Collisions and Speed

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

...SKIP...You are also WRONG! 28 mph is "exceed the proposed limits". All the lawyers tricks in the world will not make 28 mph less than 25 mph. That you attempt to do so is insulting to the memory of the victim.

Nobody claimed that 28 mph was a "violation of the law". However 28 mph exceeds the proposed limits in every part of the universe except an attorneys brain.

I am sorry if I was unable to explain clearly enough the basics of the law that you support and how it does not apply to the Littlefield crime. Suffice to repeat a violation of HB 162 as proposed only occurs when the speed observed is not reasonable & prudent under the given conditions present when the offense occurred given the recommended limit for the area. Its really a very basic premise easily absorbed by any New Hampshire police recruit in their first week of academy training.

Don't take my word for it....call your local police chief, town or city prosecutor, your family attorney or the free information line at the NH Bar Association.....

Sorry if I couldn't make it any clearer to you...

As usual, I am always available off-line to explain the matter further or recommend you to any of a number of reputable legal resources that can confirm how HB 162 will work if passed in its present form.

Skip

P.S. Darn, quit implying I might be an attorney....those are the darn scoundrels working the other side of the aisle!

[Island Lover]

Skip

Legal technicalities are not involved here. No explanations are required.

The quote attributed to Lt. Dunleavy states that there were no fatal accidents involving speeds greater than proposed. The proposed nighttime speed limit is 25 mph the speed of the boat was calculated to be 28 mph. Understanding nuances of the law is not necessary.

We are not trying to convict somebody here. The only question is if 28 is greater than 25. And no matter how much you dislike HB162, 28 is greater than 25.

By your theory the statement would be correct if there were 100 fatal accidents involving speeds up to 200 mph.

THE STATEMENT IS INCORRECT!

[Bear Islander]

The was a fatal accident in 2002 involving a speed greater than proposed.

No other interpretation is possible.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

...By your theory the statement would be correct if there were 100 fatal accidents involving speeds up to 200 mph.THE STATEMENT IS INCORRECT!...

Again, you make an incorrect assumption. However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt....explain to me how any Court in this State would find that 200 Mph in a 25/45 Mph zone was reasonable and prudent given any current condition that you could come up with.

However, you actually sweetened the pot by stating "100 fatal accidents involving speeds up to 200 mph".

Obviously there are no boaters operating at 200 mph on Lake winnipesaukee, but you are saying that if one did, then struck a boat at night in a 25 Mph zone or in the day at 45 Mph, that it wouldn't be unreasonable?

I am kicking myself for even responding to such an absurd proposition....but only do so to point out how obtuse your supposition is!

Again, there are many factual points that either side can make to reinforce their positions on whether or not fixed speed limits will enhance water safety, but the Littlefield example...no matter how it is spinned...is not germane to the core arguments of this debate.

To me the hyberbole invoked when trying to implicate the Littlefield crime within the framework of the HB 162 debate is truly disrespectful to the victims involved.

Enough said....as usual, I suspect you'll get in the last word!

Good evening,

Skip

[Airwaves]

Island Lover

I'll try this one more time and I'll even do the work.

Here is what you wrote

Airwaves

"Of 269 accidents recorded from 2000 through 2004, only 19 (7 percent) involved boats exceeding the proposed limits, according to Marine Patrol Lt. Tim Dunleavy. None of the accidents resulted in fatalities."

You wrote the above quote.

Now, if you had bothered to go to the address that I provided TWICE!
you would have found the following headline:

N.H. Bill Would Limit Speed for Boats
By Mark Davis
Valley News Staff Writer

Contained with that NEWSPAPER ARTICLE is the quote that you keep trying to attribute to me.

Now, am I going to believe you or the professional whose job it is to enforce boating laws in NH?

As someone pointed out, 28 miles an hour that was determined to be the speed of the accident is an ESTIMATE. But let's for a moment assume it to be accurate. Do you believe the 3 miles an hour would have changed the outcome? Not likely if it's the same accident I am thinking of.

And I'll even take it one step further. Let's say you are right about this accident. That means 1 fatal accident out of 269 accidents over a 5 year period due to speed.

If this isn't clear enough then I can't help you.

[fatlazyless]

With all the words that have been written in the many threads, here's something new. Massachusetts with a population of six million has a 45mph speed limit for boats statewide on its' lakes and rivers. Going above 45 is considered an excessive speed for a boat. So, it's reasonable to assume that GF-BLs from Mass would want to trailer on up to the no-speed limit, Winnipesaukee waters.

[Airwaves]

Perhaps a few, but I'd be willing to bet most of them head to the coast. As you point out the Mass speed limit is for inland waterways.

(the following is an edit added at 12:04am)

Massachusetts, with a population of 6-Million (your number) also has only 49 thousand more registered boats than NH.

[Bear Islander]

Airwaves

Who wrote the quote in the first place is not important.

The quote is inaccurate.

Or do you disagree?

[Airwaves]

Original post by Bear Island:
Airwaves

Who wrote the quote in the first place is not important.

The quote is inaccurate.

Or do you disagree

Who wrote the quote is important because my integrity was called into question, how many times was I told that I HAD WRITTEN THE QUOTE! I copied and pasted the quote. I was not its author. I was also not the author of the Coast Guard Statistics.

As I have stated..."I will take Lt Dunleavy's comment regarding speed and fatalities over yours since this is his job".

The Marine Patrol is the investigating authority in these cases so they would know. I believe the results of their investigation over someone else's speculation.

What is happening with this insistance that Lt Dunleavy "got it wrong" in perhaps ONE instance, and threats to "call him to demand a retraction" is that you (plural) are trying to shift the focus away from the fact that the Marine Patrol is not supportive of your possition so you are grasping at that straw hoping we'll forget the Marine Patrol, while they are not taking an "official" possition, apparently thinks this is an unnecessary bill.

Yes, I consider the NH Marine Patrol and US Coast Guard to be a reliable source, do you disagree?

[Island Lover]

I have met Lt. Dunleavy several times. I have an email in to him at this time. I doubt he made that quote in that way because it is obviously and demonstrably wrong.

I think this is one time when you should be able to figure things out for yourself. There was a fatal accident in Meredith in 2002. The Marine Patrol determined the speed of the boat to be 28 mph. These are facts not in dispute. Therefore the statement is incorrect.

Some point out that the MP might be wrong about the speed, and many believe that only 3 mph over the proposed limit is insignificant.

That doesn't change the reality that the statement as quoted is incorrect.

[Cal]

[QUOTE=Island Lover]

The Marine Patrol determined the speed of the boat to be 28 mph. These are facts not in dispute. Therefore the statement is incorrect.

Some point out that the MP might be wrong about the speed, and many believe that only 3 mph over the proposed limit is insignificant.

[QUOTE]

The Marine Patrol ESTIMATED the speed to be 28 mph. May I respectfully suggest you look that up in your Websters or Funk and Wagnalls. Given the inaccuracy and design of the faces , trying to obtain accuracy , 3 mph at 25 to 28 is hard to determine. Now throw in darkness and what angle your looking at it from(standing or sitting) it become more difficult. And lets not forget , the whole time you have to be keeping a lookout ahead.
Now if you still believe 3 mph is SO significant , may I suggest you sit in the back of a boat and get struck from behind at 25 mph I wouldn't want to. Now you see the point , how INSIGNIFICANT 3 mph really is.

[Airwaves]

Original quote from Acres per Second:
When contrasting the two statements, one can conclude:

1) Ten years ago, there was an increased speedboat danger or...
2) In 2004, non-speedboats were staying home.

In either case, I'd value the statement of a senior U. S. Coast Guard Chief Warrant Officer over a junior local official harboring a narrow—and possibly jaundiced—view. Remember this infamous NHMP statement regarding the boater-count last season?

Actually the waters in NH ARE safer now than they were ten years ago! Why? BOATER EDUCATION! If you will go back and review even the past 5 years in the CG address that I provided you will see the number of accidents and fatalies in NH falling, I directly attribute that to BOATER EDUCATION!

As for taking the word of a CG Chief Warrent Officer over Lt Dunleavy, I could be wrong (and if I am I have no doubt that I will hear it) but it's my understanding that Lt Dunleavy did his inital training on the water as a member of the United States Coast Guard!

BTW, and I can look it up if no one knows off the top of their heads, Where is Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce?

Lt. Dunleavy did not say speed doesn't kill, he said there were no fatalities related to speed above the proposed limits in the past 5 years. Here is the quote from the article:

Of 269 accidents recorded from 2000 through 2004, only 19 (7 percent) involved boats exceeding the proposed limits, according to Marine Patrol Lt. Tim Dunleavy. None of the accidents resulted in fatalities.

[Airwaves]

Never mind, I looked it up myself. Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce is in Florida, where today it it 79 degrees.

So, those of you who boat in Florida want to chime in and explain the differences between boating on Florida waters and boating on Lake Winnipesaukee? Perhaps even compare the number of boats in both states?

[Bear Lover]

Hi Airwaves

There was a fatal accident in 2002. Therefore the quote is not true.

Are you suggesting the accident didn't happen? Are you saying the MP didn't testify in court that the speed was 28 mph? Are you not aware that the proposed night time limit is 25 mph?

I don't understand your point here. Please explain.

[Airwaves]

In 2002 there were 68 accidents, 3 of them involved fatalities with 3 deaths on NH waters.

Not having been in court I can't tell you what MP testified to in this particular case, but I can tell you that the 28 miles an hour was an estimate of speed. It could have been higher, it could have been lower. It was an estimate.

Unless of course you are implying there was a Marine Patrol boat on scene and the officer was using a radar gun to clock the speed of the offending boat.

So Lt Dunleavy's statement was NOT incorrect because the speed involved was an estimate.

Time to move on.

[codeman671]

Island lover, if Danny had been written a measly $50 speeding ticket would that have made you feel better??? Your friend is still gone and nothing can change it. Bickering over a POSSIBLE but not PROVEN 3mph difference solves nothing. I am sure others would concur that 3mph over a speed limit if even proven is not reckless operation. Just a measly speeding ticket which probably would never have been written in the first place.

I bet we can take up a collection to pay the speeding ticket which you seem to think he should have received and stop the complaining. Anyone in?

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

In 2002 there were 68 accidents, 3 of them involved fatalities with 3 deaths on NH waters.

Not having been in court I can't tell you what MP testified to in this particular case, but I can tell you that the 28 miles an hour was an estimate of speed. It could have been higher, it could have been lower. It was an estimate.

Unless of course you are implying there was a Marine Patrol boat on scene and the officer was using a radar gun to clock the speed of the offending boat.

So Lt Dunleavy's statement was NOT incorrect because the speed involved was an estimate.

Time to move on.

I received a email reply from Lt. Dunleavy. He claims he was misquoted.

He says that the 2002 accident was at a speed greater than proposed. He calls the 28 mph speed calculated, not estimated.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I received a email reply from Lt. Dunleavy. He claims he was misquoted.

He says that the 2002 accident was at a speed greater than proposed. He calls the 28 mph speed calculated, not estimated.

Well that makes it as clear as mud, science was not your major I take it. If Lt. Dunleavy maintains that a speed that has been calculated is not an estimate, then he loses all credibility with me.....

[Skip]

Originally Posted by ITD

...If Lt. Dunleavy maintains that a speed that has been calculated is not an estimate, then he loses all credibility with me.....

Perhaps he was ..... misquoted???!!!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ITD

Well that makes it as clear as mud, science was not your major I take it. If Lt. Dunleavy maintains that a speed that has been calculated is not an estimate, then he loses all credibility with me.....

Calculated or estimated is still nothing more than an educated GUESS.
There is no one on this earth that will ever know EXACTLY how fast that Baja was going because of so many variables.
Plus the fact that no MP was there to witness the accident and following H@R so none would have been there to issue a ticket. So just what would have been any different if the speed limit had been in effect

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Actually the waters in NH ARE safer now than they were ten years ago! Why? BOATER EDUCATION! If you will go back and review even the past 5 years in the CG address that I provided you will see the number of accidents and fatalies in NH falling, I directly attribute that to BOATER EDUCATION!

Thank you for your opinion.

How bad was boating prior to this selective five-year search? The years coincide nicely with the boater education program, BTW.

(I think there are fewer boats on the big lake today primarily because it's become an open race course for entitled speedboaters.)

Originally Posted by Airwaves

As for taking the word of a CG Chief Warrent Officer over Lt Dunleavy, I could be wrong (and if I am I have no doubt that I will hear it) but it's my understanding that Lt Dunleavy did his inital training on the water as a member of the United States Coast Guard!

A Chief Warrant Officer is a highly skilled and specialized position: Lt. Dunleavy serves in a politically-charged atmosphere, irrespective of where he got his "initial training".

Why else would Lt. Dunleavy refuse to give an estimate of the July 4th Winnipesaukee boat traffic—even when provided the means to calculate it accurately?

Fewer "speed bumps" = fewer accidents = fewer Marine Patrol responsibilities.

AND the MPs get to schmooze.

[Lakewinniboater]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

With all the words that have been written in the many threads, here's something new. Massachusetts with a population of six million has a 45mph speed limit for boats statewide on its' lakes and rivers. Going above 45 is considered an excessive speed for a boat. So, it's reasonable to assume that GF-BLs from Mass would want to trailer on up to the no-speed limit, Winnipesaukee waters.

That is an unreasonable assumption! How about the fact that there is NO LAKE in MA that is the size of Winnipesaukee. They may not like Ocean boating, maybe they have family here, maybe they grew up boating on this lake, maybe that it is a quick drive and a large open body of water.

I for one, know that I do not enjoy the lakes of MA. They are too small and do not provide the entertainment ON THE WATER that Winni does.

Not to mention that I own property on the lake. However, are you inferring even further that because I do not support HB 162 and that I live and earn my money in MA, that I should not have the right to enjoy Winni?

Considering the property taxes that I pay, I would disagree.

Let's remember that this lake is no one group of people's property! No one owns the water. It is owned by the state of Nh and there for every American (and visitor's) use.

Just thought that I would clarify

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

With all the words that have been written in the many threads, here's something new. Massachusetts with a population of six million has a 45mph speed limit for boats statewide on its' lakes and rivers. Going above 45 is considered an excessive speed for a boat. So, it's reasonable to assume that GF-BLs from Mass would want to trailer on up to the no-speed limit, Winnipesaukee waters.

I will have to disagree. There are lakes in Massachusetts that don't have speed limits. I have a friend that owns property on Webster Lake on the Mass, Conn border. He says that is the first time he heard of it. Many of the bass boats on that lake are buzzing around at twice that speed. You won't see the deep vees on that lake as it is very swallow and it is difficult to get on plane. Most of the lakes in Mass. don't even have bouys! The ones I've been on have plastic milk bottles floating on the surface designating underwater hazards. I have to laugh as the locals on the lake calls underwater hazards: 'sunken islands'.

[GusMan]

Well, Broadhooper... you can disagree all you want, but you and your friend on Webster Lake would still be wrong. There is a state-wide speed limit in Massachusetts.... 45 MPH. Been there for a while.

Oh, but you say there are boats that still exceed the limit?? How can that be??? It's against the law?? Therein lies the problem... enforcement.

Webster Lake may be the most heavily patrolled lake in Massachusetts. State Marine Patrol and Local police departments both have officers on the lake all the time... in marked and unmarked watercraft yet still, the speed limit is exceeded. Morons are everywhere... new laws won't change that.

Now... lets look at Winnie.... I'm there all the time.... Is it crazy??? Yeah, sometimes... but mostly it's relatively OK. But guess what... nearly every single time I'm on that lake.... I witness an infraction of the 150 foot rule. How long has that law been on the books? Again, never enforced.

Obviously, if the 150 foot rule was obeyed (which will never happen) there would *never* be an accident involving boats even remotely approaching what the proposed speed limit is.

The problem??? Irresponsible morons. And guess what... irresponsible morons aren't bright enough to avoid "accidents" at any speed.

Oh... and just so you don't think I'm running around in the "Summa Humma" or anything... I've been bass fishing winnie for more than two decades in a 16 foot aluminum bass boat.. first with a 20 HP motor and now with a 75 HP motor.... top speed?? mid 30's..... maybe.

Cheers....

Gusman

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by GusMan

Well, Broadhooper... you can disagree all you want, but you and your friend on Webster Lake would still be wrong. There is a state-wide speed limit in Massachusetts.... 45 MPH. Been there for a while.

Oh, but you say there are boats that still exceed the limit?? How can that be??? It's against the law?? Therein lies the problem... enforcement.

Webster Lake may be the most heavily patrolled lake in Massachusetts. State Marine Patrol and Local police departments both have officers on the lake all the time... in marked and unmarked watercraft yet still, the speed limit is exceeded. Morons are everywhere... new laws won't change that.

Gusman

Because Mass. do not have a safe passage law, I don't feel safe at all. Even on Webster Lake, I get water spray by each passing boat! I fell far safer on Lake Winnie because of the safe passage law. Not because of the speed limit.
There is another lake I am familiar with on the Mass., NH border. The are so many young kids on Long Pond with PWC's, it feels like the Wild West. So where are the law enforcements?????

That is what I am trying to point out. How can we add new laws if the NH MP does not have the manpower to enfoce the existing laws????