Compromise???

[codeman671]

How many here would settle for going with a 25mph night time speed limit and changing the daytime law to more of a safe and prudent speed depending on conditions? Any thoughts on this? I think it is a decent compromise.

While we are on the subject of compromise what about noise? Woodsy brought up topics in the past of switchable exhaust as have I. Many performance (and family) boats come with the option or can be retrofitted with a silencing exhaust. Why does the state outlaw these??? Its legal to run open (as long as you are under the decible limit) and it is legal to exhaust out the prop, why not be able to switch between depending on conditions? As long as both sides meet the decible limit who cares???

One last thought, why not have mandatory boat inspections? The automobiles have to go through it. I am no fan of giving money away to the state but it would be another avenue of revenue (put it to the schools instead of stuffing us on property taxes!) and another layer of protection for those on the water as well as something to help curb noise infractions.

There has to be some more to compromise on somewhere...

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by codeman671

How many here would settle for going with a 25mph night time speed limit and changing the daytime law to more of a safe and prudent speed depending on conditions? Any thoughts on this? I think it is a decent compromise....There has to be some more to compromise on somewhere...

I am told that there were numerous offers for compromise last spring, all offered by the SL supporters and all rejected out of hand by NHRBA. I seem to recall they had a logo that had a red circle around and a line through the word "Limits". Compromise was not one of their considerations. Not even 100MPH..."No Limits" was the cry. Of course, the SL supporters do not have that authority anyway. Keep in mind that the mostly Republican RR&D Committee did not just recommend HB162, they made it stricter and broader...then recommended it. It's their bill now.
Besides, this is kind of like the convicted murderer saying "Now I'll consider that plea bargain you offered". The time for negotiating a settlement agreement is before you get a judgement.
Of course, anything can happen in Concord...this time. But the tide has turned for good on limitless no-rules boating on Lake Winnipesaukee. It has been made clear that there are huge problems which current laws and current MP strategies are not solving, and that it is time for drastic changes. And the State surely now recognizes the huge amount of liability it would have if it did nothing in view of all that was brought to its attention this summer. The Committee's findings that dangers exist cannot be hidden or undone.
I read where one of the Supreme Court justices in the Littlefield case expressed disbelief that Winnipesaukee did not have any speed limit. Imagine the punitive damages that the family of the next fatality will collect from NH's taxpayers (me and you) when the civil case against the State comes before that court, if the legislature has blown this issue off again this time.

[jrc]

I'm sure Skip will know the real answer, but I don't think you can effectively sue the state for not passing a law.

What legislators fear is not getting re-elected, so you can find yours at:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/whosmyleg/

most of them have email and phone numbers, let them know how their vote will effect your vote.

BTW all the signs I saw had the red circle and slash through the letters HB-162 not the word limits.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by codeman671

How many here would settle for going with a 25mph night time speed limit and changing the daytime law to more of a safe and prudent speed depending on conditions?

I think most contientious boaters would agree with a 25-MPH night time limit, although many of California inland waters have very low night-limits, including no-wake-at-night. (California, where trends start).

"Reasonable and Prudent" seldom passes the "unconstitutionally-vague" test. We've already seen how a "mere" kayaker can seek a remedy on a Marine Patrolman's charge of "no-PFD-on-board" at the NH Supreme Court.

"Reasonable and Prudent" would be very short-lived -- triggered as soon as the first well-heeled speedboater was cited.

Originally Posted by codeman671

Woodsy brought up topics in the past of switchable exhaust as have I...As long as both sides meet the decible limit who cares???

There are already switchable exhausts on Winnipesaukee: I've observed them being switched...off and on and off and on...in our residential neighborhood. The MPs just haven't caught them -- as yet.

The whole "switchable" idea is to make lots of noise at times. Unless you've been away for 20 years, there's a lot more Winnipesaukee'ers to irritate now.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by jrc

I don't think you can effectively sue the state for not passing a law.

I never said anything about suing the State "for not passing a law". Under that scenario, the class action lawyers (sorry Skip) would be suing every legislature in the country every time a law did not go through.

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

I am told that there were numerous offers for compromise last spring, all offered by the SL supporters and all rejected out of hand by NHRBA. I seem to recall they had a logo that had a red circle around and a line through the word "Limits". Compromise was not one of their considerations.

I'm qualified to speak on behalf of NHRBA and there were no compromises suggested to us. Nice try to supply incorrect information to the annoymous readers out there. We did our research on the reasoning behind the bill and decided not to support. We understand there are issues on the lake, we just have a difference in opinion on ways to address them. And the red circle had HB162 in it, NOT speed limits, again, nice try.

[Taz]

Fat Jack, your full of it. There were no compromises offered by SL supporters

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

There are already switchable exhausts on Winnipesaukee: I've observed them being switched...off and on and off and on...in our residential neighborhood. The MPs just haven't caught them -- as yet.

Yes, we all are aware that they exist but why are they illegal? If the decible levels are met when open why not be able to quiet further??? You didn't give a reason why other than stating the obvious-their existence. Some of the dealers will still sell them on brand new boats even though they are illegal. No names mentioned...

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

I read where one of the Supreme Court justices in the Littlefield case expressed disbelief that Winnipesaukee did not have any speed limit. Imagine the punitive damages that the family of the next fatality will collect from NH's taxpayers (me and you) when the civil case against the State comes before that court, if the legislature has blown this issue off again this time.

While we are at it once again why do you feel the need to toss Littlefield in here? Is that all you people really have to go on??? A speed limit would not have prevented it. Period. An argument that the Baja should not have been on the lake and that a speed limit would have kept it off the lake is equally ridiculous.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by codeman671

How many here would settle for going with a 25mph night time speed limit and changing the daytime law to more of a safe and prudent speed depending on conditions? Any thoughts on this? I think it is a decent compromise.

While we are on the subject of compromise what about noise? Woodsy brought up topics in the past of switchable exhaust as have I. Many performance (and family) boats come with the option or can be retrofitted with a silencing exhaust. Why does the state outlaw these??? Its legal to run open (as long as you are under the decible limit) and it is legal to exhaust out the prop, why not be able to switch between depending on conditions? As long as both sides meet the decible limit who cares???

One last thought, why not have mandatory boat inspections? The automobiles have to go through it. I am no fan of giving money away to the state but it would be another avenue of revenue (put it to the schools instead of stuffing us on property taxes!) and another layer of protection for those on the water as well as something to help curb noise infractions.

There has to be some more to compromise on somewhere...

First I hope we all can use this thread to post potential, alternate ideas. May I propose we post them under this thread (perhaps islander can repost his/her alternate concept here) and not other places just so they are easy to find, read and digest. But I'm afraid that until there's a bit more discussion on what the end goal is there won't be much concensus, still it's a good idea I think. I'll post some of mine when I get more of chance. I have some experience in brainstorming sessions and while I'm not sure we on this forum can hold to the good practices of one of these, I like to see a go of it.

As for noise ... while I think that's a component of the whole discussion may I ask that we hold that for just a bit (for a few days). There's enough on the table for the moment. Boat inspections might be a good idea to keep that boat owner safe but I think the whole HB-162 debate is more about keeping "you" safe from "me", not "me" from myself.

How about it people ?

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by codeman671

A speed limit would not have prevented it.

We'll never know that, will we? But if he had been going under 25MPH and the victim was still killed, you guys would not have to face this argument. It's not our fault he was going so fast. I am just thankful that he was not going 70 (as many of you are still arguing for the "right" to do), or I suppose we would still be finding little pieces of the whole victim's family washing up on shore. (Sorry if this was a bit too graphic, but it needed to be said).

Besides. I did not "bring up" the Littlefield matter...I bought up something a SC judge said during the appeal. It's not my fault this happened at the Littlefield appeal. Does that make it off-limits? It would have been just as relevant had it been said by another SC judge in any other case. The statement had nothing to do with Littlefield. You are the one who keeps digging into the incident and somehow trying to use it to prove a speed limit is unrelated.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Taz

There were no compromises offered by SL supporters

Ask Custie Crampton. Isn't he the NHRBA leader? He's supposedly a stand-up guy, so I'm sure he will be straight with you about what went on. I'm told (and this is just my opinion from what I've heard) that he simply did not think there was any way you guys could lose with all the money you had (and Whalley) backing you, so he to figured there was no need to sit down. I'm surprised he did not tell you all what was going on last spring. Not my fault.

Originally Posted by Taz

Fat Jack, your full of it.

I told myself I'd chime in on this forum only until it got hostile and offensive again. That seems to be the MO for your group. When someone disagrees with you or makes valid points that hurt you, you get nasty. I'm not going to be called a liar. You guys can go back to discussing the matter amongst yourselves now. At least that way, you are sure to win the "debate".
It was fun.
Bye

[ApS]

OK, here's the compromise:

BAN ALL BOATS (the first time I've used "ban", incidentally ) whose insurance premiums for civil liability would exceed the dollar-settlement paid out in Littlefield's Lake Winnipesaukee "incident".

We can use Lloyd's of London low rates (they have lots of co-insurers) for a standard comprehensive premium rate chart.

It would be easy to determine for the boat owner...and also easy for the MPs in their determinations.

Codeman671 started this thread looking for a compromise: this one's issue-neutral!

What say you?

[Fat Jack]

One last post to address Winnilaker's assertion that there was never an offer to discuss a compromise. I'll do that with a question;

What NHRBA/Winnilakers founder wrote the following in an email to a Winnfabs officer last April (long before the hearings and at the infancy of the Winnfabs movement), after that officer had made an invitation for a sit-down to discuss a compromise solution?

" Your explaination of winnfabs helps and I conclude that I cannot support nor do I wish to communicate with them... maybe we should just go our separate ways until this speed limit passes or fails... I think it would be best for you to spend energy on winnfabs and I on nhbra. "

Want a hint?

I think you guys (like Nomar) just put your faith in the wrong guy.

Now, as the late great Graucho Marx once said, I must be going.

[winnilaker]

FJ,
Please inform me and everyone of the compromises brought to NHRBA. I have never met with anyone from winnfabs (except for Rusty and that was just an intro), the hearings where the first time I even put a face to some of the names I heard. I had some random communications with one of Winnfab's more extremists, but in no way was it some constructive attempt to compromise and I have all the emails saved to prove it. I would have expected a call or a meeting from Sandra or someone else of logical authority. I was invited to a Winnfabs meeting and after personal attacks against me, I discussed it with our members and decided not to.

Below is my response to that individual (dated 4/23/2005)
"Your explaination of winnfabs helps and I conclude that I cannot support nor do I wish to communicate with them. My reasons are simple, I don't wish to be linked to a secret society with its only purpose to push the speed limit through. That's not my intention with nhrba and will only damage its reputation. So what if the speed limit passes, and the next year a falatility happens when the boater was going 35. Where will winnfabs be then? Well nhrba goals will be to accept any passed laws but continue to make boating safer. So I'm in for the long haul and making an association with winnfabs is not in nhrba's best interest."

So don't start with false accusations against me, I have already had false accusations of me before. After a quick phone with Meredith's police chief, it got cleared up pretty fast.

And I really get discouraged when individuals as yourself, state one thing as FACT and in the next sentence you write "what I've heard". If you don't know, which you obviously don't, please save us the annoyance and not post it.

Custie

I have the facts if anybody wants to know them, so please go ahead and contact me at custie@nhrba.com

[Aubrey]

Last January, when HB162 got started, I tried to come up with a compromise. I thought a speed limit was OK but that 45/25 was to low. I posted and talked to people about a 60/30 limit. There was some talk of a 65 limit.

Every compromise was shot down out of hand. We were told that a 100 MPH limit was not acceptable or even 200 MPH. It was "NO LIMITS!".

I think a lot of support could have been raised, even in winnfabs, for a higher limit. But the leaders of the no limit crowd thought they smelled victory. So now we are all going to be stuck with a speed limit that is to low!

[fatlazyless]

Very interesting posts, Mr Fat Jack. I especially like the info relating to the NHRB attitude 'with our finacial backing, how can we lose' and 'no, why should we negotiate with WinnFabs?'

I have no idea who is my state representative, but when the time for a vote is near I will let him/her know my feelings about HB162.

Voting yes on HB162 with a 45day/25night mph speed limit is what's needed to help cure the Winnipesaukee fear factor. And let's not forget, 45mph is hardly a slow speed for a boat.

[Jan]

I'm not going to argue with anyone but I want to say that I also support HB162. I also would support a compromise. 60/30 would be acceptable to me.

[chase1]

Originally Posted by Aubrey

Last January, when HB162 got started, I tried to come up with a compromise. I thought a speed limit was OK but that 45/25 was to low. I posted and talked to people about a 60/30 limit. There was some talk of a 65 limit.

Every compromise was shot down out of hand. We were told that a 100 MPH limit was not acceptable or even 200 MPH. It was "NO LIMITS!".

I think a lot of support could have been raised, even in winnfabs, for a higher limit. But the leaders of the no limit crowd thought they smelled victory. So now we are all going to be stuck with a speed limit that is to low!

Aubrey,

Can you tell me what your position is now. It seems you disagree with limits proposed by HB162 yet you supported it.

I don't get it..

Chase1

[ApS]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Voting yes on HB162 with a 45day/25night mph speed limit is what's needed to help cure the Winnipesaukee fear factor. And let's not forget, 45mph is hardly a slow speed for a boat.

Originally Posted by Jan

I also would support a compromise. 60/30 would be acceptable to me.

With all due respect, 60 is a very high speed over water.

This summer on Lake Michigan two fatalities occurred when the occupants were thrown out at that speed -- witnessed by a Coast Guard boat.

Their shoes, PFDs, and all their clothes were torn off by impact with the water. The two drowned.

[SIKSUKR]

As I've stated in other threads,read carefully the main opposing views and it becomes clear which side reacts from scare and emotion and which will discuss facts calmly reasonably.It seems clear to me.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by codeman671

While we are at it once again why do you feel the need to toss Littlefield in here? Is that all you people really have to go on??? A speed limit would not have prevented it. Period. An argument that the Baja should not have been on the lake and that a speed limit would have kept it off the lake is equally ridiculous.

August 20th, after drinks, a marina owner takes out his Baja 38 -- at night -- and speeds into the rear of a family boat with fatal results. He claims that their stern lights were out but is charged with manslaughter anyway, as death occurred.

Littlefield?

Nope.

Mark Tournillon.

How many more "facts" are needed to get a speed limit?

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/xp-30311

[Skip]

.....when first we practice to deceive.....

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

...How many more "facts" are needed to get a speed limit?....

Once again, you should read closely the material you reference for its correct application in the debate confronting us.

For those of you that would like the Reader's Digest version of this tragedy, it is as follow:

Mark Tournillon, a Florida boater boating (but where else) in Florida struck another boat on August 20th killing several people. It is alleged that he was travelling approximately 60 MPH in his performance boat when the collision occured.

Unfortunately what Madrasahs forgot to stress is that Tournillon had a BAC of 0.12, well above the legal limit of .08 BAC. Oh, and he also forgot to tell you that the night of the crime, Tounillon also admitted he had taken the drugs Lortab & Naprosyn that day. By the way, both drugs can cause dizziness or drowsiness and are not to be taken with alcohol. And for those of you that may be wondering, it is universally recognized that Florida has what some believe to be the second toughest Boating While Intoxicated regulations in the country!

As always, the devil is in the details.....

By the way, when Tournillon goes to trial one of the things he will not be charged with is speed. You see, speed becomes one of the many elements of the operting while intoxicated charge.

So let's add it up. Tournillon gets spiked up on a narcotic and another drug, mixes them with a copious amount of alcohol and gets behind the wheel of the boat, already committing several misdemeanor offenses. And we are now to believe that if he had been obeying a speed limit (by the way, haven't even bothered to see if a speed limit applied here, as it really isn't applicable to this debate) that this would have prevented this collision?

If the misdemeanor offenses he committed prior to slamming into the other boat were not enough incentive to keep him from being on the water in the first place, how in God's name would a speed limit made any difference?

There were plenty of laws in place that should have deterred this fool from getting behind the wheel of any type of vehicle. To claim otherwise, especially inferring that an enacted speed limit would have been the deterrent necessary to prevent this not only is completely absurd, but in my opinion shows a complete lack of sensitivity towards the victims and their family involved in this horrendous crime .

Bah Humbug,

Skip

[Resident 2B]

After reading much of the debate over the past year without taking a position or making a post, and in addition boating this spring and summer on the lake in a 23' bowrider observing first hand the boating environment on our lake, I have concluded that speed is a very minor factor in almost all situations I have seen or read about.

The only answer to 'Why did Captain Bonehead create such a dangerous situation?' has almost nothing to do with speed, but always is related to the lack of good decision making, for one reason or another.

I pay a lot in NH property taxes because I have lake front property, but I do not have a NH vote. If I did, I would oppose any speed limit and look for better enforcement of the existing laws and increased education requirements for all boaters on the lake. I wish the state would spend some of the money they collect from non-voting people like me on boater education for boaters and improved law enforcement through more MP officers.

We must use more common sense on the lake, because a lack of common sense is Unsafe at any Speed!

[chase1]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

August 20th, after drinks, a marina owner takes out his Baja 38 -- at night -- and speeds into the rear of a family boat with fatal results. He claims that their stern lights were out but is charged with manslaughter anyway, as death occurred.

Littlefield?

Nope.

Mark Tournillon.

How many more "facts" are needed to get a speed limit?

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/xp-30311

Acres per Second,

More.....I would like to see one fact for a start. This accident does prove we need current laws regarding BWI and navigation lighting. Possibly legislation in these areas is not strict enough.

Should everyone be required to update to a 2mile Stearn light??? Should MP do random stops for BWI???

In this situation funds set for speed limit enforcement would have been ill spent, however the same budget increase may have had a chance to prevent this accident if allocated toward better enforcement of current regulations.

Chase1

[SIKSUKR]

I don't know if MP has the authority to check for DWI or enforce it.I think that may fall into the hands of the local town.They might be able to hold someone till the local police arrive and administer a sobriety test.Skip could probably speak to this issue.

[Bear Islander]

The Marine Patrol is part of the Department of Safety, just like the State Police. They can and do enforce BWI laws. I have sat on my dock and watched the MP give sobriety tests to boaters.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

...I don't know if MP has the authority to check for DWI or enforce it...

The Marine Patrol officers have full authority to enforce boating while intoxicated provisions and make arrests when applicable. I have provided below the RSA conveying that and other authority the MP officers have for everyones review.....

Merry Christmas,

Skip

TITLE XXII
NAVIGATION; HARBORS; COAST SURVEY
CHAPTER 270
SUPERVISION OF NAVIGATION; REGISTRATION OF BOATS AND MOTORS; COMMON CARRIERS BY WATER
Administration and Enforcement
Section 270:12-a
270:12-a Enforcement Powers Conferred. –
I. The director of the division of safety services and his duly authorized representatives shall have all the powers of a peace officer in all counties of the state in the enforcement of:
(a) The provisions of this chapter and the rules adopted hereunder;
(b) The provisions of RSA 270:48-a, relative to the operation of boats by a person under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled drug or other unlawful operation of boats thereunder and all other crimes and offenses occurring on the public bodies of inland waters of the state;
(c) The provisions of RSA 637:9, relative to unauthorized use of a motor boat or any boat or vessel propelled by sail or a paddle;
(d) The provisions of RSA 642:1, relative to interfering with a public servant;
(e) The provisions of RSA 642:6, relative to escape from official custody; and
(f) The provisions of Title LXII when:
(1) A violation of such title occurs on an island to which access is provided only by boat when no representative of any other law enforcement agency with jurisdiction is immediately available to handle a complaint of violation and the safety of persons or property requires immediate action;
(2) A trespass violation is committed on land adjacent to a body of water by a person who used a boat as his means of transportation or who left his boat to come ashore; or
(3) Requested to render assistance to another peace officer having jurisdiction in the area.
I-a. The director of safety services and his duly authorized representatives shall be authorized to call upon any peace officer to render assistance to them in the performance of their duties and shall render assistance to any peace officer having jurisdiction in the area when so requested.
II. [Repealed.]
III. The director of the division of safety services shall adopt rules pursuant to RSA 541-A prescribing the type and amount of training required for his duly authorized representatives to perform their duties under this section.
IV. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, the jurisdiction of marine patrol officers shall extend to any body of water, whether natural or man-made, within the state's jurisdiction, including streams, rivers, and lakes or ponds having an area of at least 10 acres.
V. All vessels and their registered tender operating on New Hampshire's tidal waters shall comply with Coast Guard equipment requirements in 33 C.F.R. section 175 and 44 C.F.R. section 25, exclusively.
VI. (a) The commissioner of the department of safety, at the request of the United States Coast Guard in accordance with applicable federal law, shall to the extent of available staffing and resources authorize marine patrol officers to assist the United States Coast Guard in the enforcement of safety and security zones established by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port with jurisdiction over New Hampshire. Marine patrol officers so authorized may take all action necessary to assist the Coast Guard in enforcing security and safety zones to the extent authorized by the Coast Guard, including exercising the power of arrest.
(b) The department of safety, prior to engaging in the activities authorized by this paragraph, shall enter into a memorandum of agreement with the United States Coast Guard that establishes the appropriate procedures and protocols for enforcement activities authorized by this paragraph. Any funds received from the federal government for reimbursement to the department of safety under this paragraph shall be deposited in the navigation safety fund established under RSA 270-E:6-a.
(c) The commissioner of the department of safety may establish a safety and security zone on any public or coastal waters of the state in case of an emergency requiring prompt action.

[BroadHopper]

Interesting. I remember MP stopping sailboats and found the skipper intoxicated. They may tow them in but I have not seen one arrested. I was under the assumption that the vehicle has to be motorized.

Skip. under this provision, shouldn't they be arrested????

[Bear Islander]

Thanks Skip

Since Title LXII is the criminal code, this gives the Marine Patrol the power to enforce the Criminal Code on unbridged islands. I always assumed they could, but now I know why.

(f) The provisions of Title LXII when:
(1) A violation of such title occurs on an island to which access is provided only by boat when no representative of any other law enforcement agency with jurisdiction is immediately available to handle a complaint of violation and the safety of persons or property requires immediate action;
(2) A trespass violation is committed on land adjacent to a body of water by a person who used a boat as his means of transportation or who left his boat to come ashore; or
(3) Requested to render assistance to another peace officer having jurisdiction in the area.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Skip. under this provision, shouldn't they be arrested????

RSA 270:48a
I. No person shall operate or attempt to operate a boat while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a controlled drug or any combination of intoxicating liquor and a controlled drug...

And

RSA 270:48
...""Boat'' means and includes every type of watercraft used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on the water...

I half remember a story about people in a canoe being charged with BUI. Or was it they avoided BUI, by jumping in the water and wading with canoe to shore. I guess there must be a definition of "operate or attempt to operate" somewhere. It doesn't seem to apply if your tied to a dock, how about anchored?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Interesting. I remember MP stopping sailboats and found the skipper intoxicated. They may tow them in but I have not seen one arrested. I was under the assumption that the vehicle has to be motorized.

Skip. under this provision, shouldn't they be arrested????

Interesting observation.

You will find some discrepancies in the various RSAs covering this subject.

For instance, if you are convicted of DWI the statute says you specifically lose your right to operate a motorized boat. A motorized boat in NH is a craft that has any means of mechanized propulsion available, whether that propulsion is the main source or not.

There is no case law I can find specifically addrssing your question. However, reading the various RSAs and delving in to the legislative intent, I think you will find it was the desire of the Legislature to limit prosecution to mechanized vessels. It would be very interesting to see the outcome of a rowboat or canoe prosecution. I do know that for years it was thought that you could be successfully prosecuted for DWI on a bicycle, but recent case law has dispelled that notion. However, folks have been prosecuted for operating drunk on mechanized alternative sources of transportation, a riding lawn mower being one case I recall.

So, if they were small sailboats with no motors, perhaps the officers were utilizing there comprehension of the statute as I have laid out above. I believe a sharp defense attorney will argue that the legislative intent, given the ambiguous language in the law, was to restrict enforcement to mechanized vessels.

But remember, being drunk in a canoe or other small boat is about as deadly as it gets on the waterways in this country. With all the incessant talk about high speeds and performance boats, most people (by far) die every year in small craft, and many by the simple act of drowning. And like motor vehicle accidents that take place on our highways, alcohol & drugs are involved in a lion's share of these needless fatalities!

Finally, as I have been forgetfull in stating in my last several posts, these thoughts expressed by me are my sole opinion. If in doubt, please contact your family attorney and/or the Marine Patrol for their expert opinions on the matters expressed!
Merry Christmas,

Skip

[Lakewinniboater]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

I don't know if MP has the authority to check for DWI or enforce it.I think that may fall into the hands of the local town.They might be able to hold someone till the local police arrive and administer a sobriety test.Skip could probably speak to this issue.

they absolutely do have the authority.

[jrc]

Once again Skip proves that although I can look up laws in Google, it doesn't always give the whole picture. I guess that's why we have law schools and lawyers.

[BroadHopper]

If the MP stop a sailboat and tow them in, I'm sure they had the rights to stop someone in any vehicle if the skipper seem unreasonable and unprudent. I've seen some sailboats on the lake that seems to be way out of control. Yet the law says they have right of way! Years ago we had one sailor in a 35 footer came across the Broads and smash right into a hugh boulder on our property! The sailor and 'crew' were all passed out! We called the local police who in turn call the MP. The ambulance took everyone to a hospital. The boat was destroyed and they had a barge with a crane remove it. Nothing showed up in the court logs. Looks like they got away with it.

[ApS]

Skip: Mark Tournillon, a Florida boater boating (but where else) in Florida struck another boat on August 20th killing several people.

APS: Not Florida. Perhaps a closer read of the reference material is in order.

Skip: Once again, you should read closely the material you reference for its correct application in the debate confronting us.

APS: See above.

Skip: For those of you that would like the Reader's Digest version of this tragedy.

APS: At just four lines, I thought mine was the Reader's Digest version.

Skip: It is alleged that he was travelling approximately 60 MPH in his performance boat when the collision occured. Unfortunately what Madrasahs forgot to stress is that Tournillon had a BAC of 0.12, well above the legal limit of .08 BAC.

APS: Did I forget to mention that the night before he had run his boat at full speed through a "Sobriety Checkpoint" that the lake residents had requested? (Evading it -- and the MPs?)

Remind me to do a search on "arrogance" in the forum.

Skip: Oh, and he also forgot to tell you that the night of the crime, Tounillon also admitted he had taken the drugs Lortab & Naprosyn that day. By the way, both drugs can cause dizziness or drowsiness and are not to be taken with alcohol. And for those of you that may be wondering, it is universally recognized that Florida has what some believe to be the second toughest Boating While Intoxicated regulations in the country!

APS: Not Florida. See above.

Skip: By the way, when Tournillon goes to trial one of the things he will not be charged with is speed. You see, speed becomes one of the many elements of the operting while intoxicated charge.

APS: Like Winnipesaukee, there is no speed limit on that lake. (But they're working on it now).

I'd suggest going to www.sharkeymarine.com for a list of "Bad Boy" forums -- and see for yourselves just how "organized" they can become. Upon hearing of the deaths and a new speed limit, they formed a "Boating Organization", similar to NHRBA.

BTW: How old is NHRBA, anyway? Four months? I recall it was a "refreshed, but old, idea".

Skip: So let's add it up. Tournillon gets spiked up on a narcotic and another drug, mixes them with a copious amount of alcohol and gets behind the wheel of the boat, already committing several misdemeanor offenses. And we are now to believe that if he had been obeying a speed limit (by the way, haven't even bothered to see if a speed limit applied here, as it really isn't applicable to this debate) that this would have prevented this collision?

If the misdemeanor offenses he committed prior to slamming into the other boat were not enough incentive to keep him from being on the water in the first place, how in God's name would a speed limit made any difference?

APS: Without a speed limit law, there would be no legal "excess speed" provision -- just like New Hampshire stands today.

It was after Littlefield that we got a boating hit-and-run provision -- not before. Seems like it takes tragedies for New Hampshire to "catch up". For example, a child "under the supervision of an adult" can operate a speedboat, even if the adult is snockered. Remember?

Skip: There were plenty of laws in place that should have deterred this fool from getting behind the wheel of any type of vehicle.

APS: The only thing keeping him from getting behind the wheel was his back pain. His "Need for Speed" took him to the medicine cabinet and the liquor cabinet before boating.

BTW: Naprosyn (Naproxen) is an over-the-counter substitute for aspirin. There are no alcohol or sleep precautions on my container of Naprosyn.

Skip: To claim otherwise, especially inferring that an enacted speed limit would have been the deterrent necessary to prevent this not only is completely absurd, but in my opinion shows a complete lack of sensitivity towards the victims and their family involved in this horrendous crime

APS: We'd need to ask the victims that, wouldn't we?

We could still ask the family survivors how they'd have felt if there had been a speed limit enacted to net and identify arrogant speedboaters prior to these fatalities.

Skip: But remember, being drunk in a canoe or other small boat is about as deadly as it gets on the waterways in this country. With all the incessant talk about high speeds and performance boats, most people (by far) die every year in small craft, and many by the simple act of drowning. And like motor vehicle accidents that take place on our highways, alcohol & drugs are involved in a lion's share of these needless fatalities!

APS: The drunkest-drunk in a canoe doesn't threaten other boaters with a crushing Winnipesaukee death.

[Skip]

....to the reader, the crime being discussed here actually occurred on Smith Mountain Lake in Virginia. Florida was mentioned in one of the articles I read to discover the relevance of this cited case and while its no excuse (since most of the examples cited by the original poster stem from Florida) my mind made suffered a fatal "brain cramp" on location!

APS: Not Florida. Perhaps a closer read of the reference material is in order.

You are absolutely correct to scold me for this.....and I again apologize for the error.

APS: Did I forget to mention that the night before he had run his boat at full speed through a "Sobriety Checkpoint" that the lake residents had requested? (Evading it -- and the MPs?)]

Ah, but now being duly reminded to be more careful in my research, I once again return the favor to you. The offense you cite occurred more than a year earlier on the previous Fourth of July. And while it makes no difference to the gravity of the offense, the significant difference in time deflates the hyperbole of your example. See, we all make mistakes now, don't we? The question is, do we learn (or acknowledge) from our mistakes?

APS: Without a speed limit law, there would be no legal "excess speed" provision -- just like New Hampshire stands today.

It was after Littlefield that we got a boating hit-and-run provision -- not before. Seems like it takes tragedies for New Hampshire to "catch up". For example, a child "under the supervision of an adult" can operate a speedboat, even if the adult is snockered.

It is hard to reply to this paragraph, as the first part of it makes no sense. I will say that certain laws were addressed after the Littlefield crime. I don't blame it on negligence by the State or playing "catch up". I do believe that in contrast to your incessant claims that the sky is continuially falling the actual truth of the matter is the events that occurred were so rare for the State to deal with, it had not become as issue until then. We already have a significant amount of regulation in our lives, many believe too much. I can't even imagine what a criminal code would look like if it was pssible (or even desirable) to attach a State sanctioned penalty to every possible negative outcome in life! Perhaps that's why we have a State legislature that meeets and passes or reforms laws annually? Finally, I will not go in to the child operator issue, that is another thread and another topic, and suffice to say there are ample provisions in New Hampshire's RSAs to cover that contingency, despite your claim (and yet reference again to other States and other websites) to the contrary.

APS: The only thing keeping him from getting behind the wheel was his back pain. His "Need for Speed" took him to the medicine cabinet and the liquor cabinet before boating.

In my humble opinion that is an outrageous statement for you to make. But it is a fine example of emotional rhetoric that cheapens the intelligent debate many others are trying to have using Don's courtesy.

APS: BTW: Naprosyn (Naproxen) is an over-the-counter substitute for aspirin. There are no alcohol or sleep precautions on my container of Naprosyn.

I will remind you that every bottle carries a waning that usage can cause drowsiness or dizziness and comes with a specific warning about operating machinery. So, if you take a medicine that can cause drowsiness or dizziness and then consume alcohol (that will cause drowziness and dizziness) do you believe that two negatives can possibly cancel themselves out? Since the State of Virginia seems so concerned about the mixing of these items in the offenders blood, I'll leave that concern to their experts. I would only hope that you are not dismissing the mixing of these two chemicals as dangerous for that would be a tremendous and possibly fatal (as we have seen in the case you cited) diservice to the reader!

I could go on and attempt to match you in verbosity, but it does nothing to further the debate on this issue.

In closing it remains my opinion that your out of state example, given the elements of the crime, is not germane to the issue at hand and your assumptions surrounding the incident remain insensitive to the victims in this crime.

Merry Christmas,

Skip

[fatlazyless]

Like it says in their radio and newspaper advertisements; "Whether you have the need for speed, or just want a family cruiser, _______ Marine is the place to go." Talking about the need for speed......if you have it...then one of the friendly sales staff down at the _______ will be happy to proscribe the cure....a 32' Baja Outlaw.



.....hey, and don't forget going 45mph in a boat is hardly a slow speed. In fact for probably ninety five percent of the boats out on Winnipesaukee it is their very top speed, or way above their top speed.