Proposed Law
 

As the owner of a boat that will do well over 90 mph,this proposed law will do nothing to change the way I boat one bit. The majority of the time, I cruise around 45 mph . Other times, when conditions permit, I might go for a short, high speed run, whether it's 60,70 or more. Law or no law, you cannot stop the speeding and noise any more than you can on route 93. I will continue to boat as I always have. And, from what I have been told, even if I get issued a ticket, which is VERY unlikely, it can be fought and won. I have muffled my boat to comply to noise regulations and do observe all current boating laws. Unfortunately, I will not respect or comply with a speed limit on this lake. Good luck trying to enforce it.

Although you won't be able to hear us, we will be cheering like crazy when you go by.

Live free or die.

Thank you for your support. And, yes, live free or die!

If the 45/25 law actually gets passed in the new legislative session, why not set up a designated hi-speed area, since Winnipesaukee has a long and checkered history as a high speed type of a lake.

I suppose the big question is what area of the lake and for when?

Also, if it does pass, this forum will have lost its' biggest arguing issue in its' eleven year, forum history. We will definately need a new issue for us knuckleheads to argue over. The speed limits issue....it will be missed...

As a Wolfeboro hometown guy, waterskiing whiz. and a candidate, I wonder how Mitt Romney feels about the speed limits issue?

hmmmmmm
 

I do not think this would work or this should be done. IT would crowd certain parts of the lake and it was cause marine patrol to stay in that area inatead of patrolling the whole lake. Also a lot of people in that area will make a fuss. There should be no speed limit on the lake, this is letting the few spoil for many others. This is what Marine Patrol is here for, just like on Highways with the Highway Patrol

When the speed limit passes it will be too late to set up a "high-speed area" without passing another law.

Unlimited option
 

If a bill must pass, it should include a distance from shore qualifier. For example, the speed limit would only be set within 100 yards of a populated shoreline. The boat separation would also be increased to 100 yards when above 50 MPH - with the faster boat as the burdened one. No law should pass until it accounts for fast-safe travel.

Towards whom was your word "unfortunately" directed?

All the other ocean-racers? :confused:

Seems to me that (from the comments above) everyone has conceded that the Bill will pass ............. instead of continuing to fight vehemently, as the opposition continues to do !!

Happy (& Safe) New Year's to all.

The bill as attempted before will likely get a repeat of strong opposition. The democrats that help it pass are up for election next year so need to be careful they vote on the right side of the issue. A compromise that makes sense, is not based on fear, and allows safe-fast travel (day and night) might have a chance.

It's not that I feel that the bill will pass. It's just the fact it will be business as usual if it does pass. The speed and the noise will never go away. I would support a new law if it could be statistically proven that it was needed.And, as we all know, that is not the case here. In a world full of frivilous lawsuits and craziness, the last thing we need is to pass a another law based upon anything but the truth.

building Winni Sailing
 

There's something new in this legislative session that may sway the opinion of a few of the 400 state representatives and 24 state senators with regard to passing a 45day/25night speed limit.

If you read the Laconia Daily Sun news article in the nearby thread, building Winni Sailing, it mentions that the NH Dept of Parks & Recreation is on-board with the Lake Winnipesaukee Sailing Assoc, www.lwsa.org, to build a one million dollar plus, community sailing center on a lightly used end corner of the very terrific state beach at Ellacoya State Park in Gilford.

My question to all the 424 NH legislators is: can the new community sailing program safely be in operation in the same lake with a totally unlimited motorboat speed limit? Can 300+ young student sailers, age 8-16, learn to sail in sailboats ranging from 10' Optimist beginner boats to 14' day-sailers to 14' Lasers to 16' blind & handicapped-friendly, computer adapted boats, to a Hobi Cat (for the hot-shot 15 year-olds) and at the same time coexist with high speed motorboaters?

We are talking about 32-foot performance motorboats, namely the Baja Outlaw, that weighs 8000lbs and is equipped with dual engines totaling 1200hp; motorboats capable of going 80mph. A few can even go faster than 100mph.

Is this a safe situation, and how does the NH Dept of Parks and Recreation feel about this?

..............................

Want to help build the new Winnipesaukee community sailing facility at Ellacoya State Park?

Mail your tax deductible donation to

Lake Winnipesaukee Sailing
Association, Inc.
PO Box 7047
Gilford NH 03247

or you can donate online at http://www.lwsa.org//store/index.php?cPath=3

www.lwsa.org ......psssst....check out all the photos!
.....................

Now that's a cleverly worded stupid question. How about , is a blind sailor safe on ANY lake , with or without ANY other boats:confused:?
Perhaps they should do away with noise restrictions so the blind ones are aware of approaching boats:emb::emb:

Sending Lake Boats Offshore
 

A blind couple is circumnavigating the globe by sailboat as we write:

http://www.blindsailing.blogspot.com/

So "the blind ones" can do what? :confused:

Well more power to them. They obviously have more guts than common sense since too many "sighted" sailors have falled off the edge of the earth:(

Secondly , it dosen't mention if they are "Totally" blind , as in see nothing but black or "Legally" blind ,where you do have some vision. I certainly wouldn't want a totally blind person docking next to me:eek:.
A past co-workers wife was legally blind but with glasses like Coke bottle bottoms was fully functional.
The term "blind" , in and of itself and be misleading or misused to one advantage or to forward ones agenda and we both know it.
Perhaps blatantly exercise their right of way over any power vessel from a 3hp 10' dinghy to a 1200 hp Baja to the Sophie C or the Mount itself.






BTW Happy New Year. Hope 2008 goes as "fast" 2007 did for you:D

How is this any different than it's been for years? A few more sailboats on the lake isn't going to make much difference in the boating experience and it's pretty hard to get enough speed out of a sailboat to cause a deadly collision. I think the power boaters will be able to get out of the way of the novice teen sailors easily enough. I say build it as long as it's privately funded.

A 32 foot Baja with 2400 HP (pretty sure it's not a factory option) will go well over 100 MPH. Probably over 130. The latest Donzi 38 tops 110 with only 1400 HP, according to Boating Magazine.

Can they coexist? The answer is YES
 

First, let's dial back the hyperbole a bit.

The number of students expected FOR THE WHOLE YEAR is 300. They have courses for about 8 weeks. That averages out to around 35 students a week, a nice sized group but hardly a strain for a lake the size of Winnipesaukee that deals with thousands of boaters at a time.

And speaking of the size, is someone driving on Scenic Drive endangered by the higher level and speed of traffic on Lake Shore Road? Except for the the intersection of the roads I would guess that there is little threat to the drivers on Scenic Dr. because they are in separate locations. Similarly, if a powerboat follows the Mt Washington's route they are almost a mile from Ellacoya shore area, where I would guess most of the sailing training would be done. If the powerboat is in the broads, it is over 2 miles away from the Ellacoya shore. The only real threat might be if the powerboat buzzed the shoreline at high speed. Since this would break at least a half dozen existing laws I would think the Marine Patrol could deal with such a moron quite easily. Further, I would guess most power boaters, seeing a collection of sailboats would give them a very wide berth to avoid getting near them and having to drop to headway speed. I think the inexperienced sailors are in more danger of bumping into each other than running afoul of a powerboat. Why not simply flag the primary training zone and make it a restricted speed area?

Finally, although Baja's can be custom powered to run at very high speeds, the cost of such additional power would price the boat out of the range of the vast majority of people and would be a waste to have on Winnipesaukee where the opportunities to use such an extravagant boat would be limited. Are there really any boats on Winnipesaukee that can go much faster than 80 MPH? Talking about 100+ MPH boats on Winnipesaukee is like worrying about the problems of landing the space shuttle at Manchester airport. Yes, the shuttle exists and landing it puts a stain on the landing area. However, I don't think we need to worry about it landing in Manchester anytime soon.

I have been around novice Sunfish sailors many times. I have passed them at a distance at 55 MPH and cruised at headway speed through the middle of them when they were blocking a channel. No one had any problems. Why would an expanded sailing facility be any different?

Maybe I'll sign up for lessons when they get the new facility built. :D

Gee , imagine that...somebody made a misleading statement:rolleye2:
Here I thought there was going to be 300 out there all summer long.

Although I am not a huge fan of the speed limit, I do believe if done right and certain busy areas of the lake had limits we would be at a happy compromise. However it is people like pm203 here that are to blame for the current state of things. I hate people with the attitude of screw the system I am going to do what I want. That is a poor attitude. NH maybe the live free or die state, but everyone in the state has the right to do that in away that is comfortable to them. At 45 mph in area that you may feel isn't congested there are others who feel it is, and you make them nervous. What give you the right to make others nervous?

That what this is all about, people are so concentrated on themselves these days they forget to think about how what they do may affect others. This isn't a debate only over speed, it is a debate over everyone be able to be comfortable and enjoy the lake.

Now stepping off the platform about the rude, selfish behavior, to the one on enforcement. everyone better be careful, your boat maybe able to scream across the lake and they will have a hard time getting the radar on you. But remember this just like NH successfully put noise pollution control in place to quiet boats down. Most new boats have PCM units for the motors. Governing an engine has never been easier. In other words, Get caught once shame on you, get caught twice, shame on us, get caught three times, either have your boat governed, or never be caught on the lake again. I personally would not want to see it come to that, but remember people there is more then one way to skin the cat, all of which can be made legal by your friendly legislator.

Blowing off the law because you don't think it is enforceable is only going to tender the fire.

are they going to put a governer in my car if I get another speeding ticket???

Discomfort based on reality or phobia?
 

I'm sorry but I think this idea of "I get to censor your behavior just because I don't like it" is not acceptable. My mother is uncomfortable driving faster than 40 MPH. Should everyone on the highway be forced to slow to 40 MPH to make her comfortable? If my idea of enjoyment of the lake is buzzing around on jet skis does your dislike of jet skis allow you to say I can't use them? If you are going to make laws, I believe they should be based on emperical need for the law, not just people's feelings. If feelings is the the rational for law then no one in the 60's would have been allowed to have long hair, rock & roll would have been DOA, and gay people would still be locked in closets.

I agree that public and flagrant violation of law can not be accepted but we all "bend" speed limits. So a 45 limit would effectively be a 55 MPH enforced limit, similar to highways. However, unreasonable laws are always being protested either through behavior or through legal challenge. Laws aren't always right.

I wish we could measure the effects of poorly implemted and thought out laws. Obviously the biggest one was prohibition, where breaking the law and corruption was so common place that many people lost respect for the law.

But think of the 55 MPH national speed limit. Has any law hurt the prestiege and respect of the police than that? Think about how you felt about the police on 9/12/2001, now think about how you feel when there's one behind you when you're doing 65 MPH in a 55 MPH zone even though the highway designed for 70 MPH.

I don't want to think about the MP that way.

I niether totally agree or totally disagree with you Jeff. Which is what makes this such a hard issue. However I think the bigest problem is that niether side is willing to give any. Personally I feel there are very few parts of the lake where speed is a concern. And if it was regulated in those areas only then the rest of the lake would be wide open, I don't think I have ever been in the middle of the broads when I felt there should be a speed limit. However I have been around the Wiers, when a bad egg takes off out of the channel, and puts the hammer down. And I feel that a speed limit would give the Marine Patrol the ability to stop someone like that, who is 150 feet from everyone, with out having to pull them over on a judgement based call.
This is a complex issue, with no good answer however I think if both side hadn't sunk thier heels in, a good comprimised could have been brought forth. Instead the politicians will decide if it is all or nothing.......


Buy the way do I think 45 is the magical number....... no I don't.... if a speed limit is set I hope they review the number often, and raise it, much like the speed limit got raised on the highways.......if a lake wide limit is to be imposed I think something like 60, is more practical, but then again that also really segragates a certain class of boats, and is that really fair.

It is because they were on the right side of the issue that the bill exists at all.

I proposed a generous 130-MPH limit here that got rejected. :(

After several years of discussions, the compromise exists as a "three-year sunset" on the rule.

Surely the cult of high speed and death can keep Winnipesaukee's boaters safe for three years! :confused:

Magic number
 

Without revisting my prior comments on numbers, I'll say 2 things.

First I doubt any number will ever get reviewed for the same reason the highway limits haven't been reviewed. There's no desire to do so and every desire to avoid the whole issue. Neither the 45 on the lake nor the 55 on the highway had any safety related reasoning behind the number. The NMSL/55 wasn't even a safety issue when it was enacted, it was to save gas during the oil embargo of the time and was supposed to be temporary. We still have it, in reduced form, today.

Second the only reason the NMSL was watered down in the late 80's and then repealed in the mid 90's was due to massive non-compliance on the part of the driving public. Eventually despite all manner of statiscal manipulation to hide it, various "important" states were going to be found to not be in compliance and threatened with loss of Federal highway funds. The politicians weren't going to let this happen. Without politicians being threatening with loss of revenue I don't see any number imposed on the lake ever getting reviewed.

Cults
 

How many innocent people have been runover and killed these past 3 years ?

Alas I doubt we'll ever have a bill that saves us from the cult of hyperbole and vitriol. :(

Not that I think it is right because I don't...... the fact is they can..... and eventually I can see it happening......

Who's responsible, anyway?
 

1) Run over? Gee-golly...we have to look all the way back to August!

2) Or, I'll put it this way: More innocents than I want to wait for...to appear on "Google News Alerts". (Two photographers died in December celebrating this "Cult", btw.)

3) Killed? How far do we need to look?

Long Lake's high speed double-fatality would have been averted with any ten-year-old girl behind the wheel rather than some wealthy jerk out to prove that his chromosomes are more important than others'.

What do you propose be done about ocean-racers catapulting themselves 120-feet over your lakefront's property line?

4) Originally, I suggested that New Hampshire pass—then suspend—a speed limit indefinitely. Then reinstate it immediately upon the occurrence of a NH freshwater double-fatality attributable to a powerboat.

Had Long Lake adopted my proposal, that law would be in effect there today.

5) You forgot that the manufacturer themselves said that their own boat shouldn't be operating on Long Lake? :eek:

A photograph of Long Lake could be mistaken for many locations at Lake Winnipesaukee: how many Long Lake geographical-analogs are there in Lake Winnipesaukee—hundreds?

Empathy is what's missing here—this law didn't appear out of thin air.

Responsible citizens are putting the blame where it belongs: on the cult that took just ten years to turn a residential lake's boating environment into one of irritation, anxiety and anarchy.

Yup,here comes the unfounded and totally uncalled for scare tactics from the speed limit crowd.Can't people see through this verbal crap?

Master of the Obvious....
 

APS...

You are the master of the obvious! :laugh:

The sunset clause is clearly a ruse designed to get those legislators who might be on the fence about HB-847 onboard. Extending a sunset clause quietly is usually pretty easy to do...

This undisputable fact remains... the last fatality on Lake Winnipesaukee as the result of a boat on boat collision occurred after sunset at an approximate speed of 28MPH in..... (drum roll please) 2002! Almost 6 years ago! We have had 5 seasons of darn safe boating.... so why do we need a 3 year law?

The MP study/report clearly shows no need for a speed limit, and points out that there are some serious costs to be borne with HB-847... training, equipment, manpower (2 MP Officers required on radar boat), court costs etc... all this $$$ and effort for a 3 year Lake Winnipesaukee only law?

I think if the legislators were to impose a night time limit of 35MPH (1/2 hour before and after sunset) and leave the day alone you would probably find very little objection....


Woodsy

Down to two?
 

Lake Winnipesaukee's "Most-Experienced and Most-Educated Night-time Ocean-Racer" is out of jail now.

Using a legal technique that night known as "Hit and Run", he finessed the worst charge against him—and did it legally. Convicted only on the lesser charge, the proceeds of the civil law suit brought against him can only be termed as "modest".

Had the speed limit law been in effect then, the perp would be in jail for the commensurate number of years for the homicide. (An 84-year sentence was handed out in a similar ocean-racer crash, but that driver managed to kill everybody on the 31' cruiser he collided with.) :(

Maybe three years was asking too much of the cult. :rolleye1: Today's Concord Monitor is showing a two year sunset clause being considered.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...05/1037/NEWS04

????
 

How so? :confused: An ESTIMATED 28mph speed at the time of the accident could not be proven in a court of law. It certainly was not enough to warrant a claim that he was grossly deviating from the speed limit. Had he been doing 40 or 50mph the outcome would have been different, and more proveable in court.

The facts however still remain the same. He was drunk and left the scene of a fatal accident. Honestly, even the "drunk" is hard enough to prove as he did not stick around long enough to blow.

According the the law that you are lobbying for, Dan was basically complying already. It was other laws that he was breaking. Failure to maintain proper lookout, BWI, leaving the scene, etc..

It always behooves to read the cited material....
 

:(As usual, the reference source provided does not make the argument intended.

The individual in Florida was sentenced to 84 years based on multiple convictions of manslaughter for six deaths induced by Boating While Intoxicated....

A close reading of the stories attached showed a belief that the individual was travelling most likely above the posted speed limit of 25 MPH but authorities agreed that in the narrow confines of the area of the crime that the vessel was not travelling anywhere near its maximum limits.

But again, the individual cited was convicted on manslaughter due to boating while intoxicated.

Also, the insinuation that operating at an estimated 28 MPH in the Littlefield case would have somehow equated to massive criminal penalties if a 25 MPH speed limit had been in effect shows a complete misunderstanding of how the criminal justice system works in New Hampshire. If the speed had been the contributing factor in the Littlefield collision the State already had an existing statute, the reckless operation RSA, that would have been invoked as a felony charge. Speed was not and still is not the contributing factor that caused the death in the Littlefield crime. The complete transcript of the original trial and the Supreme Court decision based on Littlefield's appeal is public record, and has been for years. Littlefield, although not found guilty of Boating While Intoxicated, was found guilty of the felony Failure to Maintain a Proper Lookout due in part to his consumption of alcohol on the night of the crime.

Finally, to equate the horrific crime in Florida (which the poster had to go back eleven years and thousands of miles to compare) in which six individuals were slaughtered versus the unnecessary death of one individual here in New Hampshire totally negates the ability to classify the two crimes and the resulting sentences as "similar".

A perfect example of how you can make a story SEEM to fit your agenda , right Skip?

And just what is the "Sunset Clause":confused:

Don't blame me! I spent alot of money to quiet my boat down and DO follow all current laws. In fact, when coming out of the Weirs channel, I usually go another 200 feet before attempting to get on plane. Meanwhile,most every other "family boat" has the throttles pegged as soon as they pass the markers. I am certainly one of the more courteous boaters on the lake. It just sickens me to see this proposed speed limit law even being considered! It has been shot down countless times, only to be brought back to life, over and over, by the same selfish, misguided group for no other purpose but to discriminate against a certain type of boat. And why?? They don,t like them. And, that is what is so wrong with this proposed law. Rep Pilliod and his Winnfabs friends should be very ashamed.

Speeding is a NON CRIMINAL offense
 

This assertion keeps coming up from proponents of a speed limit and it is simply nonsense.

This http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/PEOPLE/INJU...oc/nhspeed.pdf provides a summary of NH automotive speeding laws. While a boating speed limit has yet to be finalized I doubt the penalties would be more harsh than the automotive counterpart. Others are better at providing law quotes than I but I get the following information (my bolding).

Adjudication of Speed Law Violations:
Civil/Criminal Adjudication of Violation: All Speed Law Offenses are Violations.5 ''265:2 & 625:9, II(b)
Other:
Sanctions Following an Adjudication of a Speed Law Violation:
Criminal Sanctions:
Imprisonment:
Term (Day, Month, Years,
Etc.): None
Mandatory Minimum Term:
Fine:
Amount ($ Range): Not more than $1,000 '651:2, IV(a)
Mandatory Min. Fine ($): None
Other Penalties:
Traffic School: An offender may be required to attend a Driver Attitude Training program. '263:56-e
Other:
Licensing Action:
Type of Licensing Action
(Susp/Rev): I. Suspension via Court Order '263:57
II. Suspension via a Point System6 '263:56, I(c) & III
5
A violation is not classified as a crime. '625:9, II(b)


So in summary the worst anyone would get from a speeding violation is a non criminal fine of up to $1000 and possibly a suspended license.

I would venture to guess that Mr. Littlefield would have happily pleaded guilty to a speed limit violation and paid a $1000 fine rather than face the charges and penalties (felonies) he ended up with. It will not be something he will easily forget, versus a fine which would have been relatively trivial to him. He spent more talking to his lawyer for a few hours. Yes, he slipped past the BWI charge. Having a speed limit in place would have done NOTHING to change that.

If you look at automobile accidents involving speeding, the speeding charge is usually the least charge mentioned. Other charges carry far more weight and have criminal consequences. These laws already exist for boating plus additional ones and are what were used to convict Mr. Littlefield of his felony crimes.

Cult Values R NOT Us...
 

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

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

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

Somebody said "massive"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speed limits in canals? Who knew? :confused:

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

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

:rolleye2:

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

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

Don't let the verbiage cloud the facts.....
 

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

How so?

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

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

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

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

Simple and obvious as that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The accident that took place in FL occured in an inland canal (clearly a narrower place than Winnipesaukee) as they were approaching a no-wake zone. With concentrated traffic and manatees in abundance the boat was clearly going too fast for the environment. Oh, and wasn't alcohol involved??? :rolleye2: Maybe tougher BWI consequences would be a good place to focus efforts instead.

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