06/15/08 Diamond Island Fatality

[2Blackdogs]

I had a reply prepared, but the trend at the "Boating" thread on this fatality is discouraging our comments. How about the politics of the driver, and suppose the Governor received only this one news story?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,367401,00.html

It's wrong, but it could have been right.

[robmac]

There are no politics just anguish that people won't allow the professionals to do the job of determining what happened, It doesn't matter who the women were but such a tragic loss for three families and friends that can never be replaced.Your comments don't answer or help either.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

I had a reply prepared, but the trend at the "Boating" thread on this fatality is discouraging our comments. How about the politics of the driver, and suppose the Governor received only this one news story?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,367401,00.html

It's wrong, but it could have been right.

Wow, so rather than understand that now is not the time for speculation and conjecture you decide to start a whole new thread?

The politics of anyone involved in this accident have nothing to do with HB847, no matter how you try to spin it. Using this tragic accident to try to promote a narrow-minded agenda is just ghoulish.

[B R]

Don't feed the troll.

[robmac]

I have just looked at 2blackdogs responses to several threads and question weather he or she has any compassion for the families involved or simply to further their own objective

[SteveA]

Anyone using FOX as a source for news is already way off base.

If you read the link 2blackdogs has in his/her post they even have the headline wrong.

The "they might be right" comment is really strange.. They are ,and have always been, the least accurate place to get news. They totally messed up the actual AP piece they used. Several other outlets online used AP and got the facts straight.

Pray for the families, and stop making this a "speed limit" issue. There is plenty of time for that debate.

I happen to know that there are more than a few folks on this site that know these ladies and their families.

Show some class... back off the politics. And I mean everyone.. on both sides.

As BR said... don't feed the troll. (s)

[CanisLupusArctos]

I do not have comment on local politics, nor do I believe that it's time for it (i.e., let those involved do their grieving and don't make it worse for them.)

However, I do have comment on the news story posted.

It's a prediction: As someone with a journalism background I can say that this sort of thing has the capability to catch the eye of the less-local press, and therefore, unfortunately, we may see more of this type of coverage from the less-local media in the days to come (not definite, but a good chance.) Here is why: Remember that journalism is an English degree, and any English major can tell you that his or her life is all about learning how to spot stories with lots of conflict and irony and all those other things that your english teacher/professor tried to get you to include in your term papers.

While the motto of the Society for Professional Journalists says "Seek the Truth and Report It," there has been a growing trend among media entities toward "Find Real-Life Shakespearian Ironies and Conflicts and Sensationalize Them." It sells ads because it grabs viewers. Today's major media outlets are major corporations like any other on the stock market. The only way the sensationalism will change is if you/we the viewers & readers get involved by regularly writing to the media entities and letting them know what we think of their reporting. Viewers and readers should continuously encourage the press not to stray from the SPJ motto.

As the U.S. Constitution says, the press (i.e. truth telling) is absolutely necessary in order to have a free state. When we allow the press to take steps away from truth-telling, it affects us all.

[Island Girl]

Originally Posted by SteveA

Anyone using FOX as a source for news is already way off base.

If you read the link 2blackdogs has in his/her post they even have the headline wrong.

That is not a Fox news story it is from Clare Trapasso Associated Press and is all over other news channels with the same title....

[Winnipesaukee]

As the U.S. Constitution says, the press (i.e. truth telling) is absolutely necessary in order to have a free state. When we allow the press to take steps away from truth-telling, it affects us all.

Where in the Constitution does it say anything remotely close that? The First Amendment guarantees the press freedom to publish information (whether truthful or not--it doesn't specify, nor does it need to) without the government interfering with it or censoring it in any way.

This forum is a form of the press and its users have the freedom of expression on it--although the Webmaster has a right to censor, but is very good about keeping it a medium for the free exchange of information.

The 1A was created to protect both the popular views of the majority AND the unpopular views of the minority. Anyone here is free to discuss the speed limit debate with regard to the recent accident and that discussion should be respected. There is already a thread of everyone sending their condolences to the families involved.

Given that, it is both healthy and beneficial to the Winnipesaukee community for there to be a thread about this. There was no "grieving-period wait" to discuss the politics of 9/11. We continue to discuss the politics of the conflict in Iraq, and do not "wait" a period of time every time a soldier dies. Yes, we all feel terrible about the accident and wish the families the best. But there is more to discuss.

FOX isn't the only biased network. They're just the only network that openly admits bias. For your daily dosage of liberal bias (or worse, subtle bias), be sure to tune into the works of Peter Jennings, Keith Olbermann, and Brian Williams. Newspapers, check out the New York Times, The Boston Globe, USA Today, and The Washington Post. Need I go on?

If you get your news from any one source, you are probably misinformed to a degree.

[2Blackdogs]

Originally Posted by Island Girl

That is not a Fox news story it is from Clare Trapasso Associated Press and is all over other news channels with the same title....

Yes, but it isn't clear that Clara Trapasso is the AP reporter's name.

There was a national discussion yesterday, CLA, of folding AP's domination of America's news. I'll try to locate it. Meanwhile, now that the screaming has died down after three days of it, I want to add my recollections before I forget them.

It was cloudy, but the visibility after midnight was fine for me. It was dark, but like it's always dark after midnight. Laconia Airport had three miles of visibility. The moon was full (Gibbous moon), and was overhead at 2AM. Posters at the BoaterEd.com forum are being very critical of operating this boat in fog. Those who witnessed conditions at the time know better.

The headline, for those who chose to answer without reading it,

Woman Who Opposed Boating Speed Limit Dies in Marine Wreck
GILFORD, N.H. — A woman who testified against boating speed limits was killed and two others were injured early Sunday when their boat crashed on New Hampshire’s Lake Winnipesaukee.

Separating the "nuts and bolts" of the incident in this SL forum, such as boat construction, weather, anchor, GPS, anchoring at night, paddling at night, island lighting, etc., should minimize the all-caps, kneejerk, emotional responses already seen and allow the national scene a more accurate grasp of this incident.

And kudos to the doctor, the real hero at a time when heroes were needed.

[MisheMokwa]

2Blackdogs--those weather observations are yours from being on the lake that night? Was just reading the Dr's interview in which they said that it was raining lightly with some fog in the area. They then say that the rain picked up after the emt's arrived. Obviously you can have drastically different weather and lighting conditions in not very different places out on the water. I have a place on treasure island but was not up last weekend. I always am extra cautious anytime I am around Diamond at night b/c of virtually no lights on that island. Seems very odd that someone wouldn't be able to see the island if there had been any moonlight at all.

[CanisLupusArctos]

Originally Posted by Winnipesaukee

Where in the Constitution does it say anything remotely close that? The First Amendment guarantees the press freedom to publish information (whether truthful or not--it doesn't specify, nor does it need to) without the government interfering with it or censoring it in any way.

This forum is a form of the press and its users have the freedom of expression on it--although the Webmaster has a right to censor, but is very good about keeping it a medium for the free exchange of information.

The 1A was created to protect both the popular views of the majority AND the unpopular views of the minority. Anyone here is free to discuss the speed limit debate with regard to the recent accident and that discussion should be respected. There is already a thread of everyone sending their condolences to the families involved.

Given that, it is both healthy and beneficial to the Winnipesaukee community for there to be a thread about this. There was no "grieving-period wait" to discuss the politics of 9/11. We continue to discuss the politics of the conflict in Iraq, and do not "wait" a period of time every time a soldier dies. Yes, we all feel terrible about the accident and wish the families the best. But there is more to discuss.

FOX isn't the only biased network. They're just the only network that openly admits bias. For your daily dosage of liberal bias (or worse, subtle bias), be sure to tune into the works of Peter Jennings, Keith Olbermann, and Brian Williams. Newspapers, check out the New York Times, The Boston Globe, USA Today, and The Washington Post. Need I go on?

If you get your news from any one source, you are probably misinformed to a degree.

Sorry, I got the first and second amendments crossed - first amendment "No law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press," and the second amendment, "...necessary to the security of a free state..."

As for the rest of my point, I don't know what you thought I was trying to say.
Therefore I will summarize:

1) My opening statement was merely an agreement with many others who expressed similar feelings, my intention to be kind to those involved by staying out of the speed limit (etc.) debates that have upset so many others. How did my statement come across as a suggestion that I think tragic news stories need to have a "grieving period wait?"

2) The main idea of my post: I spotted the elements of a story that have the capability to go national in such a manner that it would lose many important local facts along the way. I wanted to offer the fair warning to those here, in case it did.

3) Be prepared to respond to misleading news reports.

4) Why respond? Because whatever gets aired affects the opinions of millions who don't know any better. When what's aired consistently isn't as truthful as it could be, things eventually get screwed up at the political level because the viewers/readers are also voters.

5) I got my Constitutional Amendments crossed, so I'll re-state the idea I was trying to say there: Truth is essential to freedom. There's a reason we have "freedom of the press" in this country, and truth-telling is it. Yes, in order to have free speech we must allow the lies too. Even that is important to freedom because it helps us spot the liars in our society. However, when mainstream media outlets start to deviate from truth, or when they start going for the "sensational stories" instead of "boring but important substance" (economy, war, taxes, congressional votes, etc.,) we can't just sit back and let them. When I say, "we," I mean "individuals" and not "the Government." All the mainstream media outlets are guilty of agenda-pushing and ratings-grabbing. It just so happens that FOX isn't very good at hiding it.

[2Blackdogs]

I was a few miles from the crash scene but was easily able to see landforms and other boats out after midnight from my porch.

Timing, as they say, is everything and my observations were 2 hours prior to the collision. Things weather wise can change from hour to hour, but the full moon should have provided ample light even through clouds.

I have fiberglass repair experience, but Kjbathe has a good description of the boat's damage, so my earlier comments regarding crack propagation and deck separation seen in the photograph are moot.

I also just returned from the crash scene.

150' more to the west, and the island would have been missed altogether.

150' more to the east, and the boat would have run onto shore, though a small cabin is located there. The residents indicated the doctor's place as being the log cabin about 250' east. The doctor's waterline is floating, so weekend gawkers need to keep their distance.

As it was, the boat's anchor struck a low-lying, dark, shingled cottage just below a window while dragging its chain. Glass is strewn well past the cottage on their left side viewed from the lake. The ledge is about 4 feet high.

If the lake had been another foot higher, the boat could have set the record for fatalities on Winnipesaukee by entering the cottage. The resident is no friend of NHRBA and never was, so be forewarned.

Only one spot of gelcoat is on the rocky bottom, but would have given the driver insufficient notice. The bottom is all rocks, falls off relatively slowly, but borders a very deep part of the Broads. I expect the scene to be a busy place this weekend.

Since I forgot, please advise the resident that their homeowner's insurance should cover the cleanup of the glass, cottage damage and other scattered fiberglass debris. I also forgot my camera.

Sadly, you absolutely can't mistake the Diamond Island crash scene. It's about six square feet of pink smear with fiberglass shards embedded in the ledge.

[hazelnut]

This is sad.... So very sad. Why is it people feel the need to go check out the scene? I just don't understand the lack of respect I've seen on several threads these past few days. Just makes me sick to my stomach. I can not imagine the pain these families are experiencing.

Please everyone leave the Doctor alone and don't go gawking for your own selfish morbid curiosity. What is wrong with people?

[2Blackdogs]

I've never seen or met any of the parties in this crash, but how "sad, painful, sick and morbid" to the victim's family is it, to repeat another's "tasteless quote" over and over?

And even during this mid-week viewing, there were other boaters "gawking".

A neutral party in this debate might suggest that Woodsy, Crampton, Stone, winnilakers, and NHRBA clean up the broken glass, repair the debris trail, repair the cottage's shingles, remove the fiberglass shards, paint the ledge dark gray, and float a wreath dedicated to Stephanie at the collision site...all sponsored by the National Marine Manufacturers Association.

Permission is likely to be granted by the landowner, who won't appreciate the long-drawn-out years of gawkers directly below their living room's plate glass windows.

Other lakeside residents, who dread being struck by more than just an anchor, don't need the reminder either.

Otherwise, that ledge will exist for many boating seasons as a "roadside memorial" of sorts, a reminder of a contentious debate long-protracted by the NHRBA, winnilakers, and NAMMA.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

I've never seen or met any of the parties in this crash, but how "sad, painful, sick and morbid" to the victim's family is it, to repeat another's "tasteless quote" over and over?

And even during this mid-week viewing, there were other boaters "gawking".

A neutral party in this debate might suggest that Woodsy, Crampton, Stone, winnilakers, and NHRBA clean up the broken glass, repair the debris trail, repair the cottage's shingles, remove the fiberglass shards, paint the ledge dark gray, and float a wreath dedicated to Stephanie at the collision site...all sponsored by the National Marine Manufacturers Association.

Permission is likely to be granted by the landowner, who won't appreciate the long-drawn-out years of gawkers directly below their living room's plate glass windows.

Other lakeside residents, who dread being struck by more than just an anchor, don't need the reminder either.

Otherwise, that ledge will exist for many boating seasons as a "roadside memorial" of sorts, a reminder of a contentious debate long-protracted by the NHRBA, winnilakers, and NAMMA.

This has got to be your most uncalled for post yet. Simply unbelievable.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by chipj29

This has got to be your most uncalled for post yet. Simply unbelievable.

I agree 100% chip. It's time for me to ignore the troll and I encourage anyone else who feels this way to do the same. Thank you

[robmac]

I also agree!!

[parrothead]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

I've never seen or met any of the parties in this crash, but how "sad, painful, sick and morbid" to the victim's family is it, to repeat another's "tasteless quote" over and over?

And even during this mid-week viewing, there were other boaters "gawking".

A neutral party in this debate might suggest that Woodsy, Crampton, Stone, winnilakers, and NHRBA clean up the broken glass, repair the debris trail, repair the cottage's shingles, remove the fiberglass shards, paint the ledge dark gray, and float a wreath dedicated to Stephanie at the collision site...all sponsored by the National Marine Manufacturers Association.

Permission is likely to be granted by the landowner, who won't appreciate the long-drawn-out years of gawkers directly below their living room's plate glass windows.

Other lakeside residents, who dread being struck by more than just an anchor, don't need the reminder either.

Otherwise, that ledge will exist for many boating seasons as a "roadside memorial" of sorts, a reminder of a contentious debate long-protracted by the NHRBA, winnilakers, and NAMMA.

What an insensitive thing to post. There is one person that was killed and two more in the hospital in serious condition, and this is the sensitivity you show the families involved. Many of the Forum members know the individuals involved. I hope you never have to experience a tragedy with media coverage like this, and have some yahoo in a public forum making it worse. Have some class, stop dragging the speed limit debates into this tragedy. The facts have not been presented yet, and your speculations and comments don't add anything positive to this Forum. Yikes what a mean spirited and cruel thing to say.

[twoplustwo]

Are you going to stalk the funeral and report those details back, next? Classless. Utterly classless.

[Alton Bay]

Wouldn't it be nice if websites such as this required people to post their real names instead of hiding behind anonymous silly names? I am saddened to think that there are local people hiding behind those goofy names who think and write such cruel thoughts.
Cyberspace allows people to bully and accuse and ...hide. Very sad.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by chipj29

This has got to be your most uncalled for post yet. Simply unbelievable.

Almost unanimous then. I think if nothing else, these comments are separating the real people from the pond scum.

[SIKSUKR]

I'm glad to see I'm not alone in finding this member so far out of line.I will bite my tongue here as best I can.Why the heck are you saying Woodsy and others should clean up this site?I'm guessing you are implying that the people you named are responsible for this accident.If you are,you are as pathetic a member as I have ever encountered on this forum.Then you go on to critisize those "gawkers" and tell us you've been to the site more than once and describe in detail what the site looks like and how those poor owners will have to put up with them.Them is you!Look in the mirror pal.Spew your hate somewhere else and spare us the phony condolenses and thoughts for the victims.They are friends of mine they don't want any people like you using them for your self interests.

[2Blackdogs]

Indignation without specifics? In the absense of specificity, let's start with the first paragraph:

I've never seen or met any of the parties in this crash, but how "sad, painful, sick and morbid" to the victim's family is it, to repeat another's "tasteless quote" over and over?

What's objectionable about that paragraph?

"Sad, painful, sick and morbid" are the words used by the same anonymous parties who are quoting it over and over and over, and expressing endless hand-wringing on this page!

How about the last paragraph?

Otherwise, that ledge will exist for many boating seasons as a "roadside memorial" of sorts, a reminder of a contentious debate long-protracted by the NHRBA, winnilakers, and NAMMA.

What's objectionable about that paragraph? I can guess, but there will be no specifics....again.

Who here will not visit the site? You know you will view the site yourselves otherwise your comments of indignation would have appeared earlier. Be honest with yourselves and others.

And gee, Ms Bay.....

[parrothead]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

Indignation without specifics? In the absense of specificity, let's start with the first paragraph:



What's objectionable about that paragraph?

"Sad, painful, sick and morbid" are the words used by the same anonymous parties who are quoting it over and over and over, and expressing endless hand-wringing on this page!

How about the last paragraph?



What's objectionable about that paragraph? I can guess, but there will be no specifics....again.

Who here will not visit the site? You know you will view the site yourselves otherwise your comments of indignation would have appeared earlier. Be honest with yourselves and others.

And gee, Ms Bay.....

I find it objectionable that you seem to be downplaying this tragedy. It is sad and painful for the families and friends of these women, and your posts are poking fun at their anguish. What do you mean by "hand wringing"? Are you alluding to the forum members that have posted heartfelt prayers to the families. I really hope that I am misunderstanding your meaning, because that is pretty cold. I find it offensive that you asked the speed limit opposition to cleanup after this accident. Or the mocking manner that you propose that the site of the tragedy should be memorialized as a political statement. You have depersonalized this accident and tried to turn it to your own agenda. This is an unfortunate accident that we have no information about. Your posts are mean spirited to the families and friends of these women, and you come across as a heartless person. What do you hope to accomplish by this line of thinking? If your point is to push a political agenda, then making your audience angry isn't going to get your point across. Is that more specific!

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Alton Bay

Wouldn't it be nice if websites such as this required people to post their real names instead of hiding behind anonymous silly names? I am saddened to think that there are local people hiding behind those goofy names who think and write such cruel thoughts.
Cyberspace allows people to bully and accuse and ...hide. Very sad.

I totally agree with your post. Too many people on forums seem to think that it is ok to treat others badly, because they feel like their true identity will never be known. It is a very sad commentary on our society.

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

Indignation without specifics? In the absence of specificity, let's start with the first paragraph . . .

Your entire post (and several others) was very objectionable, tasteless, and cruel in so many ways. If you truly do not understand why people are so upset with your posts, I feel very sorry for you.

Who here will not visit the site? You know you will view the site yourselves otherwise your comments of indignation would have appeared earlier. Be honest with yourselves and others.

I for one have no desire to "view the site." I'm way too empathic, so going to where this tragedy occurred would be more than I could ever handle.

This is a time for compassion. Period. It is not a time for accusations, speculation, or for sensationalism.

[twoplustwo]

Who here will not visit the site? You know you will view the site yourselves otherwise your comments of indignation would have appeared earlier. Be honest with yourselves and others.


I have no more interest in viewing the aftermath of this tragedy than I did in reading your description of it. You want honesty? I honestly think you suck.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by twoplustwo

Who here will not visit the site? You know you will view the site yourselves otherwise your comments of indignation would have appeared earlier. Be honest with yourselves and others.


I have no more interest in viewing the aftermath of this tragedy than I did in reading your description of it. You want honesty? I honestly think you suck.

Aptly put.

[sa meredith]

While I feel very badly for all parties involved, and wish that someohow they are all able to get thru such a terrible time, I don't quite understand why people are so upset over the description of the scene. I found it very interesting. I mean, please, do not tell me these same people who are complaining, did not spend 10/12/15 minutes staring at the picture of the boat. Don't tell me you didn't. I don't believe it. Everyone did.
Maybe you disagree with him posting it....but I don't see evil intent. I might even side with you about it being bothersome...but I don't believe the poster put it there with malice in his heart. Go easy....

[watrskir]

Originally Posted by twoplustwo

Who here will not visit the site? You know you will view the site yourselves otherwise your comments of indignation would have appeared earlier. Be honest with yourselves and others.


I have no more interest in viewing the aftermath of this tragedy than I did in reading your description of it. You want honesty? I honestly think you suck.

I could not agree more

[sa meredith]

I don't thinkl telling someone they s*** is proper for this board. Although I enjoy aggressive banter, and hard fought debates, saying something so hurtful is just plain wrong. Take a deep breath and count to 10.

[2Blackdogs]

We can't reduce the height and number of islands on Winni, but we can debate reducing dangers on Winni.

This thread is about the Diamond Island collision and the many factors involved including speed. It is placed in the Speed Limits forum for edifying commentary.

Who desires to change the debate so that it becomes irrelevent? This debate can remain just as relevent and dispassionate as the commentary at BoatEd.com. If you can't refrain from an attack on sterile objectivity, why not just butt out?

And thank you, everybody, for NOT calling me a liar.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

We can't reduce the height and number of islands on Winni, but we can debate reducing dangers on Winni.

This thread is about the Diamond Island collision and the many factors involved including speed. It is placed in the Speed Limits forum for edifying commentary.

Who desires to change the debate so that it becomes irrelevent? This debate can remain just as relevent and dispassionate as the commentary at BoatEd.com. If you can't refrain from an attack on sterile objectivity, why not just butt out?

And thank you, everybody, for NOT calling me a liar.

No? Give me a weather report.

Anyway, how about a lighted buoy by the island? Maybe make a bigger one for all those speeders? Why bring up speed limits in each and every post? Just cite statistics, is that a bad thing? Everything involved, including BAL, conditions, wind, malfunctions. Is that everything? Imagine the debate if instead of 28 mph, the 2002 accident was ruled to be 24 mph. Imagine the outrage! Pond scum.

[2Blackdogs]

http://tinyurl.com/6hcpvh

http://tinyurl.com/5nmogz

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

It was cloudy, but the visibility after midnight was fine for me. It was dark, but like it's always dark after midnight. Laconia Airport had three miles of visibility. The moon was full (Gibbous moon), and was overhead at 2AM. Posters at the BoaterEd.com forum are being very critical of operating this boat in fog. Those who witnessed conditions at the time know better.

I was a few miles from the crash scene but was easily able to see landforms and other boats out after midnight from my porch.

Timing, as they say, is everything and my observations were 2 hours prior to the collision. Things weather wise can change from hour to hour, but the full moon should have provided ample light even through clouds.

I know over at Boater Ed, and here, the conditions were dark, raining, possibly fog.

[SIKSUKR]

I ask the webmaster to please moderate this yoyo.He is clearly here only to instagate and inflame forum members.Do the right thing and ban this clown.This forum has a much higher standard than what is being displayed by this troll.

[BroadHopper]

Being the second cousin of the deceased, Stephanie. I have to agree with SIKSUKR. Please moderate this user. No need of this at this time.

[2Blackdogs]

Huh?

One of those links goes to this site.

The other goes to a site that states:

This forum is dedicated to promoting boater safety and education. Discussing events and there possible causes is what we do. It's a shame that anyone gets hurt out on the water and it certainly is a tragedy to the families.

An alarm-sounding depth finder would be a good suggestion for those who travel the Big Lake at night. That is one of safety suggestions I'd hoped to read here. It should have been put forth by a member in opposition to speed limits, which is the bulk of the replies here. Balancing pros and cons is why this sub-forum was created.

The Bizer chart shows a steep rise off Diamond Island. But the reality is that the bottom slopes gradually enough that a depth alarm would have worked in this case. Where else would that suggestion be seen at this time but at a site devoted to the Big Lake?

I stand on what I saw two hours before the collision and the moon being full. Laconia airport should have the visibility archived online (WMUR, 3 miles).

Did the video of the scene operate for you? I got only audio, went to the scene, went only once, and wasn't the only boater there. The ledge is four feet above the lake, not six feet. There was much personal information shared among the other boaters. Because it was incidental to the collision, none will be repeated by me on this forum.

Three messages have arrived for me. One is unprintable, another is supportive, saying "it took courage to write what we're all thinking". The last is generally supportive, but asks that an NHRBA error be fixed. When I hear back, I'll make the correction.

And there was absolutely no sarcasm to the suggestion that a memorial wreath should be floated there, as it should. And soon.

[parrothead]

Maybe you should have started differently on your post then. Don't try to drag this into the speed limit debate, until all the facts are out. But a thread on 'Due to the current tragedy what equipment should one have while boating at night?" And then your depth sounder with an alarm is a constructive suggestion.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

It was cloudy, but the visibility after midnight was fine for me. It was dark, but like it's always dark after midnight. Laconia Airport had three miles of visibility. The moon was full (Gibbous moon), and was overhead at 2AM. Posters at the BoaterEd.com forum are being very critical of operating this boat in fog. Those who witnessed conditions at the time know better.

And kudos to the doctor, the real hero at a time when heroes were needed.

It was that very hard working doctor that stated what the conditions were when he bravely paddled out to help those in need. You've "insinuated" otherwise.

Enough of that.
_______________________________
This is an emotionally charged event. It occurs shortly after a dumb law was passed, a law which does not pertain to this accident now. Two women are seriously injured, and a third is deceased. The emotional impact of this sad tragedy is one which we all hope we never know in our own families.

It's great for people to discuss the safety aspects of boating, since it is an activity with inherent risks. It's vitally important for everyone to follow the official investigation, since the skipper was an experienced boating person. Whatever went wrong, it serves notice to all of us that life can pass in a fleeting second, for a variety of reasons.

Hopefully, we can all learn something from yet another tragedy, and log it in our skipper's database. I think the majority of us know all the things that could have happened, which is why we don't discuss it now. It's a terrible thing to happen to families and friends, and from what I've read, these women have positively impacted many lives. Out of respect for the victims and the families, it think it would be nice to discuss the safety aspects of boating, and leave the personal and technical aspects of this particular case alone until the real facts come out.

If boating safety discussions can help save even one person from this type of accident, I think we'd be doing the victims and the families proud. I have it in my will that special donations be made to a local group specifically designed for on water instruction for new boaters. Not a bad idea in this case at all. No matter how old we get, there's not a skipper alive that doesn't have more to learn.

[2Blackdogs]

VtSteve writes, in part,

It was that very hard working doctor that stated what the conditions were when he bravely paddled out to help those in need. You've "insinuated" otherwise.

Just wrong.

I was enrolled in a pre-med college curriculm. Nobody can appreciate a doctor's call to duty more.

Parrothead writes,

Don't try to drag this into the speed limit debate, until all the facts are out.

Enough facts are out for a highly esteemed moderator of a highly esteemed cruiser website to write the following days ago. The significant phrase has received my emphasis,

Here's an update for the "defenders"

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...3-9a64d0d487e4

Headline reads Boat crash: Beer cans, a night out

THAT, OF COURSE, LED TO THIS,

ttp://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=054393b9-c34e-48d6-a4a6-117786073e99

Headlined, Governor to sign boat-speed bill


Les Hall, ATC Forum Host

The crash definitely affected the signing, but I am "a ghoul" for visiting the site, and yesterday called "bloodthirsty" by one who followed up with his own visit to the site!

The expressions of condolence should remain under "Boating", and not here at the "Speed Limits" subforum, IMO. I also think the topic definitely belonged in the "Speed Limit debate" when the damaged boat first appeared in the news.

Analysis of the wreck in this thread should have been without "ghoul", "bloodthirsty, and "pond scum" mentioned anywhere, especially by those invited to join here recently by a knowledgable, long-time member, although out-of-state member. They would have no interest in having Winni's worst boaters trailering to their own state's waters.

It has "Wind Energy" and Ted Kennedy's hypocritical comments writ large.

[parrothead]

2BD, you can speculate that speed was involved but there is no confirmation provided. So why should this be discussed in the speed limit thread? If speed is found to be the cause of this accident then you can post an "I told you so". I don't know any of the people involved, and have no first hand knowledge of what happened. So I am reserving judgment until the investigation is complete. And even after that how is my judgment important? There will still be someone who has been killed, and two others who's lives are changed forever. Who am I to sit in judgment? We all have had things happen, or made decisions that we wish we could redo. Unfortunately there is no rewind in life. So sit on your high horse, and hand down your edicts without facts to back them up. I will wait until the investigation is completed and take whatever lessons can be learned from that. It is just unfortunate that these three women's lives had to be irrevocably altered for the rest of us to possibly learn a lesson.

[VtSteve]

BD, You go far, far out of your way to mischaracterize people's posts. You never directly respond to what is posted. I was trying to get you to respond to your weather reporting, which stated it was clear that night, and you could make out the outlines of the land. The good doctor stated it was raining even harder when he appeared on the scene, not very nice out. My commnets had nothing to do with the good doctor's work, which as I stated, was brave and timely. He might possibly have saved a life or two. So what I Insinuated, was that your weather observations were not correct for the accident time, as I most clearly stated. Try that one gain.

As usual, your reply was off target and not related to mine.

In the end, there is little doubt that what many in the no SL crowd have been saying, will be proven true once again. Excessive speed is speed unprudent for the conditions, not what you say it is. I'm sure you were thinking a clear night, going like heck, AHA. That's where the weather observations came into play.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

Huh?

I stand on what I saw two hours before the collision and the moon being full. Laconia airport should have the visibility archived online (WMUR, 3 miles).

Baloney!!! I said it before and I'll say it here. I was on a boat that night, it was pitch dark and even raining at times. Stand all you want, you're wrong.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Have you ever noticed that the entire lake does not have the same weather at the same time. We have become rather proficient at watching the radar and getting off the island while the bad weather is a couple miles away.

[VtSteve]

Lots of good people posting at that boater ed site. I note that Les has made some good comments, but it appears both he and a couple more have some axe to grind about that 2002 accident.

What is it about a boat hitting land that relates to speed limits? Too fast for conditions is mentioned by most, but no law for that is ever pushed.

Emotional and irrational responses.

[2Blackdogs]

Agreed that the weather can be different in places, especially for you're not in a boat at that time. A boat can experience all the weather on the lake during those hours but only remember the rain.

For one, I don't like boating on weekends, and rain would find me anchored or not going out at all in the first place. It was clear after midnight, clear at the time of the boat recovery, and clear according to WMUR's account of Laconia Airport. It was drizzly for sure, as my yard was damp by morning.

The moon was full, however. We should watch for the next full moon over Winni and our collective interpretations of visibility in overcast or clear skies.

jrc writes:

I hope this thread can stick to the facts and details of the accident. If anyone wants to discuss political opinions, I hope they take it to the other section.

Meaning the "Speed Limits" section?

The facts, details and legalities were already being discussed at a respected boating website directly after the collision broke on the news.

Before long, you can count on New Hampshire resident and forum host/moderator Les Hall to arrive with his always-on-target analysis.

His latest regarded the Governor,

"After this, the public would have been all over him if he had vetoed the legislation."

This topic should have no trouble being discussed here without any demonizing, even by the anti-speed limit folks, www.winnilakers.com members, out-of-staters, and the NHRBA members who do have dogs in this fight.

I'll try to remember to mention that Winnipesaukee docks should be required to have lighting, especially as solar powered lights are more readily available today and reasonably priced. That should merge nicely with the NHRBA's charter which begins, "chartered to protect the interests of boaters".

It's amazing that you can't read of this event anywhere in the "Performance Boat" forums. Even the usual ScreamAndFly and SpeedWake discussions are opaque to Google this year.

OSO has hidden the topic for a good three years, as Chris Craft can tell you, so only finding it nowhere else, except at this a Maine site, is surprising to me.
http://www.asmainegoes.com/forum/vie...050ed8a2082795

Thank you, jrc, very much for that sensible suggestion. It should work out quite well.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

A law against bad weather would be just as effective at preventing an "accident".

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

I'll try to remember to mention that Winnipesaukee docks should be required to have lighting, especially as solar powered lights are more readily available today and reasonably priced. That should merge nicely with the NHRBA's charter which begins, "chartered to protect the interests of boaters".

No thanks! We don't need more light polution on the lake.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

....

Thank you, jrc, very much for that sensible suggestion. It should work out quite well.

Please do not drag me into your world. All I wanted to suggest is that we discuss the news about this tragic accident in the boating forum. Since I guessed that people would want to tie this accident into the speed limit debate, I suggested that those discussions take place in the speed limit forum. It was just a suggestion, I don't run this site. I enjoy it very much and the moderator has clearly separated the speed limit debate from everything else in order to maintain decorum.

I've tried to stay out of these discussions until some facts are known. You however, only talk about this subject and your adoration of Les Hall and his site. I'm not sure why his opinion or his member's opinions are so important to you, the few people on his site that know Winnipesaukee, also post here.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by EricP

Baloney!!! I said it before and I'll say it here. I was on a boat that night, it was pitch dark and even raining at times. Stand all you want, you're wrong.

He is full of it...A mutual friend of Tom and Nancy Rock and I heard from them directly that it was pea soup at the time of the incident. It took MP 45 minutes to reach the scene in the fog/rain. With plenty of HP, radar, gps, etc and boats usually on patrol somewhere it would not have taken that long in fair conditions.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by codeman671

He is full of it...A mutual friend of Tom and Nancy Rock and I heard from them directly that it was pea soup at the time of the incident. It took MP 45 minutes to reach the scene in the fog/rain. With plenty of HP, radar, gps, etc and boats usually on patrol somewhere it would not have taken that long in fair conditions.

I think once it's all said and done the lousy conditions that night will be a huge contributing factor to that terrible accident.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by EricP

I think once it's all said and done the lousy conditions that night will be a huge contributing factor to that terrible accident.

I would think so. But since the report of the conditions that night, I think first by the good Doctor, BD has tried to obscure that part of the discussion. The drinking statements have only added to his frustration. It was a big, bad, speeding Formula driven at a high rate of speed by someone who is a vocal opponent of something he supports. I think it frustrated him to the enth degree when I said I agreed mostly with Les.

[MaidenCove07]

I think at this point, enough is known about this accident to say that speed , if even a factor in the crash, was only a "symptom" of the "disease" the driver was afflicted with on that night, at that time...Drunkenness.

No speed limit law, boater driving course, or other governmental interference would have mattered. Blowing a Point 14 says it all - she could have been piloting a dingy and probably would have crashed it into something.

This accident should have had no impact on the speed limit discussion at all, but yahoos at our state capitol, many of whom have never been near the Winni, decided our collective fate out of ignorance, compounded by fear and pity.

So we'll have a speed limit and crashes like this WILL still happen from time to time because some idiots will still drink and boat. THAT'S the issue people should rage up about.

Originally Posted by sa meredith

While I feel very badly for all parties involved, and wish that someohow they are all able to get thru such a terrible time, I don't quite understand why people are so upset over the description of the scene. I found it very interesting. .

I agree....I've known this lake all my life, but find myself being much more cautious and aware of my surroundings...no matter how well I "think" I know the lake, a few feet left or right could leave me with a "rock impression"...maybe that's the one good thing that can come from this horrible tragedy.

To the forum members who've lost friends or relatives because of this, I'm truly sorry.

[pats fan]

Maidencove,
Are you just speculating or has there been an official report that a .14 blood alcohol was determined? I am not saying you are not acurate, I just have not heard anything to support that.

[JDeere]

[quote=MaidenCove07;75109]

I think at this point, enough is known about this accident to say that speed , if even a factor in the crash,

Actually I think speed was the number one cause of the accident and then you add into the equatrion the drinking, and poor visibility. They contributed to the crash but if she had been traveling at 25 MPH I think there is a reasonable chance that the accident would have not had the same consequences.

[2Blackdogs]

Maidencove, that is a very serious BAC number. I very seriously question your source. From what I've read, that number is even more serious for the female driver. Still more serious, any extended hours driving out on the water especially at night. What hour does the WolfeTrap close their bar scene?


What dinghy can go that fast to endanger its passengers or other boats, anyway?

Holy smokes, everybody out on the lake Sunday was endangered by nearly 8 tons of fiberglass and iron.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

I would think so. But since the report of the conditions that night, I think first by the good Doctor, BD has tried to obscure that part of the discussion. The drinking statements have only added to his frustration. It was a big, bad, speeding Formula driven at a high rate of speed by someone who is a vocal opponent of something he supports. I think it frustrated him to the enth degree when I said I agreed mostly with Les.

Agreed mostly with Les? I agree 100% with Les Hall's comments!

Which of us, then, is the one being "intellectually dishonest" regarding a proven expert, a proven moderator, at a proven site devoted exclusively to boating, with no high-speed cruiser agenda, and who has been 100% proven on-target on our Winnipesaukee Speed Limits question in the past?

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by MaidenCove07

Actually I think speed was the number one cause of the accident and then you add into the equatrion the drinking, and poor visibility. They contributed to the crash but if she had been traveling at 25 MPH I think there is a reasonable chance that the accident would have not had the same consequences.

We don't know how fast the boat was going yet. But if it was going at 20, 25, 30, the damages and consequences would be pretty bad, if not the same. I think if the boat was traveling even fast than that, the damage hitting a stationary object at hull height
would have been even worse. Only guessing of course. But a 15,000# boat hitting solid rock above water is quite an impact.

My "guess", is that any speed that night would have been dangerous for the conditions. But it might turn out to be something entirely different, distractions, whatever.

[SIKSUKR]

Would you tell me where you got the .14 bac info.I heard just the opposite that there was a .00 bac.

[2Blackdogs]

Even eating an orange will produce a .04 BAC!

Do you mean the BAC was .00 because the investigator's search warrant was rescinded or otherwise defective?

Well this is great, now we have two "Questionable Sources".

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

Even eating an orange will produce a .04 BAC!

Do you mean the BAC was .00 because the investigator's search warrant was rescinded or otherwise defective?

Well this is great, now we have two "Questionable Sources".

Wow, guess I better stop eating oranges for breakfast at work.

[VtSteve]

I guess this is an update of sorts. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to Merrill Fay's comments, since he should know more about the outcome at speed than I. Personally, I think hitting a stationary object at 25 or 30 would involve more than bumps or bruises, or maybe Formula's build quality really is that good.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...5-9a65f12188b4

"The site of the Lake Winnipesaukee crash, 37-acre Diamond Island, is just off the deepest, central part of the lake where boaters generally speed up, many boaters told The Associated Press. It was pitch black and drizzling the night of the accident, and locals say there was poor visibility.

"If she had run into the island at 25 mph, she would have got bumped around a little, but that's all," said Merrill Fay, who owns Fay's Boat Yard."

[Skip]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

...Even eating an orange will produce a .04 BAC!...

Just to make it clear to the reader, the above quote is indeed as absurd as it sounds.

This should be of particular relief to those less than 21, that can be charged with DWI or BWI with a BAC of .02% or greater (and may actually believe it is time to skip a healthy desert or snack).

The next orange is on me.....

[EricP]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

I guess this is an update of sorts. I'll give the benefit of the doubt to Merrill Fay's comments, since he should know more about the outcome at speed than I. Personally, I think hitting a stationary object at 25 or 30 would involve more than bumps or bruises, or maybe Formula's build quality really is that good.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...5-9a65f12188b4

"The site of the Lake Winnipesaukee crash, 37-acre Diamond Island, is just off the deepest, central part of the lake where boaters generally speed up, many boaters told The Associated Press. It was pitch black and drizzling the night of the accident, and locals say there was poor visibility.

"If she had run into the island at 25 mph, she would have got bumped around a little, but that's all," said Merrill Fay, who owns Fay's Boat Yard."

Is Merrill Fay an accident reconstruction specialist? I'll wait until we hear from those doing the investigation before I believe what a competitor says. People need to just wait and quit playing Monday morning quarterbacks.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by EricP

Is Merrill Fay an accident reconstruction specialist? I'll wait until we hear from those doing the investigation before I believe what a competitor says. People need to just wait and quit playing Monday morning quarterbacks.

Didn't mean to offer it up as anything other than face value. I "assumed" he knows more than me about it based on his statement. If he does not, I guess that makes me an arse for copying it. This accident is also interesting for that aspect of it, that of damage and consequences. I personally don;t believe he's right, but at least once before I've been wrong.

No offense meant, just pointing it out.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Didn't mean to offer it up as anything other than face value. I "assumed" he knows more than me about it based on his statement. If he does not, I guess that makes me an arse for copying it. This accident is also interesting for that aspect of it, that of damage and consequences. I personally don;t believe he's right, but at least once before I've been wrong.

No offense meant, just pointing it out.

I'd be willing to rig up an old junker boat to run at 25 mph if old Merrill would be willing to be the test dummy and run it into a wall. I'd be interested to see how bumped up he got, I'm willing to bet he'd end up in the hospital pretty messed up or worse.

[2Blackdogs]

Originally Posted by Skip

Just to make it clear to the reader, the above quote is indeed as absurd as it sounds.

This should be of particular relief to those less than 21, that can be charged with DWI or BWI with a BAC of .02% or greater (and may actually believe it is time to skip a healthy desert or snack).

The next orange is on me.....

Hurrah! This morning, another forum option has been opened up for me!

However, it's not the "edit" button, which could have saved Skip the time and trouble to point out that I'd noticed my decimal error too late. It's .004 BAC for an orange, not .04.

I did find that some apple juices can bump BAC readings up .03 points....All not lost on BWI lawyers, I'm sure.

As to this crash, I'll wager that Merrill Fay hasn't had any dead-stop-wrecks at 30 mph and neither, fortunately, have I.

(I think it's 30 for Diamond Island's terminal velocity).

I'll be happy to leave it to "NHMP professionals" such as Lt. Dunleavy, who has used "2300 rpms" to assuage the arguments of a great many of Winni's reckless boaters.

[kchace]

I think Mr Fay is wrong. One can easily be killed in a car at 25mph especially if you're not wearing a seat belt. One certainly isn't better protected in a boat.

Check out this damage and report of injury from a 15knot collision.

http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/archive/10.asp

Ken

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by MaidenCove07

I think at this point, enough is known about this accident to say that speed , if even a factor in the crash, was only a "symptom" of the "disease" the driver was afflicted with on that night, at that time...Drunkenness.

No speed limit law, boater driving course, or other governmental interference would have mattered. Blowing a Point 14 says it all - she could have been piloting a dingy and probably would have crashed it into something.
.

Again,where did this claim of .14 bac come from.I have not heard this and don't dispute it except I've heard just the opposite.If your going to throw something this damaging out there,you need to back up your post now.

[B R]

kchace,

How long did it take you to find that link? probably not long. if some journalist is going to quote fay's marine, don't you think they could have put the same effort in and come to the conclusion that injuries from a 25 mph crash into a granite ledge just might have more than bumps and bruises as a result?

but that's a topic for another thread - poor journalism from the union leader. that may be something we can all agree on.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by ITD

I'd be willing to rig up an old junker boat to run at 25 mph if old Merrill would be willing to be the test dummy and run it into a wall. I'd be interested to see how bumped up he got, I'm willing to bet he'd end up in the hospital pretty messed up or worse.

I'll offer to hold the camera and bring the popcorn...

Hitting a large, solid wall at 25-30mph will certainly be enough to toss people around and do the type of damage that occured. Boats don't have airbags or seatbelts, and with open cockpits there is nothing to prevent people from bouncing around or flying forward. The link from Kchace below is a perfect example of a low speed accident and how tramatic it can be.

I find MaidenCove07's comment odd, and it definitely should be clarified. Granted I am not in the investigative mix on this, but it was my take that a blood sample was called for the next morning and that she never "blew". Where did such a number come from??? Rumor? Info leak? Squeeky wheel at the hospital???

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by kchace

I think Mr Fay is wrong. One can easily be killed in a car at 25mph especially if you're not wearing a seat belt. One certainly isn't better protected in a boat.

Check out this damage and report of injury from a 15knot collision.

http://www.boatus.com/seaworthy/archive/10.asp

Ken

Very similar damage to this accident as well. I'd have to think that hitting that kind of object at any speed would throw everyone forward at a pretty good clip. The results of the accident you linked certainly provide ample proof of that.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

When a passenger on a boat is traveling at 25 mph, they are traveling 88 feet in one second. If the boat stops, the occupant continues to travel at 88 feet per second until something causes them to stop.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Didn't mean to offer it up as anything other than face value. I "assumed" he knows more than me about it based on his statement. If he does not, I guess that makes me an arse for copying it. This accident is also interesting for that aspect of it, that of damage and consequences. I personally don;t believe he's right, but at least once before I've been wrong.

No offense meant, just pointing it out.

None taken, my response was a general comment not directed back at you, I apologize if it came across that way.

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

When a passenger on a boat is traveling at 25 mph, they are traveling 88 feet in one second. If the boat stops, the occupant continues to travel at 88 feet per second until something causes them to stop.

Actually, 60 MPH is 88 FPS. 25 MPH works out to 36.67 FPS

I am not expressing any opinion, just pointing out a fact.

Best regards!

R2B

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

Actually, 60 MPH is 88 FPS. 25 MPH works out to 36.67 FPS

I am not expressing any opinion, just pointing out a fact.

Best regards!

R2B

R2B,
Thank you for catching my error. You are correct.
My bad.
RG

[fatlazyless]

Someone noticed in a photograph a dealer's license plate on top of the dashboard, and the lack of bow numbers on the hull. So, how will insurance money get paid out?

Not a happy situation....what a tragedy.......safety pays.

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Someone noticed in a photograph a dealer's license plate on top of the dashboard, and the lack of bow numbers on the hull. So, how will insurance money get paid out?

Not a happy situation....what a tragedy.......safety pays.

The same way it would be paid out if the accident involved an auto dealer's demo or inventory vehicle.

[kthy66]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Someone noticed in a photograph a dealer's license plate on top of the dashboard, and the lack of bow numbers on the hull. So, how will insurance money get paid out?

Not a happy situation....what a tragedy.......safety pays.

they most likely have an umbrella policy

[SIKSUKR]

Still waiting to hear where MaidenCove07 got this .14 bac info.You can't just post stuff like that without revealing where this came from.

[VtSteve]

I don't think that's true KTHY66. If memory serves me, post that was pulled had a rather nasty and suggestive personal suggestion for someone in it? Given names were named, I'd have pulled it too.

[2Blackdogs]

A link for the weather-history on June 15th:
http://www.wunderground.com/weathers...y=15&year=2008

The site, Ellacoya State Park, is very close to Diamond Island. You can't get much closer for weather history!

Ellacoya recorded a precipitous drop in temperature at 2:40am, at the time that the doctor said the rain started. Also, that would be about the time that the MP arrived, who also reported rain.

Some wrote that a 45-minute response time was appropriate for the radar-equipped NHMP. Five minutes, ten minutes.......... maybe.......but 45? I disagree, of course.

From a steady temperature, a two-degree drop occurred at 1:45am, and could account for reports of light fog at that time. No fog was reported upon initial contact by the doctor. (He could witness, and did see, the scope of the emergency even as the Formula had drifted 20 feet away from shore.)

All this is consistent with other time-line reports.

That the AP said it was "black" doesn't make sense. The moon was full. Even with an overcast night sky, the moon will cause the lake to glow impressively. But then, I don't "run the plotter", or have any electronics glow to take away my night vision.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

{snip}
That the AP said it was "black" doesn't make sense. The moon was full. Even with an overcast night sky, the moon will cause the lake to glow impressively. But then, I don't "run the plotter", or have any electronics glow to take away my night vision.

I thought it was pretty "black" at 11:30 Sat night. I couldn't see the Moon through the clouds and fog where I was in Alton Bay. In any case, unless I'm not interpreting the data properly, the Moon was set or near to setting (2:32 AM) at the time of the collision. So it may have been hidden by the terrain as well as any clouds and fog.

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/cgi-bin/aa_pap.pl

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

Some wrote that a 45-minute response time was appropriate for the radar-equipped NHMP. Five minutes, ten minutes.......... maybe.......but 45? I disagree, of course.

MP HQ normally closes at 2AM during the boating season. Responding officials most likely were home, maybe even in bed, when the collision was reported. If that was the case, 45 minute response time was reasonable.

[2Blackdogs]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

I thought it was pretty "black" at 11:30 Sat night. I couldn't see the Moon through the clouds and fog where I was in Alton Bay. In any case, unless I'm not interpreting the data properly, the Moon was set or near to setting (2:32 AM) at the time of the collision. So it may have been hidden by the terrain as well as any clouds and fog.
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/cgi-bin/aa_pap.pl

I couldn't see the moon overhead even at midnight the night of the 15th. Even a "clouded moon" still illuminates the rest of the night sky impressively. The next opportunity for those hours will be July 15th, with a 93% full moon, to boot. We all should make an attempt to see for ourselves, once we get our night vision back from indoor lighting.

If another noisy boat wakes me at that hour or, if that raccoon that visits my metal trash bins has his usual good sense of timing, I may be able to report what I see then!

Originally Posted by NightWing

MP HQ normally closes at 2AM during the boating season. Responding officials most likely were home, maybe even in bed, when the collision was reported. If that was the case, 45 minute response time was reasonable.

That's been my experience as well. Maybe advise codeman671's response to my observations?

Originally Posted by codeman671

He is full of it...A mutual friend of Tom and Nancy Rock and I heard from them directly that it was pea soup at the time of the incident. It took MP 45 minutes to reach the scene in the fog/rain. With plenty of HP, radar, gps, etc and boats usually on patrol somewhere it would not have taken that long in fair conditions.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by MaidenCove07

I think at this point, enough is known about this accident to say that speed , if even a factor in the crash, was only a "symptom" of the "disease" the driver was afflicted with on that night, at that time...Drunkenness.

No speed limit law, boater driving course, or other governmental interference would have mattered. Blowing a Point 14 says it all - she could have been piloting a dingy and probably would have crashed it into something.
.

I'm still waiting to hear where MaidenCove got this info about a .14 bac.I don't disagree with some of your points in that post but I still have yet to hear any reference anywhere to the bac you site.Did you just make this up?Why won't you respond?

[VtSteve]

Only two real reasons I suspect

1) just a number to throw out

2) leaked from someone that knew, whoops

if number two, it could have been deleted

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

I'm still waiting to hear where MaidenCove got this info about a .14 bac.I don't disagree with some of your points in that post but I still have yet to hear any reference anywhere to the bac you site.Did you just make this up?Why won't you respond?

I heard from an unnamed source close to the investigation that she was not over the legal limit. Obviously unconfirmed as it has not been made public, just what I heard for what its worth.

I am rather surprised at this point that at least the BAC has not been made public. Either she was or she wasn't, either way it is a fact based on testing, and that cannot be changed.

[Silver Duck]

I've been wondering how Erica's recovery is coming along. I remember that some of our forum members said that they were friends of hers; could any of you give us an update?

Silver Duck

[EricP]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

I couldn't see the moon overhead even at midnight the night of the 15th. Even a "clouded moon" still illuminates the rest of the night sky impressively. The next opportunity for those hours will be July 15th, with a 93% full moon, to boot. We all should make an attempt to see for ourselves, once we get our night vision back from indoor lighting.

If another noisy boat wakes me at that hour or, if that raccoon that visits my metal trash bins has his usual good sense of timing, I may be able to report what I see then!


That's been my experience as well. Maybe advise codeman671's response to my observations?

Clouds come in different densities, so comparing a "clouded moon" from July 15th, or any other night for that matter, to a "clouded moon" on a different night is meaningless. If it's raining for example, those clouds may not let the monlight through at all unlike a night that has no rain and thin cloud cover where you can't really see the moon but the light is evident.

[Skip]

Results of the investigation should be complete within the next several weeks, according to THIS on-line article in today's Citizen.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Skip

Results of the investigation should be complete within the next several weeks, according to THIS on-line article in today's Citizen.

Similar article on WMUR.com Here