[Mee-n-Mac]

I find it most curious that you would use the concept of a reckless driver and a 45 mph collision being more survivable than a 65 mph one as somehow supporting the SL. Surely then a 25 mph one is yet even more survivable. Using this reasoning how do you decide what's the appropriate allowable speed ? I think using survivability in the case of a collision as a means of supporting a SL is disingenuous. If the Littlefield incident proves nothing else, it proves that even in "low" speed collisions there's a risk of severe injury or death. Better stick to the case where collisions are avoided.

Implying that those who want to "speed" (clever use of a loaded word) are selfish because they are willing to trade peoples lives for their "right" to speed is pretty insulting don't you think ? How about the argument that there are people who moderate their speed appropriate to the conditions and don't see the need to have, what appears to them, an unreasonably low limit placed on them at all times and at all places on the lake. Saying that people who don't agree with a 45 mph limit are putting other peoples lives at risk conveys the unproven (in so far as this or other threads on this topic go) quality of being a fact that speeds above the proposed limit are always dangerous. What others are asking for is just this proof. What they get is hyperbole about 90, 100, 110 and greater speeds and that these demonstrate the appropriateness of a 45 mph (? vs some higher ?) speed limit. I can understand the concerns but concern by itself isn't sufficient for restricting peoples actions. Comments akin to GF boats are "ridiculous" and that people don't "need" to go "that fast" are subjective judgements that by themselves don't lend any weight to the necessity or reasonableness of a 45 mph SL. There are a number of people who don't think that speed > 45 mph is the #1 or even the #10 problem on the lake and diverting resources to combat this issue is perhaps not the best thing to do. I'd rather see the MPs have the funds to buy cameras or camcorders to better prove "recklessness" (stupidity, arrogance, call it what you will) that I see in more abundance, and most always at speeds < 45 mph, than have to them equipped with the latest radar guns catching people who may be guilty of nothing more than violating an arbitrary limit. If "speed" can at times be safe and at other times and under other conditions be reckless, then perhaps what needs beefing up are the anti-recklessness (pardon my inventive wording) laws and not the speed statutes.

From Saf-C 404.12;

(c) No boat operator shall operate his/her vessel in a manner that is unsafe, including the following types of conduct:
(1) Challenging other boaters by heading directly at a vessel and then swerving at the last minute to avoid collision;
(2) Weaving through congested boat traffic at greater than headway speed;
(3) Operating while his/her vision is obstructed; and
(4) Other types of operation that are intended to create erratic operational patterns so that other boaters cannot determine the course or heading of the vessel.

I add that including doesn't mean limited to.