[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Bear Islander
Lake Winnipesaukee is not a special case. It has no magic spell that protects its boaters from accidents. There is no reason to limit statistics to one small statistical inverse.

The new law applies only to Lake Winnipesaukee, so review the data where the law is being implemented and you have nothing to stand on except fear mongering.

Originally posted by Bear Islander
The opposition keeps making this insane "no accidents" claim yet we have three deaths in 6 years. Two deaths in the last 12 months. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Them's pretty good odds, and none have been linked to speed although the latest is still an open investigation

Originally posted by Bear Islander
In the statistics you mention, how many accidents have specific speed, by number, as part of the data?

All of them, you didn't bother to look?

Originally posted by Skip
But first, you cannot be convicted of "violating HB 847". HB 847 was a bill designed to temporarily ammend RSA 270-D:2. Part of that ammendment is that during the two year trial period, any violation and conviction of any subsection of RSA 270-D:2 on any public waterway results in automatic notification to NHDMV. Since the so called "safe passage" rules are a subsecetion of RSA 270-D:2 then any conviction for "safe passage" violations will become part of your driver's record. This is a new temporary feature designed to serve as an added deterrence. That's a definite and direct tie.

That is a stretch...linking a boating violation to your drivers license won't have any impact on Capt Bonehead violating the 150' rule. First off they have to be caught something that even now is a problem.

Originally posted by Skip
So you have no evidence of this oft repeated claim. So is it fair that you continually badger the opposition for direct evidence of their claims????

Are you seriously trying to make us believe that with no additional funding but the political pressure to enforce the law that crews will magically appear to save the day? No, the proof that I have is experience in the private sector in which similar mandates without funding or personnel increases have resulted in changing priorities. Priorities are priorities. It's not rocket science. As for putting any stock in the fact that no administrator has said there will be a diversion of crews. No administrator is going to commit professional suicide by doing that, so I wouldn't put any stock in the fact that no one has said the law will required diverting crews.

Originally posted by Skip
There are two classifications of NHMP officer, full time & part time. Under NH Law there is absolutely no legal distinction in law enforcement capabilities or authority between the two classifications other than retirement and hours worked classifications. While some part time NHMP officers are indeed "summer seasonal" looking to start a law enforcement career, a number of others are retired full time officers with years of experience. Additionally, only one officer needs to have certification, the officer signing the ticket.

The "classification" may be part time, or even fulltime parttime, the fact is that the Marine Patrol would be hard pressed to explain why a seasonal employee was put through the certification process for a few months work, then he/she moves on. Maybe they'll be back, maybe not. If it were me allocating limited resources it would be for full time permanent officers.

Originally posted by Skip
Completely incorrect. The majority of law enforcement officers in this State are part time. See my preceding paragraph.

Its simple. As I stated before, if you are going to demand that Bear Islander and his supporters provide proof of their positions, it is only fair of you to offer the same. And quite frankly you've waded way out past the swim line with your positions in reference to the above cited matters.

Actually I wrote that..." Land based law enforcement officers do make radar part of their routine patrols, but again they are certified and for the most part, permanent officers not seasonal employees".
Note that I pointed out that land based LEOs using radar are NOT seasonal employees...am I wrong?

Maybe I have waded past the swim line, it's how we learn

The difference between my speculating on the future and Bear Islander's refusal to back up his claims using existing statistics, is that no one knows exactly what the future will hold. All I can do is speculate based on my past life experiences while for the most part BI and crew have ignored existing statistics in making their claims.