUR is the only source to use that word.

Originally Posted by WinnDixie

"...I have been reading the articles and comments in the Monitor and the Union Leader as this has gone on. I am amazed that a couple of them in this latest article...and you can easily tell which...have not been taken off. Highly inappropriate, and only a few "voices in the wilderness" seeming to point that out. A bad situation made worse..."

In forums where "inappropriate" remarks appear, it could be due to neighbors, friends, or relatives who have been victims of DUI drivers.

I look forward to a transcript of this trial: until then, I put the blame for those negative remarks on one or more members of the jury. They were high on empathy and sympathy—and inadequate in Logic and Reason.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I look forward to a transcript of this trial: until then, I put the blame for those negative remarks on one or more members of the jury. They were high on empathy and sympathy—and inadequate in Logic and Reason.

Emotion over facts? You don't say????

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by RI Swamp Yankee

The day after her conviction she is speeding, negligent vehicle operation, almost hits a Trooper standing next to the road while fiddling with her cell phone instead of paying attention to the road.

I hate to say it (because I was fully convinced she was guilty of negligent homicide prior to the trial) but she is only being charged with these offenses, she has not been convicted. There's no "smoking gun" evidence (like a smashed up boat and a dead passenger) of any of these offenses. This could be nothing more than a vindictive police officer exaggerating about a perceived speeding offense.

[robmac]

Well I agree with you Dave, it's going to be how the judge feels about what the LEO reported in his report that'll tell how much it will affect sentencing. I would think as a smart person someone would be more careful when your facing a sentencing date coming up. Just my opinion

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by Dave R

This could be nothing more than a vindictive police officer exaggerating about a perceived speeding offense.

Let's forget about any percieved bias or editorializing by the officer.

Fact 1: She was driving significantly over the speed limit. She doesn't seem to be disputing this and it appears there are enough witnesses if needed.

Fact 2: While speeding, she was using her phone. A fact I'm sure can be verified through phone records, and one validated by her comments after being pulled over (unless you want to accuse the officer of outright fabrication)

Given the circumstances of the day before and her situation, even after you discount any believed bias or inappropriate reporting by the officer, her actions are one thing... STUPID!

The officer wouldn't have had a report to write if she didn't give him the opportunity.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Merrymeeting

Let's forget about any percieved bias or editorializing by the officer.

Fact 1: She was driving significantly over the speed limit. She doesn't seem to be disputing this and it appears there are enough witnesses if needed.

Fact 2: While speeding, she was using her phone. A fact I'm sure can be verified through phone records, and one validated by her comments after being pulled over (unless you want to accuse the officer of outright fabrication)

Given the circumstances of the day before and her situation, even after you discount any believed bias or inappropriate reporting by the officer, her actions are one thing... STUPID!

The officer wouldn't have had a report to write if she didn't give him the opportunity.

I was under the impression she was charged with going 19 MPH over the speed limit. I think that's considered a moving violation. I've been given friendly verbal warnings for worse speed violations. IMO, it's not a big deal; the state does not seem to think so either, as far as I know, they only require the payment of a fine, no court appearance. It's basicaly a radar tax.

I was also under the impression that using a mobile phone while driving was not illegal in NH. Might be dumb, but it's probably not illegal.

If the officer wished to charge her with "distracted driving" (assuming that's a crime in NH), I'd think he'd have good reason to paint her in the worst possible light in his report.

I agree that if she did indeed do the things the police officer reported, she was acting very stupidly, especially considering she was out on bail.

[robmac]

IMHO, a definate lack of good judgement. We'll only have to wait and see the legal fallout as a result.

[SAMIAM]

I don't think it shows very good judgement for a LEO to jump out into the road with traffic passing by at 70 mph.That's why they have blue lights.After what she's been through....sure ,she might have been distracted.Who hasn't.
I think that the trooper saw who it was and knew he'd get some face time with the media.Seems a little unusual to call the county attorney right after a traffic stop.

[hancoveguy]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

I don't think it shows very good judgement for a LEO to jump out into the road with traffic passing by at 70 mph.That's why they have blue lights.After what she's been through....sure ,she might have been distracted.Who hasn't.
I think that the trooper saw who it was and knew he'd get some face time with the media.Seems a little unusual to call the county attorney right after a traffic stop.

Originally Posted by lawn psycho
OK, I have to open my mouth based on some of the comments. As someone who used to be a long distance commuter on both I-93, 101, I-95, I-89, there is no question she is not some aberration of what's on the road.

First, if I was out on bail you can bet I would be walking a straight line.

However in NH, you have to be doing over 30 MPH for the speed to be more than a simple speeding fine without some truly agregious action. I don't know what the speed limit is where she was stopped.

If a cop is on the side of I-93 waving his arms and then gets miffed at someone speeding by I have to call him an idiot. And you will find that 99.9%of the time I will support the police on their duties. Cars are whizzing by. If someone needs to be stopped, use the car that taxpayers provide you with blue lights on top to pull them over and issue the ticket. Playing frogger on I-93 is his stupidity.
Negligent driving? And how many tickets are written everyday for 80-84 MPH where the driver pulls away with a nice fine to go to the State coffers? Failure to use a signal? Seriously? You have got to be kidding me. I'll bet that officer doesn't use his own signal dozens of time per day.

I say he wanted to be a headline. This smells of overzealous IMO.

First of all, Stationary radar assignment is the safest and preferred method of speed/traffic enforcement. When you "use the car taxpayers provide you" you then have TWO people speeding and driving like idiots. How fast do you think a trooper needs to drive to catch up to a vehicle traveling 84 mph from a standing start? Easily around 100 mph, yeah thats way smarter than standing in the breakdown lane with a Neon green traffic vest that says "State Police" which, mind you, most drivers that are paying attention will easily see and slow down for. This is evidenced by the fact that, as we all know, there is a mini traffic jam every time rubberneckers see blue lights.

Second, there is a big push nation wide and certaininly state wide (with the new driving and texting law) to enforce distracted driving. The unsafe lane change needed to be noted and cited to prove the texting was a distraction.

Third, when a police officer has an interaction with someone that is either on probation or parole red flags pop up in the computer and very often dictate special considerations ie, calling of a probation officer, checking on pre and post trial release conditions, bail conditions etc...

Respectfully,
HCG

[corollaman]

After her conviction for the boat accident, I felt a sense of mercy for her, she just made a very bad decision. I try to give people in situations like that the benefit of the doubt. However, since she went out and did another really stupid thing with a motor vehicle, I don't feel like she should be spared now. She wasn't watching the road when using the cell phone, she was doing 80+ MPH in a 65 MPH zone, and used no signal when changing lanes. Then she almost hits the cop. So, I don't think she should be allowed to ever drive any motor-driven vehicle again, and I now feel she deserves to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. She's used up her chances.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by corollaman

After her conviction for the boat accident, I felt a sense of mercy for her, she just made a very bad decision. I try to give people in situations like that the benefit of the doubt. However, since she went out and did another really stupid thing with a motor vehicle, I don't feel like she should be spared now. She wasn't watching the road when using the cell phone, she was doing 80+ MPH in a 65 MPH zone, and used no signal when changing lanes. Then she almost hits the cop. So, I don't think she should be allowed to ever drive any motor-driven vehicle again, and I now feel she deserves to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. She's used up her chances.

This is an example of the attitude here that has me puzzled. I just cannot imagine having any sympathy for someone who is fairly convicted of negligent homicide, especially when she pled "not guilty" and clearly was quite guilty. I would have been much more sympathetic if she had pled guilty, expressed regret, and taken her punishment knowing it was well-deserved.

The alleged speeding violation is a non-issue for me, I'm not a big fan of speed limits and really appreciate it when other people do me the favor of keeping LEOs busy. A speed trap is one of life's little pleasures for me, once I see one, odds are good there won't be another for a long ways.

The alleged distracted driver charges bother me a little more, but it's certainly quite prevalent on the roads these days and being a hard core motorcyclist, I've grown pretty used to stupid car drivers.

I cannot imagine being stupid enough to walk in front of 80+ MPH traffic on 93 knowing how prevalent distracted driving is. That's just suicidal.

[Misty Blue]

I have stayed out of this fracas until now because I have not had anything to say that had not already been said. I would like to throw out a couple of thoughts now...

First a horrible, horrible tragedy happened on the Lake. We can't make it go away. But what I can't understand is why this is BIG news? Yea, it's a big deal for us folks on the Lake and for the unfortunate people involved but why is it front page news for days and days in the papers and WMUR and big media? If the same event happened in a car on I-93 or on a snowmobile on a trail, same facts just different circumstances, same judgement that the press and the public would forget about it in short time.

Next, the cop.

I have been pulled over by the NHSP three times in the last 10 years. Twice for lights out and once for speeding in that stupid 35 MPH zone where 104 and I 93 meet. In every case the officers were courtious and very professional. No complaints.

I wasn't there and I don't trust what I read in the papers but I have to give the Trooper the bennifit of the doubt. The guy is a professional and I don't think that he has a wish. There is no way that he knew who was driving the speeding car prior to the stop. And by the way I don't care what the car was or what it's license plate says. After the pull over I expect that his onboard computer gave him a flag that the owner was recently convicted of a crime. If I were the cop this would set off alarm bells and I would take a hard look at this one.

Let's put this whole mess behind us.

Misty Blue.

[Airwaves]

Misty Blue

Yea, it's a big deal for us folks on the Lake and for the unfortunate people involved but why is it front page news for days and days in the papers and WMUR and big media?

Actually it wasn't.

It was covered locally every day by the two Laconia papers, the Concord Monitor and the Union Leader. Channel 9 is the only TV newscast in NH so they would certainly cover the story. I did not watch every night so I don't know how much they gave it but I doubt it was excessive.

The "big" media mentioned it via the AP at the beginning and end of the trial but many of the them did not run the story at all. The only other mention in the "big" media was when AP reported Erica had been stopped for speeding and again not all of them carried that story.

So while it seemed to be a huge deal all over the place it wasn't.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Misty Blue

I wasn't there and I don't trust what I read in the papers but I have to give the Trooper the bennifit of the doubt. The guy is a professional and I don't think that he has a wish. There is no way that he knew who was driving the speeding car prior to the stop. And by the way I don't care what the car was or what it's license plate says. After the pull over I expect that his onboard computer gave him a flag that the owner was recently convicted of a crime. If I were the cop this would set off alarm bells and I would take a hard look at this one.

I have to agree, he would have had to have KNOWN she was coming in order to get out in the road and try to initiate a stop. At 84 MPH, by the time he could read her plate (assuming he had a vendetta and was actively watching for the "XTREME" plate at all times), she would be long gone before he had time to react and note her actions.

This story doesn't seem like there was any malice involved on the officers part, I just think Erica had a bit of bad luck (to put it mildly).

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Misty Blue

First a horrible, horrible tragedy happened on the Lake. We can't make it go away. But what I can't understand is why this is BIG news? Yea, it's a big deal for us folks on the Lake and for the unfortunate people involved but why is it front page news for days and days in the papers and WMUR and big media? If the same event happened in a car on I-93 or on a snowmobile on a trail, same facts just different circumstances, same judgement that the press and the public would forget about it in short time.

This was a lightning rod issue because of her highly visible political position as the head of an organization which presented itself as an advocate for safe boating. She considered herself qualified and entitled to opine on proper,appropriate, and safe boating and hence qualified to influence legislation in this regard. The accident, when it happened, quickly went national because of the inherent irony involved and was the subject on several sites of a great deal of joking, sad as it was for all involved. The accident has subsequently influenced the way Concord views the lake and will undoubtedly continue to do so for some time. We also know that many of our legislators in Concord view this site and/or recreate on Winnipesaukee. In any case, we see this kind of intense media coverage when other public figures are caught in an action which compromises their professed philosophies. The matter stayed in the public eye after the verdict because of the similarly ironic aftermath the next day. Fortunately no one was injured on Rt. 93 and the injuries on Diamond Is.could have been even more significant if they been traveling at 25 -30 MPH instead of the 18 MPH put forth by the defense.
Unfortunately this matter will be in the public eye for some time to come with upcoming sentencing, possible retrial, and potential civil litigation. We can only hope that all the attention to this affair has increased public awareness of some of the safety issues on the lake and therefore positively influence boating safety.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Fortunately no one was injured on Rt. 93 and the injuries on Diamond Is.could have been even more significant if they been traveling at 25 -30 MPH instead of the 18 MPH put forth by the defense.

More significant than what? Somebody died????

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Unfortunately this matter will be in the public eye for some time to come with upcoming sentencing, possible retrial, and potential civil litigation. We can only hope that all the attention to this affair has increased public awareness of some of the safety issues on the lake and therefore positively influence boating safety.

She was found guilty of negligent homicide for failure to keep a proper lookout. If I follow your agenda correctly, I'm not sure what other safety issue will come to light here that is not already mandated by law in NH?

Please enlighten us.

[LDR4]

Let's put this whole mess behind us.
Misty Blue.

That is the smartest thing I have read on this forum relative to this matter.

Don't you all think that this subject has been beat to death for long enough?

It was a terrible tragedy. A person lost their life and the lives of two other women have been changed forever. There but for the grace of God, it could have been anyone of us or someone close to us.

Whether a person is rich, or poor, everyone deserves (and gets) their day in court. She did, and whether you agree or disagree with the outcome, the legal system has spoken and nothing anyone says on this forum is going to change anything that has or will occur with regard to this tragedy.

Spring is here, the lake is open, and we all got out of bed this morning to face a new day. Let's just enjoy the time we are here and focus on ourselves and our families and not critiquing something that we had (or have) no control over.

Personally I think it is time for Don to close this thread and have us all move on.

[DEJ]

Personally I think it is time for Don to close this thread and have us all move on.

I could not agree more.

[NoRegrets]

Maybe we should have a poll? Here is the situation, It is late at night on a weekend and the weather has degraded. You are responsible for the vessel and passengers. Do you:

a) Get up go to get home as quickly as possible?
b) Think about this incident and be very very cautious?

I think this thread has been valuable inspite of the jabs and soft insults . We will never be able to count the number of times it may have prevented a terrible accident.

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by LDR4

Let's put this whole mess behind us.
Misty Blue.

That is the smartest thing I have read on this forum relative to this matter.

Don't you all think that this subject has been beat to death for long enough?

It was a terrible tragedy. A person lost their life and the lives of two other women have been changed forever. There but for the grace of God, it could have been anyone of us or someone close to us.

Whether a person is rich, or poor, everyone deserves (and gets) their day in court. She did, and whether you agree or disagree with the outcome, the legal system has spoken and nothing anyone says on this forum is going to change anything that has or will occur with regard to this tragedy.

Spring is here, the lake is open, and we all got out of bed this morning to face a new day. Let's just enjoy the time we are here and focus on ourselves and our families and not critiquing something that we had (or have) no control over.

Personally I think it is time for Don to close this thread and have us all move on.

Just curious...if you don't care for this thread, why do you click into it? Whether it is closed or not...if you have had your fill, look elswhere. Problem solved...

[LDR4]

Just curious...if you don't care for this thread, why do you click into it? Whether it is closed or not...if you have had your fill, look elswhere. Problem solved...

I did not state that I "did not care for the Thread" I simply stated my Opinion that it is (in MY Opinion) not serving any useful purpose any longer.

You can only beat a dead horse for so long.....

[LakeSnake]

Mayby its time for those circled around the horse with clubs in thier hands to take a moment to step back and think about how this discussion reflects on the fun/family oriented forum this is supposed to be.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

We can only hope that all the attention to this affair has increased public awareness of some of the safety issues on the lake and therefore positively influence boating safety.

On the note above ...

1) Someone asked if it was "normal" to increase speed to reduce the rocking of the boat under the conditions that night. The answer is no. Obviously you shouldn't be going any faster than your ability to reasonably avoid a collision. I find it hard to believe that a 37' cruiser would be rocking that much but assuming that's true, the proper action might have been to change course so as to take what must have been a beam sea on the quarter instead. Alas this action would have been difficult due to point #2. Speeding back up to solve that problem after acknowledging that it was too foggy/rainy to see properly is negligent operation IMO.

2) Some have said she shouldn't have left the dock. I tend to agree given the situation. We were sitting on our dock until 11:30 pm that night. It wasn't raining then and visibility over the water was unimpeded but the clouds and fog were low in the sky and any moonlight, skyglow and city light pollution was unavailable. There was no way to see the outlines of the hills against the sky. Given the unpredicable nature of Winni weather, leaving the dock w/o the proper navigational equipment is also negligent operation IMO. When the weather closed in what I heard was "I used my depth finder". I didn't hear "I relied on my GPS (there was none) or Loran or charted a course and used the compass". Checking your depth would be marginally OK but you'd have to be going NWS to be effective, especially in that part of the lake. Alternately she could have returned to the last port or just drifted about, it was a cruiser after all. Getthereitis is a prime cause in a lot of "accidents". Ask any airline pilot.

3) BUI is obviously stupid but I'm conflicted about what I've read. It doesn't make sense to me. Alcohol goes into your bloodstream fairly quickly and comes out fairly slowly. Even if the 3 drinks were doubles, in the 3 hours they were consumed over I'd expect most the alcohol to be in the bloodstream and a lot of it removed. There had to be more drinks involved to get to the measured level. In any case I suspect most people could operate their boat w/o much trouble even if not stone cold sober ... during the day. At night it's a whole nuther story.

So what to do ? I recall the police dept (can't remember where and whether it was local or state) actually sponsoring some "drunk tests". This was done with autos and people were given a little track to navigate sober and then after some drinks. The tests were publicized for all to know. I think it was an instructive exercise and don't see why similar "tests" couldn't be done for the boating world. I'm sure there would be no shortage of volunteers to get drunk on the state's dime.

People need to know their, and their boats, limitations. It's hard to teach people these as those who'd care to learn probably do so on their own and those who don't would need a team of oxen to drag them to the truth. In the past I and Lakegeezer (?) have suggested some form of "simulation training". While not the real thing, I have to wonder what people might learn by accident if they were playing the Lake Winni First Person Boater game ... say, while waiting for iceout. It's an easy way to expose people to dangerous (looking) scenarios w/o there being any real danger.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

People need to know their, and their boats, limitations. It's hard to teach people these as those who'd care to learn probably do so on their own and those who don't would need a team of oxen to drag them to the truth. In the past I and Lakegeezer (?) have suggested some form of "simulation training". While not the real thing, I have to wonder what people might learn by accident if they were playing the Lake Winni First Person Boater game ... say, while waiting for iceout. It's an easy way to expose people to dangerous (looking) scenarios w/o there being any real danger.

Not a bad idea. One of my proposals for a first boat registration was this. For a one-time fee paid directly to the MP, you have to set up an appointment. This one-hour tour with the LEO on your boat would be instructive, on-water learning for navigation, safety, rules, what to look for, etc..

It could be constructed a number of ways to work, obviously some marinas do this already, many do not. Specifics could be easily hammered out so as to allow for manpower, buyer's/MP schedules and all of that.

I'd have to think that having the MP in your boat, coming out of the Weir's channel on a Saturday afternoon would provide some real insight


There are many, many different ways to learn boating, safety rules and laws in different states. Most are very painless, and any cost involved would be pretty minimal. The fee could easily be included as part of every boat purchase or rental fee. Yes, many climb the wall regarding any additional tax or fee imposed. So sorry, but real solutions involve getting your hands dirty once in awhile. In this day and age of legislation up the ying yang, special interests and the like, there has to be some common ground agreement on a common sense solution.

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

I don't think it shows very good judgement for a LEO to jump out into the road with traffic passing by at 70 mph.That's why they have blue lights.After what she's been through....sure ,she might have been distracted.Who hasn't.
I think that the trooper saw who it was and knew he'd get some face time with the media.Seems a little unusual to call the county attorney right after a traffic stop.

But, one thing that I believe is being missed (or at least not mentioned) about the LEO stepping into the road is that this is 93 in New Hampton, on a weekday. How much traffic is on the highway at this time, in this location, not much. We are not talking playing frogger in Manchester, north of 101 split on a Friday or any day for that matter.

They do this on 89 north of exit 5 regularly, usually exit 7 southbound, but with multiple LEO's and they are all stationed together, one hits with the radar and the officer next to him walks out and points (both in a crossover), you then pull over to the waiting officer that walks up to your car on the shoulder. Happens very regularly in that location, believe it is completly luck of the draw, because I have been spared when a vehicle in front or behind me got pointed to and they were traveling the same speed.

I have not seen it done when traffic is heavier, not that we ever really see heavy traffic up this way on 89, but you get the idea.

Not calling you out Samiam, just your post spoke to my thought.

Samiam, you are probably close to right on about your second statement, or possibly felt that the punishment was not enough, complete speculation on my part, take it as that.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I was under the impression she was charged with going 19 MPH over the speed limit. I think that's considered a moving violation. I've been given friendly verbal warnings for worse speed violations. IMO, it's not a big deal; the state does not seem to think so either, as far as I know, they only require the payment of a fine, no court appearance. It's basicaly a radar tax.

I was also under the impression that using a mobile phone while driving was not illegal in NH. Might be dumb, but it's probably not illegal.

If the officer wished to charge her with "distracted driving" (assuming that's a crime in NH), I'd think he'd have good reason to paint her in the worst possible light in his report.

I agree that if she did indeed do the things the police officer reported, she was acting very stupidly, especially considering she was out on bail.

There is no law against using a cell phone to make phone calls in NH. Texting is however illegal.
There is a distracted driving law on the books as well.

[John A. Birdsall]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I was under the impression she was charged with going 19 MPH over the speed limit. I think that's considered a moving violation. I've been given friendly verbal warnings for worse speed violations. IMO, it's not a big deal; the state does not seem to think so either, as far as I know, they only require the payment of a fine, no court appearance. It's basicaly a radar tax.

I was also under the impression that using a mobile phone while driving was not illegal in NH. Might be dumb, but it's probably not illegal.

If the officer wished to charge her with "distracted driving" (assuming that's a crime in NH), I'd think he'd have good reason to paint her in the worst possible light in his report.

I agree that if she did indeed do the things the police officer reported, she was acting very stupidly, especially considering she was out on bail.

************************************************** ***
Having the opportunity of being stopped by NH state police in February I was doing 71 mph in a 35 mph zone. The officer dropped it to 60 otherwise she would have to arrest me for Negligent driving. So its not just speeding. I was wrong, I was passing someone and realized the passing lane was ending faster then I thought so I stepped on the gas. Oh yeah, the officer was in the car directly behind me.

[Airwaves]

$75,000 bail for speeding...19 mph over the posted limit.

I have stayed out of the trooper jumping in front of oncoming traffic debate but as everyone who has driven on the highways has experienced they do walk out onto the roadway putting themselves in harms way.

$75,000 bail for speeding....nope, no witch hunt here!

Just reading the Concord Monitor story on this...

Trooper Ronald Taylor testified that he had tracked Blizzard's speed for about five seconds from 2,125 feet away as she approached him on I-93 northbound in New Hampton. He watched her pass a vehicle in the high-speed lane and move back into the travel lane behind two other cars.

Taylor then put his radar on the hood of his cruiser and stepped into the high-speed lane, waving his arms to slow down Blizzard and the two vehicles ahead of her. After the two vehicles had passed, Taylor, wearing a neon safety vest, said he stepped into the travel lane to signal Blizzard to stop.

So I am getting from this that his cruiser was parked in the median when he spotted Blizzard passing a car then falling back into the travel lane behind 2 other cars....so he stepped out into the high speed lane...then walked across the highway into the travel lane? The guy walked across both lanes of an interstate in front of on coming traffic????

Let the two cars in front of her go by then motioned for Blizzard to pull over...telling the court he didn't know who she was? Then called the proscutors office?

Nope, nothing fishy going on here! Move along folks...

[wifi]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

... his cruiser was parked in the median when he spotted Blizzard passing a car then falling back into the travel lane behind 2 other cars....so he stepped out into the high speed lane...then walked across the highway into the travel lane? The guy walked across both lanes of an interstate in front of on coming traffic????

Let the two cars in front of her go by then motioned for Blizzard to pull over...telling the court he didn't know who she was? Then called the proscutors office?

Nope, nothing fishy going on here.....

Heaven help someone in court, who unavoidably hits one of these guys walking in the middle of an Interstate, protected by his neon colored jacket, knowing there are speeding cars approaching.

So, is it worse to run into an island or have an island run into you? Forget I asked that!!!

[robmac]

They do it almost every Sunday morning on rt 3 north just passed exit 2 as you come around the bend and up the hill. Normally two LEOs one with the gun the other out pointing to pull over. I have seen only one doing it on a M/C and what a business they do ( mostly MA plates though how weird)