Proposed Law

[ApS]

Originally Posted by codeman671

An ESTIMATED 28mph speed at the time of the accident could not be proven in a court of law...It certainly was not enough to warrant a claim that he was grossly deviating from the speed limit...The facts however still remain the same. He was drunk and left the scene of a fatal accident...It was other laws that he was breaking. Failure to maintain proper lookout, BWI, leaving the scene, etc..

"Hit-and-Run" was NH-legal.

He wasn't proven drunk, but a judge allowed the jury to consider witness' testimony—and was upheld.

He would be in technical violation of the speed limit and that would be weighed by the jury when such testimony is allowed by the judge. Juries will also be weighing the testimony of court experts in speed determinations.

Originally Posted by Skip

Also, the insinuation that operating at an estimated 28 MPH in the Littlefield case would have somehow equated to massive criminal penalties...As usual, the reference source provided does not make the argument intended.

Somebody said "massive"?

It's a jury that would be weighing his speed, his lack of proper lookout and all other illegal and anti-social behaviors. (See above).

My point was that eleven years ago, BWI was a very serious charge. Take the 84 years in prison and divide it by the number of victims, and you see that 16 years (for each victim) was adjudicated for a successful BWI prosecution.

Originally Posted by Skip

"...If the speed had been the contributing factor in the Littlefield collision the State already had an existing statute, the reckless operation RSA, that would have been invoked as a felony charge. Speed was not and still is not the contributing factor that caused the death in the Littlefield crime..."

You make my point: no speed law—no speed prosecution—no invocation of felonious behavior.

Originally Posted by Skip

"...Littlefield, although not found guilty of Boating While Intoxicated, was found guilty of the felony Failure to Maintain a Proper Lookout due in part to his consumption of alcohol on the night of the crime..."

Yes, thanks to the NH Supreme Court and a judge who saw a travesty unfolding in his courtroom.

Yet in another jurisdiction, 16 years was delivered for an analogous collision—even without a determination of actual speed.

Originally Posted by Skip

"...Finally, to equate the horrific crime in Florida..."

I first noticed the frequent mention of such speeders in Florida's canal system: most were overpowered monsters colliding with houses!

While the Grim Reaper took his highest toll in drivers and passengers, speed limits started popping up in the canals.

Speed limits in canals? Who knew?

Originally Posted by jeffk

"...This assertion keeps coming up from proponents of a speed limit and it is simply nonsense...the worst anyone would get from a speeding violation is a non criminal fine of up to $1000 and possibly a suspended license..."

"The worst" would be the technical violation of the speed limit law being considered by a jury who has already heard witnesses describing his pre-crash attitude, after-crash attitude, flight to avoid prosecution and aberrant behavior. (See above).

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...Had he been doing 40 or 50mph the outcome would have been different, and more proveable in court..."

Finally, I think you're onto something here: had he been going 40 (or 90), he would have passed safely ahead of the victims' boat. Collision avoided! Everybody safe! No laws needed!



BTW: Isn't someone familiar with courtrooms going to suggest that a post announcing intent to become a lawbreaker is a seriously bad idea?

While it's enormously high in cult value, I wouldn't want my insurance company to have that in print in a courtroom.

[Skip]

For the final time let me remind the reader that yes, Aps is correct in one tiny aspect of his opinion on this matter, speed did play a part in the conviction of Littlefiled.

How so?

An extensive investigation and re-creation of the accident led investigators to a reasonable belief that Littlefield was travelling approximatley 28 MPH at the time of the collision.

But given all the conditions present that evening the State opined and the jury and the NH Supreme Court concluded that the speed Littlefield was operating at was not a contributing factor to the accident, and that given his estimated speed and the environmental conditions he faced that night he easily should have been able to avoid a collision.

Therefore the jury's opinion, upheld by the NH Supreme Court, was that something else other than speed caused the collision and that something was the ultimate decision that imprisoned Littlefield.

And what was that something else? Again, a reading of the transcript of both the original trial and the appeal make it readily apparent. Littlefield was unable to maintain a proper lookout due in part to the amount of alcohol he had drank just prior to the collision.

Simple and obvious as that.

And the fact that Boating While Intoxicated laws with inherent criminal and civil penalties existed that evening that Littlefield chose to drink too much did nothing to deter him or three other adult passenges from preventing this crime.

The fact that there were children present during the drinking and subsequent collision did nothing to deter the crime.

The fact that a number of other horrific and well publicized alcohol related boating collisions have occured throughout the country prior to that night of drinking did nothing to prevent this crime.

And yet a handful out here wnat to continue to harangue that maybe a speed limit that night would have prevented Littlefield and his passengers from engaging in the course of action that ultimately led to this tragedy?

Oh, by the way.....in the horrific alcohol induced collision that Aps cites as the basis for his argument? Gee, there was a speed limit that night in that canal.

And it did nothing to prevent the deaths of six innocent people!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Finally, I think you're onto something here: had he been going 40 (or 90), he would have passed safely ahead of the victims' boat. Collision avoided! Everybody safe! No laws needed!

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't he hit the 22' boat directly in the stern? How would he have passed safely by?

I am going to refrain from responding to the rest of your post, your banter is meaningless and not fact based. Other posters such as Skip, Woodsy and JeffK have made strong factual arguments yet you continue to dazzle us with your hypothetical crap and twisted views. The facts are the facts APS, your speed limit would not have saved a life in this case. That Baja had just as much right to be on the water as any other boat on the lake, although the driver did not. It was not traveling at unsafe speeds for the conditions and as long as it met MP requirements for safety equipment and state noise requirements the only laws broken were by the driver.

The accident that took place in FL occured in an inland canal (clearly a narrower place than Winnipesaukee) as they were approaching a no-wake zone. With concentrated traffic and manatees in abundance the boat was clearly going too fast for the environment. Oh, and wasn't alcohol involved??? Maybe tougher BWI consequences would be a good place to focus efforts instead.

[SIKSUKR]

Folks, this is what we are dealing with when you try to have a meaningful, thought provoking discussion with the pro speed limit side. Just read the posts from both sides and see which sound logical and which sound like they are made to scare and shock with little regard to what the facts truly are. Shameful.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't he hit the 22' boat directly in the stern? How would he have passed safely by?

It was not "a direct hit". Any change in vectoring of those 4½ tons would have been safe.

Originally Posted by codeman671

Maybe tougher BWI consequences would be a good place to focus efforts instead.

Like our most famous case?

Originally Posted by chipj29

Are you seriously comparing a canal and a large lake WRT the need for speed limits?

The "Need for Speed" is enhanced in tight quarters (and alcohol); however, a photograph of Long Lake could be mistaken for hundreds of stretches on Lake Winnipesaukee, and the manufacturer said their own killer-boat was too powerful for the lake!

Originally Posted by Skip

"...Finally, to equate the horrific crime in Florida (which the poster had to go back eleven years..."

Okaaay...let's go back to the previous summer, where five died without speed limits—and no alcohol.

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

"...Just read the posts from both sides and see which sound logical and which sound like they are made to scare and shock with little regard to what the facts truly are..."

The above case mentions the use of GPS. Has the "Need for Speed" crowd ever mentioned GPS as an emerging factor in the frequent violations of Winnipesaukee's "safe-passage" rule?

BoaterEd's Les Hall spoke to this collision:

"...Had those two boats been running at 25 knots instead of 70, the failure would not have caused such a dramatic turn and the other boat may have had time to avoid it. Nor would the damage have been so extensive. You guys can posture all you want but it is not safe for two boats to be doing 70 or 80 side by side or for boats to be going that speed on inland waters. Exciting, yes. Safe, no...If accidents like this one keep happening, that's what will happen on the water - speed limits everywhere..."

Don't forget that between 100-130-MPH, I have many more hours (than most) on a closed race course. Also, I go boating 12 months a year.(And get to view other boaters from three different locales).

Soundings magazine is my boat-savvy reading, who recount the awful effects of speed, alcohol, money, ignorance and overpowered boats every month.

And this "isn't just about me" being a proponent: the entire editorial staff of the Concord Monitor has come on board today.

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dl...1027/OPINION01

(2nd paragraph from the bottom).

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

The "Need for Speed" is enhanced in tight quarters (and alcohol); however, a photograph of Long Lake could be mistaken for hundreds of stretches on Lake Winnipesaukee, and the manufacturer said their own killer-boat was too powerful for the lake!

Cum'on , get off it , will ya! First off , the BOAT and its HORSEPOWER had NOTHING to do with it. A 35 foot 300 hp CRUISER could have done the same thing since the ESTIMATED speed was ONLY 28 MPH. (Wide open for the cruiser)
One change in decision , anytime that evening , by either boater , could have made a world of difference!
Even if Littlefield had stayed and had ONE MOOOOORE drink , he wouldn't have been at that place and time that the accident took place. If he had been doing 45 mph , he would have been past the point of impact before the victims boat got there.
Rediculous senarios , yes , but factually TRUE...more true than "the boat had too much power for the lake" , because again and for the last time The Power Had Nothing to Do With It
Now let me rest my bruised finger tips (from POUNDING the keyboard) and go get some lunch

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I first noticed the frequent mention of such speeders in Florida's canal system: most were overpowered monsters colliding with houses!

While the Grim Reaper took his highest toll in drivers and passengers, speed limits started popping up in the canals.

Speed limits in canals? Who knew?

Are you seriously comparing a canal and a large lake WRT the need for speed limits?

[fatlazyless]

Just between you, me, and the very small number of the 424 NH legislators who may read this forum, I think the new community sailing facility for local kids-n-adults, that going up at Ellacoya State Park will carry more positive weight for the need for a speed limit than 100 people commenting about the technical aspects of the 150' foot rule.

As you may or may not know, the New Hampshire Dept of Parks & Recreation is on-board with the Lake Winnipesaukee Sailing Association, www.lwsa.org, to build a one million dollar plus, community sailing facility on a lightly used end of the beautifull beach at Ellacoya State Park. It is scheduled to open in the summer of 2009.
.............................

Want to help pay for the new community sailing facility with a tax deductible contribution? Go to www.lwsa.org and look around....at the donation link....at the photos....or go to the 'building Winni Sailing' thread in the nearby boating section and read all about it including a lengthy news article from the Laconia Daily Sun..

Happy and safe sailing & motorboating to eveyone in 2008. and please dig deep to help pay for the new community sailing facility that's opening in 2009!!
...................

...and now, it's back to the technical arguments....kersplash....pow.....& cowabunga!

[Hottrucks]

How could we support them ???

LWSA/WYC events are typically mixed-fleet, handicapped (PHRF) races with round-the-islands courses and are held on weekends. There are usually both racing (spinnaker) and cruising (non-spinnaker) divisions. In addition to the mixed-fleet race events, there is J/80 one-design class racing every Thursday evening during the summer - details here.

We welcome anyone who wants to participate - if you are inexperienced at racing but would like to learn,

I fearing for my life they're going to be racing!!!!!!!!!!