2008 Coast Guard Statistics

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by chipj29

So one accident 5 years ago would have been prevented by a speed limit?
And another, in which a teenager "borrowed" his parents boat and hit an island would have been prevented by a speed limit?

elchase, obviously I am well aware of how to use the internet. I could do a google search and find even more irrelevant accidents that you have. However, when one is trying to make a point, which you obviously are, it is my opinion that that person should provide evidence to back up their asssertions.
You implied that all of a sudden, in 2009 since the speed limit law went into effect, that accidents on the lake ceased, due to the implementation of the speed limit. And my implication is that statement is bull hockey.

I'm not going to get into it with EL. I don't even see his posts that you don't copy. But you are not going to change his mind. There hasn't been an accident on Lake Winni in years where a boat was traveling at such "great" speeds causing an accident where a speed limit would have mattered... Even if the operators of the last two tragic accidents were not breaking a slew of other laws the 25 mph at night would not have done anything to keep the accidents from happening.

The littlefield accident was determinded to be at 28 mph by a projection.

And the blizzard accident has yet to be determined.

So insinuating that a limit would have kept these from happening is down right speculation.

Frankly speaking there are tragedies that happen on our lakes, oceans, roads, mountains, skies, everywhere. You can't enforce commen sense or keep "accidents" from occuring. That is why they are called accidents.

IMO even the laws on the books before the speed limit were not going to keep these tragedies from happening. There were too many other circumstances (alochol and other factors) that contributed to these events.

So while we can argue every single example brought up it is impossible to know what would have kept these terrible accidents from occuring. In almost every situation I have ever read about there were multiple infractions and the captain was not excersing commen sense or was not able to clearly control his vessel (BUI). So a speed limit would not stop this, it would have been another charge to add to the pile. So lets please give up this idea that suddenly this new law has brought peace and harmony to the lake.

It is just unfortunate that there are those supporters who clearly believe that the speed limits work and that is their right and opinion and I personally value their insights on the boards. Then there are those who are using the speed limits to push an agenda to ban a specific type of boat from the lake and dare I say it, but unfortunately are doing it as way to avenge the tragic deaths of a friend or family member. They do not care as to the substance of the law but use it as a way to vent their anger towards a specific group and feel as if they are doing it in the name of a purpose or person.

This is unfortunate because it can cloud judgement and the opinions that may be valid of other supporters.

These threads have been serving a purpose of bringing opinions, data and in general people who love the lake together. Most everyone has no agenda and is willing to discuss issues on their own merits and debate them with factual data. No opinion is invalid, but to bash other members with clearly personal attacks, well beyond razzing, should not occur. I personally have choosen not to participate in those or even view many posts that have been nothing but inflametory.

I believe there has been an agenda here from the beginning to try to get these discussions shut down because they do not like the opinions or the majority view of posters. Many tactics have been tried over the past few months, from accustaions, to being a martyer and crying foul hence leaving the threads then returning (over and over again), to flooding them with stories that have no relevance to the lake. All in efforts to turn the threads into a battle field and get them locked down again. Now it appears they are trying for a last ditch effort of constant personal attacks to flame the threads and get completely off the topics and personal in the hopes to have the webmaster shut it down.

My personal suggestion is to please not take the bait for nothing will be accomplished.

[BroadHopper]

Even with a speed limit, there will be speeding. Just like on our highways today. I bet if there was a high speed accident fatility this year, the supporters will have a different tone. Instead of saying, 'No speeding accident this year because of the speed limit', they will say, 'We need more law enforcement!'. We can all see what only one accident can do, especially if you add media hype.

Speed limit or no speed limit. We still have have a problem with 'boneheads'. We have 150' rule, right of way rule etc. I see them violated every day I am out on the lake. The point is, why have rules if no one is adhering to them.

Education and enforcement are the two best weapons to prevent abuse in our arsenal. The skippers should be 100% educated by now. The loophole is the renters and boat owners who are registered outside of NH.

Enforcement is a political 'hot potato'. The legislature don't believe the marine patrol is a crucial part of law enforcement. MP have always been underfunded and understaffed for the amount of territory that they have to cover. We need to convince the legislation that MP is just as important as any law enforcement agency. If we want folks to obey they laws we must hold them accountable.

Education and enforcement will go a long way to keep our waterways safe! Let eliminate the education loophole and ask for more enforcement. Adding more rules and laws makes no sense without enforcement.

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

I'm not going to get into it with EL. I don't even see his posts ... there are those who are using the speed limits to push an agenda to ban a specific type of boat from the lake ...They do not care ... but use it as a way to vent their anger towards a specific group .... but to bash other members with clearly personal attacks, well beyond razzing, should not occur. I personally have choosen not to participate in those or even view many posts that have been nothing but inflametory....I believe there has been an agenda here from the beginning to try to get these discussions shut down ...Many tactics ... being a martyer ... flooding them with stories ...efforts to turn the threads into a battle field and get them locked down again...trying for a last ditch effort of constant personal attacks to flame the threads ...El...El...EL...Blah blah blah.

For someone who allegedly has me "on Ignore", you surely seem to have a lot of knowledge about my posts, agenda and tactics. Notice that I ignore your posts except when you talk about or to me? If you and your buddies would do the same...it would be a better forum. Stop writing long posts outlining what you think is going on inside the minds of the supporters and focus on giving your opinions for why the SL is or is not not working...is or is not deserved...which is what this forum is for. Nobody visits this site to read what you think might be the "agenda" of somebody else. If they read it at all once they see the bickering, they read it to gain an education about the SL, not an education about you and me. Get off the "bash Ed" bandwagon and back to the reasons for/against the SL and see how fast the bickering stops. Look over my past posts. I only get personal in retaliation to personal attacks on me. Like they say about the Middle East; If you disarm the Muslims there will be peace...If you disarm the Israelis there will be annihilation.

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Even with a speed limit, there will be speeding. Just like on our highways today...Speed limit or no speed limit. We still have have a problem with 'boneheads'. We have 150' rule, right of way rule etc. I see them violated every day I am out on the lake. The point is, why have rules if no one is adhering to them. Education and enforcement are the two best weapons to prevent abuse in our arsenal. The skippers should be 100% educated by now. The loophole is the renters and boat owners who are registered outside of NH. Enforcement is a political 'hot potato'. The legislature don't believe the marine patrol is a crucial part of law enforcement. MP have always been underfunded and understaffed for the amount of territory that they have to cover. We need to convince the legislation that MP is just as important as any law enforcement agency. If we want folks to obey they laws we must hold them accountable. Education and enforcement will go a long way to keep our waterways safe! Let eliminate the education loophole and ask for more enforcement. Adding more rules and laws makes no sense without enforcement.

Great post Broadhopper. You stated your opinions about the SL, and you did not need to give your interpretation about what anyone else's opinions or agendas are. You did not need to insult or try to characterize any of those who disagree with you, and you did not try to lecture anyone or tell anyone how to live their lives better or become better persons. I totally disagree with your opinions, but that is what a debate is all about. Congratulations.

Now here's another fatal crash involving another "cigarette boat". http://www.sanduskyregister.com/arti...ont/794025.txt
Try as hard as you all can to keep your replies limited to why this could never happen on Winnipesaukee if the SL is retracted, and try your best not to talk about me and my "agenda" for sharing it. Other readers are intelligent enough and can go to the link themselves and decide for themselves whether stuff like this is more or less likely to happen on a lake with a speed limit or on one without. Others can decide for themselves when they read all of these posts how likely it was that high speed was at least part of the cause in each and how relevant things like the age of the pilot or his mother's permission was. Tell us why this accident is or is not something that can happen on our lake and whether the chances are better or worse of it happening with a SL and we can all have a healthy debate. And don't answer with questions to me...your replies are for your opinions. You know mine. Bash me, my grammar, "my agenda" or my religion in your reply and we are back to square one.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by elchase

Now here's another fatal crash involving another "cigarette boat". http://www.sanduskyregister.com/arti...ont/794025.txt
Try as hard as you all can to keep your replies limited to why this could never happen on Winnipesaukee if the SL is retracted, and try your best not to talk about me and my "agenda" for sharing it.

Very poor example.

I will start with your agenda first. If you would read the entire accident report, the Cigarette boat was NOT at fault here, rather it was the 21 footer that was the offending vessel. The loud, nasty Cigarette Boat was struck on the left side, which indicates that is was the stand on vessel.

Also, from the accident report:
"Traveling at 30 mph, the Sea Ray went under the bridge at the Cedar Point Causeway at 12:18 a.m. About a minute later, the Sea Ray struck the Formula boat about 210 yards from Lyman Harbor. Investigators estimate that the Formula was traveling at 27 mph."

The speed of the Sea Ray was taken from his GPS and not estimated. While it was night, the same scenario at 25MPH would have had the same result.

Not to be discounted in this scenario, please refer to the section titled, "Alcohol a factor?" But I'm sure this is also irrelevant.

http://www.sanduskyregister.com/arti...ont/930858.txt

[Kracken]

Spot on Ryan.

Very interesting story Ed, thanks for the read. Some times the Big Bad Wolf is just walking home.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by elchase

Great post Broadhopper. You stated your opinions about the SL, and you did not need to give your interpretation about what anyone else's opinions or agendas are. You did not need to insult or try to characterize any of those who disagree with you, and you did not try to lecture anyone or tell anyone how to live their lives better or become better persons. I totally disagree with your opinions, but that is what a debate is all about. Congratulations.

Funny. I have you on my ignore list but this pops up. Probably because you quoted me.

So if you like my post, then why don't you follow suit? Instead of bashing everyone's heads?

I agree with many SL supporters and many agree with a compromise. Problem is a few thinks the speed limit is a cure all. Well It is not. As I said, there will be speeders and an accident can happen. A speed limit law will not prevent it. If a fatal accident did happen this year because of speeding, to what end does the speed limit law accomplish? The only way we can prevent high speed accidents is to outlaw motorized watercraft. That the solution folks! Everyone shall row or sail on the lake! You will be very proud!

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by elchase

Now here's another fatal crash involving another "cigarette boat". http://www.sanduskyregister.com/arti...ont/794025.txt

I don't think it's in very good form to list an accident like this, Insinuating something by referencing the type of boat that was involved, and mischaracterizing the event. The accident was determined to be operator error on the smaller boat's part, and neither boat was going at high speed.

I hope everyone goes to each and every link you post El. I say that because it goes to character. To post links to accidents, including a couple where people were speeding in a NWZ, not only makes people wonder what the heck you're doing here, but I would think the speed limit supporters would wince at your continually making their positions weaker.

The accidents are good for people to know about, because it shows boaters that bad things can happen anywhere, and to anyone. It's also good to review them to see what causes these accidents, and what, if anything could have been done to prevent them.

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

The accident was determined to be operator error on the smaller boat's part, and neither boat was going at high speed.

Where in the article that elchase referenced http://www.sanduskyregister.com/arti...ont/794025.txt does it say: "The accident was determined to be operator error on the smaller boat's part, and neither boat was going at high speed." ?

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam

Where in the article that elchase referenced http://www.sanduskyregister.com/arti...ont/794025.txt does it say: "The accident was determined to be operator error on the smaller boat's part, and neither boat was going at high speed." ?

Because the article Mr. Chase posted contained only the initial reports. With only the limited details, one would think that the evil cigarette skipper plowed into this 21 footer. Exactly what the pro SL crowd would like you to believe.

Now, for the FACTS!!!!

When you actually research the accident, you get this (which I posted only 5 posts earlier)

http://www.sanduskyregister.com/arti...ont/930858.txt

that actually paints a completely different picture, with things like facts and stuff.

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Because the article Mr. Chase posted contained only the initial reports. With only the limited details, one would think that the evil cigarette skipper plowed into this 21 footer. Exactly what the pro SL crowd would like you to believe.

Now, for the FACTS!!!!

When you actually research the accident, you get this (which I posted only 5 posts earlier)

http://www.sanduskyregister.com/arti...ont/930858.txt

that actually paints a completely different picture, with things like facts and stuff.

I totally missed your post that had more information about the accident.

Thanks for setting me straight.

Originally Posted by Ryan

"Traveling at 30 mph, the Sea Ray went under the bridge at the Cedar Point Causeway at 12:18 a.m. About a minute later, the Sea Ray struck the Formula boat about 210 yards from Lyman Harbor. Investigators estimate that the Formula was traveling at 27 mph."
The speed of the Sea Ray was taken from his GPS and not estimated.

Thanks for the civil response Ryan. Note however that the Winnipesaukee speed limit at 12:19 AM is 25 MPH. Both of these boats were exceeding it (i.e. "speeding"), so both were at fault to some degree. Now of course the question will be how much death and destruction a 7 MPH (5+2) reduction in collision speed would have prevented. Neither you nor I (nor anyone else except the Creator) can pretend to know for sure whether or not the victim would have survived had the two boats been going under 25MPH, had the drivers been sober, and had all other safety laws been obeyed. Common sense and science dictate that a slower impact would have improved the victims chances of survival and reduced damage to some unpredictable extent. I leave it to each intelligent reader to make his own judgment. The opinion of your group will of course be that the speed limit would not have made any difference. I'm not going to be so bold as to say it would have saved a life, but I believe it surely would have made some difference on the side of safety and might have saved a life. We each have our own opinions. I respect yours and appreciate that you respect mine, and let's both leave it to the intelligence of the unbiased to make up their own minds.

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Problem is a few thinks the speed limit is a cure all.

I don't and never said I did. I think it is part of a package of safety measures that when combined will improve the boating experience for the most people, is a good compromise already, and is the best way to ensure that we can all unselfishly share the lake. I will not try to change your mind or disparage your viewpoint...I just don't agree with it. But this forum is not supposed to be a love-fest. It is for debating.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

I don't think it's in very good form to list an accident like this, Insinuating something by referencing the type of boat that was involved

I quoted directly from the article. Hence the quotation marks. The "cigarette boat" was going 27 MPH after midnight.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

I hope everyone goes to each and every link you post El. I say that because it goes to character.

And we're off! Back to the personal cr_p. What does my "character" have to do with this? Is this thread about challenging my character or about speed limits? It's a story I found on the internet and pointed the readers to. The messenger is not the problem here. I post the links for the very reason that I also hope the intelligent impartial readers will go to them to read them. I want everyone to draw his/her own conclusions from not only the specifics of each accident, but the plethora of them. And I don't characterize or mischaracterize them. Sometimes I quote from them, but how can a quote be a mischaraterization? I only ask people to read them and tell me why they think they are irrelevant or can't happen on Winnipesaukee if we remove the SL. The "cigarette boat" in this case was going 27 MPH after midnight. That's almost the same speed Littlefield says he was going when he killed Mr. Hartman. The "Sea Ray" (is it alright if I call it a "Sea Ray" Steve?) was going 30 MPH with a drunk pilot after midnight. That's faster than Littlefield says he was going. Intelligent and impartial people can read this and draw intelligent conclusions about the effects of speed in this accident without you or me guiding them. Intelligent and impartial readers would not be fooled if I was "mischaracterizing" the very article to which I was directly linking them. I gave the link just so they could read the same story I did and draw their own intelligent conclusions. If I was a man of seedy "character" trying to mislead readers, I'd have omitted the link and really "mischaracterized", no?
I'd really appreciate it if you would put me on your ignore list and stop talking to or about me. Unless you want to keep your posts limited to your opinions on the SL, it is just going to remain ugly. I have no problems with my "character", and I'm not going to let someone like you get away with "mischaracterizing" it.

Here's an example from a "Poker Run";
http://www.wwmt.com/engine.pl?station=wwmt&id=17789&template=breakout_local.html
Lake Michigan boating accident leaves 1 dead, 1 missing
July 9, 2005, 7:17 PM
HOLLAND, Mich (AP) -- One man was killed and another is missing and presumed drowned after a 42-foot power boat carrying four people capsized Saturday on Lake Michigan as the driver was making a turn, authorities said.
The single-boat accident happened about 9:45 a.m. EDT near the western Michigan community of Holland.
U.S. Coast Guard Lt. Craig Lawrance said the men on board were part of a Smoke on the Water Poker Run that included 60 to 70 boats. He said the boat was speeding from Grand Haven to Holland when the driver overcompensated for a missed turn, slowing from about 110 mph to about 70 mph.
Lawrance said alcohol was not a factor.
A 20-year-old Bristol, R.I., man died from his injuries, and the 42-year-old missing man is from Hartland, Wis., authorities said. Ottawa County sheriff's Sgt. Kevin Allman said he likely drowned.
Sgt. Scott Tatrow of the Allegan County Sheriff's Department told WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids that the passengers were wearing life preservers but they came off when straps broke from impact with the water.
A U.S. Coast Guard helicopter and boat were joined by divers from the Ottawa and Allegan county sheriff's departments in a search of the lake Saturday afternoon.
The driver of the boat was taken to Holland Community Hospital for treatment of back injuries, while a fourth man on board was not injured.
Additional information about the men wasn't immediately released.
Lawrance said the poker run involves boaters making stops at various locations on land and in the water to collect cards for a poker hand.
The two-day event is based in Grand Haven and has been held annually since 2001, according to a Smoke on the Water Web site. Boaters take a 141-mile course with stops in South Haven, Holland, Muskegon and White Lake.

Am I "mischaracterizing" this one? Could this never happen in one of crowded Lake Winnipesaukee's Poker Runs if we didn't have a SL? Intelligent and impartial readers can draw their own intelligent conclusions.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by elchase

Thanks for the civil response Ryan. Note however that the Winnipesaukee speed limit at 12:19 AM is 25 MPH. Both of these boats were exceeding it (i.e. "speeding"), so both were at fault to some degree.

The accident was in Pandusky Ohio, so I don't think the Winni speed limit pertains to it I do know that criminal charges were being considered. Law Enforcement thinks that Lake was driving the boat, not the deceased. So they basically said he lied, and he also did not have a boater safety card.

But here's a case where a 21' boat plows into a 40' Formula that had the right of way. One boat (the Formula) was doing 25 mph, the offending 21' boat was doing 30 mph. This came from a later article.

All craft, large and small, can be dangerous if driven that way, at any speed.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...But here's a case where a 21' boat plows into a 40' Formula that had the right of way. One boat (the Formula) was doing 25 mph, the offending 21' boat was doing 30 mph...All craft, large and small, can be dangerous if driven that way, at any speed..".

1) For the record, both boats are listed at SOS as "performance boats".

2) I don't see the Cigarette boat as absolved of alcohol use either.

(There's only a 20% chance—on Winnipesaukee at least—that alcohol is NOT involved).

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

2) I don't see the Cigarette boat as absolved of alcohol use either.

Nice try. Since it supports the agenda, trying to implicate the Cigarette boat skipper would be beneficial, but the facts simply do not point that way.

If he were drinking, wouldn't the MP that pulled him over at 11:42pm for a light violation have screened him for BUI?

You just can't argue with facts.

Sorry.

[ApS]

Alcohol use is not BUI.

The facts are...that you have 4-in-5 chances of being wrong!

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Nice try. Since it supports the agenda, trying to implicate the Cigarette boat skipper would be beneficial, but the facts simply do not point that way.

If he were drinking, wouldn't the MP that pulled him over at 11:42pm for a light violation have screened him for BUI?

You just can't argue with facts.

Sorry.

That was brilliant APS. So you say a 21' Sea Ray is listed as a Performance Boat? Whatever. And as Ryan stated, the Formula was pulled over for a light issue, which was fixed. I agree that at that hour, the MP would be looking for other issues as well.

Absent a speed violation, Now you're bringing up an alcohol potential? I thought alcohol was off limits, and GFBL speed was the problem

If people stuck to principled arguments, they wouldn't have to shift their train of thought so much. I could care less what kind of boats were involved, only that two boats collided. I read the article, along with the followup articles, one of which suggested that someone in the smaller boat could possibly be prosecuted. From the information available, I gathered they might charge him with being the driver, calling in false information, and boating without a proper certification to do so. It was in the followup article that it was stated the speed of the boats, 25 mph and 30 mph.

APS, you also state that on Winni "(There's only a 20% chance—on Winnipesaukee at least—that alcohol is NOT involved)."

So given the lack of smily, are you indicating that 80% of accidents suvh as these, at any speed, are the result of alcohol? Possibly alcohol is only a contributing factor? Or a complete admission that at any speed, BUI is a problem?

Given that, it's pretty much what the anti SL crowd has been saying all along. I've read about late night boat crashes for years. Very, very rarely is the operator sober. A little birdie told me that it would be wise for MP's to increase their staffing at night and keep an eye out at the obvious locations on every body of water.

So here we are in another topic, where APS is very concerned that people think a 21' boat was in the wrong, and the 40' Formula was not. Do I see a a trend here?

Here's a cute CG story. Maybe this guy was drunk; http://www.thespec.com/article/606600
Interesting is the way that even in international waters and with a boat doing 135, the authorities still were able to catch him. All it took was the desire to do so. It's possible to enforce any boating law (except that ridiculous 150' rule) when you put your mind to it. Of course, even if he had been drinking, I'm sure by the time they caught him his blood was clean and they could not charge him with BUI, but at least they had other laws to charge him with. It's good to give Law Enforcement as many options as possible for getting thugs like this off our lakes.

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by elchase

It's possible to enforce any boating law (except that ridiculous 150' rule) when you put your mind to it.

Why is it not possible to enforce that law? Why is it ridiculous?

Obviously it is not feasible to enforce threshold violations (say, 120'). Then again, it's not really feasible to enforce threshold speeding violations (say, 50 mph).

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by elchase

Here's a cute CG story. Maybe this guy was drunk; http://www.thespec.com/article/606600
Interesting is the way that even in international waters and with a boat doing 135, the authorities still were able to catch him. All it took was the desire to do so. It's possible to enforce any boating law (except that ridiculous 150' rule) when you put your mind to it. Of course, even if he had been drinking, I'm sure by the time they caught him his blood was clean and they could not charge him with BUI, but at least they had other laws to charge him with. It's good to give Law Enforcement as many options as possible for getting thugs like this off our lakes.

You should read the article to get your facts straight. First of all, he was going 135 km/h, not MPH. That translates to 81 MPH.
"The cigarette boat hit 135 km/h and the U.S. Coast Guard could only watch it fly into Canadian waters."

Secondly, seeing as this is in a speed limit thread, you imply that he was charged with some kind of speeding violation. However, you can see that he was not.
"He was charged with dangerous operation of a vessel and released on bail."

Doesn't New Hampshire have some kind of reckless operation law?

Thanks for posting that link. It is good to know that other bodies of water don't have the need for speed limits, either.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by elchase

Here's a cute CG story. Maybe this guy was drunk; http://www.thespec.com/article/606600
Interesting is the way that even in international waters and with a boat doing 135, the authorities still were able to catch him. All it took was the desire to do so. It's possible to enforce any boating law (except that ridiculous 150' rule) when you put your mind to it. Of course, even if he had been drinking, I'm sure by the time they caught him his blood was clean and they could not charge him with BUI, but at least they had other laws to charge him with. It's good to give Law Enforcement as many options as possible for getting thugs like this off our lakes.

El, Are you really saying that you would be OK if 2 boats at a 90 MPH closure speed come within 25 feet of each other?

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

El, Are you really saying that you would be OK if 2 boats at a 90 MPH closure speed come within 25 feet of each other?

Of course he is, as he is in the name of safety and that "ridiculous 150ft law"!

[ApS]

To the question,

"...a 21' Sea Ray is listed as a Performance Boat...?"

Yes it is—and at a website that may convince you to change perspective on boating speeds—as it certainly did mine!

Moving on...

1) Two "performance boats" (21' and 40') collided with each other—and one is faulted. That list of "performance boats" should be consulted with each collision cited by us: it's not just pontoons and bowriders that are involved in crashes.

2) Indisputably, NHMP Lt. Dunleavey stated that there is a 4-in-5 chance that alcohol will be on board a "recreational" boat. (And drinking that alcohol on board is legal!)

Recreational drugs (which are not exactly unseen at sand bars) are unaccounted for.

3) Safeguarding his passengers—all the while keeping his vessel safe—is maritime's oldest rule for a captain. Avoiding a collision should have been uppermost for both "drivers".

4) We can allege that one "driver" was BUI, but there is still a 4-in-5 circumstance that some degree of impairment existed with the other.

5) Blaming waitresses for Winnipesaukee's fatal collisions couldn't have been nailed as dead as elchase nailed it dead. "For This Useful Post", it rated—and got—a rare ApS thank-you.

6) Repeatedly reciting Interstate analogies is tiresome: truck and car traffic travel parallel to one another. Tracking boats zig-zagging across our waters would show that the tracks across an automobile "destruction derby" is a far better analogy. (Fortunately for boaters, there are many-more "misses" than "hits".)

Now, regarding the Coast Guard topic that started this discussion, looky here:



(Did any Opponent notice the Coast Guard doesn't list insufficient speed?)
|
|
|


1) Combining the two "highest-speed" categories results in 245 fatalities. (Remarkable in itself).

2) However, look at the number of combined injuries: 1376 That's more than 10-times the number of paddlers without an engine (!)

3) Translated, that means that excess-horsepower injures far more people than the stats would suggest at first glance. (And 'way-more power boaters injured than paddlers).

But excessive horsepower still kills too many paddlers and sailors—according to these stats.

4)And finally:

Paraphrasing President Obama, we Supporters have only "skin in this game". However, this Supporter observes that at least one Opponent has a multi-million dollar financial stake "in this game".

Where is the "I recuse myself from this discussion" button?

What do we forum members think about the incentive for postings where genuine "skin" is not involved—but dollars are?

(Anybody?)

[VtSteve]

You appear to be far more easily influenced by things that I thought APS. I've been on so many boating boards I don't remember all of the sites. From Hull Truth to many, many more. Certainly, some of the participants have changed my theory that all boaters share common ground

I'm at a complete loss as to why you are still so disturbed over the facts of that accident.

It occurred at sane plane speeds, both boats under 30 mph.

The smaller boat (21') hit the larger boat

The authorities seemed intent on charging the driver of the smaller boat with various things;

filing a false report
impeding an investigation
possibly BUI
having no boater's certificate


You come back to post this because you are also a bit disturbed that not everyone thought of the 21' Sea Ray as a Performance Boat. That's your hang-up, not mine. So let's call it two performance boats just to make you feel better. K? But you have an interesting perspective on the CG Chart math as well

Basically, you won't read the facts of that boat case and just state it. You have to interpret, insinuate, and try to massage and manage it for your own agenda. What the heck does that say about your Perspective on anything? Your perspective goes right out the window when it involves this topic. You can't even look at an accident without deciding who was at fault before reading the article.

I certainly respect your views APS, but it's your judgment I wonder about. The post you Thanked, was interesting. Anyone that's been around boating boards, especially ones dealing with safety, would know full well the BUI problem that exists on waterways everywhere. It was obvious why that particular restaurant was ridiculed about their serving Littlefield. Because the link to a WINFABS founder was tooo obvious. Heck, same thing as last year's crash with Erica at the helm. But nobody covered up or lost their bar tabs did they?

Just for balance, how about posting some stories about small boats with drunk drivers. Maybe that can expand your frame of reference.

[BroadHopper]

A steel hull boat with less than 10 hp motor that has to operate between 10 to 20 mph in order to eliminate the most amount of death. OK I will go for that. New law to replace the SL law! Does all the SL supporters agree?????

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

2) Indisputably, NHMP Lt. Dunleavey stated that there is a 4-in-5 chance that alcohol will be on board a "recreational" boat. (And drinking that alcohol on board is legal!)

:

This misquote is the basis of the 80% statistic you have been pushing? I probably have alcohol on my boat every day it is on the water, but that does not mean the operator is drinking. Drinking alcohol is legal, and should remain so, but BUI is unacceptable and should remain illegal.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Now, regarding the Coast Guard topic that started this discussion, looky here:



(Did any Opponent notice the Coast Guard doesn't list insufficient speed?)
|
|
|


1) Combining the two "highest-speed" categories results in 245 fatalities. (Remarkable in itself).

Combining the two lowest speed categories results in the highest # of fatalities. Stats can be skewed however you want- frankly you may want to quit now because the stats in the chart will not support you...

Example 205 deaths for the 2 lowest HP categories vs. 122 for the 2 highest

[Airwaves]

The way I read it for deaths:
Slowest
Not moving: 109
Under 10MPH 212
Total 321

Fastest
21 to 40 MPH 47
Over 40 MPH 19
Total 66

0.00029% of registered boats in NH were involved in accidents in 2008!

[ApS]

Foreword:

I note that most of the Opponents in this year's "Speed Limits" sub-forum did not participate in an opportunity for closure in the Final Statements thread. Much rancor could have been defused.

In an effort to keep rancor to a minimum, I'll keep my quotes "generic".

Re: Regarding NH's "safety" in US stats:

Can you name any smaller "less-safe" state that has so much frozen water?

Re: Lt. Dunleavey on alcohol on board:

That's a misquote?*

*Now HERE is a misquote by "M.P. Dunleavey"...(at bottom)...

"Now THAT'S a Misquote!"

Re: "Combining the two lowest speed categories results in the highest # of fatalities".

Manipulating the stats in that manner will include anchored boats. Are you sure that manipulation is what you want to have archived here—forever?

Re: "...I probably have alcohol on my boat every day..."

You don't know?

Re: A steel hull boat with less than 10 hp motor that has to operate between 10 to 20 mph in order to eliminate the most amount of death. OK I will go for that. New law to replace the SL law!
Does all the SL supporters agree?????

I doesn't.

We all know that there will always be boats at anchor and always be oversized boats with "tipsy drivers", so my answer will be, that "there will always be death on the water".

(And, maybe, some deaths from running-up ashore. )

A good place to begin restrictions is at the infamous, unlimited-speed-deathtrap known as the "Poker Run".

And any semblance thereof—such as the side-by-side races off Rattlesnake Island by two—or more—over-powered boats...

Especially while observing the 150'-rule!

|
|
|

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) Combining the two "highest-speed" categories results in 245 fatalities. (Remarkable in itself).

Guys don't you know, APS is combining the over 250 HP and unknown HP together to arrive at his 245. You see, we all skimmed over that at first because we just do not understand (he understands more than us, that is why we only get snips of his thoughts.)

APS is attributing big horsepower with fast boats. APS, how many commercial fishing vessels do you think are sunk off our coasts or on the inland waters each year, and the folks on board drown? That is just one example

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

(And, maybe, some deaths from running-up ashore. )

APS, for someone that has stated that he owns three waterfront homes, I cannot for the life of me understand why. You are so completely hung up on boats running ashore and killing someone. Don't worry though, you shadow can never really catch you.

APS, ever see the show "6 Degrees".

[chmeeee]

I read through this post in it's entirety yesterday and again today, and no matter what I do, it makes ZERO sense to me.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

2) Indisputably, NHMP Lt. Dunleavey stated that there is a 4-in-5 chance that alcohol will be on board a "recreational" boat. (And drinking that alcohol on board is legal!)

Recreational drugs (which are not exactly unseen at sand bars) are unaccounted for.

You don't seem to understand this statistic. 80% of boats with alcohol does not mean 80% of drivers are drunk or have even consumed a drop. My boat probably has alcohol on board 90% of the time, but I've never (and will never) been guilty of BUI.

So now we are also supposed to assume that people are high on drugs if not explicitly proved otherwise? What does any of this have to do with speed?

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

6) Repeatedly reciting Interstate analogies is tiresome: truck and car traffic travel parallel to one another. Tracking boats zig-zagging across our waters would show that the tracks across an automobile "destruction derby" is a far better analogy. (Fortunately for boaters, there are many-more "misses" than "hits".)

Yet the cars are driving 4-6 feet from each other, 10-30 feet from trees, rocks, and other potentially fatal hazards. Boats should not be driving within less than 150 feet of anything at any kind of speed.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) Combining the two "highest-speed" categories results in 245 fatalities. (Remarkable in itself).

By what math? I can't find any two numbers in the fatality column that add up to 245. The two highest speed categories add up to 66.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

4)And finally:

Paraphrasing President Obama, we Supporters have only "skin in this game". However, this Supporter observes that at least one Opponent has a multi-million dollar financial stake "in this game".

Where is the "I recuse myself from this discussion" button?

What do we forum members think about the incentive for postings where genuine "skin" is not involved—but dollars are?

(Anybody?)

On on Earth are you talking about?

[VtSteve]

Still working on the math?

Here's part of your Epic post.

"2) Lake Winnipesaukee has dodged the multi-fatality collisions at other locales by one great law that has been protecting us for 30+ years; sadly, we see daily that our "Unsafe Passage" rule is receiving inadequate compliance, uneven enforcement, and even the vaunted "Education" element has failed our previously-enjoyable Lake Winnipesaukee boating experiences.

HB-847 resulted.

3) In the past, no tickets could be written for speeds over headway speed—now they can! Also now, the night-hidden scourge of BWI can be assaulted stealthily using radar.

That "nothing perceptible will change" is wrong. I predict that the night speed limit will be the most productive part of the new law in keeping problem boaters away—night and day.

Although the Coast Guard will take three years to produce the statistics, we should expect HB-847 to make much improvement in finding BWI "drivers".

(We got "drivers", now? What happened to "helmsmen"?)

4) By choosing which laws to break, one boating segment has brought HB-847 down upon themselves: HB-847 isn't the fault of "everybody" or "crowds".

Too often, it is easier to "split the difference" between lesser boaters rather than to back off the throttles. What pass for quiet mufflers still brings dread to boaters at anchor, fishermen, lakeside residents no longer secure in their houses, and those attending to a skier or tuber. You'll see them glance up—and it's not an admiring look they'll give in the direction of that menacing approach.

When existing laws are ignored among an increasingly arrogant boating segment, demands for a different legal approach can be expected: enter HB-847."

So we have you alerting us to laws that go without enforcement, and zeroing in on BWI, and HB-847 helping to reduce BWI on the lake. The a bit about people being scared by louder boats.

I agree that the night limit, as low as it is, would make it easy to weed out the cowboys. I wonder when that starts to happen?

You can be a walking, talking, posting contradiction. If I added the above to all previous posts of what's wrong on the water, nobody would be left. Except yourself?

Knowing what you know about the MP budget, exactly how much do you expect from the MP's, night or day?

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) Combining the two "highest-speed" categories results in 245 fatalities. (Remarkable in itself).

I don't know what your looking at but the 2 highest speed deaths on that chart are 19 and 47 for a total of 66 out of 1146 accidents or 5.7%. The slowest catagory alone (not moving) has 109 deaths out of 917 accidents or 11.9%. More than double the 2 highest speeds.

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

"For This Useful Post", it rated—and got—a rare ApS thank-you.

I must say that I am flattered by this, unless you have removed it by now, that would be OK as I will always have the memory.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

2) However, look at the number of combined injuries: 1376 That's more than 10-times the number of paddlers without an engine (!)

3) Translated, that means that excess-horsepower injures far more people than the stats would suggest at first glance. (And 'way-more power boaters injured than paddlers).

But excessive horsepower still kills too many paddlers and sailors—according to these stats.

I see stats are not quite your thing, so let me help you make sense of your numbers.

For the big horsepower catagories, I will play along with your including Unknown as assuming larger than 250HP.

With 1376 injures on 2826 vessels, 48.7% injury rate. How many commercial fishing vessels have injuries every year that require Coast Guard assistance?

Of those 2826 vessels, 245 deaths, 11.5% death rate.

Now for the no horse power catagory.

With 193 injuries on 325 vessels, 59.4% injury rate. If you are paddling alone than the chances are not in your favor. If there are two of you in your canoe the chances are still not is your favor. Does the Coast Guard track injuries occuring in a canoe valued at less than $2000.00

Of those 325 vessels, 171 deaths, 52.6% death rate. Might want to have 3 people in your boat if you want to improve your odds.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

4)And finally:

Paraphrasing President Obama, we Supporters have only "skin in this game". However, this Supporter observes that at least one Opponent has a multi-million dollar financial stake "in this game".

Where is the "I recuse myself from this discussion" button?

What do we forum members think about the incentive for postings where genuine "skin" is not involved—but dollars are?

(Anybody?)

What are you talking about the Marine Patrol and there budget?

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by elchase

Thanks for the civil response Ryan. Note however that the Winnipesaukee speed limit at 12:19 AM is 25 MPH. Both of these boats were exceeding it (i.e. "speeding"), so both were at fault to some degree. Now of course the question will be how much death and destruction a 7 MPH (5+2) reduction in collision speed would have prevented.

And this is where we disagree. I feel the question should be how much death and destruction would there have been had the operator of the Sea Ray had not been drinking, had maintained a proper course and lookout, yielded properly according to the rules of navigation, and maintained headway speed when inside of 150' of another vessel. Four citable offenses. Again, just MHO.

Your 7MPH figure, in theory, would also only apply for a head on collision. Since it was 'assumed' the nefarious Cigarette boat was struck on the port side, the only relevant speed would be that of the give way vessel. Or we could get into physics of motion, but it's been years since I've opened that text.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Ryan

And this is where we disagree. I feel the question should be how much death and destruction would there have been had the operator of the Sea Ray had not been drinking, had maintained a proper course and lookout, yielded properly according to the rules of navigation, and maintained headway speed when inside of 150' of another vessel. Four citable offenses. Again, just MHO.

Your 7MPH figure, in theory, would also only apply for a head on collision. Since it was 'assumed' the nefarious Cigarette boat was struck on the port side, the only relevant speed would be that of the give way vessel. Or we could get into physics of motion, but it's been years since I've opened that text.

Ryan what a fantastic post. I particularly like the part where you point out that we have several laws in the books that cover 4 offenses that were ignored prior to the incident. I know this is probably being ignored and glossed over by SL supporters that is why I quoted the post in its entirety so that perhaps it gets read again. Our lake already has these laws in place and I know that you agree with me that the answer is and has always been increased enforcement of existing laws. A new warm and fuzzy security blanket law has lulled many into a false (and very dangerous) sense of security.

Thanks for the post.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by elchase

Here's an example from a "Poker Run";
http://www.wwmt.com/engine.pl?station=wwmt&id=17789&template=breakout_local.html
Lake Michigan boating accident leaves 1 dead, 1 missing
July 9, 2005, 7:17 PM
HOLLAND, Mich (AP) -- One man was killed and another is missing and presumed drowned after a 42-foot power boat carrying four people capsized Saturday on Lake Michigan as the driver was making a turn, authorities said.
The single-boat accident happened about 9:45 a.m. EDT near the western Michigan community of Holland.
U.S. Coast Guard Lt. Craig Lawrance said the men on board were part of a Smoke on the Water Poker Run that included 60 to 70 boats. He said the boat was speeding from Grand Haven to Holland when the driver overcompensated for a missed turn, slowing from about 110 mph to about 70 mph.
Lawrance said alcohol was not a factor.
A 20-year-old Bristol, R.I., man died from his injuries, and the 42-year-old missing man is from Hartland, Wis., authorities said. Ottawa County sheriff's Sgt. Kevin Allman said he likely drowned.
Sgt. Scott Tatrow of the Allegan County Sheriff's Department told WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids that the passengers were wearing life preservers but they came off when straps broke from impact with the water.
A U.S. Coast Guard helicopter and boat were joined by divers from the Ottawa and Allegan county sheriff's departments in a search of the lake Saturday afternoon.
The driver of the boat was taken to Holland Community Hospital for treatment of back injuries, while a fourth man on board was not injured.
Additional information about the men wasn't immediately released.
Lawrance said the poker run involves boaters making stops at various locations on land and in the water to collect cards for a poker hand.
The two-day event is based in Grand Haven and has been held annually since 2001, according to a Smoke on the Water Web site. Boaters take a 141-mile course with stops in South Haven, Holland, Muskegon and White Lake.

Am I "mischaracterizing" this one? Could this never happen in one of crowded Lake Winnipesaukee's Poker Runs if we didn't have a SL? Intelligent and impartial readers can draw their own intelligent conclusions.

This accident strikes me as having a great deal of relevance to our lake. Take 60 or 70 boats, some going 70-110 miles per hour, and Lake Winnipesaukee suddenly seems a lot smaller(what with their "acres per second"). Again, even if you could discount the safety issue(which you can't...2 dead), there are the many levels of other issues that have recently been discussed( noise, boats tearing past you at these ridiculous speeds) that have been detrimental to the overall recreational experience of others on the lake and contributed to some of the negative characterizations of the lake (which affects tourism). Just last year this kind of foolishness would have been legal. I am thankful that this is now illegal on the lake and also can't imagine that any of our leaders in Concord would agree to give up these incredible gains.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

This accident strikes me as having a great deal of relevance to our lake. Take 60 or 70 boats, some going 70-110 miles per hour, and Lake Winnipesaukee suddenly seems a lot smaller(what with their "acres per second"). Again, even if you could discount the safety issue(which you can't...2 dead), there are the many levels of other issues that have recently been discussed( noise, boats tearing past you at these ridiculous speeds) that have been detrimental to the overall recreational experience of others on the lake and contributed to some of the negative characterizations of the lake (which affects tourism). Just last year this kind of foolishness would have been legal. I am thankful that this is now illegal on the lake and also can't imagine that any of our leaders in Concord would agree to give up these incredible gains.

Sunset.. I have to ask have you ever been on a GFB?

[Airwaves]

Again!

The United States Coast Guard and the New Hampshire Marine Patrol have both stated:

New Hampshire is the safest state in New England in which to boat, and in the top five in the United States of America!

Experts in boating have declared New Hampshire is a great place to boat. Speed limit supporters continue to say that those experts are wrong!

Who do you believe?? Boating experts or people who don't like fast boats?

It is truely amazing that supporters of this foolish law ignore the experts in the field.

When they go back in time to find boating accidents that support their cause perhaps we should also go back in time and start counting the NH registered boats between then and now?

Do you really want to play the numbers game?

Shoot the messanger!

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

This accident strikes me as having a great deal of relevance to our lake. Take 60 or 70 boats, some going 70-110 miles per hour, and Lake Winnipesaukee suddenly seems a lot smaller.

Most of these accidents have some relevance to our lake, as they all involve water. That's about it.

Do you know what has most relevance to our lake and this debate, the Speed Limit Survey that was taken ON our lake by the members of our MP. While you may combat the validity of the survey, NOT ONE of the boats clocked by radar approached the speeds you cite in your post above.

There are maybe 60-70 boats on the lake that can achieve speeds in the 70MPH range. Getting all of them on the lake at the same time at those speeds is impossible.