Long Lake night navigation accident

[Rose]

Originally Posted by Islander

The boat hit in Maine was "Not Moving".

Where in the article referenced in post #1 does it state that the boat which was hit was not moving?

[Paugus Bay Resident]

How can a boat that's not moving cause a fatality? These speeds have to be for the victim's boat, not the boat that causes the collision.

Not moving refers typically to a fall overboard. A fatality does not have to be a result of a collision. According to the USCG, 2/3 of all fatalities were from drowning and 90% of those weren't wearing PFDs. Of the 710 fatalities reported last year, 202 were from falls overboard.

If you read the report, everything is pretty well defined. I have asked for clarification on speed, that is if one boat is moving and the other is not, what is the reported speed of the collision. Once I receive a response, I'll share it.

[NoRegrets]

It is great to see at least one participant that places statistics with research and believable prespectives. There seems to be many that take the headlines or published statistics to create sensationalism like the papers that are vaulable only for lining bird cages.

[Gavia immer]

PBR wrote

Not moving refers typically to a fall overboard.

Where can this be found in print?

[Paugus Bay Resident]

Where can this be found in print?

As I mentioned previously (post #30), please read the report and draw your own conclusions as I have. Everything is defined. It is very comprehensive. I provided the link above (post #15).

For example, the two drownings last year (on Winni) are included because "boating accidents involving a swimmer, a recreational vessel and its operation" are included. According to reports I read, neither vessel was under power. In those cases "Casualties while swimming from a vessel because the vessel is not anchored, moored or docked - and - the vessel drifts away from the swimmer and the swimmer is unable to get back to the vessel" are included. 90 fatalities occurred while "not moving".

[tis]

4fun. I agree with you, education hasn't helped. I think tickets are the only way to teach! I have seen more violations of the no wake/150' law since the boating safety started, than ever.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by tis

4fun. I agree with you, education hasn't helped. I think tickets are the only way to teach! I have seen more violations of the no wake/150' law since the boating safety started, than ever.

I have noticed that boats are getting closer before dropping off to no wake speed now that the MP has put those markers up at most of the public docks to show how far 150 feet really is. I must confess, it's a much shorter distance than I thought it was and I've adjusted, thanks to those markers.

[Mee-n-Mac]

I'd say I've seen the usual amount of boneheads this year. The MP has sat out by Sandy Pt and handed out tickets for infractions of the 150' rule for years. My guess is this year is about average but it would be interesting to find out. I always get a kick when someone passes the marked MP boat less than 150' away and on plane. It's pretty much a weekly occurance. Maybe half the time there are completely clueless and the other half they slow to mush speed.

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by Paugus Bay Resident

As I mentioned previously (post #30), please read the report and draw your own conclusions as I have.

Since the "speed" statistics are a hodge-podge of numbers, and the compilations incredibly subjective, I don't see how an objective conclusion can ever be drawn.

News reports show a big boat running over the smaller boat. The smaller boat was occupied by two adults on their first date. The news presumes the two to be watching the night skies during the Perseids meteor shower, as witnesses have stated.

A stationary or anchored boat is presumably best for viewing a meteor shower. In fact, the override would have been avoided if the smaller boat had the capability to move. Anchoring at night is legal on Long Lake.

The boat that collided with them that night was reported to have a teenaged girl as the only passenger, with a driver twice her age. Not the formula for sympathetic witnesses or jurors.

The Coast Guard would record four "falls overboard", because everybody involved fell out. The reported speed of the accident would be the presumed speed of the struck boat.

That's because the exact speed of the colliding boat, though presumably high due to the ejections from the speedboat, is not material. When two fatalities occur, it doesn't matter if the speed was 50 or 150 mph for statistics. It does matter if the struck boat was anchored or drifting.

We've seen instances where a solitary boat upset has lost every passenger to drowning. What is recorded as the speed of that unwitnessed upset? Not all boats drift away from a swimming passenger who would be recorded as a drowning fatality. Not all fatalities in the "speed" category will be the result of a boat collision. But if a collision, it should be recorded as the speed of the victim.

It's a hodge-podge of numbers drawn from a hodge-podge of circumstances. Anyone drawing conclusions from that table is using their own personal crystal ball.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

So, it seems that since statistics aren't supporting the need for a speed limit, they are discreditable. What statistics or evidence, other than emotion, does any one have for supporting the speed limit. Simple, and objective question.

Since statistics don't support it, speed doesn't support it, boat size doesn't support it, horsepower doesn't support it, what does? I'd be willing to bet that if the 2006 stats did hint of the desirability of the speed limit supporters would be all over it defending them, but since they don't, they are not credible.

It's a hodge-podge of numbers drawn from a hodge-podge of circumstances. Anyone drawing conclusions from that table is using their own personal crystal ball.

But based on their prognostications, they have a crystal ball. What evidence do they have supporting it?

So, the question looms, what does support the need for a speed limit? I have yet, in over three years, heard a reasonable, rational, supported argument. All I've heard is a lot of emotion and "oh I wish this was Golden Pond (many prop supporters have used the Golden Pond analogy, even in this thread if my memory serves)". We'll, it ain't. If you want Golden Pond , go to Squam. It's lake Winnipesaukee, it's not Lake George, it's not lake anything but what it is. There are a lot of rude and inconsiderate people boating on our lake. A speed limit won't change that. I think we can all devote our collective efforts to make it better, but IMHO a speed limit isn't it. How many of the supporters of the speed limit are involved in any boating safety groups? I'm involved in 2 (not NHRBA or WinnFABS ) and I don't believe anyone in either group coincidentally suports speed limits. Unfortunately, at my age, I have limited energy so, I will direct what I have left on this issue to the legislature, as an unpaid but passionate lobbyist, and not this forum. Over and out!

I think I'll go have my trans fat donut while I still have the chance. BTW, I think they used trans fats making On Golden Pond donuts though I don't have statistical evidence to prove it.

[SIKSUKR]

Amen! PBL.

[Weirs guy]

Originally Posted by Paugus Bay Resident

I think we can all devote our collective efforts to make it better, but IMHO a speed limit isn't it. How many of the supporters of the speed limit are involved in any boating safety groups?

A double amen with a side of GFBL. Seriously, when do we start the pool to guess how long it'll be before WinnFABs starts the speed limit push again, and how long before the MP can sell their radar guns and use the money on boater education?

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Originally Posted by Weirs guy

A double amen with a side of GFBL. Seriously, when do we start the pool to guess how long it'll be before WinnFABs starts the speed limit push again, and how long before the MP can sell their radar guns and use the money on boater education?

They NEVER STOP, they are dedicated extremists. If you think for one minute they aren't still working on this you are mistaken. They have wined and dined literally some of the legislators! Guess whose tab and facilities hosted that.

We need the people on this forum who have now seen the real agenda of winnfabs, to come out to the hearings, and/or contact your legislators and tell them to vote NO on HB 847!!!! I am not asking you all the join NHRBA, or any other organizations, I just want you to use your voices, be heard in Concord. If you don't the persistance of Winnfabs will pay off. You see all there nonsense sounds plausible to the non boating public. We all know better, but you know how many state reps are boaters? A handful maybe! Again I can not stress enough, stating your opinions here on the forum are great, but we need your support in Concord to beat back this Bill.


Say No to HB 847


WBB

[Uncle Fun]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

We need the people on this forum who have now seen the real agenda of winnfabs, to come out to the hearings, and/or contact your legislators and tell them to vote NO on HB 847!!!! I am not asking you all the join NHRBA, or any other organizations, I just want you to use your voices, be heard in Concord. If you don't the persistance of Winnfabs will pay off. You see all there nonsense sounds plausible to the non boating public. We all know better, but you know how many state reps are boaters? A handful maybe! Again I can not stress enough, stating your opinions here on the forum are great, but we need your support in Concord to beat back this Bill.

Say No to HB 847

WBB

Hey WBB...

I couldn't agree with you more... I found out by first hand experience of some of the hidden agendas by posting my first "Informational" thread regarding the no rafting hearing in East Cove (see other thread). They came out of the woodwork with their agendas and that has become a hot button topic too! Although I feel the forum is a great avenue to get the info out there, it is NOT the final stop... I have joined the NHRBA and I am also going to go to the no rafting hearing in Moultonborough on the 31st... I want to make my voice heard and I want to stop all the nonsense and hidden agendas of the supporters of the bill... I am just starting to evolve on the forum and will stand up against any issue that I feel is unfair and an infringement of my rights as a citizen, taxpayer, and responsible boater!!! Thanks...

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Paugus Bay Resident

"...If you want Golden Pond , go to Squam..."

Where I live, the width of Winnipesaukee is the same as Long Lake. (Getting back to the subject). Starting only in this decade, I've been watching anarchy growing on Winnipesaukee, just as it's being discussed in Maine now.

Are you directing those of us who've turned our Lake Winnipesaukee cottages into retirement homes to move to a safer lake?

[Blue Thunder]

Bumping this thread with some interesting info...

http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/st...30175&ac=PHnws

[Airwaves]

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/homepage/x1649541001

By Peter Reuell/Daily News staff
The MetroWest Daily News
Tue Sep 18, 2007, 10:00 AM EDT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Officials in Maine are still investigating a fatal boating accident last month in which a power boat driven by a Medway man slammed into a smaller craft, killing two people.

It is unclear whether Robert Lapointe, 38, of Medway will face charges related to the mid-August crash and the deaths of Terry Raye Trott, 55, and his girlfriend, Susanne Groetzinger, 44, on Long Lake in Harrison, Maine.

Although more than a month has passed since the crash, Maine Warden Service spokesman Mark Latti yesterday said investigators are still busy reconstructing exactly what happened.

"It's unusual in the fact that so much of the debris was retrieved by our dive team on the bottom of the lake floor, and then has to be reconstructed," he said. "It's not like a wreck of a snowmobile or an ATV, so that makes it difficult."

Besides the complication of recovering debris from water from 30 to 50 feet deep, Latti said, investigators have interviewed dozens of witnesses in an effort to piece together the crash.

"The crash occurred on one of the busier lakes in southern Maine," Latti said. "There are a lot of people there who have information concerning the crash. There's been a lot of people to interview and get statements from, and compare the information and cross-check it with others.

"We're still working on it," he said. "There's no time line on it."

Investigators say Trott drowned and Groetzinger was killed by a blow to the head when Lapointe's 32-foot cigarette boat, equipped with two 435-horsepower engines, collided with Trott's 14-foot boat, slicing the smaller craft in half.

Lapointe, a former Framingham resident and 19-year-old Nicole Randall of Bridgton, Maine, who was in the boat with him, were thrown clear of the crash and swam to shore.

After slicing through Trott's craft, Lapointe's boat wound up grounded 134 feet inland with its motor still running, according to investigators.

Once the investigation is complete, Latti said, the Warden Service will make its report to Cumberland County District Attorney Stephanie Anderson, who will decide whether to file charges.

"What we want to do is make sure we investigate this as completely and thoroughly as possible before we present our finding to the district attorney's office," Latti said.

Lapointe's attorney, J. Albert Johnson, did not return a phone call seeking comment yesterday, but in an earlier report he told the Lewiston Sun Journal the incident was "a tragic accident with a terrible loss of life which is under intensive investigation by my office."