Thread: Payback Time
View Single Post
Old 06-10-2008, 11:00 AM   #94
codeman671
Senior Member
 
codeman671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,514
Thanks: 221
Thanked 821 Times in 493 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
HB847 defines an unsafe condition.

Isn't that true of all the other boating regulations? Why do we need a 150' rule. Doesn't 270:29-a already cover that. We need the 150' rule to let operators, MP officers and judges know what the standard for minimum distance is. Otherwise it's just everyones opinion.

So I don't think your argument holds. By your way of thinking all we need is 270:29-a it covers everything.

I disagree, the community needs standards of operation and behavior to further define what constitutes "Careless and Negligent Operation".



Additionaly HB847 sets a different punishment than 270:29-a allowing for violations to effect your drivers license. HB847 also defines an exact time when boaters must change from the daytime speed limit to a nighttime speed limit. And exact limits for both circumstances. Your "Careless and Negligent Operation" rule leaves these things open to interpretation, or to being ignored entirely.

HB847 contains specific language defining the situation, circumstances, offense and punishment. None of that can be found in "Careless and Negligent Operation".
True, but as I mentioned above the punishment comes in the form of a speeding ticket and points on your license, unless you already have a bunch of points on your record and are that close to suspension anyhow it is a simple fine. Other laws in existance hold criminal charges, such as the one that winnilaker mentioned. The gripe seems to be whether having a speed limit law on the books will have serious effect in a negligent boating accident, I do not see that it would. A fine gets paid, if in fact they actually could prove speed.
codeman671 is offline