Quote:
|
Originally Posted by B R
I'm sorry; but this is a stretch. Let's say you're right and they weren't on the same course. And let's say that there was a speed limit that he decided to obey while BWI and was going 20 mph--R&P under the conditions you decribed above. They would not have intersected and Mr Hartman would be alive today. OK, it's a streatch, but let's say all this were true. With that same logic, can I wonder if he would have run over a different boat and perhaps killed on entire family? I hope we can all agree that this seems a bit far fetched. Both sides of this "what-if" senario.
|
Its not a stretch to say that if the boat was going 20 instead of 28, and they were not on the same course, then the accident would not have happened. Its simple mathematics.
I will grant you there are an infinite number of what-if scenarios. And that changing any of a thousand different factors just a little would have changed the outcome.
However my purpose is bringing this up is to show that this accident belongs in a HB162 dialog.
The opposition has repeatedly, and vehemently claimed there are no accidents on Winnipesaukee that could have been prevented by a 45/25 speed limit. But I believe I have shown that we have a FATAL accident that occurred on Winni that
might have been prevented by a speed limit. This is especially true when the "reasonable and prudent" test of HB162 is brought into the question.