2008 Coast Guard Statistics

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

2) I don't see the Cigarette boat as absolved of alcohol use either.

Nice try. Since it supports the agenda, trying to implicate the Cigarette boat skipper would be beneficial, but the facts simply do not point that way.

If he were drinking, wouldn't the MP that pulled him over at 11:42pm for a light violation have screened him for BUI?

You just can't argue with facts.

Sorry.

[ApS]

Alcohol use is not BUI.

The facts are...that you have 4-in-5 chances of being wrong!

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Nice try. Since it supports the agenda, trying to implicate the Cigarette boat skipper would be beneficial, but the facts simply do not point that way.

If he were drinking, wouldn't the MP that pulled him over at 11:42pm for a light violation have screened him for BUI?

You just can't argue with facts.

Sorry.

That was brilliant APS. So you say a 21' Sea Ray is listed as a Performance Boat? Whatever. And as Ryan stated, the Formula was pulled over for a light issue, which was fixed. I agree that at that hour, the MP would be looking for other issues as well.

Absent a speed violation, Now you're bringing up an alcohol potential? I thought alcohol was off limits, and GFBL speed was the problem

If people stuck to principled arguments, they wouldn't have to shift their train of thought so much. I could care less what kind of boats were involved, only that two boats collided. I read the article, along with the followup articles, one of which suggested that someone in the smaller boat could possibly be prosecuted. From the information available, I gathered they might charge him with being the driver, calling in false information, and boating without a proper certification to do so. It was in the followup article that it was stated the speed of the boats, 25 mph and 30 mph.

APS, you also state that on Winni "(There's only a 20% chance—on Winnipesaukee at least—that alcohol is NOT involved)."

So given the lack of smily, are you indicating that 80% of accidents suvh as these, at any speed, are the result of alcohol? Possibly alcohol is only a contributing factor? Or a complete admission that at any speed, BUI is a problem?

Given that, it's pretty much what the anti SL crowd has been saying all along. I've read about late night boat crashes for years. Very, very rarely is the operator sober. A little birdie told me that it would be wise for MP's to increase their staffing at night and keep an eye out at the obvious locations on every body of water.

So here we are in another topic, where APS is very concerned that people think a 21' boat was in the wrong, and the 40' Formula was not. Do I see a a trend here?

Here's a cute CG story. Maybe this guy was drunk; http://www.thespec.com/article/606600
Interesting is the way that even in international waters and with a boat doing 135, the authorities still were able to catch him. All it took was the desire to do so. It's possible to enforce any boating law (except that ridiculous 150' rule) when you put your mind to it. Of course, even if he had been drinking, I'm sure by the time they caught him his blood was clean and they could not charge him with BUI, but at least they had other laws to charge him with. It's good to give Law Enforcement as many options as possible for getting thugs like this off our lakes.

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by elchase

It's possible to enforce any boating law (except that ridiculous 150' rule) when you put your mind to it.

Why is it not possible to enforce that law? Why is it ridiculous?

Obviously it is not feasible to enforce threshold violations (say, 120'). Then again, it's not really feasible to enforce threshold speeding violations (say, 50 mph).

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by elchase

Here's a cute CG story. Maybe this guy was drunk; http://www.thespec.com/article/606600
Interesting is the way that even in international waters and with a boat doing 135, the authorities still were able to catch him. All it took was the desire to do so. It's possible to enforce any boating law (except that ridiculous 150' rule) when you put your mind to it. Of course, even if he had been drinking, I'm sure by the time they caught him his blood was clean and they could not charge him with BUI, but at least they had other laws to charge him with. It's good to give Law Enforcement as many options as possible for getting thugs like this off our lakes.

You should read the article to get your facts straight. First of all, he was going 135 km/h, not MPH. That translates to 81 MPH.
"The cigarette boat hit 135 km/h and the U.S. Coast Guard could only watch it fly into Canadian waters."

Secondly, seeing as this is in a speed limit thread, you imply that he was charged with some kind of speeding violation. However, you can see that he was not.
"He was charged with dangerous operation of a vessel and released on bail."

Doesn't New Hampshire have some kind of reckless operation law?

Thanks for posting that link. It is good to know that other bodies of water don't have the need for speed limits, either.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by elchase

Here's a cute CG story. Maybe this guy was drunk; http://www.thespec.com/article/606600
Interesting is the way that even in international waters and with a boat doing 135, the authorities still were able to catch him. All it took was the desire to do so. It's possible to enforce any boating law (except that ridiculous 150' rule) when you put your mind to it. Of course, even if he had been drinking, I'm sure by the time they caught him his blood was clean and they could not charge him with BUI, but at least they had other laws to charge him with. It's good to give Law Enforcement as many options as possible for getting thugs like this off our lakes.

El, Are you really saying that you would be OK if 2 boats at a 90 MPH closure speed come within 25 feet of each other?

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

El, Are you really saying that you would be OK if 2 boats at a 90 MPH closure speed come within 25 feet of each other?

Of course he is, as he is in the name of safety and that "ridiculous 150ft law"!

[ApS]

To the question,

"...a 21' Sea Ray is listed as a Performance Boat...?"

Yes it is—and at a website that may convince you to change perspective on boating speeds—as it certainly did mine!

Moving on...

1) Two "performance boats" (21' and 40') collided with each other—and one is faulted. That list of "performance boats" should be consulted with each collision cited by us: it's not just pontoons and bowriders that are involved in crashes.

2) Indisputably, NHMP Lt. Dunleavey stated that there is a 4-in-5 chance that alcohol will be on board a "recreational" boat. (And drinking that alcohol on board is legal!)

Recreational drugs (which are not exactly unseen at sand bars) are unaccounted for.

3) Safeguarding his passengers—all the while keeping his vessel safe—is maritime's oldest rule for a captain. Avoiding a collision should have been uppermost for both "drivers".

4) We can allege that one "driver" was BUI, but there is still a 4-in-5 circumstance that some degree of impairment existed with the other.

5) Blaming waitresses for Winnipesaukee's fatal collisions couldn't have been nailed as dead as elchase nailed it dead. "For This Useful Post", it rated—and got—a rare ApS thank-you.

6) Repeatedly reciting Interstate analogies is tiresome: truck and car traffic travel parallel to one another. Tracking boats zig-zagging across our waters would show that the tracks across an automobile "destruction derby" is a far better analogy. (Fortunately for boaters, there are many-more "misses" than "hits".)

Now, regarding the Coast Guard topic that started this discussion, looky here:



(Did any Opponent notice the Coast Guard doesn't list insufficient speed?)
|
|
|


1) Combining the two "highest-speed" categories results in 245 fatalities. (Remarkable in itself).

2) However, look at the number of combined injuries: 1376 That's more than 10-times the number of paddlers without an engine (!)

3) Translated, that means that excess-horsepower injures far more people than the stats would suggest at first glance. (And 'way-more power boaters injured than paddlers).

But excessive horsepower still kills too many paddlers and sailors—according to these stats.

4)And finally:

Paraphrasing President Obama, we Supporters have only "skin in this game". However, this Supporter observes that at least one Opponent has a multi-million dollar financial stake "in this game".

Where is the "I recuse myself from this discussion" button?

What do we forum members think about the incentive for postings where genuine "skin" is not involved—but dollars are?

(Anybody?)

[VtSteve]

You appear to be far more easily influenced by things that I thought APS. I've been on so many boating boards I don't remember all of the sites. From Hull Truth to many, many more. Certainly, some of the participants have changed my theory that all boaters share common ground

I'm at a complete loss as to why you are still so disturbed over the facts of that accident.

It occurred at sane plane speeds, both boats under 30 mph.

The smaller boat (21') hit the larger boat

The authorities seemed intent on charging the driver of the smaller boat with various things;

filing a false report
impeding an investigation
possibly BUI
having no boater's certificate


You come back to post this because you are also a bit disturbed that not everyone thought of the 21' Sea Ray as a Performance Boat. That's your hang-up, not mine. So let's call it two performance boats just to make you feel better. K? But you have an interesting perspective on the CG Chart math as well

Basically, you won't read the facts of that boat case and just state it. You have to interpret, insinuate, and try to massage and manage it for your own agenda. What the heck does that say about your Perspective on anything? Your perspective goes right out the window when it involves this topic. You can't even look at an accident without deciding who was at fault before reading the article.

I certainly respect your views APS, but it's your judgment I wonder about. The post you Thanked, was interesting. Anyone that's been around boating boards, especially ones dealing with safety, would know full well the BUI problem that exists on waterways everywhere. It was obvious why that particular restaurant was ridiculed about their serving Littlefield. Because the link to a WINFABS founder was tooo obvious. Heck, same thing as last year's crash with Erica at the helm. But nobody covered up or lost their bar tabs did they?

Just for balance, how about posting some stories about small boats with drunk drivers. Maybe that can expand your frame of reference.

[BroadHopper]

A steel hull boat with less than 10 hp motor that has to operate between 10 to 20 mph in order to eliminate the most amount of death. OK I will go for that. New law to replace the SL law! Does all the SL supporters agree?????

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

2) Indisputably, NHMP Lt. Dunleavey stated that there is a 4-in-5 chance that alcohol will be on board a "recreational" boat. (And drinking that alcohol on board is legal!)

:

This misquote is the basis of the 80% statistic you have been pushing? I probably have alcohol on my boat every day it is on the water, but that does not mean the operator is drinking. Drinking alcohol is legal, and should remain so, but BUI is unacceptable and should remain illegal.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Now, regarding the Coast Guard topic that started this discussion, looky here:



(Did any Opponent notice the Coast Guard doesn't list insufficient speed?)
|
|
|


1) Combining the two "highest-speed" categories results in 245 fatalities. (Remarkable in itself).

Combining the two lowest speed categories results in the highest # of fatalities. Stats can be skewed however you want- frankly you may want to quit now because the stats in the chart will not support you...

Example 205 deaths for the 2 lowest HP categories vs. 122 for the 2 highest

[Airwaves]

The way I read it for deaths:
Slowest
Not moving: 109
Under 10MPH 212
Total 321

Fastest
21 to 40 MPH 47
Over 40 MPH 19
Total 66

0.00029% of registered boats in NH were involved in accidents in 2008!

[ApS]

Foreword:

I note that most of the Opponents in this year's "Speed Limits" sub-forum did not participate in an opportunity for closure in the Final Statements thread. Much rancor could have been defused.

In an effort to keep rancor to a minimum, I'll keep my quotes "generic".

Re: Regarding NH's "safety" in US stats:

Can you name any smaller "less-safe" state that has so much frozen water?

Re: Lt. Dunleavey on alcohol on board:

That's a misquote?*

*Now HERE is a misquote by "M.P. Dunleavey"...(at bottom)...

"Now THAT'S a Misquote!"

Re: "Combining the two lowest speed categories results in the highest # of fatalities".

Manipulating the stats in that manner will include anchored boats. Are you sure that manipulation is what you want to have archived here—forever?

Re: "...I probably have alcohol on my boat every day..."

You don't know?

Re: A steel hull boat with less than 10 hp motor that has to operate between 10 to 20 mph in order to eliminate the most amount of death. OK I will go for that. New law to replace the SL law!
Does all the SL supporters agree?????

I doesn't.

We all know that there will always be boats at anchor and always be oversized boats with "tipsy drivers", so my answer will be, that "there will always be death on the water".

(And, maybe, some deaths from running-up ashore. )

A good place to begin restrictions is at the infamous, unlimited-speed-deathtrap known as the "Poker Run".

And any semblance thereof—such as the side-by-side races off Rattlesnake Island by two—or more—over-powered boats...

Especially while observing the 150'-rule!

|
|
|

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) Combining the two "highest-speed" categories results in 245 fatalities. (Remarkable in itself).

Guys don't you know, APS is combining the over 250 HP and unknown HP together to arrive at his 245. You see, we all skimmed over that at first because we just do not understand (he understands more than us, that is why we only get snips of his thoughts.)

APS is attributing big horsepower with fast boats. APS, how many commercial fishing vessels do you think are sunk off our coasts or on the inland waters each year, and the folks on board drown? That is just one example

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

(And, maybe, some deaths from running-up ashore. )

APS, for someone that has stated that he owns three waterfront homes, I cannot for the life of me understand why. You are so completely hung up on boats running ashore and killing someone. Don't worry though, you shadow can never really catch you.

APS, ever see the show "6 Degrees".

[chmeeee]

I read through this post in it's entirety yesterday and again today, and no matter what I do, it makes ZERO sense to me.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

2) Indisputably, NHMP Lt. Dunleavey stated that there is a 4-in-5 chance that alcohol will be on board a "recreational" boat. (And drinking that alcohol on board is legal!)

Recreational drugs (which are not exactly unseen at sand bars) are unaccounted for.

You don't seem to understand this statistic. 80% of boats with alcohol does not mean 80% of drivers are drunk or have even consumed a drop. My boat probably has alcohol on board 90% of the time, but I've never (and will never) been guilty of BUI.

So now we are also supposed to assume that people are high on drugs if not explicitly proved otherwise? What does any of this have to do with speed?

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

6) Repeatedly reciting Interstate analogies is tiresome: truck and car traffic travel parallel to one another. Tracking boats zig-zagging across our waters would show that the tracks across an automobile "destruction derby" is a far better analogy. (Fortunately for boaters, there are many-more "misses" than "hits".)

Yet the cars are driving 4-6 feet from each other, 10-30 feet from trees, rocks, and other potentially fatal hazards. Boats should not be driving within less than 150 feet of anything at any kind of speed.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) Combining the two "highest-speed" categories results in 245 fatalities. (Remarkable in itself).

By what math? I can't find any two numbers in the fatality column that add up to 245. The two highest speed categories add up to 66.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

4)And finally:

Paraphrasing President Obama, we Supporters have only "skin in this game". However, this Supporter observes that at least one Opponent has a multi-million dollar financial stake "in this game".

Where is the "I recuse myself from this discussion" button?

What do we forum members think about the incentive for postings where genuine "skin" is not involved—but dollars are?

(Anybody?)

On on Earth are you talking about?

[VtSteve]

Still working on the math?

Here's part of your Epic post.

"2) Lake Winnipesaukee has dodged the multi-fatality collisions at other locales by one great law that has been protecting us for 30+ years; sadly, we see daily that our "Unsafe Passage" rule is receiving inadequate compliance, uneven enforcement, and even the vaunted "Education" element has failed our previously-enjoyable Lake Winnipesaukee boating experiences.

HB-847 resulted.

3) In the past, no tickets could be written for speeds over headway speed—now they can! Also now, the night-hidden scourge of BWI can be assaulted stealthily using radar.

That "nothing perceptible will change" is wrong. I predict that the night speed limit will be the most productive part of the new law in keeping problem boaters away—night and day.

Although the Coast Guard will take three years to produce the statistics, we should expect HB-847 to make much improvement in finding BWI "drivers".

(We got "drivers", now? What happened to "helmsmen"?)

4) By choosing which laws to break, one boating segment has brought HB-847 down upon themselves: HB-847 isn't the fault of "everybody" or "crowds".

Too often, it is easier to "split the difference" between lesser boaters rather than to back off the throttles. What pass for quiet mufflers still brings dread to boaters at anchor, fishermen, lakeside residents no longer secure in their houses, and those attending to a skier or tuber. You'll see them glance up—and it's not an admiring look they'll give in the direction of that menacing approach.

When existing laws are ignored among an increasingly arrogant boating segment, demands for a different legal approach can be expected: enter HB-847."

So we have you alerting us to laws that go without enforcement, and zeroing in on BWI, and HB-847 helping to reduce BWI on the lake. The a bit about people being scared by louder boats.

I agree that the night limit, as low as it is, would make it easy to weed out the cowboys. I wonder when that starts to happen?

You can be a walking, talking, posting contradiction. If I added the above to all previous posts of what's wrong on the water, nobody would be left. Except yourself?

Knowing what you know about the MP budget, exactly how much do you expect from the MP's, night or day?

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) Combining the two "highest-speed" categories results in 245 fatalities. (Remarkable in itself).

I don't know what your looking at but the 2 highest speed deaths on that chart are 19 and 47 for a total of 66 out of 1146 accidents or 5.7%. The slowest catagory alone (not moving) has 109 deaths out of 917 accidents or 11.9%. More than double the 2 highest speeds.

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

"For This Useful Post", it rated—and got—a rare ApS thank-you.

I must say that I am flattered by this, unless you have removed it by now, that would be OK as I will always have the memory.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

2) However, look at the number of combined injuries: 1376 That's more than 10-times the number of paddlers without an engine (!)

3) Translated, that means that excess-horsepower injures far more people than the stats would suggest at first glance. (And 'way-more power boaters injured than paddlers).

But excessive horsepower still kills too many paddlers and sailors—according to these stats.

I see stats are not quite your thing, so let me help you make sense of your numbers.

For the big horsepower catagories, I will play along with your including Unknown as assuming larger than 250HP.

With 1376 injures on 2826 vessels, 48.7% injury rate. How many commercial fishing vessels have injuries every year that require Coast Guard assistance?

Of those 2826 vessels, 245 deaths, 11.5% death rate.

Now for the no horse power catagory.

With 193 injuries on 325 vessels, 59.4% injury rate. If you are paddling alone than the chances are not in your favor. If there are two of you in your canoe the chances are still not is your favor. Does the Coast Guard track injuries occuring in a canoe valued at less than $2000.00

Of those 325 vessels, 171 deaths, 52.6% death rate. Might want to have 3 people in your boat if you want to improve your odds.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

4)And finally:

Paraphrasing President Obama, we Supporters have only "skin in this game". However, this Supporter observes that at least one Opponent has a multi-million dollar financial stake "in this game".

Where is the "I recuse myself from this discussion" button?

What do we forum members think about the incentive for postings where genuine "skin" is not involved—but dollars are?

(Anybody?)

What are you talking about the Marine Patrol and there budget?