Boating Accident/Death off Diamond Island

[pats fan]

Wow and Hole Cow, Nadia! I think on this one I have to agree with Tilton BB. When I first read your initial post I thought the same thing as BB. I thought it was certainly giving those people who do not know Erica some ammunition to say, "Well, there you go. Another barfly kills someone after a drunken night." I do not know if Erica has a tendency to drink too much but after reading your post I have to admit I immediately started thinking she must be a pretty big drinker. Most people do not spend 2 or 3 nights a week for hours at a time in a bar NOT drinking. I don't think he/she was trying to attack you. I think he/she was trying to point out to you that you were not helping Erica's reputation by your comments. As for working on making your posts not quite so long...good luck with that!

[Nadia]

I stated they frequented the lounge. Not the bar, or cocktail lounge. Nor did I say they drank any alcoholic drinks. Here are the definitions for you to see:

From www.thefreedictionary.com, the definition of lounge as opposed to the definition of bar.

lounge (lounj)
v. lounged, loung·ing, loung·es
v.intr.
1. To move or act in a lazy, relaxed way; loll: lounging on the sofa; lounged around in pajamas.
2. To pass time idly: lounged in Venice till June.
v.tr.
To pass (time) in a lazy, relaxed, or idle way: lounged the day away.
n.
1. A public waiting room, as in a hotel or an air terminal, often having smoking or lavatory facilities.
2. A cocktail lounge.
3.
a. A living room.
b. A lobby.
4. A long couch, especially one having no back and a headrest at one end.

bar 1 (bär)
n.
1. A relatively long, straight, rigid piece of solid material used as a fastener, support, barrier, or structural or mechanical member.
2.
a. A solid oblong block of a substance, such as soap or candy.
b. A rectangular block of a precious metal.
3. Sports
a. A horizontal bar
b. A horizontal rod that marks the height to be cleared in high jumping or pole vaulting.
4. A standard, expectation, or degree of requirement: a leader whose example set a high bar for others.
5. Something that impedes or prevents action or progress. See Synonyms at obstacle.
6. A ridge, as of sand or gravel, on a shore or streambed, that is formed by the action of tides or currents.
7. A narrow marking, as a stripe or band.
8.
a. A narrow metal or embroidered strip worn on a military uniform indicating rank or service.
b. Chiefly British A small insignia worn on a military decoration indicating that it has been awarded an additional time.
9. Heraldry A pair of horizontal parallel lines drawn across a shield.
10. Law
a. The nullification, defeat, or prevention of a claim or action.
b. The process by which nullification, defeat, or prevention is achieved.
11. The railing in a courtroom enclosing the part of the room where the judges and lawyers sit, witnesses are heard, and prisoners are tried.
12. A place of judgment; a tribunal.
13. Law
a. Attorneys considered as a group.
b. The profession of law.
14. Music
a. A vertical line drawn through a staff to mark off a measure.
b. A measure.
15. Variant of barre.
16.
a. A counter at which drinks, especially alcoholic drinks, and sometimes food, are served.
b. An establishment or room having such a counter.

However; since it seems to be a common misunderstanding so far, and to avoid further controversy I will be glad to edit my post so no one thinks I am implying they were doing things they were not. The Lobster Pound issue is old, boring and non-related. Much to your dismay I am no longer affiliated with the Weirs Beach Lobster Pound. I voluntarily left on May 15, 2009. My severance had nothing to do with this forum or any of it's contents or member comments. Stop whining, trolling, cross threading, beating dead horses, speculating and breathing while your at it. You are pushing your personal agenda because your mad at remarks made to you by several people in another thread, including myself. Now your running into your own neighbors on here who are deducting from the credibility of your posts and painting a true picture of your miserable, negative character off the forum. I have zero respect for anyone who condones and threatens cruelty and violence towards animals. Your own neighbors have verified you are an inconsiderate jerk. Get off my case, your not getting the rise out of me your looking for. In fact your going on ignore. There are medications and people who are qualified to help people as angry and hateful as you are.

My now "defunct" restaurant actually was leased to TD Bank North after nearly 13 years of success for no other reason then they made me an offer I could not refuse. Now I see what your true issue with me is...
But I still think you should consider a highly qualified shrink...

My apologies for my response to TiltonBB's high-jack. It has no place here.

PatsFan, just because you summized something similar does not make what he said to me okay.

[pats fan]

Nadia,
My response and the response by TiltonBB were totally appropriate in accordance with your long rant and previous post. You have gone back and deleated your approx 100 line rant to TiltonBB and made changes to your post that I responded to. If you want to have an adult exchange keep things as they are originally posted, don't go back and make changes so future posts by others look incorrect. I told you that saying "Erica and Stephanie used to frequent your lounge 2-3 times per week for hours at a time" was not in Erica's best interst. You have now changed it to say in your restaurant. That is fine, as it may help her reputation, but it certainly makes others, such as me, look like I posted something incorrectly. I do not know if Erica drinks too much or even at all, I do not personally know her. I just felt bad for her because your original post made her sound like a barfly. Clearly you felt foolish about your 100 line babbling to BB, therefore removed it. That is good, since most of it made little to no sense, but be fair to other posters and keep things original so our responses are fitting.

Thank you for the definitions of lounge Vs. bar. I stand corrected. It was my error to think the young ladies were spending hours at a time, 2-3 nights per week having adult beverages in your lounge. Based on your definitions I now understand that they were simply relaxing on couches in their jammies in your waiting area. My mistake. Again, I feel terrible about Erica's and Stephanie's situation and am NOT saying anything bad about Erica. I was trying to help her by nicely telling you that you were not helping her image to say what you Originally said.

[Pine Island Guy]

i was just having some friendly banter with my neighbor JRC, and holy smoke, what popped out of the woodwork, this sure is fun

free entertainment!

hoping for a sunny funny weekend -PIG

[Nadia]

Originally Posted by pats fan

Nadia,
My response and the response by TiltonBB were totally appropriate in accordance with your long rant and previous post. You have gone back and deleated your approx 100 line rant to TiltonBB and made changes to your post that I responded to. If you want to have an adult exchange keep things as they are originally posted, don't go back and make changes so future posts by others look incorrect. I told you that saying "Erica and Stephanie used to frequent your lounge 2-3 times per week for hours at a time" was not in Erica's best interst. You have now changed it to say in your restaurant. That is fine, as it may help her reputation, but it certainly makes others, such as me, look like I posted something incorrectly. I do not know if Erica drinks too much or even at all, I do not personally know her. I just felt bad for her because your original post made her sound like a barfly. Clearly you felt foolish about your 100 line babbling to BB, therefore removed it. That is good, since most of it made little to no sense, but be fair to other posters and keep things original so our responses are fitting.

Thank you for the definitions of lounge Vs. bar. I stand corrected. It was my error to think the young ladies were spending hours at a time, 2-3 nights per week having adult beverages in your lounge. Based on your definitions I now understand that they were simply relaxing on couches in their jammies in your waiting area. My mistake. Again, I feel terrible about Erica's and Stephanie's situation and am NOT saying anything bad about Erica. I was trying to help her by nicely telling you that you were not helping her image to say what you Originally said.

I made changes to my post so you and TiltonBB would stop whining Now what is your agenda pats fan? You've followed me into two threads where TiltonBB and I are not seeing eye to eye and are attempting to help him "save face". I admit I could have chosen better wording BUT I will not admit that I was trying to imply Erica or Stephanie drank frequently, because that was not my intention. If TiltonBB had said it a little nicer, he may have gotten a different response, however he insisted upon trying to humiliate and annoy me AGAIN, and throwing Lobster Pound BS in my face. It's over. Move on, and grow up. And now, he has made a complete spectacle of himself and is trying to get out of the spot light, and now you are following him around trying to stick up for him. Pathetic. It's fair for him (and you) to say that my wording sounded odd, wrong, stupid, whatever...but the rest of it was uncalled for. I am not embarrassed about anything I say--that's why I reveal my true identity. As far as my definitions, you not only stand corrected once, but twice. "Hole Cow" is typically spelled "Holy Cow".

[sa meredith]

Nadia.....doesn't it ever get old?

[Nadia]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

Nadia.....doesn't it ever get old?

More then you could ever imagine. I really wish people would just let by gones be by gones. But with the reference to my "defunct" restaurant (which is verbatim what another member said to me not long ago) I now truly know what the problem is. More so, it's shameful to be bringing this nonsense into a thread of this nature. I'm very sad about this accident, as are other people....so if my wording initially stated otherwise I assure you it was an overlook. My bad. That's why I fixed it.

Back on topic, I have two questions: Is the charge negligent homicide? I've got a good question for Skip if that is the charge...I need to pick your brain!

Did they base that charge on any specific findings? Like her BAC for instance, if there was one? I know the answers are in this thread somewhere but their kind of difficult to find with so many other things to sort through.

[Breakwater]

Erica is charged with;

- negligently causing the death of another while operating under the influence
-negligently causing the death of another by failing to keep a proper look out and striking an island which resulted in death
-Operated a boat under the influence and causing a crash that resulted in serious injuries.

[Nadia]

Originally Posted by Breakwater

Erica is charged with;

- negligently causing the death of another while operating under the influence
-negligently causing the death of another by failing to keep a proper look out and striking an island which resulted in death
-Operated a boat under the influence and causing a crash that resulted in serious injuries.

Thank you for that information. Skip, like I said I want to pick your brain, but your all welcome and free to answer.

Erica is charged with negligence because her behavior/s resulted in Stephanie's death & the injury of another. The Court will refer to the four elements of negligence when making it's decision. One element is that if it were not for Erica's negligent behavior (being under the influence/not keeping proper look-out), Stephanie would not have lost her life, and Nicole would not be injured. Is it fair to say, in Erica's defense, if the weather conditions were indeed: foggy, misty, unusually dark and proven extremely difficult to navigate in even for an even more experienced captain, this accident would have taken place anyway? If I were her Attorney and I said, demonstrated, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this accident took place solely because of the weather, how do you think Prosecution would counter? I wonder if this is an avenue her Attorney will explore, and how he/she would prove abnormally foul weather was to blame? That the accident would have taken place even if she did keep proper look-out and was not under the influence of alcohol? Is it possible one could make this mistake and it truly was just an accident?

[NoBozo]

Here's the problem I have in this case....and any case where someone is navigating the lake at night. Ericas boat was not a "Cheapy". Any boat like that would have a "Moving Map GPS". I have a 20' runabout..and I have a Moving Map GPS. Pretty bullit proof...it glows in the dark. At night I pay attention to the GPS.

[Seadoo]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

Here's the problem I have in this case....and any case where someone is navigating the lake at night. Ericas boat was not a "Cheapy". Any boat like that would have a "Moving Map GPS". I have a 20' runabout..and I have a Moving Map GPS. Pretty bullit proof...it glows in the dark. At night I pay attention to the GPS.

hmm interesting it is ALMOST as if you THINK you know what you are talking about. Im going to take a wild guess and say that your 20 foot runabout gps system was installed after so. Ever taken a look at the prices on the GPS systems that come with formula boats?? (they are cheap and not worth the money) In most cases it is more "bang for your buck" to get one after market.

[VtSteve]

why SKIP is now a new member named Breakwater?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

why SKIP is now a new member named Breakwater?

Nope Steve, you didn't miss anything.

I have no idea who breakwater is....but I can assure you that I do not have a duplicate account here.

Skip

[VtSteve]

I must have been temporarily dazed by the good weather we had here this weekend. I wasn't even in a lounge or anything

[Audiofn]

Originally Posted by Seadoo

hmm interesting it is ALMOST as if you THINK you know what you are talking about. Im going to take a wild guess and say that your 20 foot runabout gps system was installed after so. Ever taken a look at the prices on the GPS systems that come with formula boats?? (they are cheap and not worth the money) In most cases it is more "bang for your buck" to get one after market.

Not quite sure what you are talking about the Formula GPS's not being good. The GPS in the boat being driven should have looked something like this.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Seadoo

hmm interesting it is ALMOST as if you THINK you know what you are talking about. Im going to take a wild guess and say that your 20 foot runabout gps system was installed after so. Ever taken a look at the prices on the GPS systems that come with formula boats?? (they are cheap and not worth the money) In most cases it is more "bang for your buck" to get one after market.

You are Funny Seadoo. I presume by your screen name that your mode of nautical transportation is a Seadoo...or shall we say JetSki. No problem there. To each his own.

My own background is as follows..In Brief: I sailed my own boat to Bermuda and back..Singlehanded, in 1979, and did it again in 1981. I used Celestial Navigation. There was no GPS then and LORAN "C" was only coming on line in it's infantsy. I have followed modern navigation developments since then and GPS WORKS. It doesn't matter how much you pay for GPS...the only thing different is "Features". The accuracy is pretty much the same.

SO: YES: I think I know what I'm talking about.

[Seadoo]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

You are Funny Seadoo. I presume by your screen name that your mode of nautical transportation is a Seadoo...or shall we say JetSki. No problem there. To each his own.

My own background is as follows..In Brief: I sailed my own boat to Bermuda and back..Singlehanded, in 1979, and did it again in 1981. I used Celestial Navigation. There was no GPS then and LORAN "C" was only coming on line in it's infantsy. I have followed modern navigation developments since then and GPS WORKS. It doesn't matter how much you pay for GPS...the only thing different is "Features". The accuracy is pretty much the same.

SO: YES: I think I know what I'm talking about.

wow congrats you know a SEA DOO is a jet ski, nothing gets by anyone on this forum.

also congrats on sailing you own boat to bermuda and back, and singledhanded wow you must feel great!

The funny thing about all the computers that run our lives is that they misread data and sometimes are worse then boating the "old" way, using land points around the water ways to help one get from point A to point B. Regaurdless on what GPS system one is using they still do fail more so in the rain and stormy weather, as it was that night.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Seadoo

Regaurdless on what GPS system one is using they still do fail more so in the rain and stormy weather, as it was that night.

???? WHAT ???? You make this comment based on what evidence?

Can anyone back up this statement. Does GPS fail in the rain?

[TomC]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

???? WHAT ???? You make this comment based on what evidence?

Can anyone back up this statement. Does GPS fail in the rain?

rain, moisture, fog, heavy cloud cover (any atmospheric condition that is "conductive") can attenuate RF. So it isn't necessarily a matter of "failing", but a degradation that may result in less frequent positional updates due to weak(er) signals. In the extreme, yes, loss of signal could occur which would render the device inoperative.

[Pineedles]

I know my Garmin has a hard time "Locating Satellites" when it I turn it on if there are storm clouds and rain; but it eventually comes on-line. It sometimes messages "Waiting for Better Accuracy" if it is really cloudy.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

I know my Garmin has a hard time "Locating Satellites" when it I turn it on if there are storm clouds and rain; but it eventually comes on-line. It sometimes messages "Waiting for Better Accuracy" if it is really cloudy.

The problem I have had with GPS accuracy on the lake is the loss of "WAAS" (Wide Area Augmentation System) which keeps your GPS accurate within 3 meters. For the life of me I can't understand why in such an open area I keep losing the WAAS signal on my GPS, and for some reason it seems worse this year than last. Does anyone else have this problem on the lake???

Without WAAS, accuracy can be as much as 100 meters off and I have personally seen this inaccuracy on my GPS. I have rarely loss total GPS / satellite signal however.

GPS is a another extra wonderful tool to HELP with navigation but should never be relied upon totally. It is NOT fail proof and it is never 100% accurate.

Dan

[upthesaukee]

see this article

http://www.landairsea.com/gps-tracki...-gps-accuracy/

[sa meredith]

Can you imagine being on the boat that night if a false GPS reading was indeed the cause of the accident?! Holy Christ! Stop and think about it for a second...try to put yourself there.
Cruising along, happy to be with good friends, and laughing about the prank you had just pulled. Maybe a small "glow on" from a beer or three (come on now, we've all been there) trusting your GPS in the fog and rain, because, well, it has never failed you before, not once. Blasting along, but keeping a close watch on your GPS screen, staying right on course, and then out of nowhere, AN ISLAND! Way too late to do a darn thing, except thing, "Wow, this really going to suck!"

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

Can you imagine being on the boat that night if a false GPS reading was indeed the cause of the accident?! Holy Christ! Stop and think about it for a second...try to put yourself there.
Cruising along, happy to be with good friends, and laughing about the prank you had just pulled. Maybe a small "glow on" from a beer or three (come on now, we've all been there) trusting your GPS in the fog and rain, because, well, it has never failed you before, not once. Blasting along, but keeping a close watch on your GPS screen, staying right on course, and then out of nowhere, AN ISLAND! Way too late to do a darn thing, except thing, "Wow, this really going to suck!"

I am not relating this comment to the accident referenced in this thread specifically...

IMO, anyone who needs a TV screen to navigate at night needs to stay off the damn water. GPS, especially on a small inland lake, is a sanity check, not an auto pilot.

So, no, I cannot picture the scene you describe because there is no way I would EVER trust an electronic device to guide me in close quarters at speeds that could cause harm to vessel or person if it malfunctioned.

[VtSteve]

Technically, Jet Ski is the brand name for Kawasaki I believe.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

???? WHAT ???? You make this comment based on what evidence?

Can anyone back up this statement. Does GPS fail in the rain?

His statement doesn't seem that far fetched. GPS systems receive signals from satellites. When there is weather, it stands to reason that the already relatively weak signals could be affected, making it harder for the device to lock on and get an accurate reading.

There are many reasons why things like GPS and LORAN-C should be considered navigational AIDs and not replacements for familiarity with the water you're operating in.

[hazelnut]

OK I guess... I've never had it happen to my Standard Horizon in any cloud cover whatsoever, or rain. I also had a hard time finding evidence of failure of GPS in rain and clouds online. I'll take your word for it that it has happened to you though.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

OK I guess... I've never had it happen to my Standard Horizon in any cloud cover whatsoever, or rain. I also had a hard time finding evidence of failure of GPS in rain and clouds online. I'll take your word for it that it has happened to you though.

I have had issues with my Standard Horizons (I have had the CP155C, CP175C and currently have a CP180I) in the past on crappy nights. It does happen. Sometimes they have problems acquiring a link in inclement weather.

[Skip]

While all of this talk of GPS accuracy and anomalies is fascinating we must all remember one thing:

Regardless of GPS, RADAR, compass, depthfinders or the like a captain, at all times, must maintain a proper lookout. Maintaining a proper lookout is one of the most basic rules of seamanship that everyone must master and understand before taking the helm.

Failure of an installed navigational aid, or the inability to interperet such aid accurately is never an excuse for not maintaining a proper lookout, or operating your craft at an appropriate speed with regards to surrounding water & atmospheric conditions!

[Lakepilot]

Had an airplane with GPS in it. Have thousands of hours IFR and hundreds flying in the rain and the GPS never failed (due to the rain). We have Direct TV and it has been known to fail during heavy rain and thunderstorms.

[4Fun]

Originally Posted by Lakepilot

Had an airplane with GPS in it. Have thousands of hours IFR and hundreds flying in the rain and the GPS never failed (due to the rain). We have Direct TV and it has been known to fail during heavy rain and thunderstorms.

Different frequencys react differently to weather. My XM radio antenna can have 1' of snow on it and work fine. Direct TV hardly works at all in the snow. I would say GPS is pretty resiliant. Mine works great all the time even in some heavy snow when snowmobiling.

Maybe she was "flying on instruments"....

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Seadoo

wow congrats you know a SEA DOO is a jet ski, nothing gets by anyone on this forum.

also congrats on sailing you own boat to bermuda and back, and singledhanded wow you must feel great!

The funny thing about all the computers that run our lives is that they misread data and sometimes are worse then boating the "old" way, using land points around the water ways to help one get from point A to point B. Regaurdless on what GPS system one is using they still do fail more so in the rain and stormy weather, as it was that night.

Don't forget, Sea Doo also makes and sells boats.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Nadia

Thank you for that information. Skip, like I said I want to pick your brain, but your all welcome and free to answer.

Erica is charged with negligence because her behavior/s resulted in Stephanie's death & the injury of another. The Court will refer to the four elements of negligence when making it's decision. One element is that if it were not for Erica's negligent behavior (being under the influence/not keeping proper look-out), Stephanie would not have lost her life, and Nicole would not be injured. Is it fair to say, in Erica's defense, if the weather conditions were indeed: foggy, misty, unusually dark and proven extremely difficult to navigate in even for an even more experienced captain, this accident would have taken place anyway? If I were her Attorney and I said, demonstrated, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this accident took place solely because of the weather, how do you think Prosecution would counter? I wonder if this is an avenue her Attorney will explore, and how he/she would prove abnormally foul weather was to blame? That the accident would have taken place even if she did keep proper look-out and was not under the influence of alcohol? Is it possible one could make this mistake and it truly was just an accident?

Her attorney better have another argument IMO. Cruising about on plane in rain or fog so thick that she couldn't see and react to the island in her path in time to avoid the collision is negligence. That's speed too fast for the prevailing conditions and something an experienced boater should know. Dr Rock's testimony re: the conditions there at that time will be interesting. If the visibility was unlimited then the argument has to be the island was too dark to be seen and Erica thought she knew where she was but was in error. Without GPS or such and w/o visual cues the prosecutor might well argue that no reasonable person would be so sure and so again it becomes negligent operation. In any case it'll all play out in court and no doubt be reported as was the Littlefield case, so we'll see then.

[Just Sold]

In 2005 an "experienced boater" ran aground on Rattlesnake Is at night while trying to approach an unlighted dock. So it can happen to anyone anytime.
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...sh+Rattlesnake

[VtSteve]

I've had that happen myself, only to find that the spotlights blinded me coming in. Finding your own dock in pitch black darkness can be a challenge. I wish the moon were full all the time, but I imagine that would have other consequences as well

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Just Sold

In 2005 an "experienced boater" ran aground on Rattlesnake Is at night while trying to approach an unlighted dock. So it can happen to anyone anytime.
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...sh+Rattlesnake

I think I mentioned this very accident sometime earlier in the thread. So to put some balance back into the discusssion it might well be argued that visibility was limited (to ground level) but not "zero" that night and Erica seeing the shoreline lights, thought she was the proper distance from shore. I've run the route I now believe she was taking that night countless times and the shoreline isn't dark in that area. Most nights I don't consult the GPS (coming back that route) until after I'm home and find that my deviation from the programmed route is negligible. So could it have been a simple error ... sure. Again the testimony of her friend onboard and Dr Rock as to the conditions that night will narrow a lot of the speculation as to what happened.

[Mink Islander]

Failure to maintain a safe watch and going too fast for the conditions.

If you can't see something bearing dead ahead and consequently hit it with such force that you destroy the boat, kill a passenger and severely injure the two other individuals in the boat (including yourself), it's no simple error. It's reckless behavior by the operator and a clear violation of a number of fundamental boating laws. Seems to me, the only question here is whether she was legally impaired by alcohol and therefore compounded her legal problems that night. The rest appears pretty open and closed.

I think we all feel sympathy for the situation. It's a huge tragedy for all involved. No, she didn't head out that night planning to crash her boat and kill her friend. But she did operate the boat in a manner that was reckless given the conditions and CAUSED an major accident with a fatality as a result. Yes CAUSED it. It was entirely avoidable and she alone owns that. She needs to be held accountable for her actions and boaters need to learn from this so it doesn't happen again.

We can't just excuse this away as some random "could have happened to anyone" situation. If you think this could happen to you, then you should consider the possibility that you are taking extreme and unnecessary risks when you boat at night and are potentially a hazard to yourself and others. We should all believe we're operating in a manner where this type accident COULDN'T happen to us. Because it really shouldn't be possible if you are a competent, cautious and sober captain.

[jrc]

Wow its amazing, why even have a trial, just read a few newpaper articles, write a few forum posts, talk to some friends and then start building the gallows.

[Mink Islander]

Remember this?


I'm not saying that she is innocent, just that without evidence of intoxication, this is far from a slam dunk. My guess is if the BAC evidence is excluded she walks with no jail time. Probably will be a plea bargain.


You wrote it in this thread. I guess it's okay for YOU to have an opinion that she will walk based on your slant on the information, but everybody else is off base if they take an alternate view?

Little hypocritical, don't you think??

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Mink Islander

...

Little hypocritical, don't you think??

Maybe, but I was guessing at an outcome, not declaring her guilty or innocent. Maybe a subtle difference.

I still think she will get off pretty easy, if the booze evidence is surpressed or if she wasn't drunk. I still think she will easily be convicted if she was drunk.

If she was drunk, she is pretty much automatically guilty in my opinion and in practice and in that case I hope she goes to jail.

If she was not drunk, then I would really like to hear all the evidence before I made an decision. It gets into degrees of negligence and visibilty and conditions and a whole bunch of other factors. Accidents do happen, even to competent, cautious and sober captains.

[Mink Islander]

I guess it's how the term is used. Accident that is. Preventable accident? Accident caused by reckless behavior? As I said earlier, I don't think this is a "could of happened to anyone" situation and the way we throw around "accident" makes it sound like it was just fate that caused this tragedy. No blame need be assigned.

The reality is that the accident happened because the captain made some terrible judgements -- and killed someone as a result. Had she followed even the most common sense rules of boating, this would never have happened. That's the real tragedy here. It highlights the dangers of boating at night and in bad weather and the heightened level of caution required by the captain in those situations.

Unless there's some new evidence (mechanical failure, etc.) that we haven't heard yet, then, yes, I am highly confident she will be convicted of the primary charges. What does she have as a defense?

It's the BWI charge that's more difficult to prove, though it sounds like the State has a much better case (stronger direct evidence) here than they did with Mr. Littlefield. Lose on that charge and the penalty will be much harsher.

I expect that the court will take into account her suffering, contrition, etc. but I'll be surprised if she walks with no jail time at all. Someone died as a direct result of her actions. Personal suffering or not, that's a pretty serious crime. Even some modest jail time will highlight for everyone that this wasn't "just an accident".

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Mink Islander

Failure to maintain a safe watch and going too fast for the conditions.

If you can't see something bearing dead ahead and consequently hit it with such force that you destroy the boat, kill a passenger and severely injure the two other individuals in the boat (including yourself), it's no simple error. It's reckless behavior by the operator and a clear violation of a number of fundamental boating laws. Seems to me, the only question here is whether she was legally impaired by alcohol and therefore compounded her legal problems that night. The rest appears pretty open and closed.

I think we all feel sympathy for the situation. It's a huge tragedy for all involved. No, she didn't head out that night planning to crash her boat and kill her friend. But she did operate the boat in a manner that was reckless given the conditions and CAUSED an major accident with a fatality as a result. Yes CAUSED it. It was entirely avoidable and she alone owns that. She needs to be held accountable for her actions and boaters need to learn from this so it doesn't happen again.

We can't just excuse this away as some random "could have happened to anyone" situation. If you think this could happen to you, then you should consider the possibility that you are taking extreme and unnecessary risks when you boat at night and are potentially a hazard to yourself and others. We should all believe we're operating in a manner where this type accident COULDN'T happen to us. Because it really shouldn't be possible if you are a competent, cautious and sober captain.

Out of curiousity, what charges should have been brought against the person mentioned in JustSold's recent post ? Sure there wasn't a death and I don't believe any alcohol was involved but still he hit Rattlesnake hard enough to break bones (if that matters).

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

I think I mentioned this very accident sometime earlier in the thread. So to put some balance back into the discusssion it might well be argued that visibility was limited (to ground level) but not "zero" that night and Erica seeing the shoreline lights, thought she was the proper distance from shore. I've run the route I now believe she was taking that night countless times and the shoreline isn't dark in that area.

Just curious about your comment of shoreline lights in that area. Diamond Island does not have electricity last time I checked, so unless someone was running a generator or had a crapload of candles going that island would have been pitch black. There is not a lot of houses in that area of the island either. I have been to Dr. Rock's house before. If you are talking about lights on the mainland I can understand however visibility was crap that night and that would be misleading... Just sayin'

[ApS]

Originally Posted by jrc

"...You have to be a fool not to use all the tools you have, none of them are perfect, all of them can give you false data once in awhile, even your own eyes..."

While in Long Island Sound's notorious fog, I've had occasion to stop altogether and use my ears. Though what I heard was actually traffic noise along the shoreline, I thought it was surf along the shoreline. (No matter, my location was then plotted to suit the shoreline).

I've learned to develop and to trust my senses and among all the senses—to trust my eyes the most.

One example of using those senses was just last Tuesday: Totally unexpected, I smelled cigar smoke wafting off a calm, quiet, and empty lake. I turned upwind and there—about ½-mile away—was an oversized cruiser at anchor!

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...It's equally dangerous to either fixate your eyes on a screen while piloting a boat as it is to have your eyes peeled dead ahead, with no regard to the port or starboard viewpoints..."

I'm at a loss to describe any Jet-Skis or bass boats running onto Winnipesaukee shorelines—especially as their number is so large here!

Bass boats in particular run in dim morning fog: Because of the nature of their respective helms, they are focused dead-ahead all the time.

Originally Posted by Mink Islander

"...the only question here is whether she was legally impaired by alcohol..."

In taking that first drop of alcohol, the first casualty will always be Judgment.

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...that island would have been pitch black..."

It's because of that fact that I proposed that docks be fitted with a blue-colored solar light—right here at the forum in 2005.

There was, of course, the usual skepticism:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...48&postcount=5

I wonder how this skepticism plays out this June?

Point being: Even at the darkest hour—in fog—on a lake—in June—and with the moon in the night sky, the sky overhead will provide a lighter contrast against which to silhouette shorelines.

__________________

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by jrc

I use a similar technique when night boating. You must use all the data you can when boating in limited visibility. That means your eyes, and your GPS or radar (if equipped). I also use my depth finder. If the GPS says it should be 50 feet deep and my depth finder says 20 feet, I slow down figure out what going on. Usually its the depth finder whacking out on something. You have to be a fool not to use all the tools you have, none of them are perfect, all of them can give you false data once in awhile, even your own eyes.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

While in Long Island Sound's notorious fog, I've had occasion to stop altogether and use my ears. Though what I heard was actually traffic noise along the shoreline, I thought it was surf along the shoreline. (No matter, my location was then plotted to suit the shoreline).

I've learned to develop and to trust my senses and among all the senses—to trust my eyes the most.

One example of using those senses was just last Tuesday: Totally unexpected, I smelled cigar smoke wafting off a calm, quiet, and empty lake. I turned upwind and there—about ½-mile away—was an oversized cruiser at anchor!

I hope this wasn't on a clear morning with good visibility Fog is a very real hazard, both on land and at sea.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I'm at a loss to describe any Jet-Skis or bass boats running onto Winnipesaukee shorelines—especially as their number is so large here!

Bass boats in particular run in dim morning fog: Because of the nature of their respective helms, they are focused dead-ahead all the time.

Two points here. I know personally that bass boats and Jet-Skis typically do not run at lower cruising speeds. So you point out that two classes of craft, both that typically run at faster speeds than most (bass boats typically at Much faster speeds, and you say they are "focused Dead-Ahead all the time". So we have craft going fast that never look to the sides or behind them? I agree that they should concentrate the majority of their attention to what's in front, but boats coming in from the port or starboard side, out of their concentrated field of vision can be hazardous to their health.

I'm amazed that these two craft classes, which you point out are in large numbers, haven't been involved in many accidents. Would this indicate that their speeds aren't a dangerous factor, that maybe something else might be in play as to why other boats that are operating at slower speeds, and are presumably in lesser numbers, have more accidents?


BTW, I think your suggestion for lights on docks is a very good one. Excellent idea.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Two points here. I know personally that bass boats and Jet-Skis typically do not run at lower cruising speeds. So you point out that two classes of craft, both that typically run at faster speeds than most (bass boats typically at Much faster speeds, and you say they are "focused Dead-Ahead all the time". So we have craft going fast that never look to the sides or behind them? I agree that they should concentrate the majority of their attention to what's in front, but boats coming in from the port or starboard side, out of their concentrated field of vision can be hazardous to their health.

I'm amazed that these two craft classes, which you point out are in large numbers, haven't been involved in many accidents. Would this indicate that their speeds aren't a dangerous factor, that maybe something else might be in play as to why other boats that are operating at slower speeds, and are presumably in lesser numbers, have more accidents?
BTW, I think your suggestion for lights on docks is a very good one. Excellent idea.

I think one of the reasons regarding bass boats and jet skis not being involved in many accidents might be the fact that jet skis are not legal at night, and there typically are not a lot of bass boats on the water at night. They are usually in bed, since they have to get up so early in the AM to do their fishing!

Another reason for jet skis might be the maneuverability of the craft. They can see all around them and avoid potential probs fairly easily-if the operator is looking around and not only straight ahead.

[VtSteve]

Good points on the night time variances, forgot to mention them. There are countless examples of PWC accidents all over the country every year, no need for more at night. Heck, there are many PWC collisions with docks and other boats each year in broad daylight

As always, there are accidents that are just plain accidents, can't really eliminate them. I would say most accidents are the result of inattention, poor skills, alcohol, shear stupidity and thrill seekers, and I'm sure somewhere down on that list is someone focused on their little screen.

But the fact remains that all over the country we have bass boats doing well north of 70 and they seem to be fine for the most part, and people running over boats and hitting islands that are doing less than 30. Seems to me you need to go fast to be safe.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

But the fact remains that all over the country we have bass boats doing well north of 70 and they seem to be fine for the most part, and people running over boats and hitting islands that are doing less than 30. Seems to me you need to go fast to be safe.

No wonder I have been 'incident' free for over 50 years. I go tooo fast!

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Just curious about your comment of shoreline lights in that area. Diamond Island does not have electricity last time I checked, so unless someone was running a generator or had a crapload of candles going that island would have been pitch black. There is not a lot of houses in that area of the island either. I have been to Dr. Rock's house before. If you are talking about lights on the mainland I can understand however visibility was crap that night and that would be misleading... Just sayin'

I agree that Diamond I is usually very dark, in contrast with Rattlesnake which often has lights, especially that house that has the "runway" lighting. But my reference was to the shoreline lights on the mainland. IIRC there's a mooring feild with a fairly well lit cluster of condos on the shore before you get to Diamond I. Now if visibility was bad enough that these couldn't be seen then you have to wonder about the wisdom of being on plane. If they were seen and she was using them to judge her distance from shore then it becomes a more understandable mistake.

[Tank151]

Originally Posted by Nadia

Thank you for that information. Skip, like I said I want to pick your brain, but your all welcome and free to answer.

Erica is charged with negligence because her behavior/s resulted in Stephanie's death & the injury of another. The Court will refer to the four elements of negligence when making it's decision. One element is that if it were not for Erica's negligent behavior (being under the influence/not keeping proper look-out), Stephanie would not have lost her life, and Nicole would not be injured. Is it fair to say, in Erica's defense, if the weather conditions were indeed: foggy, misty, unusually dark and proven extremely difficult to navigate in even for an even more experienced captain, this accident would have taken place anyway? If I were her Attorney and I said, demonstrated, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this accident took place solely because of the weather, how do you think Prosecution would counter? I wonder if this is an avenue her Attorney will explore, and how he/she would prove abnormally foul weather was to blame? That the accident would have taken place even if she did keep proper look-out and was not under the influence of alcohol? Is it possible one could make this mistake and it truly was just an accident?

Nadia,

Enough already! I hope you're not married? If you are, your husband must be whittled down... poor guy!

[Nadia]

Tank151,
A one minute investigation into your posting history and your user profile, along with your "classy" response to me reveals the following information:

A. You are the text-book definition of an internet troll
B. You have a history of randomly insulting people
C. You flame, use foul language, call family of the deceased "dopes", and encourage operating under the influence in a thread about a tragic boating accident.

How I got lucky enough to be the next person you bark at, I have no idea. Glancing at your behavior in the other thread regarding this topic you have established a regular pattern. When the words get too big for you, and the conversation a little too complex, you start throwing around obscenities and stamping your feet for attention Yes I am married, and no my husband is not whittled. Why do you ask? Is your wife indeed...a Tank? My husband would kick your you know what from one end of the Lakes Region to the other. Here are my suggestions: Go to your Doctor, and become heavily medicated. I think some Paxil may be in order. Crawl back under the rock you came out from and stay there. The world is a scary place for people with your mentality--

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by Nadia

Tank151,
A one minute investigation into your posting history and your user profile, along with your "classy" response to me reveals the following information:

A. You are the text-book definition of an internet troll
B. You have a history of randomly insulting people
C. You flame, use foul language, call family of the deceased "dopes", and encourage operating under the influence in a thread about a tragic boating accident.

How I got lucky enough to be the next person you bark at, I have no idea. Glancing at your behavior in the other thread regarding this topic you have established a regular pattern. When the words get too big for you, and the conversation a little too complex, you start throwing around obscenities and stamping your feet for attention Yes I am married, and no my husband is not whittled. Why do you ask? Is your wife indeed...a Tank? My husband would kick your you know what from one end of the Lakes Region to the other. Here are my suggestions: Go to your Doctor, and become heavily medicated. I think some Paxil may be in order. Crawl back under the rock you came out from and stay there. The world is a scary place for people with your mentality--

I ask again.....doesn't it get old????!!!!!
Remember, Nadia, one person cannot have an augument, it indeed takes two.
I have engaged in playful banter with many members of this forum, and at times, although it was not my intention, it has turned ugly.
Your banter ALWAYS turns ugly. Why?
And, you are the only poster on this board, I believe, that threatens with physical violence...as you have in this post. I know of another time, which was in a PM to me. I still have it. There is simply no room for that on this forum, and frankly, I'm surprised Don puts up with it.

[Audiofn]

Originally Posted by Nadia

Tank151,
A one minute investigation into your posting history and your user profile, along with your "classy" response to me reveals the following information:

A. You are the text-book definition of an internet troll
B. You have a history of randomly insulting people
C. You flame, use foul language, call family of the deceased "dopes", and encourage operating under the influence in a thread about a tragic boating accident.

How I got lucky enough to be the next person you bark at, I have no idea. Glancing at your behavior in the other thread regarding this topic you have established a regular pattern. When the words get too big for you, and the conversation a little too complex, you start throwing around obscenities and stamping your feet for attention Yes I am married, and no my husband is not whittled. Why do you ask? Is your wife indeed...a Tank? My husband would kick your you know what from one end of the Lakes Region to the other. Here are my suggestions: Go to your Doctor, and become heavily medicated. I think some Paxil may be in order. Crawl back under the rock you came out from and stay there. The world is a scary place for people with your mentality--

One could easily think that this post is talking about you. You have broken about every forum rule with this one post!

[alsadad]

I have followed this thread with increasing incredulity over the last several days. While Nadia is not [U]solely[U] to blame for this, someone who truly cares for her should gently remove the keyboard from her grasp and urge her to take a time-out before it's too late.

[Merrymeeting]

Thanks alsadad. You've diplomatically stated what I and I'm sure others have been thinking for several days too.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Audiofn

One could easily think that this post is talking about you. You have broken about every forum rule with this one post!

I have stayed out of this completely because I am already known for very spirited conversation but all I have to say is:

Audiofin - I applaud you. You hit it right on the head.

I am surprised webmaster hasn't stepped in on this as of yet. Talking about things going down hill quickly.

[pats fan]

Oh, come on Guys, don't encourage Don to put a "bark collar" on her.* This is good entertainment!

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by pats fan

Oh, come on Guys, don't encourage Don to put a "bark collar" on her.* This is good entertainment!

Just be thankful she's not cooking for us. Taste tester anyone? ba da bing, ba da boom.... Ok, I guess I've covered cheap jokes.

Just not the kind of thread one wants to see this type of stuff on. But Nadia's young and just a little bit cocky. I was there once, so why knock others. I'll just give the same advice many gave me, don't burn bridges, keep it tame, learn by reading and listening, not always trying to power through.

[Tank151]

Originally Posted by Nadia

Tank151,
A one minute investigation into your posting history and your user profile, along with your "classy" response to me reveals the following information:

A. You are the text-book definition of an internet troll
B. You have a history of randomly insulting people
C. You flame, use foul language, call family of the deceased "dopes", and encourage operating under the influence in a thread about a tragic boating accident.

How I got lucky enough to be the next person you bark at, I have no idea. Glancing at your behavior in the other thread regarding this topic you have established a regular pattern. When the words get too big for you, and the conversation a little too complex, you start throwing around obscenities and stamping your feet for attention Yes I am married, and no my husband is not whittled. Why do you ask? Is your wife indeed...a Tank? My husband would kick your you know what from one end of the Lakes Region to the other. Here are my suggestions: Go to your Doctor, and become heavily medicated. I think some Paxil may be in order. Crawl back under the rock you came out from and stay there. The world is a scary place for people with your mentality--

Nadia,

Based on your numerous and lengthy threads you have WAY TO MUCH time on your hands! Your one whos knows alot about NOTHING and a little bit about ALOT!

[sa meredith]

Um Tank....don't know if you noticed, but I don't think that's going to be a problem anymore.

[VtSteve]

I'm perfectly OK with calling what happened in this case a CRASH, or a COLLISION, even a SCREW UP.

You insist on trying to fill people's responses in for them, while ignoring their responses. In the Wake Picture "incident", it's pretty clear to everyone that it wasn't the Skipper taking it. If you continue to throw barbs in like this, your credibility will not go any higher. If you can't address the facts, stop making them up.

DOUBLE-THINK comes to mind.

We have a group that actually thinks PLANE (boating reference) is a bad word, a SKEERY word. Boating at night is something akin to jumping off a cliff for some. But the real dangers and the real issues are never addressed. I wonder why this is?

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

If you continue to throw barbs in like this, your credibility will not go any higher. If you can't address the facts, stop making them up.

You are new here aren't you ....

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

You are new here aren't you ....

I was trying to be civil.

[John E]

FWIW we were at Lake Wylie NC a month ago for a Mastercraft reunion.

One of our group was heading home around 10 pm at wake speed because they were unfamiliar with the lake. They were having trouble with their bow light, but the stern was functioning.

They were in a 20' boat and got T boned by a bass boat estimated to be going 45 mph. I can't imagine going that fast without a clear view of what is approaching. Though my friend's bow light was possibly out, they could have just as well been anchoring and have been hit.

Somehow none of the 9 involved were hurt. Just shaken up. And a couple of totaled boats.