Quote:
Originally Posted by chmeeee
I think that most any of the opponents to this bill would accept any data that shows a pattern of accidents that took place at speeds in excess of 45 mph. The point is that there are none.
As I already posted above, I agree that slower is safer. The point here however is that we don't need safer, since all of the available data shows us that the lake is already safe from a speed perspective. Furthermore, how do you get to an arbitrary number like 45? Who exactly picked that number out of thin air, and what was it based on? Why not 35, 55, or 65?
|
The is plenty of data, many accidents. However the opponents live in a river in Egypt and will explain away every accident.
Single boats accidents don't count
Accident before mandatory certification don't count
If the speed was just a little over the proposed limit it doesn't count
If alcohol has involved it doesn't count
Accident on another lake don't count
If the speed can not be absolutely determined it doesn't count
Accidents before (pick a date) don't count
There was a fatal accident of Winnipesaukee recently, however the operator was under age, so....... doesn't count.
Double fatality on a nearby lake, very high speed, but different state so.... doesn't count.
Coast Guard lists excessive speed a major contributor of accidents, but they don't say how many of the accidents were over 45 mph so.... doesn't count.
It would be comical if the subject wasn't so serious.