Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KonaChick
Here's a question for you all. Why do you have speed limits on the roads then? Don't they cut down on the number of fatalities and accidents? Wouldn't a speed limit on a body of water do the same thing?
|
Let's talk about speed limits on land for a minute. What purpose do you think they might serve ? I can name 2 up front. First they're there to prevent "you" from hitting "me" due to "your" excessive speed. Secondly they're there to prevent the driver from going too fast for the road and hurting themselves. Continuing on the latter point, it's not too hard to imagine a blind corner (or like) where, absent some signage, even an attentive driver could be going to fast to make the corner. For the most part, when people are talking about speed limits for the lake, this isn't the situation they're concerned about. Moreover, IMO, it's not the Govt's job to keep me safe from myself. If it want's to advise what to do then advise ... but don't restrict.
The first reason is (purportedly) why people are advocating for a speed limit. Back on land you have intersections and corners and hills and obstructions that limit a persons ability to see what lies ahead (and act accordingly). This reason plays a part in why the around town speed limits are lower than what we have on the highways. Coming back to the water there are parts of the lake that are comparable to being "around town" (think coming around L. Bear, btw Long I, near FL10) and other parts that are more "highway like" (think Broads). The 45 mph limit might be appropriate for the former but isn't, IMO, for the latter. What would you think if RT93 imposed a 45 mph, in all places at all times, just because a local road was connected to it* ? Or because sometimes it backed up enough due to traffic congestion that 45 mph made sense at those times ? In the latter case existing road speed laws holds that the
driver is supposed to exercise control an,d use speeds which are reasonable and prudent for the conditions. You can be stopped and cited for doing 50 mph on a road posted for 55 mph if the conditions are such that 50 is unreasonable. The problem I have with the proposed 45 mph limit is that it seeks to impose a "worst case" limit in all places and at all times that's overly restrictive. I understand Evenstar's concerns but I think she's safe at speeds far above the proposed 45 mph limit. This, and not pure luck and probability, is why boats, canoes and kayaks aren't being runover every weekend. I could go on but this is long enough for one post.
To answer your last question directly, we're already at the point where boat-boat collisions due to speed alone are essentially a random number in any given year. Pass a law and I don't see how it'll make any difference in the accident rate. The few boneheads who don't use good judgement today aren't going to be deterred by a speed limit. The drunks aren't likely to care much either.
*In fact this isn't that far from the truth. The present 55/65 mph laws are a compromise from the days when 55 mph was the rule. Because so many people were driving above 55 mph and federal highway funds were being threathened, the western states forced a compromise that left 55 as the rule where population density was above a certain number. 65 became the rule where population was scarce enough (like out west). This was just a political ploy, much as the 55 limit became, having no grounding in any science or engineering. And we here in the NE are still stuck with it. Out west you see limits that are the 70 mph (and higher
) that was the law when I was younger (and had cars not as good as those today).