Long Lake night navigation accident

[Lin]

This was in our local paper today. It's about a fatal night time boating accident on Long Lake in Maine. Once again it's were lights used, was speed used. Still under investigation. According to the paper though the cigarette boat hit the smaller boat with such force that it tossed out the occupants of the larger boat after splitting the smaller boat in half. The two people in the smaller boat were killed from drowning and blunt trauma.
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/homepage/x368115076

[KBoater]

The Boston Globe had this article on boating today

http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...dents_on_rise/

[Blue Thunder]

This has been the talk of the Lakes Region of Maine since happening last Saturday night. All of the same issues are now being raised here that this forum has been inundated with, ad nauseum, since the boating fatality on Winnipesaukee a couple of years ago. Speed limits, ban cigarette boats etc., etc., etc. Let's wait for the facts to come out.

BT

[MeEscape]

I'm disappointed in the Globe. I happen to live in Maine and work in the Naples, Maine region. While the "hitter boat" was a go fast and was going fast (landed 150 feet into the shore), the "hittee" was believed to be watching a meteor shower without any lights. Let's wait for the complete investigation, but let's not use this as an excuse to attack certain boats. Any loss of life is a tragedy; let’s get to the root cause, which was not the type of boat.

[wildwoodfam]

The last paragraph asks that very question...so it doesn't sound like you read the ENTIRE article...rule number one in journalism reviews!

Anywho - the article states pretty clearly the investigation is ongoing to determine, speed, alcohol, and whether the small boat had its lights on, which is relatively easy to determine.

Too hostile - that's how I describe the lakes on weekends. Our friends don't even ask to go boating on weekends anymore - getting tossed around in the rough wakes and watching the craziness of the weekend warriors...not for me! We enjoy the quieter weekdays and pre and post season boating.

[MeEscape]

Actually I did read the entire article and the reason I was disappointed was that Mr. Levenson’s disclaimer was at the end of the article on the second page. Mr. Levenson clearly set his agenda in the first few paragraphs of his piece. As most realize, especially those in the trade, the majority of newspaper readers rarely read more than the headline and maybe the first few lines or a caption for a picture. Do you really think the articles on Boston.com are posted to be reviewed? Or that they represent journalism?

No, this was an article with one intent, dump on go-fast boats and avoids the real issue.

Most boats sold today will reach speeds into the mid thirties or above, a collision at 35 mph can yield unfortunate results. It is not the type of boat which kills, it is the driver who drives too fast or otherwise shows gross disregard for basic boating safety.

BTW, I have boated for over 50 years, day, night, weekend, and weekday, pre-season, post-season, I do not own a go-fast, and I boated all day today without exceeding 10 mph. Nice waves today!

[Airwaves]

I wasn't going to post on this one since I don't work for the Globe or New York Times. But I do have to say there is a difference between a poorly written story and one with an agenda.

MeEscape wrote:

the majority of newspaper readers rarely read more than the headline and maybe the first few lines or a caption for a picture. Do you really think the articles on Boston.com are posted to be reviewed? Or that they represent journalism?

While I agree that many people who read publications like the Boston Herald, New York Post etc and primarily get their "News" from Fox are Headline readers and rarely go beyond the caption in the photos I've found that folks who read the Globe actually read it.

I don't understand what your comment about articles on Boston dot Com mean? The article that was in my hardcopy of the paper this morning was also on Boston dot Com.

MeEscape wrote:

I was disappointed was that Mr. Levenson’s disclaimer was at the end of the article on the second page.

The article was poorly written because, while the catalist was the accident in Maine, it dealt with the New England states that do not have mandated boating education and was not clear on that point. It also did not outline the significance of an unlighted boat on the water at night and as you point out it didn't mention it or say the incident remains under investigation until the end of the article.

As I pointed out in the Speed Limits thread, Mass has a speed limit but what law enforcement is crying out for is boater education. NH has boater education and no speed limit and NH doesn't have nearly the problem Mass does when it comes to boating issues and from what I've read in the press, NH law enforcement says speed limits aren't needed in that state.

A poorly written artilce is just that, poorly written. It is not necessarily someone with an agenda.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

While I agree that many people who read publications like the Boston Herald, New York Post etc and primarily get their "News" from Fox are Headline readers and rarely go beyond the caption in the photos I've found that folks who read the Globe actually read it.

You're kidding right?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by ITD

You're kidding right?

Well, my parakeet absolutely loves the Globe - he won't let me line his cage with anything else!

[Islander]

If you can't discredit the message, discredit the messenger.

The Globe article not only reflects the public perception, it is reality.

1,000 horsepower on small inland lakes is silly and dangerous. At one point the cigarette boat was traveling across the lake with nobody on board. It crashed between two homes, dumb luck only two were killed.

We keep hearing lately that we don't need a speed limit because very few boats can go much over 45 mph. Yet the last two fatal accidents on Winnipesaukee involved boats that can travel well over the proposed speed limit. That includes the accident a few weeks ago that everybody wants to forget.



"Crash statistics show a growing problem. Nationally, the number of boating deaths, injuries, and incidents of property damage increased for the second consecutive year in 2006, according to the Coast Guard."

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Islander

If you can't discredit the message, discredit the messenger.

The Globe article not only reflects the public perception, it is reality.
1,000 horsepower on small inland lakes is silly and dangerous. At one point the cigarette boat was traveling across the lake with nobody on board. It crashed between two homes, dumb luck only two were killed.
We keep hearing lately that we don't need a speed limit because very few boats can go much over 45 mph. Yet the last two fatal accidents on Winnipesaukee involved boats that can travel well over the proposed speed limit. That includes the accident a few weeks ago that everybody wants to forget.

"Crash statistics show a growing problem. Nationally, the number of boating deaths, injuries, and incidents of property damage increased for the second consecutive year in 2006, according to the Coast Guard."

OK, how fast was the boat going when it struck the other boat? Was it going over 45? How do you know?
Any type of boat going any speed with no operator will eventually crash into shore. Style of boat makes no difference here.

[KonaChick]

I'm still not 100% convinced a speed limit would stop this type of thing from happening though. An idiot's an idiot wether there is a speed limit or not.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

I'm still not 100% convinced a speed limit would stop this type of thing from happening though. An idiot's an idiot wether there is a speed limit or not.

You are on the money about idiots.

But if Maine had a 25/45 speed limit there is a good chance that instead of bringing this boat from Massachusetts to a small lake in Maine, he would have taken it to the ocean, or not purchased it in the first place.

This theory is not a sure thing, but there is a "good chance". When it comes to life or death, I will play the percentages that favor life.

[4Fun]

Originally Posted by Islander

You are on the money about idiots.

But if Maine had a 25/45 speed limit there is a good chance that instead of bringing this boat from Massachusetts to a small lake in Maine, he would have taken it to the ocean, or not purchased it in the first place.

This theory is not a sure thing, but there is a "good chance". When it comes to life or death, I will play the percentages that favor life.

There are sufficient laws that are currently in place to handle this. Rest assured the prosescutor in the case will not be scratching his head trying to figure this out. If he was going too fast he will be violating the reasonable speed law. Throw in a DUI and his days of being a free man are over for quite a while. We need more patrol for unsafe boating.

If the guy in the Sunsation was going "reasonably" slow and was sober how would a speed limit help this?? Maybe a law BANNING boating at night because people can't grasp how to use navigation lights(speculating the other boat was dark...).

If he was drunk and going 70MPH do you really think a person with this type of thinking would be concerned with a speed limit law anyway? If there was a patrol boat anywhere near him he would have been stopped both here or in Maine based on the current laws.

These speed limit laws are just band-aids covering a bunch of uneducated boaters. I tell you what, NH really screwed up by allowing the internet testing for the license. Now we have a state full of "educated" boaters that don't know crap. They got their license by cheating on the test and now there is no way to really force education.

[CanisLupusArctos]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

I'm still not 100% convinced a speed limit would stop this type of thing from happening though. An idiot's an idiot wether there is a speed limit or not.

You're right. Our biggest problem is that we are in an increasingly "go-fast" society where ad slogans like "It's all about you" are everywhere and young people are being taught that nothing bad is ever their fault.

This sort of incident is just the beginning of what the "go-fast" mentality leads to.

It's not just on our lakes, either: It's on the roads, and on the news (flashy attention-grabbing graphics and fast-paced stories with little or no time for real information.) It's in our food (instant prepackaged everything with an emergency rip-cord so you can get that Twinkie open in a hurry) and now we are hearing more frequently about young children being over-stressed by their full schedules. Where has childhood gone?

Zip-zip, quick, get ahead. But this 'Ahead:' Is it really worth its price tag? I think it's time we as a society start demanding the de-popularization of "Fast" unless it relates to something that really IS important, like saving a life.

[Airwaves]

Wolf man, I really don't know what you are posting about.

An accident happened in Maine, authorities in Maine are investigating, a Go Fast boat was involved but it seems from the latest article that there are still unanswered questions.

That's pretty much it.

Are you advocating we go back to the days of a horse and buggy? That was slow.

Giving up your motorized vessel soon?

[CanisLupusArctos]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Wolf man, I really don't know what you are posting about.

An accident happened in Maine, authorities in Maine are investigating, a Go Fast boat was involved but it seems from the latest article that there are still unanswered questions.

That's pretty much it.

Are you advocating we go back to the days of a horse and buggy? That was slow.

Giving up your motorized vessel soon?

My response was to the postings about this incident's effect on the movement to establish boating speed limits here in NH. I expressed agreement that they wouldn't work. My reason for believing they won't work: A law can't do anything if the entire society has "go-fast" on its mind. Laws only work when society wants them to.

I didn't say anything about going back to the past. What I did say is that I see a trend, everywhere in society, that "go-fast" and self-absorption are becoming popular. I think that is one driving force behind our numerous Captain Bonehead sightings, but the problem isn't limited to our lakes.

Summary: The problem on which others in this thread have commented has deep roots and therefore it will take more than laws to solve it. Since we are a nation that follows the lead of what's popular, and because I don't want more laws, I think the best solution is a publicity movement to popularize the things we'd like to see -- in this case, safer, more courteous boating practices.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by CanisLupusArctos

Summary: The problem on which others in this thread have commented has deep roots and therefore it will take more than laws to solve it. Since we are a nation that follows the lead of what's popular, and because I don't want more laws, I think the best solution is a publicity movement to popularize the things we'd like to see -- in this case, safer, more courteous boating practices.

Well put. I could not agree more.

[Airwaves]

CanisLupusArctos I misunderstood your post.
Your explainification was well put and I apologize.
AW

[ApS]

Originally Posted by CanisLupusArctos

"...Summary: The problem on which others in this thread have commented has deep roots and therefore it will take more than laws to solve it.

"...I think the best solution is a publicity movement to popularize the things we'd like to see -- in this case, safer, more courteous boating practices..."

New Hampshire Boater's Guide, page 32, first paragraph:

Courtesy

"Water means freedom to many boaters. Abusing that freedom prevents other boaters and shoreline property owners from enjoying the peacefulness of open water and beaches. It also creates a need for more restrictive laws..."

Some newbies didn't read their New Hampshire Boater's Guide—available free of charge.

[CanisLupusArctos]

Having learned to drive a boat on the lake since age 5 and the kind of dorky kid who read the navigation rules on Dad's lake chart because it seemed interesting, I saw the Boater's Guide too and disagree with its expression of a "need" for laws. What's needed is a change in the public's fast-paced attitude. Without that, laws may be written but they'd be useless.

There are all kinds of things that are forbidden, yet remain constant problems (drugs, murder, theft, robbery, traffic violations, the list goes on...) That stuff SHOULD be illegal and should stay that way... but my point is that the law doesn't actually do much to stop any of it unless large amounts of money are spent on strict enforcement. What really makes those problems better is anything that triggers a change of attitude among would-be offenders - like when ordinary citizens get involved and start getting creative. Public attitude towards anything can be changed regardless of whether it's forbidden or not (just look at fashions - what's "in" and what's "out" changes every year without any help from the law.)

If there was a way to locally advertise "Captain Bonehead shall be shamed & shunned" there are a lot of would-be boneheads who'd start to believe it after a while.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

Coast Guard statistics clearly show the top cause of accidents is boater inattention, followed by careless / reckless operation and then excessive speed. If you read the report, excessive speed is defined as "speed above which a reasonable and prudent person would have operated under the conditions that existed. It is not necessarily a speed in excess of a posted limit". So excessive speed could be 20 mph or it could be 100 mph.

According to the CG, 87% of accidents happened at speeds below 40 mph with the greatest percentage under 20 mph.

If you read the report, you will also notice that while over the reporting period (10 or so years) the number of registered boats has increased 15% (by 1.7 million), the number of fatalities based on the number of registered boats has decreased over 30%. NH is, overall one of the best states statistically.

Its a very interesting report. Maybe the WinFABS professional lobbyist should read it (I'm sure Barrett has). Here's a link http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2006.pdf

I think the facts speak for themselves, but I'm sure they will be twisted.

One other note, only 14% of all accidents were caused by operators who had a boating certificate that would be recognized by NH, over 40% had no boater education (the status of the remaining operators was unknown)

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Paugus Bay Resident

According to the CG, 87% of accidents happened at speeds below 40 mph with the greatest percentage under 20 mph.

Sorry, but your math is wrong

Fatalities under 10 mph = 143
Fatalities 10 to 20 mph = 35
Fatalities 21 to 40 mph = 54

Total under 40 mph 232

Total Fatalities 710

232/710=.326

The correct answer is 33% of fatalities happened at known speeds below 40 mph.

The 87% answer was "cooked" by assuming that all accidents with unknown speeds were under 40 mph.

The boat in which the two people in Maine were killed was motionless. I believe the CG would count that statistic in the "Not Moving" category.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

My math isn't wrong, your's is, under 40 is 332, no 232, whose cooking?. But, least I got you to read the report . I think it is safe to project that the unknown speeds were in the same proportion as the known ones. But, if we throw out the unknown speeds, 338 fatalities at known speeds, 322 at speeds below 40mph = 95% Thanks for helping me make my point. BTW,

Not Moving 90
Under 10 143
10 to 20 35
21 to 40 54
Over 40 16

Total 338
Under 40 322

Equals 95%


This is from page 35. Interestingly, if you look at the horsepower statistics and again eliminate "unknown", 89% of fatalities involved boats with less than 250 HP. All the numbers seem to be in alignment.

Also, look at the boater ed stats. 70% of fatalities occurred on boats where the operator had not received any instruction (of any kind). This number increases to 84% if you only look at certificates that NH would accept.

In regards to the ME accident since the boat the hit the motionless vessel was at speed (unknown now), I would hope that it would be reported at that speed.

This is the kind of stuff the legislature needs to see, facts. Thanks for helping me to decide to take on that cause.

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by Paugus Bay Resident

Not Moving 90
Under 10 143
10 to 20 35
21 to 40 54
Over 40 16

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.

If he remains on the scene, the boater that caused the collision can "make up" a speed for his boat.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

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.

If he remains on the scene, the boater that caused the collision can "make up" a speed for his boat.

The boat hit in Maine was "Not Moving". This shows you that these statistics don't tell the story.

A 1,000 horsepower boat is more dangerous than a 100 horsepower boat. This is especially true after the driver has been ejected.

[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?

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Islander

A 1,000 horsepower boat is more dangerous than a 100 horsepower boat.

So... using your logic the Mount Washington with 1300 HP is more dangerous than an 80 HP jet ski operated by a drunk teenager? I think I'll take my chances with the Mount...

HP is merely a measure of the ability to do work, it's not a measure of danger. You've once again confused the boat with the operator. The occupants of the boat that was hit could have just as easily been killed by the Songo River Queen, a 16 foot bowrider, a jet ski or a bass boat. All have enough mass to do lethal damage at 1/2 their top speeds.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

I don't see how you can include "unknown" in the calculation? Do you feel it is fair to assume that unknown speeds can be equally distributed over the known speeds? Otherwise you are skewing things. Only what is known is known. Again, if you look at known speeds, 95% happened at speeds below 40 mph. Are you disputing that?

Do you disagree with horsepower and education stats as well?

[Paugus Bay Resident]

Bear Islander, where did your post go? The one I just responded too claiming that my stats were wrong?

[Bear Islander]

Nobody follows these statistic fights.

You want to assume that all unknown speeds are slow speeds. I could assume that the reason the speeds are unknown is because they are to hight to measure.

The real question to ask is why the CG has no idea of the speeds involved in more than 50% of fatal accidents?

[Irrigation Guy]

Originally Posted by Islander

If you can't discredit the message, discredit the messenger.

The Globe article not only reflects the public perception, it is reality.

1,000 horsepower on small inland lakes is silly and dangerous. At one point the cigarette boat was traveling across the lake with nobody on board. It crashed between two homes, dumb luck only two were killed.

We keep hearing lately that we don't need a speed limit because very few boats can go much over 45 mph. Yet the last two fatal accidents on Winnipesaukee involved boats that can travel well over the proposed speed limit. That includes the accident a few weeks ago that everybody wants to forget.

Speaking of misinformation and math skills.

The 32' Sunsation powerboat had twin 435 hp motors, by my calculations thats 870 HP, certainly not well over 1000 hp as you claim.

You have stated here in the past your own boat often travels in excess of 60 mph. I know my own 23' boat has a difficult time hitting speeds of 50mph, and its a single 250hp engine.

What is the combined HP of your boat that is capable of speeds in excess of 60MPH and using your own words "does it quite often" ?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by LocalRealtor

Speaking of misinformation and math skills.

The 32' Sunsation powerboat had twin 435 hp motors, by my calculations thats 870 HP, certainly not well over 1000 hp as you claim.

You have stated here in the past your own boat often travels in excess of 60 mph. I know my own 23' boat has a difficult time hitting speeds of 50mph, and its a single 250hp engine.

What is the combined HP of your boat that is capable of speeds in excess of 60MPH and using your own words "does it quite often" ?

Actually a Sunsation would be equipped with twin 425 HP mag HO's for a total of 850hp. Merc does not make a 435hp per engine package. The next engine setup above this would put it at 1000+hp. Engine choices are 320hp, 375hp, 425hp, and 525hp.

[codeman671]

For the record I have to agree that the Dominator is too much boat for Long Lake. I almost bought a Sunsation and have driven the 32' Dominator. If anyone has a picture of the offending boat I would love to see it, I am curious to see if it is the one that I test drove. There are not a lot of Sunsations in the area so it is quite possible if it was bought here in NH. There are no dealers in Maine or Mass, and no longer one in NH.

The difference in size between Long Lake and Winnipesaukee is huge, that boat on Winni is a perfect size. Not too big and handles the rough water quite well

[Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

For the record I have to agree that the Dominator is too much boat for Long Lake. I almost bought a Sunsation and have driven the 32' Dominator. If anyone has a picture of the offending boat I would love to see it, I am curious to see if it is the one that I test drove. There are not a lot of Sunsations in the area so it is quite possible if it was bought here in NH. There are no dealers in Maine or Mass, and no longer one in NH.

The difference in size between Long Lake and Winnipesaukee is huge, that boat on Winni is a perfect size. Not too big and handles the rough water quite well

If you believe that the 32' Dominator is to much boat for Long Lake, then perhaps you can understand that some people think it is to much boat for Winnipesaukee.

Yes my boat can go 60 mph, which not surprisingly is the speed I would pick for a speed limit. But when the 45 mph limit passes I will obey it. The next boat I buy will I'm sure have lower HP.

I like speed but I like the lake more. Thirty years from now when there is a 50 hp limit on winni I will abide by that.

The Mount can take 1,250 passengers. That is about 1 horsepower per passenger. How does that compute for the 32' Dominator? How many passengers does she take?

[4Fun]

Just another note on the two boats that were involved. The Sunstaion has a ratio of about 8.1lbs per horsepower while the 14' glasspar had only about 6.5lbs/HP . The Glasspar was a very fast boat, possibly faster than the Sunsation, and most likely very overpowered at 115HP on a 400lb boat..

The top speed of the boat is not everything!!!

[Dave R]

I boat on Long Lake often and while I would never own something like that Sunsation (and would be a bit emabarassed to operate a boat called "dominator"), I have to say, I don't think it's too much boat for that lake. Don't forget Long Lake, Brandy Pond and Sebago lake are all connected and together likely have more acreage than Winnipesaukee. Sebago is also just as wide-open and rough as the Broads, maybe more so. So to say it's too much boat is like saying it would be OK in the broads but too much boat for Meredith Bay or Alton Bay.

For those unfamilar with Long Lake, the northern "half" is much like Alton Bay and the Southern "half" is much like Meredith Bay. It's 11 miles long. Brandy Pond is alot like Paugus Bay minus the islands.

[Irrigation Guy]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Actually a Sunsation would be equipped with twin 425 HP mag HO's for a total of 850hp. Merc does not make a 435hp per engine package. The next engine setup above this would put it at 1000+hp. Engine choices are 320hp, 375hp, 425hp, and 525hp.

Originally Posted by LocalRealtor

Speaking of misinformation and math skills.

The 32' Sunsation powerboat had twin 435 hp motors, by my calculations thats 870 HP, certainly not well over 1000 hp as you claim.

You have stated here in the past your own boat often travels in excess of 60 mph. I know my own 23' boat has a difficult time hitting speeds of 50mph, and its a single 250hp engine.

What is the combined HP of your boat that is capable of speeds in excess of 60MPH and using your own words "does it quite often" ?

I stand corrected, Thanks Codeman. A little less power than I quoted. My information came directly from the link to the article listed above.

My point was that Islander was exaggerating the HP of the sunsation powerboat to make her point. She is obviously against that type of boat in particular.

The boat in the accident and her own boat are capable of traveling in excess of 60 mph. Both can deadly under a specific set of circumstances.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Actually a Sunsation would be equipped with twin 425 HP mag HO's for a total of 850hp. Merc does not make a 435hp per engine package. The next engine setup above this would put it at 1000+hp. Engine choices are 320hp, 375hp, 425hp, and 525hp.

Maybe, maybe not…

This looks like a lot of engine for only 425 HP, each.

http://www.sunsationboats.com/images/F4-3-big.jpg


P.S- Wonder if this is Islander on her 60 MPH boat?

http://www.sunsationboats.com/images...9/DSC05392.JPG

http://www.sunsationboats.com/justleft109.asp

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Islander

That includes the accident a few weeks ago that everybody wants to forget.

I think I miised something. Is there a thread in this somewhere? I hadn't heard about this.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Skip

Well, my parakeet absolutely loves the Globe - he won't let me line his cage with anything else!

Don't have a bird, so I have no use for the Globe, your bird will likely be disappointed soon however judging from the latest Globe circulation stats.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by ITD

You're kidding right?

"Above the fold" is not in reference to your chest.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by wildwoodfam

"...Too hostile - that's how I describe the lakes on weekends. Our friends don't even ask to go boating on weekends anymore - getting tossed around in the rough wakes and watching the craziness of the weekend warriors...

Y'know, craziness was mentioned earlier on the forum—here.

(Excerpted below)

Originally Posted by Dave R

...if you don't like the craziness...We spent the weekend on Long Lake...

[Gavia immer]

BT, it's not exactly the same. Maine has the "Reasonable and Prudent" boating law.

[Cal]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal
"...For those who are narrow minded , with tunnel vision , keep in mind it's ALL this type of boats fault..."


If there's any tunnel vision on the lake, it's with those who "can't see kayaks". I remember when Lake Winnipesaukee's paddlers, skiers, and sailors didn't have the close calls and tragedies we're witnessing today. (And I have no difficulty seeing kayakers of any size or color). Quote:

I wasn't talking about the actual malady "tunnel vision" rather the "tunnel vision" of the narrow minded people that only see what they want to see (or hear)
A perfect example is what you quoted from me

"If the shoe fits....

[Steveo]

Maine judge to allow alcohol test
By Associated Press

Thursday, August 7, 2008 - Added 46m ago
PORTLAND, Maine - A judge says prosecutors may introduce evidence about a Massachusetts boater’s alcohol consumption before a boat collision that killed two people on Maine’s Long Lake.
Prosecutors say Robert LaPointe’s blood-alcohol content was 0.11 percent three hours after the crash last summer. Maine’s limit is 0.08 percent for driving.
Lawyers for LaPointe of Medway, Mass. contend the evidence was unreliable because the blood sample wasn’t refrigerated and wasn’t delivered to a lab until 34 hours after the crash.
Justice Robert Crowley says the defense can make that case during the trial, scheduled for Sept. 8. Crowley hasn’t yet ruled on a motion to move the trial out of Portland. Defense lawyers say media coverage has created a "climate of hostility" toward the defendant






http://www.bostonherald.com/news/reg...11629&srvc=rss

[sa meredith]

.11, three hours after??!! Wow! Not good.
The defense attorney is probably right...the sample is not reliable....I want to know the BAC 3 hours earlier.

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

.11, three hours after??!! Wow! Not good.
The defense attorney is probably right...the sample is not reliable....I want to know the BOC 3 hours earlier.

Blood sample tubes used by law enforcement today do not have to be refrigerated. Some blood cans actually have a mailing label on them.

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by NightWing

Blood sample tubes used by law enforcement today do not have to be refrigerated. Some blood cans actually have a mailing label on them.

No, no, no...you missed my point. I was bing sarcastic. My point was this: if the sample was taken 3 hours after the fact, wouldn't the BAC be higher at the point of impact? Meaning the sample they had was not accurate...the BAC should be higher.

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

No, no, no...you missed my point. I was bing sarcastic. My point was this: if the sample was taken 3 hours after the fact, wouldn't the BOC be higher at the point of impact? Meaning the sample they had was not accurate...the BOC should be higher.

Yes, it would be higher 3 hours before the sample was taken. Blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is metabolized and reduced by .015% per hour. Therefore, the actual BAC at the time of an event can be predicted by simple math.

[Audiofn]

I sat in on a jury for a trial and was selected as the alternate. I was floored when the guy who blew a .16 failed most of the feild sobriety tests was let off!!!!

The problem for prosecuters now days is that people watch to much CSI and so on and think that cases will be clear cut at the end of the trial. If they have to use their imagination a little to come to the conclusion then they will let the person go. This trial is going to be interesting that is for sure. As has been said above this is going to change his life for ever no matter what the outcome of the trial is.

[chipj29]

What happened in the 3 hours before the sample was taken? That would be my question as a defense lawyer...

[Audiofn]

Originally Posted by chipj29

What happened in the 3 hours before the sample was taken? That would be my question as a defense lawyer...

Small town area in Maine. First Lapoint and his occupant had to swim to shore. Then there was the expected mayhem that fallowed the accident. Police finally found them and had to get him to the hospital. Probably took them some time to know if they even needed the sample as it was not really until the next day that they knew that there were fatalities involved. The police are so underfunded up there it is not funny. They actually do a great job considdering...

[Airwaves]

Was the operator of the boat immediately arrested and jailed after the accident?

If he were not immediately taken into custody then as a defense lawyer I would probably plant the seed of doubt that after such a tramatic experience he threw back a couple of drinks to calm his nerves before the sample was taken, thus tainting the sample.

If he was taken into custody immediately after the boating accident he's looking at BUI resulting in deaths or whatever the legal charge would be in Maine and the BAC would be tough to dispute.

[ApS]

Or perhaps a 11th-hour plea of guilty...

With only one TV station received at my place on Winnipesaukee—and broadcasting from Maine—I wouldn't have known that this Portland trial is in its final day.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...If he was taken into custody immediately after the boating accident he's looking at BUI resulting in deaths or whatever the legal charge would be in Maine and the BAC would be tough to dispute..."

There are several BAC aspects disclosed in this week-old article:
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/ne...-several-rules

[VitaBene]

The Globe is reporting that the jury hung on the jury hung on the manslaughter charges and he was only found guilty of aggravated OUI.

[BroadHopper]

http://www.milforddailynews.com/news...-while-boating

There could be another trial.

[VitaBene]

I hope there is another trial- Lapointe seems like a menace (22 speeding tickets!!)

[Woodsy]

WOW!

I am not going to defend the guy here, he was drunk and ultimately he killed two people and injured another. However, I think people should take emotion out of it and look at this a little more objectively!

So what if he has 22 speeding tickets? We don't know the circumstances surrounding them. 22 tickets since he started driving (the paper says he is 39 so you gotta figure he has been driving 23+ years) or 22 tickets in the last 3-5 years? Where the tickets issued for doing 40MPH in a 30MPH zone? Or were they issued for doing 80MPH in a 55MPH zone? The reason they were not allowed at trial was because the judge doesnt see any relavance to this accident... I tend to agree with the judge.

If he had a prior DWI... well, thats a different story and that would no doubt be admissable!

I also agree with the deadlocked jurors... I would find it hard to convict someone of vehicular manslaughter if the possibility exists that the victim put themselves in harms way... especially when the boat that was struck is black!! Witnesses for both the prosecution and defense testified that the boat that was struck did not have its stern light on! If the light was in fact off, then 14' boat INTENTIONALLY became a hazard to navigation.

Maybe its me, but sitting in the middle of a lake in a black boat with no stern light during no-light or very low-light conditions is just plain STUPID!

I totally agree with the jurors on the aggravated DWI convictions... no way he was sober! I am surprised they only charged him with 2 counts instead of 3! I thought the girl with him on the boat broke her elbow, and that would qualify for a 3rd count.

All in all its a sad situation for all involved.... 2 people dead, and 3 families that will NEVER be the same!!


Woodsy

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

WOW!

I am not going to defend the guy here, he was drunk and ultimately he killed two people and injured another. However, I think people should take emotion out of it and look at this a little more objectively!

So what if he has 22 speeding tickets? We don't know the circumstances surrounding them. 22 tickets since he started driving (the paper says he is 39 so you gotta figure he has been driving 23+ years) or 22 tickets in the last 3-5 years? Where the tickets issued for doing 40MPH in a 30MPH zone? Or were they issued for doing 80MPH in a 55MPH zone? The reason they were not allowed at trial was because the judge doesnt see any relavance to this accident... I tend to agree with the judge.

If he had a prior DWI... well, thats a different story and that would no doubt be admissable!

I also agree with the deadlocked jurors... I would find it hard to convict someone of vehicular manslaughter if the possibility exists that the victim put themselves in harms way... especially when the boat that was struck is black!! Witnesses for both the prosecution and defense testified that the boat that was struck did not have its stern light on! If the light was in fact off, then 14' boat INTENTIONALLY became a hazard to navigation.

Maybe its me, but sitting in the middle of a lake in a black boat with no stern light during no-light or very low-light conditions is just plain STUPID!

I totally agree with the jurors on the aggravated DWI convictions... no way he was sober! I am surprised they only charged him with 2 counts instead of 3! I thought the girl with him on the boat broke her elbow, and that would qualify for a 3rd count.

All in all its a sad situation for all involved.... 2 people dead, and 3 families that will NEVER be the same!!


Woodsy

Woodsy I am not going to argue the no stern light issue, that is horrible. Also youa are correct-the boat was black. That being said, he was going too fast.... for the conditions because if the conditions allowed (moon) he would have seen the other boat. He was drunk (proven guilty), therefore IMO, a menace. Regardless, I don't want to share the lake with him!

I am not saying he was guilty, only that I hope they re-try it.

Regarding the tickets, I am 44, have a Class A CDL, drive between 40-50K miles a year and have 2 speeding tickets (and I am no slowpoke!). When I see 22 tickets I wonder how many times did he not get stopped.

[Bear Islander]

Woodsy

The defendant testified that shortly before the accident he was stopped to make a phone call and the black boat passed him with no lights on.

That means that when he took off at high speed a minute later he KNEW there was a black boat with no lights out in front of him!

[Grady223]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

WOW!

II also agree with the deadlocked jurors... I would find it hard to convict someone of vehicular manslaughter if the possibility exists that the victim put themselves in harms way... especially when the boat that was struck is black!! Witnesses for both the prosecution and defense testified that the boat that was struck did not have its stern light on! If the light was in fact off, then 14' boat INTENTIONALLY became a hazard to navigation.

Maybe its me, but sitting in the middle of a lake in a black boat with no stern light during no-light or very low-light conditions is just plain STUPID!

Woodsy,

If it was a black car with no lights on stopped on the road hit by a tractor trailer truck doing 100 mph and being driven by a drunk driver it would be vehicular manslaughter.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Grady223

Woodsy,

If it was a black car with no lights on stopped on the road hit by a tractor trailer truck doing 100 mph and being driven by a drunk driver it would be vehicular manslaughter.

I suspect the truck driver would be found guilty of the same counts as the boater was....and here is why!

In order for your scenario to happen, a black car would have to be PARKED in the middle of a dark road, with no lights no hazards on or reflectors visible.

Because the vehicle was parked in the road with no lights or reflectors visible, there is a certain liability on the driver of the black car, regardless of the condition of the truck driver. The driver of the automobile put himself and the truck driver in harms way.

Cars & trucks have headlights... they also have reflectors! This is to insure that you can see the other vehicle at night at a distance great enough to avoid a collision. There are all sorts of specifications automobile manufacturers have to meet with regards to headlights, reflector size (sq in) and visibility over distance. Boats don't have headlights or reflectors like cars do...... but they are supposed to have thier navigation lights ON!

The rules for boating and driving are different regardless of how many parallels one can draw between the two.

Either way, the jury deadlocked on the vehicular manslaughter charge. I would guess that jury deadlocked because some of the jurors (not all obv) felt there was some responsibility on the part of the victims because there was reasonable doubt that the stern light was on when the collision occured. If in fact the victim had shut off his stern light, that action placed him and his friend in harms way. By maritime law they WILLFULLY became a hazard to navigation!

I am the biggest advocate of drunk trumps all circumstances! I suspect had this guy been sober there might not have been an accident at all, and if there was he wouldn't have been charged with ANYTHING! It would just be a horrible accident... more than likely the victims would have been blamed for sitting out in the middle of a lake with no navigation lights on. But thats not what happened! But he decided to drive drunk and unfortunately he killed two people and injured a third. These drunk driving accidents occur every day in all types of vehicles.... Unless we eliminate all vehicles from the planet (or all alcohol and other drugs) it will continue to occur. You cannot legislate common sense and you can't fix stupid!

The guy was drunk and found guilty. I dont know the guy, but I agree with Skip that the judges comments at the end of the article speak volumes to this guys character. I have no sympathy for him.

Woodsy