Speed limit permanent to be filed!

[malibu]

I would like to reiterate what others are saying about the SL and safety. The truth of the matter is the lake is no safer now than it was without a SL. If you were out on the water the past two weekends you would see this first hand. We need to stop wasting time and resources on what doesn’t work, it’s that simple. Put a MP boat in every bay on the weekends and pull over the boneheads that continually break the laws we all ready have. Just the MP presence will make people think twice.

Malibu

[Bear Islander]

Last years accident is and must be part of any SL debate. It's clear to me that the accident would not have happened if the speed limit law was in place and being adhered to. Obviously there is no guarantee that it would have been adhered to, but that is true of any law. You pass a law, set a standard, punish the abusers, and hope people comply.

The outcome of the trial is not important to the debate. The basic circumstances of the accident are important to the debate. The boats operation was not reasonable and prudent considering the conditions. That is the relevant point in my opinion. The outcome of the trial will not change my opinion on that point.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Last years accident is and must be part of any SL debate. It's clear to me that the accident would not have happened if the speed limit law was in place and being adhered to. Obviously there is no guarantee that it would have been adhered to, but that is true of any law. You pass a law, set a standard, punish the abusers, and hope people comply.

The outcome of the trial is not important to the debate. The basic circumstances of the accident are important to the debate. The boats operation was not reasonable and prudent considering the conditions. That is the relevant point in my opinion. The outcome of the trial will not change my opinion on that point.

My contention is where you state "reasonable and prudent". There was an accident, the boat hit an island, there was a fatality. Whether going 10mph or 30mph it is safe to say the boats operation was not reasonable and prudent.

That being said, we can "what if" the accident to death (which has already happened) saying limits would have prevented it is purely speculation and an opinion.

Hopefully this time around the SL debate will be based on fact and not speculation.

So again lets agree not to go down the speculation path and argue the particulars. Such as How many tickets have been issued? Has the Marine Patrol seen a difference this year opposed to last year? etc.

Actual Data...

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Last years accident is and must be part of any SL debate. It's clear to me that the accident would not have happened if the speed limit law was in place and being adhered to. Obviously there is no guarantee that it would have been adhered to, but that is true of any law. You pass a law, set a standard, punish the abusers, and hope people comply.

The outcome of the trial is not important to the debate. The basic circumstances of the accident are important to the debate. The boats operation was not reasonable and prudent considering the conditions. That is the relevant point in my opinion. The outcome of the trial will not change my opinion on that point.

BI, I am confused now. I agree with your statement about her speed not being reasonable and prudent given the conditions but wasn't that language in there prior to the new RSA?

I also agree that the only thing the trial will prove is if she were drunk as well as going too fast for the conditions.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

BI, I am confused now. I agree with your statement about her speed not being reasonable and prudent given the conditions but wasn't that language in there prior to the new RSA? ...

NO! There was NO "Reasonable and Prudent" law before HB847. This is one point that I have been trying to make to the opposition for years and they simply will not believe it. Again, there was NO Reasonable and Prudent law before January 1, 2009.

HB847 IS the Reasonable and Prudent speed law. Before that all you had was the "Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats" law quoted above. That is a catch all law that can mean just about anything and doesn't mention speed in any way.

That is why this accident is such a good example of what the SL law is trying to prevent. Even if the speed was below 25 the boat was in violation because it was not Reasonable and Prudent speed AND not operated in a way to prevent hitting the shore. Two other important parts of the speed limit law.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

NO! There was NO "Reasonable and Prudent" law before HB847. This is one point that I have been trying to make to the opposition for years and they simply will not believe it. Again, there was NO Reasonable and Prudent law before January 1, 2009.

HB847 IS the Reasonable and Prudent speed law. Before that all you had was the "Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats" law quoted above. That is a catch all law that can mean just about anything and doesn't mention speed in any way.

That is why this accident is such a good example of what the SL law is trying to prevent. Even if the speed was below 25 the boat was in violation because it was not Reasonable and Prudent speed AND not operated in a way to prevent hitting the shore. Two other important parts of the speed limit law.

Just wondering BI, wouldn't hitting an island be deemed as Careless or Negligent? call me crazy...

Either way, this accident would not have been avoided by a speed limit, reasonable or prudent, careless or negligent - "in my opinion". You have "your opinion" so lets check the opinions and the speculation at the door and discuss what the speed limits have accomplished now that they have been in effect for the year, not what we think they could have accomplished when they weren't even in effect.

The speed limit debate has been opened up to discuss the results and if they should be continued so please lets keep on topic.


Hopefully that is clear enough...

[OCDACTIVE]

What really is upsetting is if you read the article it says (the winfabs spokesman) states they do not have the time to wait for the data to be collected and must file legislation now.

This is an absolute 180 in comparisson to the reasons they fought for the testing and 2 year provision to begin with!!!

See give them an inch and they go for the mile....

It is beyond frustrating!

[VtSteve]

They did fight hard for the data, almost as hard as they fought to get a poll consisting of very broad language done.

They can't wait for any data because it shows nothing, just as it did last year. They openly accused the MP of not doing the job properly and of being biased. With the lake traffic down this summer, and hardly a mention of a ticket, much less a ton of them, what do they have? Same as always, an agenda with no data. If they were part of the Global Warming debate, god knows what kinds of laws they could get passed

Getting back to the BI support for the wording. It's important to understand the difference between the old and new wording.

Old:

270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Source. 1981, 353:12, eff. Aug. 22, 1981.


Try to take that one to court. So now you'd have a boater arguing that 24mph is safe and prudent because...... blah blah


New

X.(a) No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.


Specific, not vague and open to all kinds of legal interpretations. It also gives the MP the ability to bring into play that speed is important to the event. I disagree with BI that the new wording is all that important to last year's accident, although it most assuredly would have applied, and would make the prosecutor's job much easier. The prosecution apparently didn't have much problem coming up with multiple charges anyway.

But the wording is very good, and does not in anyway restrict anyone's ability to enjoy their craft on the lake. There may be cases where an MP interprets the conditions to be real, and may not be correct. But this wording has teeth, and will at least give the LEO's some help in getting a real bad guy off the water if there's one around. This is not a law that's aimed at someone innocently being only 100' away from a dock or boat, or just screws up without a foul. Hopefully, LEO's will use it prudently, and target those that really need it, like repeat offenders, habitual recklessness, that sort of thing. It also makes it easier to stop the drinks, which is important.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

NO! There was NO "Reasonable and Prudent" law before HB847. This is one point that I have been trying to make to the opposition for years and they simply will not believe it. Again, there was NO Reasonable and Prudent law before January 1, 2009.

HB847 IS the Reasonable and Prudent speed law. Before that all you had was the "Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats" law quoted above. That is a catch all law that can mean just about anything and doesn't mention speed in any way.

That is why this accident is such a good example of what the SL law is trying to prevent. Even if the speed was below 25 the boat was in violation because it was not Reasonable and Prudent speed AND not operated in a way to prevent hitting the shore. Two other important parts of the speed limit law.

You're spot on with that comment. The previous law allowed way too much wiggle room by being ambiguous. The new wording is much more like a general Rule 6. They should have passed that change, and left it at that. I'll always support a "Reasonable and Prudent" law, no problems at all.

but..... and you knew there would be a butt somewhere

You go on to say

Originally Posted by Bear Islander
Last years accident is and must be part of any SL debate. It's clear to me that the accident would not have happened if the speed limit law was in place and being adhered to. Obviously there is no guarantee that it would have been adhered to, but that is true of any law. You pass a law, set a standard, punish the abusers, and hope people comply.

Fine, Then stop saying that "It's Clear To Me". It most certainly isn't clear to anyone. That's like saying that the murderer wouldn't have shot the person if he had adhered to the law. You also lose it on punish the abusers, then hope.

The outcome of the trial is not important to the debate. The basic circumstances of the accident are important to the debate. The boats operation was not reasonable and prudent considering the conditions. That is the relevant point in my opinion. The outcome of the trial will not change my opinion on that point.

I agree with you on all points there. The outcome of the trial is not something that SL supporters are anxiously awaiting. It's pretty apparent to most, if not all people, that something was done improperly on the boat that night. Even if it's something as innocent as they followed a GPS and trusted it when they couldn't see anything does not fly either. (BTW, just an example)

I agree with you're general premise that the wording changes in the new law are good ones, long time coming. Makes it easier to actually get a conviction. Unfortunately, when you went off in all directions during the SL debate, your most salient points were lost in a sea of boat wakes, NWZ's and other such rubbish. But you're too smart to not know that

At any rate, most of us agree with the bulk of the wording's intent, and also with the general framework of boating safety. Until the MP is not living hand to mouth, most of it is a moot discussion. The folks that are strict supporters of only the speed limits themselves? They have no data, never had any data, and can't even hang their hats on accidents that support their only cause. We know this because we'd be inundated with data on an hourly basis if they had something, anything.


I'd prefer to stay on track with the safety thread myself, at least it's constructive.

[Resident 2B]

BI,

Please stop hiding behind the words "Reasonable and Prudent". We all know HB847 is about so much more than that. Stop using the smoke and mirrors, please!

Until Jan 1, 2009 we had this:

270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Source. 1981, 353:12, eff. Aug. 22, 1981.

"Operate in a Reasonable and Prudent Manner" is just another way of saying "Do Not Operate in a Careless and Negligent Manner" in my opinion. You are just spinning things again for your agenda.

Quite frankly, I completely agree with Reasonable and Prudent. Those are great words. It is the 45 MPH limit during the day on the whole lake that is your fight.

My objective is Boating Safety, so I embrace Reasonable and Prudent operation for all vessels. However, before we had to operate in a manner that was not Careless and Negligent. I really do not see any real difference, except for while Careless and Neglient only effected power boats, reasonable and prudent effects all vessels, including sail boats and kayaks.

R2B

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Last years accident is and must be part of any SL debate. It's clear to me that the accident would not have happened if the speed limit law was in place and being adhered to. Obviously there is no guarantee that it would have been adhered to, but that is true of any law. You pass a law, set a standard, punish the abusers, and hope people comply.

The outcome of the trial is not important to the debate. The basic circumstances of the accident are important to the debate. The boats operation was not reasonable and prudent considering the conditions. That is the relevant point in my opinion. The outcome of the trial will not change my opinion on that point.

BI...

How on earth can you make a statement like that?? Your contradicting yourself! In one paragraph your saying a speed limit would have made a difference, in the next you stating that the boats operation was not reasonable or prudent for the conditions! I dont see how you can argue that a speed limit would have mattered....

I am sure you agree that the 25MPH Speed Limit is not an absolute. There will be times and conditons on the lake when a speed much less than 25 MPH would be considered "reasonable and prudent".

The estimated speed at impact has not been released, (I am sure we will get that number in Oct) so we have no way of knowing if in fact she was traveling at a speed greater than 25 MPH! All conditions being equal, without knowing exactly how fast she was travelling, you really cant logically form an opinion if a 25MPH speed limit would have made a difference.

WinnFabs used the same argument for the Littlefield/Hartman accident. The NHMP accident team estimated that speed at 28 MPH!

All things being equal, It may be that she was travelling too fast for the conditions that night, and there is an existing rule for that. It's possible that she wasnt keeping a proper lookout (got a rule for that too) Its up for a JURY to decide what are the mitigating circumstances surrounding this accident to determine her innocence or guilt, not you, I or anyone else.

The only way one can ABSOLUTELY say the accident would not have happened was for that boat and those poor souls to have never left the dock that day!

Woodsy