Sound travels at night

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Excuse me??? But that’s exactly what your post was about! A snowstorm isn’t exactly good driving weather:

The post was about how to go about setting up proper speed limits and the concpets involved. The snowstorm was an example to illustrate a concept that when it comes to autos we don't set the speed limit based on how safely someone who doesn't perform up to an expected standard can drive.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

And I understand the concept just fine – I just don’t agree that it applies here – at least not to degree you claim it does. So don’t treat me like I'm an idiot. I might be blonde, but I’m not dumb.

I've not treated you like an idiot at all. When I've think you've not understood what I've said, I've tried to restate another way so as to be clear. I really don't care if you are dumb and/or blonde, I've only ever tried to debate your position and areguements. If I've had to restate things numerously you might want to try to answer the points raised directly. In this case you might try to start by explaining why you'd take the degree of sobriety in account in setting the lake's speed limit but not do so when setting the speed limit for the road.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

No, I’m not. I didn’t state a number in my previous post, all I wrote was “high speed”. I’ll leave it up to the experts to decide what that speed is. Personally I like 40/20 as the limits, but I’m willing to accept slightly higher speeds – if justification can be shown for higher speeds that outweighs the possible danger of those speeds. I do know that unlimited speeds (meaning no speed limit) is not reasonable – and that is exactly what I wrote in my previous post.

You've stated numerous times that boats on Squam, being limited to 40mph, present a comfortable enivironment. Boat on Winni are too fast and run at "high" speed. It doesn't take much to deduce your position that speeds in excess of 40 mph are "high" (though you might find 45 acceptable and presumably not "high"). If you care to, put a number on a speed you think is too fast to be allowed and therefore "high".

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I can generally tell when boaters who are within my 150 foot zone don’t see us – which is really obvious by their reaction when they do see us. Notice that I wrote “us” – because I’m not the only one there – I have a witness, who saw the same reactions that I did. The only thing we don’t have is video proof – but generally having a reputable witness is enough.

If I'm to accept this statement on face value, it would seem you have boaters who aren't seeing you until they are closer that 150' away. Again let me ask, do you think that you were visible more than 150' away IF the boaters in question had bothered to look your way ? Why is it you can see kayaks a mile away but these people can't see you ?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The problem with your hypothetical point is that you neglect that fact (according to most of the anti-speed limit posters here) that only a very small percentage of boaters travel at speeds over 45 mph. Yet members of this tiny percentage of operators, have violated my 150 foot zone way too often when I’ve kayaked on winni. So, it would appear that visibility is a major problem with boaters who are traveling at high speeds. BTW, just how much personal experience do you have operating a boat on winni at speeds over 45mph? (which I’m only using since that will be the speed limit next year)

You've not mentioned how many times your 150' bubble was bursted by boaters who you think were going less that 45 mph ? This is a pretty routine thing for me and I'd expect it to be so for you as well. Sometimes I can't tell if the person every bothered to look my way (I didn't see their head aimed my direction) but overwhelmingly they do look my direction and then continue to do what they do. Your experience seems to be completely different from mine and in ways that aren't accountable to any visibility differences. I've underlined the part above because again you're making a deduction that it's visibility that's the reason and not something else. Indeed in an earlier you post you were more believable when you said it was visibilty or that they were doing it deliberately. You infer from their reaction that didn't see you but I've got no way to know whether

FWIW : I generally don't run at max speed but for those times I have, I'd say perhaps 50 - 100 hrs at something over 45 mph in a boat. How many hours do you have as "Evenstar" in a powerboat > 18' in length ?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Yet the number of close calls that people have testified about is evidence that we do indeed have a dangerous problem. Again, lack of a fatal collision between a high-speed boat and a paddler does not prove that there isn’t a danger for paddlers. I’m very thankful that, so far, we’re been very lucky that no one’s been killed this way. But our luck isn’t going to hold out forever.

Again (and I really don’t know why I have to keep repeating myself – if you guys paid a little more attention to what I post, I wouldn’t have to post much at all):
Not every boater pays attention as much as they should.
Not every boater has perfect vision.
The glare from sun and spay can greatly reduce visibility.
Some boaters are impaired to various degrees by the alcohol they have consumed while boating.
Add all those together and we have potentially a major visibility problem.
Add high-speeds to any visibility problem and we have a potentially very dangerous situation.

Because people are not perfect and boats still collide with other boats and even with islands.

Because, as I've posted over and over (so please pay attention this time), many of the 150 foot rule violations are unintentional, due to visibility problems. I've witnessed this myself way too many times. Do you actually believe that the operator of the boat that resulted in the recent fatality on the lake intentionally broke the 150 foot rule?

I'm going to leave out the whole colliding with islands at night for another post as it's a different issue than the 45 mph limit. So to synopsize your position, because some, not all (your words) boaters are paying proper enough attention and some mght be drunk and sometimes the conditions (sun, glare, etc) aren't perfect, the speed limit should be set to force all boaters to a speed where the people who boat irresponsibly are unlikely to run you over. Those people who actually do pay attention, who can see you the mile away you can see other kayakers, who slow down when the sun is in their eyes, who aren't BUI .... well just too bad for them ... yes ? I want to be sure I have your position correctly understood because you've made what seems to me to be conflicting posts about whether someone can be responsible and boat at "high" speeds (on a lake with other slower vessels on it) and that some, but not all, "high" speed boaters are to blame. Again is it possible for normal human beings to boat at, and I'm arbitrarily picking a speed above 45 but not hugely above it, say 60 mph without putting at undue peril people like yourselves in kayaks ? I'm asking to determine if you think we have a few (or many) problem boaters who don't pay sufficient attention or that the practice ("high" speed) is, all by itself, unsafe.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

The post was about how to go about setting up proper speed limits and the concpets involved. The snowstorm was an example to illustrate a concept that when it comes to autos we don't set the speed limit based on how safely someone who doesn't perform up to an expected standard can drive.

The thing is, autos on the highway don’t have a 150 foot rule (as many of the anti-speed limit group keep bringing up whenever anyone states that speed limits on lakes is no more restrictive to an individual’s right than highway speed limits are).

The fact that the 150 foot rule is being broken unintentionally by high-speed boats is a valid reason for enacting a law that will limit the maximum speed on the lake. Yet you are actually suggesting that it’s the same as enacting a speed limit based on the worse possible weather conditions – the two concepts are totally different.

If I've had to restate things numerously you might want to try to answer the points raised directly. In this case you might try to start by explaining why you'd take the degree of sobriety in account in setting the lake's speed limit but not do so when setting the speed limit for the road.

I have answered points directly on this forum – way better than most of the anti-speed limit crowd – who just ignore the inconvenient points that they are unable to dispute.
For example: If a boater gets in a accident on this lake while traveling at a high speed – and if that individual has been consuming alcohol – you guys think that you can dismiss speed as being a factor, since that person was BWI. The fact remains that speed was still a factor in the accident, not matter how inconvenient that fact my be to your agenda.

You've stated numerous times that boats on Squam, being limited to 40mph, present a comfortable enivironment. Boat on Winni are too fast and run at "high" speed. It doesn't take much to deduce your position that speeds in excess of 40 mph are "high" (though you might find 45 acceptable and presumably not "high"). If you care to, put a number on a speed you think is too fast to be allowed and therefore "high".

I already did that in my previous reply. I see no reason to repeat myself.

If I'm to accept this statement on face value, it would seem you have boaters who aren't seeing you until they are closer that 150' away. Again let me ask, do you think that you were visible more than 150' away IF the boaters in question had bothered to look your way?

I can’t tell WHY those operators didn’t see us before they were practically on top of us. But I do know that, if they were going slower, they would have had more time to see us and to avoid us. Basically they were traveling faster than their ability to see us in time – for whatever reason.

Why is it you can see kayaks a mile away but these people can't see you ?

Mostly because I’m moving at much slower speeds. Slow down any boat to 5 or 6 mph, and anyone with decent vision would be able to see kayaks just as far away as I can.

You've not mentioned how many times your 150' bubble was bursted by boaters who you think were going less that 45 mph? … I've underlined the part above because again you're making a deduction that it's visibility that's the reason and not something else. Indeed in an earlier you post you were more believable when you said it was visibilty or that they were doing it deliberately.

I have clearly stated that our 150 foot zone has been intentionally violated at speeds under 45 mph – only at higher speeds has this happened unintentionally. Again, I clearly posted why it was obvious to US (not just me alone) that these particular high-speed boaters didn’t notice we were there until the last minute. You weren’t there – we were – we know what we saw.

Again you question my honesty, when I’ve stated that I never lie. Those other times when we couldn’t tell if they saw us, were other incidents completely.

FWIW : I generally don't run at max speed but for those times I have, I'd say perhaps 50 - 100 hrs at something over 45 mph in a boat. How many hours do you have as "Evenstar" in a powerboat > 18' in length?

I’m guessing that my team's crew boat is a bit over 18 foot long – and I’ve spent many hours on that boat, while working on all day regattas. And I've spent a fair amount of time on other larger powerboats as well. I honestly have no idea of the number of actual hours. But that is not even relevant here, as I’ve never claimed to have much experience in a power boat and have even clearly stated that I don’t. My experience that is revelant is in paddling a sea kayak on NH lakes and having seen first hand how dangerous high-speed powerboats can be to smaller, slow vessels like kayaks.

So to synopsize your position, because some, not all (your words) boaters are paying proper enough attention and some mght be drunk and sometimes the conditions (sun, glare, etc) aren't perfect, the speed limit should be set to force all boaters to a speed where the people who boat irresponsibly are unlikely to run you over. … Again is it possible for normal human beings to boat at, and I'm arbitrarily picking a speed above 45 but not hugely above it, say 60 mph without putting at undue peril people like yourselves in kayaks ? I'm asking to determine if you think we have a few (or many) problem boaters who don't pay sufficient attention or that the practice ("high" speed) is, all by itself, unsafe.

My point, which you are again ignoring, was that high speed is a major impairment to a boater’s ability to see smaller boats (like my kayak) in time to remain outside of their 150 foot zone – for whatever reason. Slowing down the high speed boaters will give them more time to see us.

You can't just exclude the irrisponsible boaters and normal good weather conditions (like sun and spray). As I've posted a number of times: If all men were reasonable, and if all men actually cared how their actions might negatively affected others, we wouldn't need most laws. But not all men are reasonable, and many just don't care enough about others - people are not perfect and even experienced boaters still collide with other boats and even with islands (and not just at night).

Since so few boaters can or do travel at speeds above 45 mph, give me one good reason why anyone needs to travel on any NH lake at higher speeds, when there is evidence that higher speeds are more dangerous to other boaters. What is the burden here in having to slow down to 45mph?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Since so few boaters can or do travel at speeds above 45 mph, give me one good reason why anyone needs to travel on any NH lake at higher speeds, when there is evidence that higher speeds are more dangerous to other boaters. What is the burden here in having to slow down to 45mph?

The "evidence" is your opinion. Factual accident data for actual accidents that have taken place in NH are not from speeds higher than 45mph. Add Long Lake into the mix all you want, but he was driving drunk and since he was already was ignoring that more serious law, a speed limit would not have prevented it from happening.

When traveling at higher speeds, I tend to pay more attention to my surroundings and feel that I actually would have a better reaction time than if cruising along at 30mph, enjoying the scenery and talking with occupants. My focus is more on my driving and what lies ahead, instead of what my wife and kids are doing when seated behind me.

How many times have you actually been on Winnipesaukee? It is my experience that the people most likely to run you over here are the slower boaters that are not paying attention. Boats that will not be affected by a speed limit. Why limit those than can go faster? I do not see them as the problem.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Add Long Lake into the mix all you want, but he was driving drunk and since he was already was ignoring that more serious law, a speed limit would not have prevented it from happening.

Sorry but that is wrong. #1) so should we eliminate all speed limits on the roads of NH because you think drunks won't obey them? Ask any cop about the frequency of drunk drivers who try to stay under the radar so to speak and are picked up for some other violation while driving slowly. #2) so this would have applied to Long Lake, though I suspect a speed limit might have encouraged him to launch his boat elsewhere, possibly some place less congested. Do you also want to repeal laws in NH relating to rape or murder because drunks won't obey them either? Here lies the flaw in your logic.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Sorry but that is wrong. #1) so should we eliminate all speed limits on the roads of NH because you think drunks won't obey them? Ask any cop about the frequency of drunk drivers who try to stay under the radar so to speak and are picked up for some other violation while driving slowly. #2) so this would have applied to Long Lake, though I suspect a speed limit might have encouraged him to launch his boat elsewhere, possibly some place less congested. Do you also want to repeal laws in NH relating to rape or murder because drunks won't obey them either? Here lies the flaw in your logic.

Your comparison is the flaw...Rape and murder? Give me a break. I am not asking for existing laws (that make sense) to be repealed, I am asking for new laws that are not proven as needed to be instituted as a "feel good" measure. Big difference between speed limits, rape and murder. You are talking ticketable offenses vs. serious felonies with potential capital punishment depending on where it takes place and the gravity of the situation.

The accident EVIDENCE that exists based on HISTORICAL events/accidents are not indicating speed being an issue. This has been covered time and time again. Look at the last 5 years and tell me what accidents have been attributed to speed exceeding the proposed limit. And don't toss out Littlefield as your example, even if the suggested 28mph could be 100% proven it was not the speed that caused the accident. With the actual history showing accidents happening at slower speeds how can you honestly sit here and say that speed is the issue causing the accidents?

The Long Lake incident could have happened whether or not a speed limit was in place. And congestion? Where did that come from? I doubt highly that the lake was congested that night. Performance boats are not leaving Winnipesaukee due to congestion...I own 4 boats and a jet ski that will exceed 45mph (mostly not by much) and don't think for a second that 45mph will make me leave. Don't think for a second that it will make every performance boat leave. Boats don't have to be performance boats to be deadly either...

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Here's something to think about regarding speed limits on the lake; every car, when it was new, could easily surpass the 65mph speed limit on the highways. Not every boat on Lake Winnipesaukee can do 45mph; it's probably a small percentage, perhaps less than 25%, that can actually exceed that speed. Can we all agree on that number?

SO, here's what should have been done; set the lake limit to 65mph, same as the highway. The performance boaters will be happy that they can still go fast when conditions permit and the speed limit supporters will be happy that there is an "enforceable" speed limit.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

Here's something to think about regarding speed limits on the lake; every car, when it was new, could easily surpass the 65mph speed limit on the highways. Not every boat on Lake Winnipesaukee can do 45mph; it's probably a small percentage, perhaps less than 25%, that can actually exceed that speed. SO, here's what should have been done; set the lake limit to 65mph, same as the highway.

This is just like saying that since only 25% of the cars on the highway are capable of exceeding 100 mph that the highway speed limit should be 120 mph, so that people who own performance vehicles will be happy.

Plus not every new boat can exceed 45 mph, or even 35, or even 25, or even 6 mph - so, based on your logic, the lake speed limit should be 25 mph (20 mph faster than the slowest new boat speed, which is ~5 mph).

Originally Posted by Chris Craft

Evenstar: Lets not talk about the accident on Long Lake as NO ONE really knows what happened out there including the people on the boats.

Fine, but I'm not the one who brought it into this discussion.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The fact that the 150 foot rule is being broken unintentionally by high-speed boats is a valid reason for enacting a law that will limit the maximum speed on the lake.

If the Captain is breaking rule A, what makes you think he is going to heed rule B?
Let me take this one step further:
If the MP cannot effectively enforce rule A, what makes you think they are going to be able to enforce rule B?

Can you honestly disagree that if we were to better enfore the current rules the lake would be safer?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

If a boater gets in a accident on this lake while traveling at a high speed – and if that individual has been consuming alcohol – you guys think that you can dismiss speed as being a factor, since that person was BWI. The fact remains that speed was still a factor in the accident, not matter how inconvenient that fact my be to your agenda.

Yes. BWI trumps speeding any day, boat or car.
Speeding in a car you get a ticket. BWI in a car you get arrested/lose license/court fees etc.

How many 'high speed' BWI accidents have there been?

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The thing is, autos on the highway don’t have a 150 foot rule (as many of the anti-speed limit group keep bringing up whenever anyone states that speed limits on lakes is no more restrictive to an individual’s right than highway speed limits are).

The fact that the 150 foot rule is being broken unintentionally by high-speed boats is a valid reason for enacting a law that will limit the maximum speed on the lake. Yet you are actually suggesting that it’s the same as enacting a speed limit based on the worse possible weather conditions – the two concepts are totally different.

What's not different is that we expect, no ... demand that drivers, be they in cars on in boats, adapt their speed to be proper for the conditions regardless of the posted limits. In other words there's a degree of judgement placed squarely on the shoulders of the operator. We don't post limits on the road that say (for example) 35 mph is the max permissible speed limit on I-93 because that's the limit when it's snowing or foggy or because that's what "we" think is the safe speed for someone who's had too much to drink. The limit posted assumes good conditions and requires the operator to adjust according when the conditons are not. When you introduce sobriety or glare or sun angle into your discussions as to why the speed limit should be so artificially low (IMO) then you open yourself up to the arguement that we don't consider these things when we set speed limits on the road. Why are you including them as factors to set a low speed limit ? Would you be consistent and use then as factor to lower speed limits on our roadways ?

I'd accept your point as being consistent w/HB847 if you stated that it can't be reasonably expected that any boater, even one paying proper attention and not impaired by drugs or alcohol, travelling in excess of 50 mph presents a likely danger of overrruning you if you, in your kayak, were in their path.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I have answered points directly on this forum – way better than most of the anti-speed limit crowd – who just ignore the inconvenient points that they are unable to dispute.


For example: If a boater gets in a accident on this lake while traveling at a high speed – and if that individual has been consuming alcohol – you guys think that you can dismiss speed as being a factor, since that person was BWI. The fact remains that speed was still a factor in the accident, not matter how inconvenient that fact my be to your agenda.

I wouldn't necessarily include speed as a factor because there are many thing you can do in complete safety when sober that you can't do when drunk. If a drunk piles his boat into another at 60 mph, I can't conclude from that that it's beyond a reasonable expectation that a sober person would have been able to do 60 mph in the same situation and not hit the other boat ... or have decided that 60 mph was too fast for that situation and not being going that fast too start with. Drunkeness interferes with both your ability to perceive and react to situations and your overall judgement. If drunks routinely ran of the I-93 at 65 mph would the logical conclusion be that we need to reduce the speed limit in order to reduce the number of drunks running off the road or would the more rational conclusion be that since non drunks don't generally run off the road at 65 mph and drunks do, that it's the drunkeness that's the problem and not the speed in and of itself.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I already did that in my previous reply. I see no reason to repeat myself.

Earlier on I saw you post that you hadn't set a number to "high". I must have missed when you did.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I can’t tell WHY those operators didn’t see us before they were practically on top of us. But I do know that, if they were going slower, they would have had more time to see us and to avoid us. Basically they were traveling faster than their ability to see us in time – for whatever reason.

{in reply to why ES can see akayak at a mile but a "speeding" boater can't, ES said}

Mostly because I’m moving at much slower speeds. Slow down any boat to 5 or 6 mph, and anyone with decent vision would be able to see kayaks just as far away as I can.

I going to address this more below but when was the last time you were in a car, doing say 65 mph, and couldn't see a mile down the road because of your speed ?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I have clearly stated that our 150 foot zone has been intentionally violated at speeds under 45 mph – only at higher speeds has this happened unintentionally. Again, I clearly posted why it was obvious to US (not just me alone) that these particular high-speed boaters didn’t notice we were there until the last minute. You weren’t there – we were – we know what we saw.

Again you question my honesty, when I’ve stated that I never lie. Those other times when we couldn’t tell if they saw us, were other incidents completely.

I now understand why others here have given you a rough time. What utter crap, I have never, NEVER, questioned your honesty nor accused you of lying. I have questioned your judgement and last I checked we were all human and capable of being MISTAKEN or wrong w/o it being a lie. If you can't distinguish between someone questioning your perception of why the event unfolded the way it did vs them saying you're lying then our discusssion is over. You must think you're infallible. I don't doubt you are certain that the events happened for the reason you state, that doesn't make it true.

BTW just how many times has an unintentional violation of your 150' zone happened on Winni ? Are we talking 2,3 5 times over a few years or 30, 40 50 times over a few years ?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I’m guessing that my team's crew boat is a bit over 18 foot long – and I’ve spent many hours on that boat, while working on all day regattas. And I've spent a fair amount of time on other larger powerboats as well. I honestly have no idea of the number of actual hours. But that is not even relevant here, as I’ve never claimed to have much experience in a power boat and have even clearly stated that I don’t. My experience that is revelant is in paddling a sea kayak on NH lakes and having seen first hand how dangerous high-speed powerboats can be to smaller, slow vessels like kayaks.

So is it all high speed powerboats or just some (which are dangerous to kayaks). I'm trying to get a simple, straight answer along the lines of what I asked above. I asked how much time you've spent behind the wheel of a power boat, at something above displacement speed, to gage whether you have enough experience to judge what a power boater can or can't see.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

My point, which you are again ignoring, was that high speed is a major impairment to a boater’s ability to see smaller boats (like my kayak) in time to remain outside of their 150 foot zone – for whatever reason. Slowing down the high speed boaters will give them more time to see us.

I'm not ignoring it at all, I'm outright challenging it. Tell me the physical reasons why someone at high speed has diminished ability to see you. You seem to be contending that because some boaters apparently didn't see that all can't. You support this by making the assumption, without supplying any underlying reasons, that speed is somehow responsible. I don't say that slower won't give them more time, I do say that once a person has been given sufficient time enough has been done. Littlefeild had in excess of 30 seconds to ponder what that light was in front of him and still ran of the Hartmans. You can give the inattentive boater more time but it's no guarantee they'll notice you.


Search as I might, I couldn't find any conclusive tests on kayak visibility (not radar related) however it's something that I can envision being emperically determined so unless you can introduce some other evidence I remain unconvinced that your kayak is rendered nearly invisible to an attentive boater, "high" speed or not. I will give some thought as to how the truth can be ascertained.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You can't just exclude the irrisponsible boaters and normal good weather conditions (like sun and spray). As I've posted a number of times: If all men were reasonable, and if all men actually cared how their actions might negatively affected others, we wouldn't need most laws. But not all men are reasonable, and many just don't care enough about others - people are not perfect and even experienced boaters still collide with other boats and even with islands (and not just at night).

Your trying to twist what I've been discussing when using the term reasonable into something other that intended. I haven't said nor implied that all people are "reasonable" by any definition of the word. What I have tried to say is the law shouldn't restrict what can be reasonably expected that a normal human (not Super Man) can do. If a normal human, using a reasonable (not superhumanly good nor negligently bad) degree of prudence and vigilence can pilot his/her boat at XX mph without running over a kayak lying in their path I don't see why their should be a speed limit below XX mph. It's that simple. If your problem comes down to people being irresponsible and inattentive, to the point of being negligent then that has to be addressed on it's own. You may think that slowing the negligent boater down will save you but I think that at some point in that boater's career his negligence will catch up with him/her resulting a tragedy. I've found it's best when solving problems to attack the root cause and not apply bandaids. Besides it's the fair thing to do. I don't care to punish person W for person Z's misdeeds.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Since so few boaters can or do travel at speeds above 45 mph, give me one good reason why anyone needs to travel on any NH lake at higher speeds, when there is evidence that higher speeds are more dangerous to other boaters. What is the burden here in having to slow down to 45mph?

There are many things on life I don't "need". Who even says I need to go 45 mph, why not 30 mph ... slower is safer yes ? The Govt should not be in the business of restricting we the people to what it thinks we "need". Restrictions should be the minimum necessary to accomplish what has hopefully been determined to be a truly needed goal. When the Gov't determined that 55 mph was the maximum speed you "needed" to travel at did you agree with it ? If the Gov't dictated that your car or boat's color should be either safety yellow or safety green because it would improve it's visibility and thus safety. Would you agree with it ? Because you don't "need" a car or boat's color, you just want it. I'm challenging what I think is an artificially low number for the speed limit same as I would challenge any other such artificial restriction. It's not about "need".

[Chris Craft]

Evenstar: Lets not talk about the accident on Long Lake as NO ONE really knows what happened out there including the people on the boats. There are a number of people that read this board that know both people on both boats. They are all good people. It was a tragedy for sure. I am sure a lot more will come out in the trial this fall.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Chris Craft

Evenstar: Lets not talk about the accident on Long Lake as NO ONE really knows what happened out there including the people on the boats. There are a number of people that read this board that know both people on both boats. They are all good people. It was a tragedy for sure. I am sure a lot more will come out in the trial this fall.

So it is OK for codeman to say that a speed limit would not have prevented the Long Lake accident. But it is not OK for Evenstar to think otherwise? And Eventar is not the one that brought it up in the first place!!! You have that double standard going full speed tonight.

We keep hearing that accidents that involve alcohol should not be considered in speed limit arguments. This is pure, 100 percent, unadulterated CRAP. Get a clue people. That boat was brought in from Mass so he could go fast. Mass has a state wide speed limit. If Long Lake had a speed limit he never, never, never, never would have gone there. And that is the truth about speed limits you people will not face.

And how long do we need to wait before we talk about an accident? I agree that it is to soon to talk about the recent fatality on Winnipesaukee. However charges have been filed in the Long Lake accident and it's fair game in my book. Wait for the trial? That can take years. And then shouldn't we wait for the appeals?

If there are those that will be upset if they read about the accident, then they should stay out of boating forums.

[Chris Craft]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

So it is OK for codeman to say that a speed limit would not have prevented the Long Lake accident. But it is not OK for Evenstar to think otherwise? And Eventar is not the one that brought it up in the first place!!! You have that double standard going full speed tonight.

We keep hearing that accidents that involve alcohol should not be considered in speed limit arguments. This is pure, 100 percent, unadulterated CRAP. Get a clue people. That boat was brought in from Mass so he could go fast. Mass has a state wide speed limit. If Long Lake had a speed limit he never, never, never, never would have gone there. And that is the truth about speed limits you people will not face.

And how long do we need to wait before we talk about an accident? I agree that it is to soon to talk about the recent fatality on Winnipesaukee. However charges have been filed in the Long Lake accident and it's fair game in my book. Wait for the trial? That can take years. And then shouldn't we wait for the appeals?

If there are those that will be upset if they read about the accident, then they should stay out of boating forums.

No I would just rather that no one speculate on what happened in that accident. So you know that the boat that was "hit" was not moving? had it's lights on? Operators were sober? That the driver of the other boat was traveling at what speed? None of this information has been published so how are we going to have any way to discuss the accident with any kind of accuracy? It is all pure speculation. Time will bring the trueth forward but only in court. Sorry to Evenstar to point her out.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

So it is OK for codeman to say that a speed limit would not have prevented the Long Lake accident. But it is not OK for Evenstar to think otherwise? And Eventar is not the one that brought it up in the first place!!! You have that double standard going full speed tonight.

We keep hearing that accidents that involve alcohol should not be considered in speed limit arguments. This is pure, 100 percent, unadulterated CRAP. Get a clue people. That boat was brought in from Mass so he could go fast. Mass has a state wide speed limit. If Long Lake had a speed limit he never, never, never, never would have gone there. And that is the truth about speed limits you people will not face.

And how long do we need to wait before we talk about an accident? I agree that it is to soon to talk about the recent fatality on Winnipesaukee. However charges have been filed in the Long Lake accident and it's fair game in my book. Wait for the trial? That can take years. And then shouldn't we wait for the appeals?

If there are those that will be upset if they read about the accident, then they should stay out of boating forums.

I honestly, cannot find anything but agreement in that post. You're absolutely correct on all points BI. I agree with you.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

I honestly, cannot find anything but agreement in that post. You're absolutely correct on all points BI. I agree with you.

Here is where I disagree.....from a post yesterday.

BWI trumps speeding any day, boat or car.
Speeding in a car you get a ticket. BWI in a car you get arrested/lose license/court fees etc.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Here is where I disagree.....from a post yesterday.

In the hypothetical. If someone brought a 23' bowrider up to Long Lake, got drunk while driving 43 mph, killed someone, did the speed limit matter? BI is saying that the accident never would have occurred if the go fast boat never came to the lake. Obviously, that is technically true.

But it also has to rely on an inference that people that come up to the lake to go fast also get drunk, or at least more than the general populace. Or, that people with slower boats won't come up to the lake to go boating, speed limit or otherwise. That's a lot of assumptions isn't it? The other accident in M Bay, where the GF boat wasn't going very fast, but the driver was impaired. He killed someone in that accident.

The vast majority of accidents involve drownings, falls, and boats other than the targeted audience. Most of those involve inattention, violations of existing laws, BWI, things other than speed. For BI to make that case, he'd had to infer that the GFBL crowd is a bunch of dangerous drunks, with the speed of their boats being the secondary cause. Some others have come right out and said as much.

It's been my experience that the pardy hardy BWI crowd is "usually" not that crowd. YMMV. I agree with you that BWI trumps speed, anyday. I don't think that's what BI is arguing.