Wolfeboro Hit and Run

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by codeman671

There is a good chance that boat is Coast Guard registered being of that size. With the HIN anyone can look it up on the CG site if it is CG registered.

It's probably not CG documented because it has state registration numbers/letters which are not necessary on a documented vessel. Also, a documented vessel is required to have the vessel name and hailing port displayed and I saw no evidence of that in any of the photos.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Dave R

It's probably not CG documented because it has state registration numbers/letters which are not necessary on a documented vessel. Also, a documented vessel is required to have the vessel name and hailing port displayed and I saw no evidence of that in any of the photos.

I have owned CG documented boats before but still always registered in NH. Can’t say that I have ever see a boat on the lake that should have bow numbers and didn’t. It screams pull me over.

My lienholder required it on my Rinker 320EC (which coincidently was sold to a friend of the clown involved in this). I didn’t bother to put the name on it, it was never leaving the lake while I owned it and no CG here to ask questions. Wasn’t opposed to it, just never got to it. It mainly stayed tied up at our dock being used as sleeping quarters as our camp build was in the planning stages.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I have owned CG documented boats before but still always registered in NH. Can’t say that I have ever see a boat on the lake that should have bow numbers and didn’t. It screams pull me over.

My lienholder required it on my Rinker 320EC (which coincidently was sold to a friend of the clown involved in this). I didn’t bother to put the name on it, it was never leaving the lake while I owned it and no CG here to ask questions. Wasn’t opposed to it, just never got to it. It mainly stayed tied up at our dock being used as sleeping quarters as our camp build was in the planning stages.

I register my documented boat in NH, but I only put the stickers on, no bow numbers/letters. I'm not 100% certain I even need to register it in any state, but I do, just in case. I've been boarded by the CG and they have no issue with any of this. State MP has never stopped me, so I'm not sure how they feel.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I register my documented boat in NH, but I only put the stickers on, no bow numbers/letters. I'm not 100% certain I even need to register it in any state, but I do, just in case. I've been boarded by the CG and they have no issue with any of this. State MP has never stopped me, so I'm not sure how they feel.

In every major waterfront state I am aware of you are required to register a USCG documented boat with the state. You are also prohibited from displayed state reg "bow" numbers on a documented boat. Essentially, it is an either/or approach to how you register and title the vessel. The state really only cares about getting their taxes, so as long as you're displaying your appropriately colored registration sticker for the state I can't imagine any state agency caring about the bow numbers.

There would be no real benefit to having a documented boat on an inland lake that has no USCG presence. Would just add more annual registration hassle to renew the USCG docs, granted minor hassle, but still.

[garysanfran]

I owned a 34' sailboat in San Francisco for 15 yrs. It was documented and I never had to do any registration with the state of CA. The only display required was the name of the vessel on the stern with letters of a certain size.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

In every major waterfront state I am aware of you are required to register a USCG documented boat with the state. You are also prohibited from displayed state reg "bow" numbers on a documented boat. Essentially, it is an either/or approach to how you register and title the vessel. The state really only cares about getting their taxes, so as long as you're displaying your appropriately colored registration sticker for the state I can't imagine any state agency caring about the bow numbers.

There would be no real benefit to having a documented boat on an inland lake that has no USCG presence. Would just add more annual registration hassle to renew the USCG docs, granted minor hassle, but still.

NH is not a title state, so being documented is the equivalent of a title. Small boats are not eligible to be documented, but for larger boats (5 net tons or greater) that may move from state to state, or to other countries, documentation is an advantage at time of sale, or for those who boat in NH in the summer and go south in the winter. If your boat is 5 net tons or less, this discusssion probably does not apply.

[BroadHopper]

Looks like Rep. Pilliod, the major sponsor of the speed limit law, was right. 'Sea-Rays belong in the seas!' Too bad he didn't live to see this. Next on his agenda was to limit the size and HP of privately owned boats.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Next on his agenda was to limit the size and HP of privately owned boats.

Sour grapes? That is simply not true. This was never on his "agenda". Dr. Pilliod was a sincere, hard working and honest man. Why do you feel the need to bring the speed limit debate into this thread and to smear this deceased individual? And fortunately for Dr. Pilliod's legacy, the Maine Patrol is fully on board in support of the need for a speed limit on Winni. Below is Lt. Wade's testimony from last April 2023 in support of the current law which was supported with an almost unheard of 18:0 vote in the R. R. & D. Committee and with hundreds of letters in support of the speed limit and only a handful opposing the current law.

April 17, 2023


Representative Andrew Renzullo
Chairman, House Resource, Recreation and Development



Chairman Renzullo,

I am writing to request my testimony to the House Transportation Committee on March 8, 2023, in reference to HB 448, a bill relative to Lake Winnipesaukee speed limitations, be entered into the record. Below is the testimony I gave in front of the Committee that day. Thank you for your consideration.


Good afternoon, I am Lieutenant Dennis Wade, Commander of the NH State Police Marine Patrol. I am here representing the Department of Safety, Division of State Police, and to testify against House Bill 448.

Lake Winnipesaukee is one of about 30 lakes in New Hampshire where a per se speed limit exists. The speed limit on most of these other 30 lakes is 10mph. With just a few being above that. Winnipesaukee currently has a speed limit of 45mph from one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset, basically daytime. And 30 mph at night. These speed limits are not absolute, as they are allowed only where no other hazard exists that requires a lower speed. These hazards include, but are not limited to, other boat traffic, weather, waves, sun glare, swimmers, and water debris. Other than the per se speed laws, the law requires operators to drive in a way that they do not put the lives and safety of others at risk or that they do not drive in a careless or negligent manner. The Department of Safety believes that 65mph will put the safety of the public at risk.

Driving a boat at 65mph can be dangerous. A boat moving at 45mph is traveling at 66 feet /sec., where a boat moving at 65mph is traveling at 95.5 feet/sec. Almost 30 more feet per second. This 30 feet could determine the time needed for a driver to avoid a crash. The average perception & reaction time for a person is approximately 1.5 seconds. This is ‘perception and reaction’ time for a driver who is actively paying attention. In those 1.5 seconds, a boat traveling at 45mph will travel 99 feet. At 65mph, a boat will travel 142 feet. Again, this is reaction time. Then the driver’s action must take place to avoid whatever hazard exists. Unlike motor vehicles, boats do not have brakes, requiring additional stopping time and distance on the water. An operator can only throttle back and maybe even put the boat into reverse. Still, this will not stop a boat quickly and the steerage of a boat does not operate the same when in neutral.

Lake Winnipesaukee is used for many different recreational activities, including water skiing, swimming, canoeing/kayaking, fishing, sailing, motor boating, and many more. There needs to be a balance in the use by all these recreationalists, to include motorboats. Although there is an area defined by this law where the 65 mph speed limit would be allowed, that area will be hard to distinguish. There are no defined edges in the water like you have on roads. No sidewalks, yellow and white lines, no travel lanes, and no traffic control devices. Add in that not everyone on the lake knows the lake, has been there before, and will not be familiar with the boundaries discerned by this law, this can make for a dangerous mix.

Having the area defined through written law, will not be the same as having a clearly defined area that a boater can understand. When driving a car, the road is defined. You know when you turn onto and off a road, you have curbs and intersections. You also have speed limits signs and traffic control devices, caution signs, and yield signs. This will not be the case on Lake Winnipesaukee should this bill pass. How will a boater know they are in a 65 mph zone. Not necessarily because they plan on going that fast, but so they can be more cautious of other boaters that might. There are kids and other novice boaters who boat on the lake. Are they going to know where they are and what hazards to look for? In order to sign this area so all users knew that this was a 65mph zone, it would take an unknown number of buoys to be placed, at an unknown cost. Buoys in unexpected places can pose a safety hazard. We do not want to create additional hazards, especially in an area that does not have environmental obstructions. This would also take away from the beauty of this lake.

Two other items to consider. Boats do not have seatbelts. Nothing to keep a passenger in the boat should the driver have to throttle back at 65 mph to neutral, or should it get hit by another boat or run aground. There are no airbags, no roof. Nothing from protecting passengers from being ejected should a dangerous situation present itself.

And, think of the interstate. We do not allow bicycles and pedestrians on the interstate because of the speed limit. Having a boat going 65 mph near someone canoeing, kayaking, or sailing, can be a recipe for disaster. And although these motorboats have just as much a right to use the lake, again, there needs to be a balance.

In summary, the Department of Safety does not recommend passing this legislation. It creates an enhanced concern for the safety of all users in this area, will cause confusion among boaters, especially those who are unfamiliar with the lake, and as presented, does not allow for proper enforcement of this zone based on the description of the area.



Respectfully,



Lieutenant Dennis Wade
NH State Police – Marine Patrol

[Major]

Broad wasn't disparaging Dr. Pilliod, he was making a joke! Dr. Pilliod was a very nice man. He was my first doctor when I moved to NH in 1977. To the best of my knowledge, he did not own a power boat (maybe a sailboat). He lived in Belmont, but may have owned a boat at a marina or club.

Which leads me to my second point, we have people in Concord who have never owned a boat making rules because they feel good. Someone, like Lt. Wade, with a semblance of authority states that the world would be a much safer place if only we had (and now enforced) a speed limit on the lake. While this feels good, it has little or no effect.

This has been litigated in past threads. With perhaps a few exceptions (only one that I can think of), over the past 40 or so years, no accidents have been caused by speed. The most recent spate of accidents have been caused by idiocy and perhaps alcohol. Speed has never been (and certainly now won't be) a safety issue on our lake.

Often, we create laws and rules to replace common sense. The times I have traveled fast on the lake, we were abundantly safe. In the broads, or down a long stretch like Alton Bay, with few boats in sight. We wouldn't have done it if the broads or the bays were full of boats like on Saturday afternoons, or along the shore where people swim, kayak and canoe. In both instances, it would be reckless to operate a boat at a high speed.

Anyway, it's a moot point. It's the law, but they really don't enforce it. I see wave runners and boats consistently going over 45 mph.

[codeman671]

Not sure we need to go down the speed limit rabbit hole again...A Sea Ray 500 can run approximately 35 knots WOT from what I saw on a test report from Boattest.

The guy was drunk and not paying attention. I'd say he probably wasn't going overly fast otherwise the damage would have been more severe, as well as the increased likelihood of passenger injuries.

Like it or not, he probably made the right choice for himself by disappearing that night. I am no expert but think that aggravated DWI along with a slew of other charges would carry a higher penalty than leaving the scene and failure to report the accident. Insurance will kick in and make restitution, and other than being the most hated guy on the lake presently he will be free to do this again.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by codeman671

and other than being the most hated guy on the lake presently he will be free to do this again.

And that's the problem!

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Not sure we need to go down the speed limit rabbit hole again...A Sea Ray 500 can run approximately 35 knots WOT from what I saw on a test report from Boattest.

The guy was drunk and not paying attention. I'd say he probably wasn't going overly fast otherwise the damage would have been more severe, as well as the increased likelihood of passenger injuries.

Like it or not, he probably made the right choice for himself by disappearing that night. I am no expert but think that aggravated DWI along with a slew of other charges would carry a higher penalty than leaving the scene and failure to report the accident. Insurance will kick in and make restitution, and other than being the most hated guy on the lake presently he will be free to do this again.

I agree... IMHO, the weak link will be the people who came and drove them off into the night. They will be looking at an aiding and abetting charge that carries a far harsher penalty. They will be the ones to flip and put him in the driver's seat.

Woodsy

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Like it or not, he probably made the right choice for himself by disappearing that night. I am no expert but think that aggravated DWI along with a slew of other charges would carry a higher penalty than leaving the scene and failure to report the accident.

My guess would be that the guy knew this from past experience.... If information comes out, I wouldn't be surprised to find a long rap sheet centered around doing stupid stuff when drunk.....

With that said, speed got mentioned in this thread also..... speed wasn't the problem in this accident... momentum and inertia however played a very integral role in all of this....

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

My guess would be that the guy knew this from past experience.... If information comes out, I wouldn't be surprised to find a long rap sheet centered around doing stupid stuff when drunk.....

With that said, speed got mentioned in this thread also..... speed wasn't the problem in this accident... momentum and inertia however played a very integral role in all of this....

The main perp has a second degree assault/serious bodily injury from 2018. And another close family member has a past impersonating a police officer...And their diocesed father was convicted in a multi state stolen truck ring. I'd say they are a bunch of scoundrels.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

My guess would be that the guy knew this from past experience.... If information comes out, I wouldn't be surprised to find a long rap sheet centered around doing stupid stuff when drunk.....

With that said, speed got mentioned in this thread also..... speed wasn't the problem in this accident... momentum and inertia however played a very integral role in all of this....

Moment is mass times velocity (directional speed); so for momentum to be a problem, then the speed was a variable.

If the operator was intoxicated or distracted... moving at 5 mpH instead of 10 mph would allow twice the time to react before the distance was closed.
If the operator was fully alert, 5 mph instead of 10 mph would still allow twice the time to react before the distance was closed.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Moment is mass times velocity (directional speed); so for momentum to be a problem, then the speed was a variable.

If the operator was intoxicated or distracted... moving at 5 mpH instead of 10 mph would allow twice the time to react before the distance was closed.
If the operator was fully alert, 5 mph instead of 10 mph would still allow twice the time to react before the distance was closed.

The Searay weighs in at approx 35,000 lbs. If it was traveling @ 10MPH, the force at impact was 175 US ton-mph... I am surprised the damage wasn't worse! (If I did the math right)

Woodsy

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

The Searay weighs in at approx 35,000 lbs. If it was traveling @ 10MPH, the force at impact was 175 US ton-mph... I am surprised the damage wasn't worse! (If I did the math right)

Woodsy

Even if the math is right... imagine how out of wack he had to be to hit it at 5mph. Obviously reversing engines wouldn't stop it on a dime... but that would make this captain dangerous at any speed. We wouldn't even be able to allow him to paddle a canoe without fear of something bad happening.

[sunset on the dock]

Ok folks, two plus months since the accident and I'm getting impatient How much longer do we wait for answers and follow up consequences for this crash in Winter Harbor? And it would appear that this is not the family's first brush with the law.

Do they get off scott free? Will insurance cover the damages given the hit and run circumstances?

[mofn]

The Carroll County grand jury sits on Friday 10/20, then 11/17, 12/20. For nipple rock accident it was 2 months +/- to charges filed?

[Descant]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

...Do they get off scott free? Will insurance cover the damages given the hit and run circumstances?

No, and yes.

[pjard]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Moment is mass times velocity (directional speed); so for momentum to be a problem, then the speed was a variable.

If the operator was intoxicated or distracted... moving at 5 mpH instead of 10 mph would allow twice the time to react before the distance was closed.
If the operator was fully alert, 5 mph instead of 10 mph would still allow twice the time to react before the distance was closed.

So who is the guy that owned the boat? Many seem to know. What's his story?

[Cobaltdeadhead]

Originally Posted by pjard

So who is the guy that owned the boat? Many seem to know. What's his story?

Only sharing because it will be public information anyway. Roger Ploof is the owner of the boat.

[garysanfran]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Not sure we need to go down the speed limit rabbit hole again...A Sea Ray 500 can run approximately 35 knots WOT from what I saw on a test report from Boattest.

The guy was drunk and not paying attention. I'd say he probably wasn't going overly fast otherwise the damage would have been more severe, as well as the increased likelihood of passenger injuries.

Like it or not, he probably made the right choice for himself by disappearing that night. I am no expert but think that aggravated DWI along with a slew of other charges would carry a higher penalty than leaving the scene and failure to report the accident. Insurance will kick in and make restitution, and other than being the most hated guy on the lake presently he will be free to do this again.

Perhaps that upside down paradigm should change?

[John Mercier]

Changing the paradigm would take a dramatic shift in governance...

[ApS]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Not sure we need to go down the speed limit rabbit hole again...A Sea Ray 500 can run approximately 35 knots WOT from what I saw on a test report from Boattest. The guy was drunk and not paying attention. I'd say he probably wasn't going overly fast otherwise the damage would have been more severe, as well as the increased likelihood of passenger injuries. Like it or not, he probably made the right choice for himself by disappearing that night. I am no expert but think that aggravated DWI along with a slew of other charges would carry a higher penalty than leaving the scene and failure to report the accident. Insurance will kick in and make restitution, and other than being the most hated guy on the lake presently he will be free to do this again.

Explain why metal trim from the HackerCraft's deck are tangled in the Searay's prop. (And fabric--possibly the remains of PFDs from the HackerCraft).

I see it as the Searay launching itself off the permanent piling dock and shredding the Hackercraft on its way down. (Having angled itself off the keel to spare the other prop from equally severe damage: The HackerCraft acting like a floating cushion).

Subtracting 150' legal distance from each shore (to include boulders, wooden rafts, and that "permanent" bright red warning float), that "pinch-point" at Keewaydin Point is very tight for a 17-ton vessel to be traveling at such an inhumane speed--made even worse when two such craft are passing each other.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by ApS

Explain why metal trim from the HackerCraft's deck are tangled in the Searay's prop. (And fabric--possibly the remains of PFDs from the HackerCraft).

I see it as the Searay launching itself off the permanent piling dock and shredding the Hackercraft on its way down. (Having angled itself off the keel to spare the other prop from equally severe damage: The HackerCraft acting like a floating cushion).

Subtracting 150' legal distance from each shore (to include boulders, wooden rafts, and that "permanent" bright red warning float), that "pinch-point" at Keewaydin Point is very tight for a 17-ton vessel to be traveling at such an inhumane speed--made even worse when two such craft are passing each other.

It sounds to me like someone has been watching a few too many Dukes of Hazard re-runs…

I doubt highly that a 40k lb vessel launched over the dock with its death machine props shearing the top off the boat as it flew through the air…

[steve-on-mark]

Originally Posted by codeman671

It sounds to me like someone has been watching a few too many Dukes of Hazard re-runs…

I doubt highly that a 40k lb vessel launched over the dock with its death machine props shearing the top off the boat as it flew through the air…

Picturing the driver butt- sliding across the bow and into the waiting getaway boat..." Just a good ole boy..." . You know the rest!

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by steve-on-mark

Picturing the driver butt- sliding across the bow and into the waiting getaway boat..." Just a good ole boy..." . You know the rest!

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Judging by the size of the owner not a lot of sliding was going on…

[pondguy]

I think he will fit in jail just fine.

[steve-on-mark]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Judging by the size of the owner not a lot of sliding was going on…

Except for food sliding down his esophagus?

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

[wentworthwhitbreadIII]

Bigger is better folks!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by codeman671

It sounds to me like someone has been watching a few too many Dukes of Hazard re-runs…I doubt highly that a 40k lb vessel launched over the dock with its death machine props shearing the top off the boat as it flew through the air…

Take another look at the HackerCraft and the dock:

https://indepthnh.org/2023/08/13/wol...investigation/

The dock's wooden 2x8's are crushed directly downwards (unlike ice damage). The bench seat is depressed towards the splintered dock.

This crime scene is where the Searay traversed the dock at a deadly speed, continued across the secured HackerCraft--depressing the hull downwards--and shredding the forward cockpit/helm. The Searay continued across the HackerCraft wrapping the pumpkin-colored boat cover around the propeller. (Note the cover's elastic edges).

Prove me wrong.

[tis]

Now that you mention it, the boat did have a pumpkin colored cover.

[Sweet spot]

Not sure how many people named Roger Ploof live in Windham, NH, but a Roger Ploof was arrested in 2018 for Second Degree Assault.
Also interesting is that there is a Roger Ploof, Jr. who is listed as a Contractor in Pelham, NH which is where the escape boat is registered.
Interesting coincidences…

[Mr_Marty]

Originally Posted by Sweet spot

Not sure how many people named Roger Ploof live in Windham, NH, but a Roger Ploof was arrested in 2018 for Second Degree Assault.
Also interesting is that there is a Roger Ploof, Jr. who is listed as a Contractor in Pelham, NH which is where the escape boat is registered.
Interesting coincidences…

The boater is indeed a Roger Ploof Jr. He is one of the cofounders of S&R Corp. out of Lowell, MA.
https://sandrcorp.com/about/our-team/

Rumor has it that he's affiliated with the mob so I wouldn't be surprised if he has a somewhat extensive rap sheet.

Last I heard he had fled the state and was on the run. Not sure if he has been apprehended yet.

[Pricestavern]

If Roger R Ploof was his father, then Junior didn't fall far from the tree.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal.../851/7/320335/

Defendant was indicted for conspiracy to make false statements on a mortgage loan application, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1014, 656; making false statements to a national bank, 18 U.S.C. § 1014; wilful misapplication of bank funds, 18 U.S.C. § 656; and bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1344. Three criminal complaints charging a narcotics offense, interstate transportation of stolen property, and unlawful structuring of a financial transaction were also filed. On the government's motion, a detention hearing was held. Based on the evidence, the magistrate concluded that while conditions of release could reasonably assure defendant's presence at trial, there was no condition or combination of conditions of release which would reasonably assure the safety of other persons and the community if the defendant were released. The magistrate stated that the government had proven by clear and convincing evidence that during the period August to October 1987, defendant had plotted at length first to injure and then to kill his girlfriend's husband. The girlfriend and her husband at that time were involved in divorce proceedings. The magistrate concluded from this that defendant was a dangerous person who "appears to have no qualms about planning criminal acts and taking steps to protect himself from being associated with the crimes afterwards." In view of defendant's apparent ruthlessness, the magistrate could not find any conditions which would reasonably assure that defendant would not be a danger to persons who had crossed him. The magistrate rejected counsel's suggestion that anyone who had had anything damaging to say about defendant to law enforcement officials had already said it and that hence there was no longer anyone defendant would want to harm. The magistrate pointed out that defendant had plotted against his girlfriend's husband after the husband had already talked to law enforcement officials. Consequently, the magistrate ordered defendant detained.

[upthesaukee]

Why to I feel this thread is going to go "bye bye"?!?!

Dave

[lagoon]

Originally Posted by Pricestavern

If Roger R Ploof was his father, then Junior didn't fall far from the tree.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal.../851/7/320335/

From what I can find he also had tax liens issues from both New Hampshire and Massachusetts. I think his boating days are over, at least legal boating days....

[Descant]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I have owned CG documented boats before but still always registered in NH. Can’t say that I have ever see a boat on the lake that should have bow numbers and didn’t. It screams pull me over.

My lienholder required it on my Rinker 320EC (which coincidently was sold to a friend of the clown involved in this). I didn’t bother to put the name on it, it was never leaving the lake while I owned it and no CG here to ask questions. Wasn’t opposed to it, just never got to it. It mainly stayed tied up at our dock being used as sleeping quarters as our camp build was in the planning stages.

I first owned a documented vessel in 1993. As above, I was concerned about getting stopped by MP for no bow numbers. A letter from Director Barrett assured me there should be no problem, but I was still required to pay a state fee and display the colored sticker. A recent purchase came from NJ and a title company wanted $700 to do the documentation. Since NH is not a title state, I simply took the bill of sale to a marina and registered the boat. (I always register in Gilford so the town gets the benefit of the tax dollars to support Glendale.)

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I have owned CG documented boats before but still always registered in NH. Can’t say that I have ever see a boat on the lake that should have bow numbers and didn’t. It screams pull me over.

My lienholder required it on my Rinker 320EC (which coincidently was sold to a friend of the clown involved in this). I didn’t bother to put the name on it, it was never leaving the lake while I owned it and no CG here to ask questions. Wasn’t opposed to it, just never got to it. It mainly stayed tied up at our dock being used as sleeping quarters as our camp build was in the planning stages.

See post 11 in this thread. I was skeptical as well.

https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums...+marine+patrol