Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Lake Issues > Boating Issues > Speed Limits
Home Forums Gallery Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Links Calendar Register FAQDonate Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-29-2009, 12:08 PM   #1
chipj29
Senior Member
 
chipj29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,859
Thanks: 496
Thanked 290 Times in 154 Posts
Default 2008 Coast Guard Statistics

I just did some browsing on the Coast Guards web page.
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...tatistics.aspx

In 2008, the Coast Guard counted 4789 accidents involving 709 deaths, 3331 injuries. Some snippets from the report:

-10 percent of the deaths occurred on boats where the operator had received boating safety instruction.

-The top five primary contributing factors in accidents:
1. Careless/reckless operation
2. Operator inattention
3. No proper lookout
4. Operator inexperience
5. Passenger/skier behavior
It should be noted that "Excessive Speed" is 7th on the list, with "Machinery Failure" ranking higher.

-Alcohol use is the leading contributing factor in fatal boating accidents; it was listed as the leading factor in 17% of the deaths.

Click the link and see the stats for yourselves. Figures never lie.
__________________
Getting ready for winter!
chipj29 is offline  
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to chipj29 For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (11-02-2009), Cal (10-31-2009), coastieaux (03-03-2012), LIforrelaxin (10-30-2009), OCDACTIVE (10-30-2009), Rattlesnake Guy (10-31-2009), Skipper of the Sea Que (10-30-2009)
Old 10-30-2009, 08:08 AM   #2
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,122
Thanks: 1,250
Thanked 1,375 Times in 688 Posts
Default

C'mon, you can't take this seriously- the Coast Guard?? what do they know about boating. It must be all made up
VitaBene is offline  
Old 10-30-2009, 08:38 AM   #3
Kamper
Senior Member
 
Kamper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Thornton's Ferry
Posts: 1,202
Thanks: 65
Thanked 144 Times in 108 Posts
Default

Casualty Data
Recreational Boating Statistics 2008 51
Table 30 ▪ ACCIDENT, CASUALTY & DAMAGE DATA BY STATE 2008


Jurisdiction.......Total.......Fatal.......Non-Fatal..........Property Damage
.....................Accidents Accidents Injury Accidents Accidents
New Hampshire 28...........2..............15.................... 11

.....................Deaths.....Injured.....Proper ty Damage
.....................2............17............$5 3,087

As a point of information, NH acounted for 0.3% of boating deaths in the USA for 2008.

I do find it interesting that 90% of fatalities involved operators that had no safety training.
Kamper is offline  
Old 10-30-2009, 11:21 AM   #4
Resident 2B
Senior Member
 
Resident 2B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bradenton, FL and North Shore, MA
Posts: 1,331
Thanks: 936
Thanked 295 Times in 150 Posts
Wink Oh, No! Not the Facts!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by chipj29 View Post
I just did some browsing on the Coast Guards web page.
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...tatistics.aspx

In 2008, the Coast Guard counted 4789 accidents involving 709 deaths, 3331 injuries. Some snippets from the report:

-10 percent of the deaths occurred on boats where the operator had received boating safety instruction.

-The top five primary contributing factors in accidents:
1. Careless/reckless operation
2. Operator inattention
3. No proper lookout
4. Operator inexperience
5. Passenger/skier behavior
It should be noted that "Excessive Speed" is 7th on the list, with "Machinery Failure" ranking higher.

-Alcohol use is the leading contributing factor in fatal boating accidents; it was listed as the leading factor in 17% of the deaths.

Click the link and see the stats for yourselves. Figures never lie.
Oh no! The facts are going to get in the way of the Winfabs' "Smoke and Mirrors Campaign"!

This really is Winfabs worst fear. It scares them even more than the sight of a fast boat sitting at a Winnipesaukee dock. Facts are a very low blow. How dare you use them?

Next, will be a proposal for a law forbidding facts being presented in a debate because it puts real fear in the lives of people that use deception and embellishment to forward their cause!

What is this world coming to?

R2B
Resident 2B is offline  
Old 10-30-2009, 11:57 AM   #5
elchase
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Number 3 of the five posts per day that I am allowed;

Passenger killed in this "cigarette boat" roll-over in SC, but there is no evidence of excessive speed (Wink). Maybe he flipped over at 45 (Ya, right). Luckily, the driver survived to kill another day;
http://www.wmbfnews.com/Global/story.asp?S=11280141
 
Sponsored Links
Old 10-30-2009, 12:02 PM   #6
DEJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 328
Thanks: 242
Thanked 179 Times in 80 Posts
Default

R2B, facts always win in the end.
DEJ is offline  
Old 10-30-2009, 12:30 PM   #7
gtagrip
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 301
Thanks: 115
Thanked 75 Times in 52 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
Number 3 of the five posts per day that I am allowed;

Passenger killed in this "cigarette boat" roll-over in SC, but there is no evidence of excessive speed (Wink). Maybe he flipped over at 45 (Ya, right). Luckily, the driver survived to kill another day;
http://www.wmbfnews.com/Global/story.asp?S=11280141
Can't wait to see how creative your last two posts of the day will be. Make them good.
gtagrip is offline  
Old 10-30-2009, 02:47 PM   #8
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,073
Thanks: 215
Thanked 895 Times in 506 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
Number 3 of the five posts per day that I am allowed;
The way you have been spamming different threads lately,5 may be 4 too many.
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 10-30-2009, 03:50 PM   #9
Yosemite Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 395
Thanks: 81
Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts
Default

Speeding ranks 3rd for injuries and 4th for deaths in 2008.

Yosemite Sam is offline  
Old 10-30-2009, 04:03 PM   #10
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,809
Thanks: 2,326
Thanked 848 Times in 590 Posts
Default Yosemite Sam

Please attach the link to the above charts so that I can see why it contradict what the USCG chart?

Thanks
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 10-30-2009, 04:03 PM   #11
Skipper of the Sea Que
Deceased Member
 
Skipper of the Sea Que's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: 1/2 way between Boston & Providence
Posts: 573
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 32
Thanked 55 Times in 22 Posts
Arrow What "Excessive Speed" means in USCG report

The glossary for the 2008 Coast Guard boating statistics (page 68) lists their definition of Excessive Speed.


"Excessive Speed - Speed above that 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."

And from page 26 - table 13: (note when the speed is known - see how many are under 10 mph or NOT MOVING)
Attached Images
 
__________________



Amateur HAM Radio What is it? You'll be surprised. When all else fails Ham Radio still works.
Shriners Hospitals providing specialized care for children regardless of ability to pay. Find out more or refer a patient.

Last edited by Skipper of the Sea Que; 10-30-2009 at 04:38 PM.
Skipper of the Sea Que is offline  
Old 10-30-2009, 04:09 PM   #12
Yosemite Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 395
Thanks: 81
Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadHopper View Post
Please attach the link to the above charts so that I can see why it contradict what the USCG chart?

Thanks

The charts that I posted were from the USCG link that chipj29 gave us. Pages 19 and 20 of the pdf file. He only gave the top five primary contributing factors in accidents.
But here is again: http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...tatistics.aspx

Last edited by Yosemite Sam; 10-30-2009 at 04:21 PM. Reason: Added pdf file page numbers
Yosemite Sam is offline  
Old 10-30-2009, 04:19 PM   #13
jmen24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,139
Thanks: 223
Thanked 318 Times in 181 Posts
Default

Excessive Speed - Speed above that 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.

From the glossary in the report. Page 69

Thanks Al, I need to be a little quicker.

A real life example of excessive speed. If you are driving in your car and approach a corner with one of the yellow signs with a suggested speed under the corner sign and slide off the road and damage your vehicle enough that the police have to file a report. You will be sited for excessive speed even if you are going below the posted speed limit at the time. The reason being is that those suggestioned speeds have a reason for being there. That is the speed at which (without any other contributing factors) you can safely navigate that corner with a zero coefficient of friction (nearly impossible but teflon to teflon is about as close as you can get http://www.engineershandbook.com/Tab...efficients.htm ). By sliding off the road at a rate of speed higher than the suggested speed you will have Excessive Speed listed as the number 1 contributing factor in your accident.

Last edited by jmen24; 10-30-2009 at 04:35 PM. Reason: additional information
jmen24 is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jmen24 For This Useful Post:
Skipper of the Sea Que (10-30-2009), Yosemite Sam (10-30-2009)
Old 10-30-2009, 04:35 PM   #14
Yosemite Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 395
Thanks: 81
Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts
Default

I think that any boat that has the potential to go over 55 MPH and is used on any Lake or Pond in NH should have a governor (speed limiter) on it.
Yosemite Sam is offline  
Old 10-30-2009, 04:47 PM   #15
Just Sold
Senior Member
 
Just Sold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Suncook, NH, but at The Lake at Heart
Posts: 2,607
Thanks: 1,059
Thanked 430 Times in 207 Posts
Post

To really understand the data/statistics you should read the complete CG report.

This is a report is for all reported accidents to the CG for all areas it covers and may not reflect NH inland lakes in any way so a proper correlation could be difficult (IMHO). I do not believe that NH reports its inland lakes deaths/accidents to the CG. I could be wrong though.

Everyone is selecting sections and I too see one that is important.
Page 15 of the actual report shows (I could not get that one copy/pasted) that the 3 highest months for deaths is Oct, Nov, Dec and the lowest months are June July and August. Go figure??? Winni's High Boating season is June, July and August.


The Executive Summary States:
In 2008, the Coast Guard counted 4789 accidents that involved 709 deaths,
3331 injuries and approximately $54 million dollars of damage to property as a result
of recreational boating accidents.



Over two-thirds of all fatal boating accident victims drowned, and of those, ninety (90) percent were not wearing a life jacket.



Only ten percent of deaths occurred on boats where the operator had received

boating safety instruction.


Seven out of every ten boaters who drowned were using boats less than 21 feet in

length.


Careless/reckless operation, operator inattention, no proper lookout, operator

inexperience and passenger/skier behavior rank as the top five primary contributing
factors in accidents.


Alcohol use is the leading contributing factor in fatal boating accidents; it was listed

as the leading factor in 17% of the deaths.


Eleven children under age thirteen lost their lives while boating in 2008. 63% of the

children who died in 2008 died from drowning.


The most common types of vessels involved in reported accidents were open

motorboats (43%), personal watercraft (23%), and cabin motorboats (15%).


The 12,692,892 boats registered by the states in 2008 represent a 1.4%
decrease from last year when 12,875,568 boats were registered.


__________________
Just Sold
At the lake the stress of daily life just melts away. Pro Re Nata
Just Sold is offline  
Old 10-30-2009, 09:39 PM   #16
codeman671
Senior Member
 
codeman671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,543
Thanks: 105
Thanked 377 Times in 243 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que View Post
The glossary for the 2008 Coast Guard boating statistics (page 68) lists their definition of Excessive Speed.


"Excessive Speed - Speed above that 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."

And from page 26 - table 13: (note when the speed is known - see how many are under 10 mph or NOT MOVING)
It looks to me that traveling under 40mph can be pretty dangerous...
codeman671 is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to codeman671 For This Useful Post:
Rattlesnake Guy (10-31-2009)
Old 10-31-2009, 05:41 AM   #17
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,122
Thanks: 1,250
Thanked 1,375 Times in 688 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam View Post
I think that any boat that has the potential to go over 55 MPH and is used on any Lake or Pond in NH should have a governor (speed limiter) on it.
You're kidding right? The only governor one should need is your brain controlling your right hand (boat, bike, sled) or right foot.

Do you think that every car or truck should be equipped with governors as well?
VitaBene is offline  
Old 10-31-2009, 07:39 AM   #18
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,493
Thanks: 929
Thanked 433 Times in 317 Posts
Wink Not Stats Again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Sold View Post
"...the 3 highest months for deaths is Oct, Nov, Dec and the lowest months are June July and August...Winni's High Boating season is June, July and August..."
Ocean stats?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Sold View Post
"...I do not believe that NH reports its inland lakes deaths/accidents to the CG. I could be wrong though..."
In 2002—in a state having "80% of boaters with alcohol on board"—NH recorded two (2) arrests for BUI.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Sold View Post
"...Over two-thirds of all fatal boating accident victims drowned, and of those, ninety (90) percent were not wearing a life jacket..."
PFDs aren't body armor: How many were struck directly while wearing a life jacket?

Anyone read the legal disclaimers on the latest jackets? ("Not for speeds over 45-MPH") How many PFDs were ripped off by ejection of a passenger over 45-MPH? And skiers?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Sold View Post
"...The 12,692,892 boats registered by the states in 2008 represent a 1.4%decrease from last year when 12,875,568 boats were registered..."
Except for a noisy few boaters, the thrill of boating has become more expensive and less enjoyable. (It's a decade-long trend, prompting a huge ad-campaign by boat manufacturers).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que View Post
"...see how many are under 10 mph or NOT MOVING..."
More importantly, contrast the extremes between "No Engine" and "Unknown Power". (Even worse, when "Over 250-HP" is thrown in). You don't want to be in either extreme!



Quote:
"Honey, before that sailboat interrupted our fun, were we told if ethanol had reduced our horsepower from 1300 to 1100?"
...

"Sorry, officer, I don't know what horsepower my boat has". Maybe after we've dried off and we can locate just where our boat ended up."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam View Post
I think that any boat that has the potential to go over 55 MPH and is used on any Lake or Pond in NH should have a governor (speed limiter) on it.
1) I'd like to see every governor (speed limiter) taken off.

While there'd be a lot more boats being towed, most would deserve the destruction of their engines through abuse.

2) On Lake Winnipesaukee at least, every boat does have a governor—it's called a "driver"—who will pick-and-choose which laws to observe.

3) While we're at it, another compromise:
Have NH legislators invalidate every boating insurance liability policy.

Insurance doesn't pay for collisions perpetrated by drunks anyway, but sober "drivers" will exercise far more caution. IMHO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman671 View Post
"...It looks to me that traveling under 40mph can be pretty dangerous...
Tell me about it!
__________________
.Sailing—Good for you and good for the world...

...and you won't stink...
ApS is offline  
Old 10-31-2009, 07:57 AM   #19
Yosemite Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 395
Thanks: 81
Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VitaBene View Post
Do you think that every car or truck should be equipped with governors as well?
Yes they should if they are used on NH Lake's and Pond's during the summer time.... and I don't think it's such a bad idea on the highways either.
Yosemite Sam is offline  
Old 10-31-2009, 08:22 AM   #20
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,764
Thanks: 225
Thanked 628 Times in 368 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam View Post
Yes they should if they are used on NH Lake's and Pond's during the summer time.... and I don't think it's such a bad idea on the highways either.

Are you one of those people that stays in the left lane on the highway, even if you are not passing anyone?
Dave R is offline  
Old 10-31-2009, 04:40 PM   #21
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

So in 2008 there were 96,205 boats registered in NH, 28 accidents, 17 injuries and 2 deaths.

Considering the average family size in NH is 3.01 persons meaning 295,770 people were probable boaters on NH waters not including out of state registered boats that enjoy our lakes.

I'd say that is a damn good record of safety!
Airwaves is offline  
Old 10-31-2009, 07:17 PM   #22
Kamper
Senior Member
 
Kamper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Thornton's Ferry
Posts: 1,202
Thanks: 65
Thanked 144 Times in 108 Posts
Default

I drove U-Haul truck with a governor on it a couple times. If I'd needed to hit the gas to avoid an accident I'd have been screwed even if it were below the max speed. The gizmo seemed to assume that anything over a certain rev limit must be speeding and down-shifted to the lowest gear (automatic transmission).

On a boat it might not know the difference between high-cruise and hole-shot either. Same danger with trying to get out of some Bonehead's way.
Kamper is offline  
Old 10-31-2009, 08:02 PM   #23
elchase
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

To those citing the Coast Guard data, I hate to burst your bubble, but the fatalities are categorized by the speed of the boat the victim was in...usually the slower-moving smaller boat, such as the kayaker who got run over by a speeding performance boat. Since the kayaker was standing still, that fatality is listed as "0-10 MPH". The speed of the speedboat is not recorded unless one of its passengers was killed too. This might seem obvious, given that it is hard for someone standing still to cause a deadly collision, so seeing all those deaths at 0-10MPH should have clued.
I have no idea how they categorize when they don't know the speed, like if some one had been killed int he striking boat when Mr. Hartman was killed. Maybe they just use the speed that the striking boater says he was going. In that case, the death would have been in the 20-30MPH bracket because that is the speed Littlefield claimed to have been going.


Speaking of the Hartman death, doesn't this fatal NJ accident sound very similar?;
http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/show....php?p=1913240

Last edited by elchase; 11-01-2009 at 09:35 AM.
 
Old 11-01-2009, 02:55 PM   #24
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

It's almost like elchase is disappointed that there have not been high speed accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee that he can point to so he resorts to trying to cast a negative light on the USCG stats (what do they know anyway!) and troll for out of state accidents to prove his point.

Only 28 accidents in NH in 2008 (pre-speed limit) with 96,205 boats registered in NH and how many thousands more from out of state?
That shows me that NH is very safe and Winnipesaukee in particular is a safe place to boat.

In 2008 what rules were in place?
Speed limits? Nope.
Mandatory eduction? Yes.

Go figure!
Airwaves is offline  
Old 11-01-2009, 09:24 PM   #25
elchase
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Here's two boats each going 100MPH when they collided. Of course, almost everyone died...five out of six. Maybe they were drunk or not keeping a proper lookout, thereby making their speeds irrelevant (WINK). Thankfully, this can't happen on Winnipesaukee where it is illegal to go that fast;

http://www.kxii.com/news/headlines/3900121.html
 
Old 11-01-2009, 10:15 PM   #26
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
Here's two boats each going 100MPH when they collided. Of course, almost everyone died...five out of six. Maybe they were drunk or not keeping a proper lookout, thereby making their speeds irrelevant (WINK). Thankfully, this can't happen on Winnipesaukee where it is illegal to go that fast;

http://www.kxii.com/news/headlines/3900121.html
In most sponsored Poker Runs, it IS illegal to go that fast. More and more major poker runs have rules as to speed, NO Alcohol, none of this and none of that. Do you seriously think that if there were a speed limit the end result would be different? How does this accident compare to the 22' Crownline bowrider that ran into a barge killing several people?

You're beginning to show a lack of knowledge, or at least a lack of focus El.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 11-01-2009, 10:27 PM   #27
Rattlesnake Guy
Senior Member
 
Rattlesnake Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,254
Thanks: 423
Thanked 365 Times in 174 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
Here's two boats each going 100MPH when they collided. Of course, almost everyone died...five out of six. Maybe they were drunk or not keeping a proper lookout, thereby making their speeds irrelevant (WINK). Thankfully, this can't happen on Winnipesaukee where it is illegal to go that fast;

http://www.kxii.com/news/headlines/3900121.html
So that must mean that all of these other states don't have speed limits?

Or that the cars passing me on 93 today were not really speeding because it is illegal to go that fast?
Rattlesnake Guy is offline  
Old 11-01-2009, 11:03 PM   #28
Resident 2B
Senior Member
 
Resident 2B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bradenton, FL and North Shore, MA
Posts: 1,331
Thanks: 936
Thanked 295 Times in 150 Posts
Default

For the record, it has been against NH law for many years to be going over head-way speed, 6 mph, when within 150 feet of another boat or point of land. The existing law makes this illegal operation! No need for a Speed Limit here as it was already against the existing law.

In fact all the flooding, fear-mongering recent posts by elchase refer to accidents that involve operation that violate laws that preexist the speed limit law here in NH.

The only things being proven are: A) The preexisting laws would have worked in all cases; B) therefore, what is the real value of the current Speed Limit law in these non-NH accidents?; C) perhaps elchase should be working at the national level pushing the proven NH 150 foot headway speed law; D) the Winfabs' fear campaign is still blowing smoke at anyone naive enough to listen without thinking.

R2B
Resident 2B is offline  
Old 11-02-2009, 09:16 AM   #29
chipj29
Senior Member
 
chipj29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,859
Thanks: 496
Thanked 290 Times in 154 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam View Post
The charts that I posted were from the USCG link that chipj29 gave us. Pages 19 and 20 of the pdf file. He only gave the top five primary contributing factors in accidents.But here is again: http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...tatistics.aspx
Actually, I did state it specifically in my post. You musta missed it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by chipj29 View Post
I just did some browsing on the Coast Guards web page.
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...tatistics.aspx

In 2008, the Coast Guard counted 4789 accidents involving 709 deaths, 3331 injuries. Some snippets from the report:

-10 percent of the deaths occurred on boats where the operator had received boating safety instruction.

-The top five primary contributing factors in accidents:
1. Careless/reckless operation
2. Operator inattention
3. No proper lookout
4. Operator inexperience
5. Passenger/skier behavior
It should be noted that "Excessive Speed" is 7th on the list, with "Machinery Failure" ranking higher.

-Alcohol use is the leading contributing factor in fatal boating accidents; it was listed as the leading factor in 17% of the deaths.

Click the link and see the stats for yourselves. Figures never lie.
It should also be noted that an accident that was caused by a boat going more than 6 MPH in a no-wake zone could be considered to be "Excessive speed". OMG look out for that big bad bass boat going 10 MPH through the NWZ!!
Before you say it elchase or sunset, I am not condoning speeding in NWZ's.
__________________
Getting ready for winter!
chipj29 is offline  
Old 11-03-2009, 11:40 AM   #30
elchase
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Guys, Don't forget that the speeds listed are those of the VICTIMs. How often is the VICTIM speeding? If I'm anchored in my 21-footer and get run over by a speeding 40-foot 7-ton cigarette boat who kills me and continues on, wondering what that noise was, the CG is going to list this as a 0-10MPH fatality and "excessive speed" is never going to be connected. If I am pulling my 12-yr old grandson on a tube at 18 MPH and some kid in a 38-foot Savage slices him in half with his 5-blade 32-pitch prop, his death will be listed as 10-20 MPH and "excessive speed" is never going to be connected. Only in the rare case where the speed of the STRIKING BOAT is known or admitted and one of ITS passengers gets killed will it be listed in the category you guys recognize as caused by excessive speed.

While the driver of in this crash was sober, the FIVE who were KILLED had been drinking, so according to this cult, this somehow forgives the high speed. After all, it's ok to go really fast, as long as you are drunk too;
http://www.pontevedrarecorder.com/content/996_1.php
 
Old 11-03-2009, 12:04 PM   #31
Ryan
Senior Member
 
Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mass/Gilford
Posts: 247
Thanks: 216
Thanked 70 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
Guys, Don't forget that the speeds listed are those of the VICTIMs. How often is the VICTIM speeding? If I'm anchored in my 21-footer and get run over by a speeding 40-foot 7-ton cigarette boat who kills me and continues on, wondering what that noise was, the CG is going to list this as a 0-10MPH fatality and "excessive speed" is never going to be connected. If I am pulling my 12-yr old grandson on a tube at 18 MPH and some kid in a 38-foot Savage slices him in half with his 5-blade 32-pitch prop, his death will be listed as 10-20 MPH and "excessive speed" is never going to be connected. Only in the rare case where the speed of the STRIKING BOAT is known or admitted and one of ITS passengers gets killed will it be listed in the category you guys recognize as caused by excessive speed.
Spin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
While the driver of in this crash was sober, the FIVE who were KILLED had been drinking, so according to this cult, this somehow forgives the high speed. After all, it's ok to go really fast, as long as you are drunk too;
http://www.pontevedrarecorder.com/content/996_1.php
Fear Mongering.

Show me where they cited speed in this accident? I must have missed that.
__________________
Please do not feel the trolls.
Ryan is offline  
Old 11-03-2009, 01:17 PM   #32
gtagrip
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 301
Thanks: 115
Thanked 75 Times in 52 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
Spin.



Fear Mongering.

Show me where they cited speed in this accident? I must have missed that.

Don't expect a response from him as he is only limited to 5 posts per day, really should be one or none since all he is doing is boring all of us with the same old stories. Probably has also bored the legislature to which he is pandering to.
gtagrip is offline  
Old 11-03-2009, 02:48 PM   #33
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

I find it very telling that in his quest to search the world for boating accidents elchase and his backers have failed to address the issue starring them directly in the face in this thread.

In 2008, last year, 96,205 registered boats in NH. 28 accidents. That works out to a percentage of boats involved in accidents...AFTER MANDATORY EDUCATION was the law but BEFORE SPEED LIMITS, to 29 thousandths of one percent (0.00029)

Anyone that has taken the time to examine the issue on its merits and not cover their ears and eyes knows that all speed limits is doing it taxing the resources of the NHMP at a time when their finances are already falling.

This law needs to sunset!
Airwaves is offline  
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Airwaves For This Useful Post:
chipj29 (11-03-2009), NoRegrets (11-05-2009), Resident 2B (11-03-2009), Seaplane Pilot (11-04-2009)
Old 11-03-2009, 08:36 PM   #34
elchase
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves View Post
In 2008 ... 28 accidents.
Also in 2008, the president of NHFBA crashed into a Winnipesaukee island on plane at night killing her best friend. Then we enacted a Speed Limit. In 2009 there was not a single high speed crash or speed-related fatality on Lake Winnipesaukee. Coincidence? Don't you wish we could get the same instant gratification out of all of our laws?

Look at all these boating accidents and deaths. Why can't people just agree to a reasonable speed limit so all the carnage can end?;
http://www.blogcatalog.com/blogs/boa...tag/collision/
 
Old 11-03-2009, 08:46 PM   #35
Pineedles
Senior Member
 
Pineedles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,460
Thanks: 970
Thanked 605 Times in 339 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
Also in 2008, the president of NHFBA crashed into a Winnipesaukee island on plane at night killing her best friend. Then we enacted a Speed Limit. In 2009 there was not a single high speed crash or speed-related fatality on Lake Winnipesaukee. Coincidence? Don't you wish we could get the same instant gratification out of all of our laws?

Look at all these boating accidents and deaths. Why can't people just agree to a reasonable speed limit so all the carnage can end?;
http://www.blogcatalog.com/blogs/boa...tag/collision/
What does "on plane" mean?
Pineedles is offline  
Old 11-03-2009, 08:54 PM   #36
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,809
Thanks: 2,326
Thanked 848 Times in 590 Posts
Default Instant Gratification?

From what law? People break laws every day!
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 11-03-2009, 10:22 PM   #37
Misty Blue
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 650
Thanks: 115
Thanked 239 Times in 92 Posts
Default How dare you!

Vita Bene...

I hope that what you said was "toung and cheek".

Do not, Do NOT EVER dis the United States Coast Guard. I have been a member for almost 20 years and there are no more dedicated, heroic men and women in the world. There is no one on the planet that knows more about boating safety, navigation and operation then the Coasite.

Next to them the NHMP are rookies.

As I said, I hope that what you said was "Just in Jest".

Misty Blue.
Misty Blue is offline  
Old 11-03-2009, 11:14 PM   #38
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,122
Thanks: 1,250
Thanked 1,375 Times in 688 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Misty Blue View Post
Vita Bene...

I hope that what you said was "toung and cheek".

Do not, Do NOT EVER dis the United States Coast Guard. I have been a member for almost 20 years and there are no more dedicated, heroic men and women in the world. There is no one on the planet that knows more about boating safety, navigation and operation then the Coasite.

Next to them the NHMP are rookies.

As I said, I hope that what you said was "Just in Jest".

Misty Blue.
MB, It was meant to be tongue in cheek (please note the rolleyes at the end)! I have nothing but respect for those that serve in uniform.

However, I know a few squids that may disagree on the navigation part of your post!!
VitaBene is offline  
Old 11-04-2009, 09:06 AM   #39
chipj29
Senior Member
 
chipj29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,859
Thanks: 496
Thanked 290 Times in 154 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
Also in 2008, the president of NHFBA crashed into a Winnipesaukee island on plane at night killing her best friend. Then we enacted a Speed Limit. In 2009 there was not a single high speed crash or speed-related fatality on Lake Winnipesaukee. Coincidence? Don't you wish we could get the same instant gratification out of all of our laws?

Look at all these boating accidents and deaths. Why can't people just agree to a reasonable speed limit so all the carnage can end?;
http://www.blogcatalog.com/blogs/boa...tag/collision/
Prior to 2009, when was the last "high speed crash" or "speed-related fatality"? Please be specific.
__________________
Getting ready for winter!
chipj29 is offline  
Old 11-04-2009, 02:43 PM   #40
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

chipj29 I think we can give it up. Elchase has no interest in looking at evidence to back up his hysteria! His last post proves that he wants his law and the facts be damned!

NH waters are among the safest in the country, period! We have all seen the USCG statistics for NH linked above, looked at the accident rate vs the number of boats registered here and yet it means nothing to Elchase.

I just want to remind everyone of Skip's LINK TO A NHMP PRESS RELEASE back in August that points out NH waters are the safest in New England!

All this BEFORE speed limits and AFTER mandatory boater education!

None of that matters to Elchase...he wants it so the facts be damned!
Airwaves is offline  
Old 11-04-2009, 03:10 PM   #41
sunset on the dock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 254
Thanks: 91
Thanked 61 Times in 41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves View Post
chipj29

None of that matters to Elchase...he wants it so the facts be damned!
Kind of like your having accused EL of illegal fishing?

Last edited by sunset on the dock; 11-04-2009 at 03:59 PM.
sunset on the dock is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to sunset on the dock For This Useful Post:
Old 11-04-2009, 04:00 PM   #42
gtagrip
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 301
Thanks: 115
Thanked 75 Times in 52 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunset on the dock View Post
Kind of like your having accused EL of illegal fishing?

Airwaves, I normally don't agree with SOTD, but I think he has you on this one.
gtagrip is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to gtagrip For This Useful Post:
Old 11-04-2009, 06:11 PM   #43
elchase
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chipj29 View Post
Prior to 2009, when was the last "high speed crash" or "speed-related fatality"? Please be specific.
I answered you here http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...&postcount=220
and here http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...&postcount=197, and will add another below. There are many more, but you really need to learn how to use the internet for yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves View Post
Elchase has no interest in looking at evidence to back up his hysteria!
You of all people should know to hold your stones...yours is the most fragile glass house on the forum. You have proven to be a whacko with that illegal fishing post and your refusal to back down. You too should step back, change your screen name, and start over fresh. Everything you say on these forums is mud since you were exposed in that thread. And I thought you had me on ignore?

Here's another one;
http://www.thewmurchannel.com/news/884295/detail.html
2 Men Injured When Boat Slammed Into Eagle Island
Men Treated For Minor Injuries
Two men are recovering Monday after a boat collision on Lake Winnipesaukee.
Marine patrol reports that early Sunday morning, a boat left the Weirs and slammed into Eagle Island while driving extremely fast.
Two men from Massachusetts, who were passengers on the boat, were brought by ambulance to Lakes Region General Hospital to be treated for cuts to the head and minor injuries.
 
Old 11-04-2009, 06:18 PM   #44
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
To those citing the Coast Guard data, I hate to burst your bubble, but the fatalities are categorized by the speed of the boat the victim was in...usually the slower-moving smaller boat, such as the kayaker who got run over by a speeding performance boat.
In every accident with fatality resulting, I've always seen the speed of the Offending boat. I can't imagine that the sailboat's stand-still speed was used in the accident stat instead of the off-duty officer's Speeding boat that ran into him.

Excessive Speed is always characterized in accident's meaning the speed of the offender.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 11-04-2009, 07:42 PM   #45
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

Originally posted by Elchase
Quote:
You too should step back, change your screen name,
So you've changed your screen name?
Quote:
Here's another one;
http://www.thewmurchannel.com/news/884295/detail.html
2 Men Injured When Boat Slammed Into Eagle Island
The link died a long time ago. I believe that was the underage teen who got drunk and took his mother's boat. Yep, speed limit would have handled that one.

So you can't fight the logic of what I say in the debate against speed limits and the fact that boating experts, state and federal, have shown NH and Winnipesaukee to be among the safest places to boat in the nation so you drag up mistakes I have made in the past?

Fine, but I am certainly not going to hide behind another screen name because of it!

No, I don't have anyone on ignore.
Airwaves is offline  
Old 11-05-2009, 08:37 AM   #46
chipj29
Senior Member
 
chipj29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,859
Thanks: 496
Thanked 290 Times in 154 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
I answered you here http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...&postcount=220
and here http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...&postcount=197, and will add another below. There are many more, but you really need to learn how to use the internet for yourself.
So one accident 5 years ago would have been prevented by a speed limit?
And another, in which a teenager "borrowed" his parents boat and hit an island would have been prevented by a speed limit?

elchase, obviously I am well aware of how to use the internet. I could do a google search and find even more irrelevant accidents that you have. However, when one is trying to make a point, which you obviously are, it is my opinion that that person should provide evidence to back up their asssertions.
You implied that all of a sudden, in 2009 since the speed limit law went into effect, that accidents on the lake ceased, due to the implementation of the speed limit. And my implication is that statement is bull hockey.
__________________
Getting ready for winter!
chipj29 is offline  
Old 11-05-2009, 09:32 AM   #47
Turtle Boy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 176
Thanks: 17
Thanked 21 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Seems to me if I "borrowed" my parents boat (or car), drunk or not, I would just as likely not to call attention to myself(stay under the radar, figuratively speaking) by speeding. I don't want speed limits repealed on NH roads just because some drunk kid might ignore those either. Same goes for the SL on Winni.
Turtle Boy is offline  
Old 11-05-2009, 09:50 AM   #48
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chipj29 View Post
So one accident 5 years ago would have been prevented by a speed limit?
And another, in which a teenager "borrowed" his parents boat and hit an island would have been prevented by a speed limit?

elchase, obviously I am well aware of how to use the internet. I could do a google search and find even more irrelevant accidents that you have. However, when one is trying to make a point, which you obviously are, it is my opinion that that person should provide evidence to back up their asssertions.
You implied that all of a sudden, in 2009 since the speed limit law went into effect, that accidents on the lake ceased, due to the implementation of the speed limit. And my implication is that statement is bull hockey.
I'm not going to get into it with EL. I don't even see his posts that you don't copy. But you are not going to change his mind. There hasn't been an accident on Lake Winni in years where a boat was traveling at such "great" speeds causing an accident where a speed limit would have mattered... Even if the operators of the last two tragic accidents were not breaking a slew of other laws the 25 mph at night would not have done anything to keep the accidents from happening.

The littlefield accident was determinded to be at 28 mph by a projection.

And the blizzard accident has yet to be determined.

So insinuating that a limit would have kept these from happening is down right speculation.

Frankly speaking there are tragedies that happen on our lakes, oceans, roads, mountains, skies, everywhere. You can't enforce commen sense or keep "accidents" from occuring. That is why they are called accidents.

IMO even the laws on the books before the speed limit were not going to keep these tragedies from happening. There were too many other circumstances (alochol and other factors) that contributed to these events.

So while we can argue every single example brought up it is impossible to know what would have kept these terrible accidents from occuring. In almost every situation I have ever read about there were multiple infractions and the captain was not excersing commen sense or was not able to clearly control his vessel (BUI). So a speed limit would not stop this, it would have been another charge to add to the pile. So lets please give up this idea that suddenly this new law has brought peace and harmony to the lake.

It is just unfortunate that there are those supporters who clearly believe that the speed limits work and that is their right and opinion and I personally value their insights on the boards. Then there are those who are using the speed limits to push an agenda to ban a specific type of boat from the lake and dare I say it, but unfortunately are doing it as way to avenge the tragic deaths of a friend or family member. They do not care as to the substance of the law but use it as a way to vent their anger towards a specific group and feel as if they are doing it in the name of a purpose or person.

This is unfortunate because it can cloud judgement and the opinions that may be valid of other supporters.

These threads have been serving a purpose of bringing opinions, data and in general people who love the lake together. Most everyone has no agenda and is willing to discuss issues on their own merits and debate them with factual data. No opinion is invalid, but to bash other members with clearly personal attacks, well beyond razzing, should not occur. I personally have choosen not to participate in those or even view many posts that have been nothing but inflametory.

I believe there has been an agenda here from the beginning to try to get these discussions shut down because they do not like the opinions or the majority view of posters. Many tactics have been tried over the past few months, from accustaions, to being a martyer and crying foul hence leaving the threads then returning (over and over again), to flooding them with stories that have no relevance to the lake. All in efforts to turn the threads into a battle field and get them locked down again. Now it appears they are trying for a last ditch effort of constant personal attacks to flame the threads and get completely off the topics and personal in the hopes to have the webmaster shut it down.

My personal suggestion is to please not take the bait for nothing will be accomplished.
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?

Last edited by OCDACTIVE; 11-05-2009 at 10:23 AM.
OCDACTIVE is offline  
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to OCDACTIVE For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (11-05-2009), chipj29 (11-05-2009), DEJ (11-05-2009), gtagrip (11-05-2009), NoRegrets (11-06-2009)
Old 11-05-2009, 10:32 AM   #49
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,809
Thanks: 2,326
Thanked 848 Times in 590 Posts
Arrow There will always be speediing

Even with a speed limit, there will be speeding. Just like on our highways today. I bet if there was a high speed accident fatility this year, the supporters will have a different tone. Instead of saying, 'No speeding accident this year because of the speed limit', they will say, 'We need more law enforcement!'. We can all see what only one accident can do, especially if you add media hype.

Speed limit or no speed limit. We still have have a problem with 'boneheads'. We have 150' rule, right of way rule etc. I see them violated every day I am out on the lake. The point is, why have rules if no one is adhering to them.

Education and enforcement are the two best weapons to prevent abuse in our arsenal. The skippers should be 100% educated by now. The loophole is the renters and boat owners who are registered outside of NH.

Enforcement is a political 'hot potato'. The legislature don't believe the marine patrol is a crucial part of law enforcement. MP have always been underfunded and understaffed for the amount of territory that they have to cover. We need to convince the legislation that MP is just as important as any law enforcement agency. If we want folks to obey they laws we must hold them accountable.

Education and enforcement will go a long way to keep our waterways safe! Let eliminate the education loophole and ask for more enforcement. Adding more rules and laws makes no sense without enforcement.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to BroadHopper For This Useful Post:
gtagrip (11-05-2009), NoRegrets (11-06-2009), OCDACTIVE (11-05-2009)
Old 11-05-2009, 11:54 AM   #50
elchase
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE View Post
I'm not going to get into it with EL. I don't even see his posts ... there are those who are using the speed limits to push an agenda to ban a specific type of boat from the lake ...They do not care ... but use it as a way to vent their anger towards a specific group .... but to bash other members with clearly personal attacks, well beyond razzing, should not occur. I personally have choosen not to participate in those or even view many posts that have been nothing but inflametory....I believe there has been an agenda here from the beginning to try to get these discussions shut down ...Many tactics ... being a martyer ... flooding them with stories ...efforts to turn the threads into a battle field and get them locked down again...trying for a last ditch effort of constant personal attacks to flame the threads ...El...El...EL...Blah blah blah.
For someone who allegedly has me "on Ignore", you surely seem to have a lot of knowledge about my posts, agenda and tactics. Notice that I ignore your posts except when you talk about or to me? If you and your buddies would do the same...it would be a better forum. Stop writing long posts outlining what you think is going on inside the minds of the supporters and focus on giving your opinions for why the SL is or is not not working...is or is not deserved...which is what this forum is for. Nobody visits this site to read what you think might be the "agenda" of somebody else. If they read it at all once they see the bickering, they read it to gain an education about the SL, not an education about you and me. Get off the "bash Ed" bandwagon and back to the reasons for/against the SL and see how fast the bickering stops. Look over my past posts. I only get personal in retaliation to personal attacks on me. Like they say about the Middle East; If you disarm the Muslims there will be peace...If you disarm the Israelis there will be annihilation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadHopper View Post
Even with a speed limit, there will be speeding. Just like on our highways today...Speed limit or no speed limit. We still have have a problem with 'boneheads'. We have 150' rule, right of way rule etc. I see them violated every day I am out on the lake. The point is, why have rules if no one is adhering to them. Education and enforcement are the two best weapons to prevent abuse in our arsenal. The skippers should be 100% educated by now. The loophole is the renters and boat owners who are registered outside of NH. Enforcement is a political 'hot potato'. The legislature don't believe the marine patrol is a crucial part of law enforcement. MP have always been underfunded and understaffed for the amount of territory that they have to cover. We need to convince the legislation that MP is just as important as any law enforcement agency. If we want folks to obey they laws we must hold them accountable. Education and enforcement will go a long way to keep our waterways safe! Let eliminate the education loophole and ask for more enforcement. Adding more rules and laws makes no sense without enforcement.
Great post Broadhopper. You stated your opinions about the SL, and you did not need to give your interpretation about what anyone else's opinions or agendas are. You did not need to insult or try to characterize any of those who disagree with you, and you did not try to lecture anyone or tell anyone how to live their lives better or become better persons. I totally disagree with your opinions, but that is what a debate is all about. Congratulations.

Now here's another fatal crash involving another "cigarette boat". http://www.sanduskyregister.com/arti...ont/794025.txt
Try as hard as you all can to keep your replies limited to why this could never happen on Winnipesaukee if the SL is retracted, and try your best not to talk about me and my "agenda" for sharing it. Other readers are intelligent enough and can go to the link themselves and decide for themselves whether stuff like this is more or less likely to happen on a lake with a speed limit or on one without. Others can decide for themselves when they read all of these posts how likely it was that high speed was at least part of the cause in each and how relevant things like the age of the pilot or his mother's permission was. Tell us why this accident is or is not something that can happen on our lake and whether the chances are better or worse of it happening with a SL and we can all have a healthy debate. And don't answer with questions to me...your replies are for your opinions. You know mine. Bash me, my grammar, "my agenda" or my religion in your reply and we are back to square one.
 
Old 11-05-2009, 12:48 PM   #51
Ryan
Senior Member
 
Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mass/Gilford
Posts: 247
Thanks: 216
Thanked 70 Times in 33 Posts
Default Very poor example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
Now here's another fatal crash involving another "cigarette boat". http://www.sanduskyregister.com/arti...ont/794025.txt
Try as hard as you all can to keep your replies limited to why this could never happen on Winnipesaukee if the SL is retracted, and try your best not to talk about me and my "agenda" for sharing it.
Very poor example.

I will start with your agenda first. If you would read the entire accident report, the Cigarette boat was NOT at fault here, rather it was the 21 footer that was the offending vessel. The loud, nasty Cigarette Boat was struck on the left side, which indicates that is was the stand on vessel.

Also, from the accident report:
"Traveling at 30 mph, the Sea Ray went under the bridge at the Cedar Point Causeway at 12:18 a.m. About a minute later, the Sea Ray struck the Formula boat about 210 yards from Lyman Harbor. Investigators estimate that the Formula was traveling at 27 mph."

The speed of the Sea Ray was taken from his GPS and not estimated. While it was night, the same scenario at 25MPH would have had the same result.

Not to be discounted in this scenario, please refer to the section titled, "Alcohol a factor?" But I'm sure this is also irrelevant.

http://www.sanduskyregister.com/arti...ont/930858.txt
__________________
Please do not feel the trolls.
Ryan is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Ryan For This Useful Post:
Kracken (11-05-2009)
Old 11-05-2009, 12:55 PM   #52
Kracken
Senior Member
 
Kracken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton
Posts: 223
Thanks: 46
Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts
Default

Spot on Ryan.

Very interesting story Ed, thanks for the read. Some times the Big Bad Wolf is just walking home.
Kracken is offline  
Old 11-05-2009, 02:03 PM   #53
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,809
Thanks: 2,326
Thanked 848 Times in 590 Posts
Default To Elchase

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
Great post Broadhopper. You stated your opinions about the SL, and you did not need to give your interpretation about what anyone else's opinions or agendas are. You did not need to insult or try to characterize any of those who disagree with you, and you did not try to lecture anyone or tell anyone how to live their lives better or become better persons. I totally disagree with your opinions, but that is what a debate is all about. Congratulations.
Funny. I have you on my ignore list but this pops up. Probably because you quoted me.

So if you like my post, then why don't you follow suit? Instead of bashing everyone's heads?

I agree with many SL supporters and many agree with a compromise. Problem is a few thinks the speed limit is a cure all. Well It is not. As I said, there will be speeders and an accident can happen. A speed limit law will not prevent it. If a fatal accident did happen this year because of speeding, to what end does the speed limit law accomplish? The only way we can prevent high speed accidents is to outlaw motorized watercraft. That the solution folks! Everyone shall row or sail on the lake! You will be very proud!
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 11-05-2009, 02:32 PM   #54
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
Now here's another fatal crash involving another "cigarette boat". http://www.sanduskyregister.com/arti...ont/794025.txt
I don't think it's in very good form to list an accident like this, Insinuating something by referencing the type of boat that was involved, and mischaracterizing the event. The accident was determined to be operator error on the smaller boat's part, and neither boat was going at high speed.

I hope everyone goes to each and every link you post El. I say that because it goes to character. To post links to accidents, including a couple where people were speeding in a NWZ, not only makes people wonder what the heck you're doing here, but I would think the speed limit supporters would wince at your continually making their positions weaker.

The accidents are good for people to know about, because it shows boaters that bad things can happen anywhere, and to anyone. It's also good to review them to see what causes these accidents, and what, if anything could have been done to prevent them.
VtSteve is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to VtSteve For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (11-05-2009), DoTheMath (11-05-2009), OCDACTIVE (11-05-2009)
Old 11-05-2009, 05:12 PM   #55
Yosemite Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 395
Thanks: 81
Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VtSteve View Post
The accident was determined to be operator error on the smaller boat's part, and neither boat was going at high speed.

Where in the article that elchase referenced http://www.sanduskyregister.com/arti...ont/794025.txt does it say: "The accident was determined to be operator error on the smaller boat's part, and neither boat was going at high speed." ?
Yosemite Sam is offline  
Old 11-05-2009, 05:37 PM   #56
Ryan
Senior Member
 
Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mass/Gilford
Posts: 247
Thanks: 216
Thanked 70 Times in 33 Posts
Default Exactly!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam View Post
Where in the article that elchase referenced http://www.sanduskyregister.com/arti...ont/794025.txt does it say: "The accident was determined to be operator error on the smaller boat's part, and neither boat was going at high speed." ?
Because the article Mr. Chase posted contained only the initial reports. With only the limited details, one would think that the evil cigarette skipper plowed into this 21 footer. Exactly what the pro SL crowd would like you to believe.

Now, for the FACTS!!!!

When you actually research the accident, you get this (which I posted only 5 posts earlier)

http://www.sanduskyregister.com/arti...ont/930858.txt

that actually paints a completely different picture, with things like facts and stuff.
__________________
Please do not feel the trolls.
Ryan is offline  
Old 11-05-2009, 05:53 PM   #57
Yosemite Sam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 395
Thanks: 81
Thanked 95 Times in 56 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
Because the article Mr. Chase posted contained only the initial reports. With only the limited details, one would think that the evil cigarette skipper plowed into this 21 footer. Exactly what the pro SL crowd would like you to believe.

Now, for the FACTS!!!!

When you actually research the accident, you get this (which I posted only 5 posts earlier)

http://www.sanduskyregister.com/arti...ont/930858.txt

that actually paints a completely different picture, with things like facts and stuff.
I totally missed your post that had more information about the accident.

Thanks for setting me straight.
Yosemite Sam is offline  
Old 11-05-2009, 06:23 PM   #58
elchase
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
"Traveling at 30 mph, the Sea Ray went under the bridge at the Cedar Point Causeway at 12:18 a.m. About a minute later, the Sea Ray struck the Formula boat about 210 yards from Lyman Harbor. Investigators estimate that the Formula was traveling at 27 mph."
The speed of the Sea Ray was taken from his GPS and not estimated.
Thanks for the civil response Ryan. Note however that the Winnipesaukee speed limit at 12:19 AM is 25 MPH. Both of these boats were exceeding it (i.e. "speeding"), so both were at fault to some degree. Now of course the question will be how much death and destruction a 7 MPH (5+2) reduction in collision speed would have prevented. Neither you nor I (nor anyone else except the Creator) can pretend to know for sure whether or not the victim would have survived had the two boats been going under 25MPH, had the drivers been sober, and had all other safety laws been obeyed. Common sense and science dictate that a slower impact would have improved the victims chances of survival and reduced damage to some unpredictable extent. I leave it to each intelligent reader to make his own judgment. The opinion of your group will of course be that the speed limit would not have made any difference. I'm not going to be so bold as to say it would have saved a life, but I believe it surely would have made some difference on the side of safety and might have saved a life. We each have our own opinions. I respect yours and appreciate that you respect mine, and let's both leave it to the intelligence of the unbiased to make up their own minds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadHopper View Post
Problem is a few thinks the speed limit is a cure all.
I don't and never said I did. I think it is part of a package of safety measures that when combined will improve the boating experience for the most people, is a good compromise already, and is the best way to ensure that we can all unselfishly share the lake. I will not try to change your mind or disparage your viewpoint...I just don't agree with it. But this forum is not supposed to be a love-fest. It is for debating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VtSteve View Post
I don't think it's in very good form to list an accident like this, Insinuating something by referencing the type of boat that was involved
I quoted directly from the article. Hence the quotation marks. The "cigarette boat" was going 27 MPH after midnight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VtSteve View Post
I hope everyone goes to each and every link you post El. I say that because it goes to character.
And we're off! Back to the personal cr_p. What does my "character" have to do with this? Is this thread about challenging my character or about speed limits? It's a story I found on the internet and pointed the readers to. The messenger is not the problem here. I post the links for the very reason that I also hope the intelligent impartial readers will go to them to read them. I want everyone to draw his/her own conclusions from not only the specifics of each accident, but the plethora of them. And I don't characterize or mischaracterize them. Sometimes I quote from them, but how can a quote be a mischaraterization? I only ask people to read them and tell me why they think they are irrelevant or can't happen on Winnipesaukee if we remove the SL. The "cigarette boat" in this case was going 27 MPH after midnight. That's almost the same speed Littlefield says he was going when he killed Mr. Hartman. The "Sea Ray" (is it alright if I call it a "Sea Ray" Steve?) was going 30 MPH with a drunk pilot after midnight. That's faster than Littlefield says he was going. Intelligent and impartial people can read this and draw intelligent conclusions about the effects of speed in this accident without you or me guiding them. Intelligent and impartial readers would not be fooled if I was "mischaracterizing" the very article to which I was directly linking them. I gave the link just so they could read the same story I did and draw their own intelligent conclusions. If I was a man of seedy "character" trying to mislead readers, I'd have omitted the link and really "mischaracterized", no?
I'd really appreciate it if you would put me on your ignore list and stop talking to or about me. Unless you want to keep your posts limited to your opinions on the SL, it is just going to remain ugly. I have no problems with my "character", and I'm not going to let someone like you get away with "mischaracterizing" it.

Here's an example from a "Poker Run";
http://www.wwmt.com/engine.pl?station=wwmt&id=17789&template=breakout_local.html
Lake Michigan boating accident leaves 1 dead, 1 missing
July 9, 2005, 7:17 PM
HOLLAND, Mich (AP) -- One man was killed and another is missing and presumed drowned after a 42-foot power boat carrying four people capsized Saturday on Lake Michigan as the driver was making a turn, authorities said.
The single-boat accident happened about 9:45 a.m. EDT near the western Michigan community of Holland.
U.S. Coast Guard Lt. Craig Lawrance said the men on board were part of a Smoke on the Water Poker Run that included 60 to 70 boats. He said the boat was speeding from Grand Haven to Holland when the driver overcompensated for a missed turn, slowing from about 110 mph to about 70 mph.
Lawrance said alcohol was not a factor.
A 20-year-old Bristol, R.I., man died from his injuries, and the 42-year-old missing man is from Hartland, Wis., authorities said. Ottawa County sheriff's Sgt. Kevin Allman said he likely drowned.
Sgt. Scott Tatrow of the Allegan County Sheriff's Department told WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids that the passengers were wearing life preservers but they came off when straps broke from impact with the water.
A U.S. Coast Guard helicopter and boat were joined by divers from the Ottawa and Allegan county sheriff's departments in a search of the lake Saturday afternoon.
The driver of the boat was taken to Holland Community Hospital for treatment of back injuries, while a fourth man on board was not injured.
Additional information about the men wasn't immediately released.
Lawrance said the poker run involves boaters making stops at various locations on land and in the water to collect cards for a poker hand.
The two-day event is based in Grand Haven and has been held annually since 2001, according to a Smoke on the Water Web site. Boaters take a 141-mile course with stops in South Haven, Holland, Muskegon and White Lake.


Am I "mischaracterizing" this one? Could this never happen in one of crowded Lake Winnipesaukee's Poker Runs if we didn't have a SL? Intelligent and impartial readers can draw their own intelligent conclusions.
 
Old 11-05-2009, 06:38 PM   #59
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
Thanks for the civil response Ryan. Note however that the Winnipesaukee speed limit at 12:19 AM is 25 MPH. Both of these boats were exceeding it (i.e. "speeding"), so both were at fault to some degree.
The accident was in Pandusky Ohio, so I don't think the Winni speed limit pertains to it I do know that criminal charges were being considered. Law Enforcement thinks that Lake was driving the boat, not the deceased. So they basically said he lied, and he also did not have a boater safety card.

But here's a case where a 21' boat plows into a 40' Formula that had the right of way. One boat (the Formula) was doing 25 mph, the offending 21' boat was doing 30 mph. This came from a later article.

All craft, large and small, can be dangerous if driven that way, at any speed.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 11-05-2009, 06:48 PM   #60
Ryan
Senior Member
 
Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mass/Gilford
Posts: 247
Thanks: 216
Thanked 70 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
Thanks for the civil response Ryan. Note however that the Winnipesaukee speed limit at 12:19 AM is 25 MPH. Both of these boats were exceeding it (i.e. "speeding"), so both were at fault to some degree. Now of course the question will be how much death and destruction a 7 MPH (5+2) reduction in collision speed would have prevented.
And this is where we disagree. I feel the question should be how much death and destruction would there have been had the operator of the Sea Ray had not been drinking, had maintained a proper course and lookout, yielded properly according to the rules of navigation, and maintained headway speed when inside of 150' of another vessel. Four citable offenses. Again, just MHO.

Your 7MPH figure, in theory, would also only apply for a head on collision. Since it was 'assumed' the nefarious Cigarette boat was struck on the port side, the only relevant speed would be that of the give way vessel. Or we could get into physics of motion, but it's been years since I've opened that text.
__________________
Please do not feel the trolls.
Ryan is offline  
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Ryan For This Useful Post:
hazelnut (11-05-2009), Resident 2B (11-05-2009), trfour (11-05-2009), VitaBene (11-06-2009)
Old 11-05-2009, 08:06 PM   #61
sunset on the dock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 254
Thanks: 91
Thanked 61 Times in 41 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post

Here's an example from a "Poker Run";
http://www.wwmt.com/engine.pl?station=wwmt&id=17789&template=breakout_local.html
Lake Michigan boating accident leaves 1 dead, 1 missing
July 9, 2005, 7:17 PM
HOLLAND, Mich (AP) -- One man was killed and another is missing and presumed drowned after a 42-foot power boat carrying four people capsized Saturday on Lake Michigan as the driver was making a turn, authorities said.
The single-boat accident happened about 9:45 a.m. EDT near the western Michigan community of Holland.
U.S. Coast Guard Lt. Craig Lawrance said the men on board were part of a Smoke on the Water Poker Run that included 60 to 70 boats. He said the boat was speeding from Grand Haven to Holland when the driver overcompensated for a missed turn, slowing from about 110 mph to about 70 mph.
Lawrance said alcohol was not a factor.
A 20-year-old Bristol, R.I., man died from his injuries, and the 42-year-old missing man is from Hartland, Wis., authorities said. Ottawa County sheriff's Sgt. Kevin Allman said he likely drowned.
Sgt. Scott Tatrow of the Allegan County Sheriff's Department told WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids that the passengers were wearing life preservers but they came off when straps broke from impact with the water.
A U.S. Coast Guard helicopter and boat were joined by divers from the Ottawa and Allegan county sheriff's departments in a search of the lake Saturday afternoon.
The driver of the boat was taken to Holland Community Hospital for treatment of back injuries, while a fourth man on board was not injured.
Additional information about the men wasn't immediately released.
Lawrance said the poker run involves boaters making stops at various locations on land and in the water to collect cards for a poker hand.
The two-day event is based in Grand Haven and has been held annually since 2001, according to a Smoke on the Water Web site. Boaters take a 141-mile course with stops in South Haven, Holland, Muskegon and White Lake.


Am I "mischaracterizing" this one? Could this never happen in one of crowded Lake Winnipesaukee's Poker Runs if we didn't have a SL? Intelligent and impartial readers can draw their own intelligent conclusions.
This accident strikes me as having a great deal of relevance to our lake. Take 60 or 70 boats, some going 70-110 miles per hour, and Lake Winnipesaukee suddenly seems a lot smaller(what with their "acres per second"). Again, even if you could discount the safety issue(which you can't...2 dead), there are the many levels of other issues that have recently been discussed( noise, boats tearing past you at these ridiculous speeds) that have been detrimental to the overall recreational experience of others on the lake and contributed to some of the negative characterizations of the lake (which affects tourism). Just last year this kind of foolishness would have been legal. I am thankful that this is now illegal on the lake and also can't imagine that any of our leaders in Concord would agree to give up these incredible gains.
sunset on the dock is offline  
Old 11-05-2009, 08:18 PM   #62
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunset on the dock View Post
This accident strikes me as having a great deal of relevance to our lake. Take 60 or 70 boats, some going 70-110 miles per hour, and Lake Winnipesaukee suddenly seems a lot smaller(what with their "acres per second"). Again, even if you could discount the safety issue(which you can't...2 dead), there are the many levels of other issues that have recently been discussed( noise, boats tearing past you at these ridiculous speeds) that have been detrimental to the overall recreational experience of others on the lake and contributed to some of the negative characterizations of the lake (which affects tourism). Just last year this kind of foolishness would have been legal. I am thankful that this is now illegal on the lake and also can't imagine that any of our leaders in Concord would agree to give up these incredible gains.

Sunset.. I have to ask have you ever been on a GFB?
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 11-05-2009, 10:14 PM   #63
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default Why are we debating this?

Again!

The United States Coast Guard and the New Hampshire Marine Patrol have both stated:

New Hampshire is the safest state in New England in which to boat, and in the top five in the United States of America!

Experts in boating have declared New Hampshire is a great place to boat. Speed limit supporters continue to say that those experts are wrong!

Who do you believe?? Boating experts or people who don't like fast boats?

It is truely amazing that supporters of this foolish law ignore the experts in the field.

When they go back in time to find boating accidents that support their cause perhaps we should also go back in time and start counting the NH registered boats between then and now?

Do you really want to play the numbers game?

Shoot the messanger!
Airwaves is offline  
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Airwaves For This Useful Post:
coastieaux (03-04-2012), eillac@dow (11-05-2009), hazelnut (11-05-2009), Resident 2B (11-05-2009)
Old 11-05-2009, 11:22 PM   #64
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 504
Thanked 461 Times in 161 Posts
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
And this is where we disagree. I feel the question should be how much death and destruction would there have been had the operator of the Sea Ray had not been drinking, had maintained a proper course and lookout, yielded properly according to the rules of navigation, and maintained headway speed when inside of 150' of another vessel. Four citable offenses. Again, just MHO.

Your 7MPH figure, in theory, would also only apply for a head on collision. Since it was 'assumed' the nefarious Cigarette boat was struck on the port side, the only relevant speed would be that of the give way vessel. Or we could get into physics of motion, but it's been years since I've opened that text.
Ryan what a fantastic post. I particularly like the part where you point out that we have several laws in the books that cover 4 offenses that were ignored prior to the incident. I know this is probably being ignored and glossed over by SL supporters that is why I quoted the post in its entirety so that perhaps it gets read again. Our lake already has these laws in place and I know that you agree with me that the answer is and has always been increased enforcement of existing laws. A new warm and fuzzy security blanket law has lulled many into a false (and very dangerous) sense of security.

Thanks for the post.
hazelnut is offline  
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to hazelnut For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (11-05-2009), eillac@dow (11-05-2009), Resident 2B (11-05-2009), trfour (11-05-2009)
Old 11-05-2009, 11:51 PM   #65
Ryan
Senior Member
 
Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mass/Gilford
Posts: 247
Thanks: 216
Thanked 70 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunset on the dock View Post
This accident strikes me as having a great deal of relevance to our lake. Take 60 or 70 boats, some going 70-110 miles per hour, and Lake Winnipesaukee suddenly seems a lot smaller.
Most of these accidents have some relevance to our lake, as they all involve water. That's about it.

Do you know what has most relevance to our lake and this debate, the Speed Limit Survey that was taken ON our lake by the members of our MP. While you may combat the validity of the survey, NOT ONE of the boats clocked by radar approached the speeds you cite in your post above.

There are maybe 60-70 boats on the lake that can achieve speeds in the 70MPH range. Getting all of them on the lake at the same time at those speeds is impossible.
__________________
Please do not feel the trolls.
Ryan is offline  
Old 11-06-2009, 07:38 AM   #66
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,493
Thanks: 929
Thanked 433 Times in 317 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VtSteve View Post
"...But here's a case where a 21' boat plows into a 40' Formula that had the right of way. One boat (the Formula) was doing 25 mph, the offending 21' boat was doing 30 mph...All craft, large and small, can be dangerous if driven that way, at any speed..".
1) For the record, both boats are listed at SOS as "performance boats".

2) I don't see the Cigarette boat as absolved of alcohol use either.

(There's only a 20% chance—on Winnipesaukee at least—that alcohol is NOT involved).
__________________
.Sailing—Good for you and good for the world...

...and you won't stink...
ApS is offline  
Old 11-06-2009, 10:03 AM   #67
Ryan
Senior Member
 
Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Mass/Gilford
Posts: 247
Thanks: 216
Thanked 70 Times in 33 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post
2) I don't see the Cigarette boat as absolved of alcohol use either.
Nice try. Since it supports the agenda, trying to implicate the Cigarette boat skipper would be beneficial, but the facts simply do not point that way.

If he were drinking, wouldn't the MP that pulled him over at 11:42pm for a light violation have screened him for BUI?

You just can't argue with facts.

Sorry.
__________________
Please do not feel the trolls.
Ryan is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ryan For This Useful Post:
gtagrip (11-06-2009), VitaBene (11-06-2009), VtSteve (11-06-2009)
Old 11-06-2009, 12:13 PM   #68
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,493
Thanks: 929
Thanked 433 Times in 317 Posts
Wink Heh heh heh...

Alcohol use is not BUI.

The facts are...that you have 4-in-5 chances of being wrong!
__________________
.Sailing—Good for you and good for the world...

...and you won't stink...
ApS is offline  
Old 11-06-2009, 02:35 PM   #69
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan View Post
Nice try. Since it supports the agenda, trying to implicate the Cigarette boat skipper would be beneficial, but the facts simply do not point that way.

If he were drinking, wouldn't the MP that pulled him over at 11:42pm for a light violation have screened him for BUI?

You just can't argue with facts.

Sorry.
That was brilliant APS. So you say a 21' Sea Ray is listed as a Performance Boat? Whatever. And as Ryan stated, the Formula was pulled over for a light issue, which was fixed. I agree that at that hour, the MP would be looking for other issues as well.

Absent a speed violation, Now you're bringing up an alcohol potential? I thought alcohol was off limits, and GFBL speed was the problem

If people stuck to principled arguments, they wouldn't have to shift their train of thought so much. I could care less what kind of boats were involved, only that two boats collided. I read the article, along with the followup articles, one of which suggested that someone in the smaller boat could possibly be prosecuted. From the information available, I gathered they might charge him with being the driver, calling in false information, and boating without a proper certification to do so. It was in the followup article that it was stated the speed of the boats, 25 mph and 30 mph.

APS, you also state that on Winni "(There's only a 20% chance—on Winnipesaukee at least—that alcohol is NOT involved)."

So given the lack of smily, are you indicating that 80% of accidents suvh as these, at any speed, are the result of alcohol? Possibly alcohol is only a contributing factor? Or a complete admission that at any speed, BUI is a problem?

Given that, it's pretty much what the anti SL crowd has been saying all along. I've read about late night boat crashes for years. Very, very rarely is the operator sober. A little birdie told me that it would be wise for MP's to increase their staffing at night and keep an eye out at the obvious locations on every body of water.

So here we are in another topic, where APS is very concerned that people think a 21' boat was in the wrong, and the 40' Formula was not. Do I see a a trend here?
VtSteve is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to VtSteve For This Useful Post:
Resident 2B (11-09-2009)
Old 11-08-2009, 07:53 PM   #70
elchase
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Here's a cute CG story. Maybe this guy was drunk; http://www.thespec.com/article/606600
Interesting is the way that even in international waters and with a boat doing 135, the authorities still were able to catch him. All it took was the desire to do so. It's possible to enforce any boating law (except that ridiculous 150' rule) when you put your mind to it. Of course, even if he had been drinking, I'm sure by the time they caught him his blood was clean and they could not charge him with BUI, but at least they had other laws to charge him with. It's good to give Law Enforcement as many options as possible for getting thugs like this off our lakes.
 
Old 11-08-2009, 09:10 PM   #71
chmeeee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Central CT
Posts: 90
Thanks: 19
Thanked 5 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
It's possible to enforce any boating law (except that ridiculous 150' rule) when you put your mind to it.
Why is it not possible to enforce that law? Why is it ridiculous?

Obviously it is not feasible to enforce threshold violations (say, 120'). Then again, it's not really feasible to enforce threshold speeding violations (say, 50 mph).
chmeeee is offline  
Old 11-09-2009, 08:34 AM   #72
chipj29
Senior Member
 
chipj29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bow
Posts: 1,859
Thanks: 496
Thanked 290 Times in 154 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
Here's a cute CG story. Maybe this guy was drunk; http://www.thespec.com/article/606600
Interesting is the way that even in international waters and with a boat doing 135, the authorities still were able to catch him. All it took was the desire to do so. It's possible to enforce any boating law (except that ridiculous 150' rule) when you put your mind to it. Of course, even if he had been drinking, I'm sure by the time they caught him his blood was clean and they could not charge him with BUI, but at least they had other laws to charge him with. It's good to give Law Enforcement as many options as possible for getting thugs like this off our lakes.
You should read the article to get your facts straight. First of all, he was going 135 km/h, not MPH. That translates to 81 MPH.
"The cigarette boat hit 135 km/h and the U.S. Coast Guard could only watch it fly into Canadian waters."

Secondly, seeing as this is in a speed limit thread, you imply that he was charged with some kind of speeding violation. However, you can see that he was not.
"He was charged with dangerous operation of a vessel and released on bail."

Doesn't New Hampshire have some kind of reckless operation law?

Thanks for posting that link. It is good to know that other bodies of water don't have the need for speed limits, either.
__________________
Getting ready for winter!
chipj29 is offline  
Old 11-09-2009, 09:43 AM   #73
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,122
Thanks: 1,250
Thanked 1,375 Times in 688 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
Here's a cute CG story. Maybe this guy was drunk; http://www.thespec.com/article/606600
Interesting is the way that even in international waters and with a boat doing 135, the authorities still were able to catch him. All it took was the desire to do so. It's possible to enforce any boating law (except that ridiculous 150' rule) when you put your mind to it. Of course, even if he had been drinking, I'm sure by the time they caught him his blood was clean and they could not charge him with BUI, but at least they had other laws to charge him with. It's good to give Law Enforcement as many options as possible for getting thugs like this off our lakes.
El, Are you really saying that you would be OK if 2 boats at a 90 MPH closure speed come within 25 feet of each other?
VitaBene is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to VitaBene For This Useful Post:
gtagrip (11-09-2009)
Old 11-09-2009, 01:30 PM   #74
gtagrip
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 301
Thanks: 115
Thanked 75 Times in 52 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VitaBene View Post
El, Are you really saying that you would be OK if 2 boats at a 90 MPH closure speed come within 25 feet of each other?
Of course he is, as he is in the name of safety and that "ridiculous 150ft law"!
gtagrip is offline  
Old 11-12-2009, 08:44 AM   #75
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,493
Thanks: 929
Thanked 433 Times in 317 Posts
Default Follow the Money...

To the question,
Quote:
"...a 21' Sea Ray is listed as a Performance Boat...?"
Yes it is—and at a website that may convince you to change perspective on boating speeds—as it certainly did mine!

Moving on...

1) Two "performance boats" (21' and 40') collided with each other—and one is faulted. That list of "performance boats" should be consulted with each collision cited by us: it's not just pontoons and bowriders that are involved in crashes.

2) Indisputably, NHMP Lt. Dunleavey stated that there is a 4-in-5 chance that alcohol will be on board a "recreational" boat. (And drinking that alcohol on board is legal!)

Recreational drugs (which are not exactly unseen at sand bars) are unaccounted for.

3) Safeguarding his passengers—all the while keeping his vessel safe—is maritime's oldest rule for a captain. Avoiding a collision should have been uppermost for both "drivers".

4) We can allege that one "driver" was BUI, but there is still a 4-in-5 circumstance that some degree of impairment existed with the other.

5) Blaming waitresses for Winnipesaukee's fatal collisions couldn't have been nailed as dead as elchase nailed it dead. "For This Useful Post", it rated—and got—a rare ApS thank-you.

6) Repeatedly reciting Interstate analogies is tiresome: truck and car traffic travel parallel to one another. Tracking boats zig-zagging across our waters would show that the tracks across an automobile "destruction derby" is a far better analogy. (Fortunately for boaters, there are many-more "misses" than "hits".)

Now, regarding the Coast Guard topic that started this discussion, looky here:



(Did any Opponent notice the Coast Guard doesn't list insufficient speed?)
|
|
|



1) Combining the two "highest-speed" categories results in 245 fatalities. (Remarkable in itself).

2) However, look at the number of combined injuries: 1376 That's more than 10-times the number of paddlers without an engine (!)

3) Translated, that means that excess-horsepower injures far more people than the stats would suggest at first glance. (And 'way-more power boaters injured than paddlers).

But excessive horsepower still kills too many paddlers and sailors—according to these stats.

4)And finally:

Paraphrasing President Obama, we Supporters have only "skin in this game". However, this Supporter observes that at least one Opponent has a multi-million dollar financial stake "in this game".

Where is the "I recuse myself from this discussion" button?

What do we forum members think about the incentive for postings where genuine "skin" is not involved—but dollars are?

(Anybody?)
__________________
.Sailing—Good for you and good for the world...

...and you won't stink...
ApS is offline  
Old 11-12-2009, 05:53 PM   #76
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default

You appear to be far more easily influenced by things that I thought APS. I've been on so many boating boards I don't remember all of the sites. From Hull Truth to many, many more. Certainly, some of the participants have changed my theory that all boaters share common ground

I'm at a complete loss as to why you are still so disturbed over the facts of that accident.

It occurred at sane plane speeds, both boats under 30 mph.

The smaller boat (21') hit the larger boat

The authorities seemed intent on charging the driver of the smaller boat with various things;

filing a false report
impeding an investigation
possibly BUI
having no boater's certificate


You come back to post this because you are also a bit disturbed that not everyone thought of the 21' Sea Ray as a Performance Boat. That's your hang-up, not mine. So let's call it two performance boats just to make you feel better. K? But you have an interesting perspective on the CG Chart math as well

Basically, you won't read the facts of that boat case and just state it. You have to interpret, insinuate, and try to massage and manage it for your own agenda. What the heck does that say about your Perspective on anything? Your perspective goes right out the window when it involves this topic. You can't even look at an accident without deciding who was at fault before reading the article.

I certainly respect your views APS, but it's your judgment I wonder about. The post you Thanked, was interesting. Anyone that's been around boating boards, especially ones dealing with safety, would know full well the BUI problem that exists on waterways everywhere. It was obvious why that particular restaurant was ridiculed about their serving Littlefield. Because the link to a WINFABS founder was tooo obvious. Heck, same thing as last year's crash with Erica at the helm. But nobody covered up or lost their bar tabs did they?

Just for balance, how about posting some stories about small boats with drunk drivers. Maybe that can expand your frame of reference.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 11-12-2009, 07:50 PM   #77
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH / Bozeman MO
Posts: 4,809
Thanks: 2,326
Thanked 848 Times in 590 Posts
Default New law

A steel hull boat with less than 10 hp motor that has to operate between 10 to 20 mph in order to eliminate the most amount of death. OK I will go for that. New law to replace the SL law! Does all the SL supporters agree?????
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 01:02 AM   #78
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,122
Thanks: 1,250
Thanked 1,375 Times in 688 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post

2) Indisputably, NHMP Lt. Dunleavey stated that there is a 4-in-5 chance that alcohol will be on board a "recreational" boat. (And drinking that alcohol on board is legal!)

:
This misquote is the basis of the 80% statistic you have been pushing? I probably have alcohol on my boat every day it is on the water, but that does not mean the operator is drinking. Drinking alcohol is legal, and should remain so, but BUI is unacceptable and should remain illegal.
VitaBene is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to VitaBene For This Useful Post:
chmeeee (11-13-2009), gtagrip (11-13-2009)
Old 11-13-2009, 01:17 AM   #79
VitaBene
Senior Member
 
VitaBene's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 3,122
Thanks: 1,250
Thanked 1,375 Times in 688 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post
Now, regarding the Coast Guard topic that started this discussion, looky here:



(Did any Opponent notice the Coast Guard doesn't list insufficient speed?)
|
|
|



1) Combining the two "highest-speed" categories results in 245 fatalities. (Remarkable in itself).
Combining the two lowest speed categories results in the highest # of fatalities. Stats can be skewed however you want- frankly you may want to quit now because the stats in the chart will not support you...

Example 205 deaths for the 2 lowest HP categories vs. 122 for the 2 highest
VitaBene is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 01:40 AM   #80
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

The way I read it for deaths:
Slowest
Not moving: 109
Under 10MPH 212
Total 321

Fastest
21 to 40 MPH 47
Over 40 MPH 19
Total 66

0.00029% of registered boats in NH were involved in accidents in 2008!
Airwaves is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 07:25 AM   #81
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,493
Thanks: 929
Thanked 433 Times in 317 Posts
Wink *Apologies to "Crocodile Dundee"...

Foreword:

I note that most of the Opponents in this year's "Speed Limits" sub-forum did not participate in an opportunity for closure in the Final Statements thread. Much rancor could have been defused.

In an effort to keep rancor to a minimum, I'll keep my quotes "generic".


Re: Regarding NH's "safety" in US stats:

Can you name any smaller "less-safe" state that has so much frozen water?

Re: Lt. Dunleavey on alcohol on board:

That's a misquote?*

*Now HERE is a misquote by "M.P. Dunleavey"...(at bottom)...


"Now THAT'S a Misquote!"

Re: "Combining the two lowest speed categories results in the highest # of fatalities".

Manipulating the stats in that manner will include anchored boats. Are you sure that manipulation is what you want to have archived here—forever?

Re: "...I probably have alcohol on my boat every day..."

You don't know?

Re: A steel hull boat with less than 10 hp motor that has to operate between 10 to 20 mph in order to eliminate the most amount of death. OK I will go for that. New law to replace the SL law!
Does all the SL supporters agree?????

I doesn't.

We all know that there will always be boats at anchor and always be oversized boats with "tipsy drivers", so my answer will be, that "there will always be death on the water".

(And, maybe, some deaths from running-up ashore. )

A good place to begin restrictions is at the infamous, unlimited-speed-deathtrap known as the "Poker Run".

And any semblance thereof—such as the side-by-side races off Rattlesnake Island by two—or more—over-powered boats...

Especially while observing the 150'-rule!

|
|
|

__________________
.Sailing—Good for you and good for the world...

...and you won't stink...
ApS is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 10:44 AM   #82
chmeeee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Central CT
Posts: 90
Thanks: 19
Thanked 5 Times in 2 Posts
Default

I read through this post in it's entirety yesterday and again today, and no matter what I do, it makes ZERO sense to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post
2) Indisputably, NHMP Lt. Dunleavey stated that there is a 4-in-5 chance that alcohol will be on board a "recreational" boat. (And drinking that alcohol on board is legal!)

Recreational drugs (which are not exactly unseen at sand bars) are unaccounted for.
You don't seem to understand this statistic. 80% of boats with alcohol does not mean 80% of drivers are drunk or have even consumed a drop. My boat probably has alcohol on board 90% of the time, but I've never (and will never) been guilty of BUI.

So now we are also supposed to assume that people are high on drugs if not explicitly proved otherwise? What does any of this have to do with speed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post
6) Repeatedly reciting Interstate analogies is tiresome: truck and car traffic travel parallel to one another. Tracking boats zig-zagging across our waters would show that the tracks across an automobile "destruction derby" is a far better analogy. (Fortunately for boaters, there are many-more "misses" than "hits".)
Yet the cars are driving 4-6 feet from each other, 10-30 feet from trees, rocks, and other potentially fatal hazards. Boats should not be driving within less than 150 feet of anything at any kind of speed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post
1) Combining the two "highest-speed" categories results in 245 fatalities. (Remarkable in itself).
By what math? I can't find any two numbers in the fatality column that add up to 245. The two highest speed categories add up to 66.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post
4)And finally:

Paraphrasing President Obama, we Supporters have only "skin in this game". However, this Supporter observes that at least one Opponent has a multi-million dollar financial stake "in this game".

Where is the "I recuse myself from this discussion" button?

What do we forum members think about the incentive for postings where genuine "skin" is not involved—but dollars are?

(Anybody?)
On on Earth are you talking about?
chmeeee is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to chmeeee For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (11-13-2009), eillac@dow (11-15-2009), Ryan (11-13-2009)
Old 11-13-2009, 12:01 PM   #83
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,073
Thanks: 215
Thanked 895 Times in 506 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post
1) Combining the two "highest-speed" categories results in 245 fatalities. (Remarkable in itself).
I don't know what your looking at but the 2 highest speed deaths on that chart are 19 and 47 for a total of 66 out of 1146 accidents or 5.7%. The slowest catagory alone (not moving) has 109 deaths out of 917 accidents or 11.9%. More than double the 2 highest speeds.
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 12:02 PM   #84
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,313
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 358 Times in 167 Posts
Default Very Cute APS

Still working on the math?

Here's part of your Epic post.

"2) Lake Winnipesaukee has dodged the multi-fatality collisions at other locales by one great law that has been protecting us for 30+ years; sadly, we see daily that our "Unsafe Passage" rule is receiving inadequate compliance, uneven enforcement, and even the vaunted "Education" element has failed our previously-enjoyable Lake Winnipesaukee boating experiences.

HB-847 resulted.

3) In the past, no tickets could be written for speeds over headway speed—now they can! Also now, the night-hidden scourge of BWI can be assaulted stealthily using radar.

That "nothing perceptible will change" is wrong. I predict that the night speed limit will be the most productive part of the new law in keeping problem boaters away—night and day.

Although the Coast Guard will take three years to produce the statistics, we should expect HB-847 to make much improvement in finding BWI "drivers".

(We got "drivers", now? What happened to "helmsmen"?)

4) By choosing which laws to break, one boating segment has brought HB-847 down upon themselves: HB-847 isn't the fault of "everybody" or "crowds".

Too often, it is easier to "split the difference" between lesser boaters rather than to back off the throttles. What pass for quiet mufflers still brings dread to boaters at anchor, fishermen, lakeside residents no longer secure in their houses, and those attending to a skier or tuber. You'll see them glance up—and it's not an admiring look they'll give in the direction of that menacing approach.

When existing laws are ignored among an increasingly arrogant boating segment, demands for a different legal approach can be expected: enter HB-847."

So we have you alerting us to laws that go without enforcement, and zeroing in on BWI, and HB-847 helping to reduce BWI on the lake. The a bit about people being scared by louder boats.

I agree that the night limit, as low as it is, would make it easy to weed out the cowboys. I wonder when that starts to happen?

You can be a walking, talking, posting contradiction. If I added the above to all previous posts of what's wrong on the water, nobody would be left. Except yourself?

Knowing what you know about the MP budget, exactly how much do you expect from the MP's, night or day?
VtSteve is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 12:31 PM   #85
jmen24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,139
Thanks: 223
Thanked 318 Times in 181 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post
1) Combining the two "highest-speed" categories results in 245 fatalities. (Remarkable in itself).
Guys don't you know, APS is combining the over 250 HP and unknown HP together to arrive at his 245. You see, we all skimmed over that at first because we just do not understand (he understands more than us, that is why we only get snips of his thoughts.)

APS is attributing big horsepower with fast boats. APS, how many commercial fishing vessels do you think are sunk off our coasts or on the inland waters each year, and the folks on board drown? That is just one example

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post
(And, maybe, some deaths from running-up ashore. )
APS, for someone that has stated that he owns three waterfront homes, I cannot for the life of me understand why. You are so completely hung up on boats running ashore and killing someone. Don't worry though, you shadow can never really catch you.

APS, ever see the show "6 Degrees".
jmen24 is offline  
Old 11-13-2009, 12:52 PM   #86
jmen24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,139
Thanks: 223
Thanked 318 Times in 181 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post

"For This Useful Post", it rated—and got—a rare ApS thank-you.
I must say that I am flattered by this, unless you have removed it by now, that would be OK as I will always have the memory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post
2) However, look at the number of combined injuries: 1376 That's more than 10-times the number of paddlers without an engine (!)

3) Translated, that means that excess-horsepower injures far more people than the stats would suggest at first glance. (And 'way-more power boaters injured than paddlers).

But excessive horsepower still kills too many paddlers and sailors—according to these stats.
I see stats are not quite your thing, so let me help you make sense of your numbers.

For the big horsepower catagories, I will play along with your including Unknown as assuming larger than 250HP.

With 1376 injures on 2826 vessels, 48.7% injury rate. How many commercial fishing vessels have injuries every year that require Coast Guard assistance?

Of those 2826 vessels, 245 deaths, 11.5% death rate.

Now for the no horse power catagory.

With 193 injuries on 325 vessels, 59.4% injury rate. If you are paddling alone than the chances are not in your favor. If there are two of you in your canoe the chances are still not is your favor. Does the Coast Guard track injuries occuring in a canoe valued at less than $2000.00

Of those 325 vessels, 171 deaths, 52.6% death rate. Might want to have 3 people in your boat if you want to improve your odds.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post
4)And finally:

Paraphrasing President Obama, we Supporters have only "skin in this game". However, this Supporter observes that at least one Opponent has a multi-million dollar financial stake "in this game".

Where is the "I recuse myself from this discussion" button?

What do we forum members think about the incentive for postings where genuine "skin" is not involved—but dollars are?

(Anybody?)
What are you talking about the Marine Patrol and there budget?

Last edited by jmen24; 11-13-2009 at 02:55 PM.
jmen24 is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 07:25 AM   #87
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,493
Thanks: 929
Thanked 433 Times in 317 Posts
Default "Save the Kayakers"

What's gratifying to me is that so many of my points have gone unargued.

1) That racing 2- or 3- abreast across the Broads—especially while observing the 150-rule—intimidates,
2) The catharsis that comes with a "Final Statement". (That very few here did when given the opportunity),
3) No smaller state with more frozen water exists,
4) My quote went unchallenged: "We all know that there will always be boats at anchor and always be oversized boats with 'tipsy drivers', so my answer will be, that 'there will always be death on the water'".
5) That Lt. Dunleavey's quote on alcohol on board is re-quoted. (Since 2004, btw, and alcohol-use aboard is increasing).

I never keep/carry alcohol on board, and can't recall any of my neighbors doing so, either! (Ashore?—on porches—on sun decks—on docks—yes!)

Quote:
What are you talking about the Marine Patrol and there budget?
1) No, a brand-new Nor-Tech brought to Winnipesaukee each season by an Opponent of the Speed Limit!

2) By "skin", I mean MY literal skin!

Quote:
How many commercial fishing vessels have injuries every year that require Coast Guard assistance?
The only C.G. stats here concern recreational boating ONLY.

Quote:
I must say that I am flattered by this...
Check that provided hyperlink again.

Quote:
I will play along with your including Unknown as assuming larger than 250HP.
Then you'll be "playing along" with where the Coast Guard chose to place it.

Quote:
If you are paddling alone than the chances are not in your favor. If there are two of you in your canoe the chances are still not is your favor. Does the Coast Guard track injuries occuring in a canoe valued at less than $2000.00?
1) The Coast Guard tracks only those collisions and injuries that are reported to state authorities. They state that 40% are NOT reported.

2) Since I know how to wear a baseball cap, I have no difficulty in seeing a kayaker—whatsoever, but the odds between the speedboat and the paddler are seldom in favor of the paddler.

Quote:
"...I cannot for the life of me understand why. You are so completely hung up on boats running ashore and killing someone..."
With all of the accounts of docks being cut across—and passengers killed/ejected—it's only a matter of time. Will you be going on record—anytime soon—that it can't happen?


Quote:
I agree that the night limit, as low as it is, would make it easy to weed out the cowboys. I wonder when that starts to happen? You can be a walking, talking, posting contradiction. If I added the above to all previous posts of what's wrong on the water, nobody would be left. Except yourself?
Knowing what you know about the MP budget, exactly how much do you expect from the MP's, night or day.
1) Thank you for re-posting most my "final statement" from the exact place to do a first-order catharsis—"Final Statements". (Rancor originates from those who have NOT posted a "Final Statement").

2) If there are contradictions, I don't see them.

3) As I have done with other, far-more-intense law enforcement agencies, I have the necessary details to ride with the NHMP next season: I'll let you know how that goes.

Quote:
I read through this post in it's entirety yesterday and again today...I don't know what you're looking at
I threw myself off by changing my focus from horsepower (my first post) to speed (the second and third): horsepower is correct.

Member jmen24 seems to captured the core of my thoughts on horsepower the best. Maybe it's more clear now?

That "silly picture" that I see every day on the Lake...follows:
__________________
.Sailing—Good for you and good for the world...

...and you won't stink...
ApS is offline  
Old 11-14-2009, 01:30 PM   #88
DEJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 328
Thanks: 242
Thanked 179 Times in 80 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post
What's gratifying to me is that so many of my points have gone unargued.
It is possible some have you on ignore.
DEJ is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to DEJ For This Useful Post:
Winnigirl (11-19-2009)
Old 11-14-2009, 01:50 PM   #89
OCDACTIVE
Senior Member
 
OCDACTIVE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Myers FL / Moultonboro
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 444
Thanked 573 Times in 178 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DEJ View Post
It is possible some have you on ignore.
not as much as someone else...
__________________
Have you had your Vessel Inspected Yet?
OCDACTIVE is offline  
Old 11-15-2009, 08:39 PM   #90
jmen24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 1,139
Thanks: 223
Thanked 318 Times in 181 Posts
Default

APS, missed my point? I will simplify my thank you comment.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...&postcount=263

Now you know how the rest of us feel.
jmen24 is offline  
Old 11-19-2009, 12:17 PM   #91
Skipper of the Sea Que
Deceased Member
 
Skipper of the Sea Que's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: 1/2 way between Boston & Providence
Posts: 573
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 32
Thanked 55 Times in 22 Posts
Arrow Coast Guard Statistics involving slow boats

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
To those citing the Coast Guard data, I hate to burst your bubble, but the fatalities are categorized by the speed of the boat the victim was in...usually the slower-moving smaller boat, such as the kayaker who got run over by a speeding performance boat. Since the kayaker was standing still, that fatality is listed as "0-10 MPH". The speed of the speedboat is not recorded unless one of its passengers was killed too. This might seem obvious, given that it is hard for someone standing still to cause a deadly collision, so seeing all those deaths at 0-10MPH should have clued. ...
Clue: not all accidents, injuries or fatalities are the result of collisions and not all accidents resulted in reportable injuries or fatalities.

Ever been in a sailboat at the dock when the sail fills with wind and the boom swings over the boat clobbering anyone in the path? Just one example. There are many more accidents involving boats not moving or traveling less than 10 mph that have no involvement with speeding boats. Ever been in a rowboat when the oar slips out of the oarlock and smashes a passenger? Tip over in a canoe or kayak? Get a foot caught in an anchor line as it is deployed... and etc..

I'm sure you hate bursting bubbles . Let's look at the other data from the USCG statistics.

How about the other category, VESSELS INVOLVED.
Let's look at the number of ALL recreational boats Involved in accidents. Remember this is for all bodies of water, lakes, oceans, rivers and etc.

917 boats NOT MOVING were involved in accidents.

1522 boats traveling under 10 mph were INVOLVED in accidents.

1064 boats traveling between 10 and 20 mph were involved in accidents.

970 incidents involved boats going between 21 and 30 mph.

Only 176 boats going over 40 mph were involved in accidents (I'll bet some of those were under the Speed Limit of 45 mph).

1698 boats with unknown speeds were involved in accidents.

6347 TOTAL boats involved in accidents in all known and unknown speed categories.

So, removing the fatality and injury reporting provisions these statistics indicate that speed is NOT involved with the vast majority of boating accidents.

Q.E.D.

See the chart again, if you wish, HERE.
__________________



Amateur HAM Radio What is it? You'll be surprised. When all else fails Ham Radio still works.
Shriners Hospitals providing specialized care for children regardless of ability to pay. Find out more or refer a patient.
Skipper of the Sea Que is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Skipper of the Sea Que For This Useful Post:
OCDACTIVE (11-19-2009), Ryan (11-19-2009)
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.35582 seconds