There should be, and Rule 6 was a good place to start.
But it's articles like this that fully explain both the intent of the new law, and the intent of the supporters.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...7-789376f5182b
"On a calm summer evening in 2002, an elderly Meredith man was out slowly boating with his family when he was run over and killed by a speeding 8,000 pound, 1,200 HP cigarette boat. The cigarette boat operator appealed his conviction to the state Supreme Court, where one of the Justices asked in amazement: "Isn't there a speed limit?" Why can everyone seem to recognize this omission except our Legislature?
John Chase is a musician in Wolfeboro."
Always similar language, and Always a complete disregard for the facts, which is clearly the intent. When just the facts of an incident are reported, it's far less effective as a biased medium.
One thing that's almost always divisive, and ineffective, is being blatantly dishonest and/or misleading. I might add, I do not concur with the reasoning of one Justice, that wondered why there wasn't a speed limit law. The Court affirmed the Insurance company's denial of coverage due to his negligent operation of the boat (
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news...2/21/48902.htm)
So, they ruled his operation of the boat that night (at some 28mph I remember?), was negligent, and thus, not covered under his insurance policy. Skip did a great job on posting the facts of this accident awhile back. I believe the same rules apply on our roads and highways, where many have been deemed to be operating too fast for conditions. I must admit, I've never heard of a policies coverage being denied for that, but I don;t follow that stuff either.