Citizen Article - The Other Side

[Island Lover]

codeman671

I don't think I have slung any mud. But that might depend on your definition. If so I apologize.

I am looking at the USCG data differently than you are. It seems to me the opposition is making the point that we don't need a speed limit because speed is not the problem on Winnipesaukee, and that speed has not caused accidents. At least this is my interpretation.

The reply to this argument is that speed is a problem, and is a major contributing factor in accidents. The USCG calls speed the #4 contributing factor in boat accidents. That declaration, in and of itself, is my argument.

I am not analyzing every point of the data, just taking it at face value. Speed is a major contributing factor, therefore a speed limit will help. I see this as a logical conclusion, you disagree.

HB162 will not solve all speed problems. It will do nothing to prevent low speed accidents where the speed is in fact excessive for the situation. It will not prevent a high speed accident when the operator ignores the law. Drinking, inexperience and stupidity will, unfortunately, continue.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

codeman671
HB162 will not solve all speed problems. It will do nothing to prevent low speed accidents where the speed is in fact excessive for the situation. It will not prevent a high speed accident when the operator ignores the law. Drinking, inexperience and stupidity will, unfortunately, continue.

Congratulations , you're beginning to make sense
Plus the fact that "by the poll" most of you speed limit supporters , support a speed limit OVER 45. If the go fast crowd did skew the poll , I'm sure it was for "no speed limit" not 60/65/70. So it would stand to reason this part of the poll may be correct .

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Cal

Congratulations , you're beginning to make sense
Plus the fact that "by the poll" most of you speed limit supporters , support a speed limit OVER 45. If the go fast crowd did skew the poll , I'm sure it was for "no speed limit" not 60/65/70. So it would stand to reason this part of the poll may be correct .

I averaged out the speeds that have been voted on. The average was 54.2 MPH. Obviously there is no way to average in a "no limit" vote.

This supports the comments by supporters that they would have preferred a higher limit. Last summer a member of the RR&D committee was pushing for a 60/30 amendment. With some support by the opposition it would have happened.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

The reply to this argument is that speed is a problem, and is a major contributing factor in accidents. The USCG calls speed the #4 contributing factor in boat accidents. That declaration, in and of itself, is my argument.

The applicability of the USCG data to our situation on Winnipesaukee and just exactly how this data can/should be interpreted seems to be a good place for factual analysis. Problem is that "we" don't have the data to look at. When we get past the holidays I'll send an e-mail to the USCG to see if there's anyway mere mortals can get access to the boating accident reporting database (BARD). For instance they list % of fatalities that had speed in excess of X mph and they list % fatalities by boat-boat collisions but not the intersection of the 2. I think the answer to this question would be interesting. Perhaps we all could come up with some other database inquiries (look at the form to see what's possible) we'd like to see ?

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

The applicability of the USCG data to our situation on Winnipesaukee and just exactly how this data can/should be interpreted seems to be a good place for factual analysis. Problem is that "we" don't have the data to look at. When we get past the holidays I'll send an e-mail to the USCG to see if there's anyway mere mortals can get access to the boating accident reporting database (BARD). For instance they list % of fatalities that had speed in excess of X mph and they list % fatalities by boat-boat collisions but not the intersection of the 2. I think the answer to this question would be interesting. Perhaps we all could come up with some other database inquiries (look at the form to see what's possible) we'd like to see ?

From the USCG :

"Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for contacting the US Coast Guard Recreational Boating Safety Infoline.

We do not have the information that you are seeking available to us here at the Infoline, however, we will be forwarding your e-mail on to a specialist. If you have not received a response within 48 business hours, please feel free to contact us.

For more information on U.S. Coast Guard Office of Recreational Boating Safety, please visit our website at www.uscgboating.org. If you need additional information, please call the infoline at 1-800-368-5647.

Thank you
Larry
U.S. Coast Guard Infoline "

I'll let you know what, if anything, comes from this.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

From the USCG :

"Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for contacting the US Coast Guard Recreational Boating Safety Infoline.

We do not have the information that you are seeking available to us here at the Infoline, however, we will be forwarding your e-mail on to a specialist. If you have not received a response within 48 business hours, please feel free to contact us.

For more information on U.S. Coast Guard Office of Recreational Boating Safety, please visit our website at www.uscgboating.org. If you need additional information, please call the infoline at 1-800-368-5647.

Thank you
Larry
U.S. Coast Guard Infoline "

I'll let you know what, if anything, comes from this.

Can you please post the question you are asking them?

Thanks

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Can you please post the question you are asking them?

Thanks

It's on the home PC so when I get back tomorrow AM I'll dig it up. Basically I asked if the BARD (database) was accessible to the general public or if the general public could pose questions/queries to the database to get correlations not available in the yearly report. For example what is the cross correlation of boat collisions and speed of boats (where speed was input). Looking at the USCG forms there aren't that many fields so it just might be possible that the whole enchilada could be downloadable in a MS Access readable form. I'm not betting the farm on it though ....

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

codeman671

I don't think I have slung any mud. But that might depend on your definition. If so I apologize.

I am looking at the USCG data differently than you are. It seems to me the opposition is making the point that we don't need a speed limit because speed is not the problem on Winnipesaukee, and that speed has not caused accidents. At least this is my interpretation.

The reply to this argument is that speed is a problem, and is a major contributing factor in accidents. The USCG calls speed the #4 contributing factor in boat accidents. That declaration, in and of itself, is my argument.

I am not analyzing every point of the data, just taking it at face value. Speed is a major contributing factor, therefore a speed limit will help. I see this as a logical conclusion, you disagree.

HB162 will not solve all speed problems. It will do nothing to prevent low speed accidents where the speed is in fact excessive for the situation. It will not prevent a high speed accident when the operator ignores the law. Drinking, inexperience and stupidity will, unfortunately, continue.

You are correct, it will not stop all speed problems as well as another problems that are more prevalent. I think that all we are asking for is the proponents to make their arguements fact based to prove the need instead of using individuals interpretations and arguing with comments like we "just don't get it".

My opinions on this have been steadfast since the start. I do not feel that a 25mph night limit is a bad idea and would vote for it. The daytime limit is unacceptable in my opinion. Concentrating more on education, training, noise control and enforcement of current laws will do much more than HB162 will/would ever accomplish, it would leave a resounding effect that would make all parties happy. I do still believe that there is some alterior motives/conspiracies emanating from the Bear Island area and feel that this really does tie back to Hartman/Littlefield. I also find it humorous that the Common Man sides for this yet if they had not served someone 6 merlots this all probably would never have happened. Sounds like CYA on their part to me. Pass the blame.