[ApS]

Originally Posted by JayDV

"...With all the Point and Counterpoint threads in this HB847 issue, I think a collective effort to map out a solution is a good positive direction...Can we hear yours...?"

Thanks for trying; as we've seen, it set a few gears to a-turning.

Originally Posted by JayDV

This devised solution could be presented to the delayed legislation hearing for consideration.came up with one notion (posted earlier) that didn't even get a pfffffftttt but I thought is was a good start.
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...56&postcount=4

Pfffffftttt. Your suggestion is costly to a resource-drained state.

In my plan, monies would be at the expense of the boat manufacturers (NAMMI), who have lots of cash—and the wherewithal to restore any boats tested for resale.

__________________________________________________


PLAN A: Require that a boat's top speed will not permit traveling more than 30-feet on land.

(Recalling Eagle-/Parker-/Rattlesnake-/Camp-Island's crashes related to speed).

1) Since we know that 130-feet on land is small change for some boats, obviously we can't re-use the Eagle Island crash site due to the close-call sleeping cabin dwellers there already received. Selected test locations need not endanger dwellings—though the structure would provide an adequately-sized target.

2) Use of a different state's waters (other than NH's) would remove any possible bias. I propose that Long Lake be used as a crash site, since a suitable site was quickly (but not quietly) prepared during last year's boating season.

3) Therefore, using much simpler technology than what JayDV has suggested, boats could be driven directly on shore to determine lethality—remotely.

4) On the up-side, this removes alcohol as a variable.

5) On the downside, there's always the argument that such examinations on waters other than New Hampshire lakes are always invalid.

PLAN B: Plan B proposes that any boat having a windshield be prohibited from exceeding 45-MPH. (Including boats with painted-over windshields, such as the boat pictured below).

Anyone who has experienced a wind velocity of 45-MPH in their unprotected face knows that 45 is very fast indeed in any conveyance without a windshield.



And speaking of that 7-ton, 95-MPH boat, its "captain" is quoted as saying:

"...I never only look up to 150’ and tend to see or view well beyond that and would certainly not aim directly towards another boat or person at any speed..." http://www.opposehb847.com/opposehb8...cbourgeois.htm

Missiles are for "aiming". I don't "aim" my boat.

Anyone else in the speed-limit debate thinking that "aim" is a very poor word-choice?

Could he see Evenstar directly ahead of him in the photograph?