US Coast Guard on Speed and Accidents

[Bear Lover]

Incredibly, HB162 opponents often repeat the claim that speed is not a safety problem. Below is a summary of US Coast Guard statistics on 2004 boating accidents.

Speed is listed as the #4 contributing factor in boating accidents. #1 Reckless Operation and #2 Inattention are already against the law. Inattention was the charge in the recent fatal accident of Winni. #3 Inexperience has already been addressed by the Boating Safety Certificate law. Now it is time for HB162 to address contributing factor #4 Speed.

The statistics also show that "Collision with Vessel" is the #1 type of boating accident by 3 to 1.

[Cal]

Top cause of fatalities seems to be "alcohol" and most types of accidents a causing fatalities is "falls overboard"(more than likely related to alcohol).
So lets ban alcohol"

Oh yes . I don't drink anyway...so neither can you.
Nice attitude , huh???

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by Cal

Top cause of fatalities seems to be "alcohol" and most types of accidents a causing fatalities is "falls overboard"(more than likely related to alcohol).
So lets ban alcohol"

Oh yes . I don't drink anyway...so neither can you.
Nice attitude , huh???

Boating under the influence is already against the law! That is my point, speed is the only major factor not yet addressed by law.

[gtxrider]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Boating under the influence is already against the law! That is my point, speed is the only major factor not yet addressed by law.

Stupidity is not against the LAW. I don't see how a speed limit law will help. Just drive on a road with a posted limit of 55MPH and see how fast there is a car or truck on your rear bumper pushing (drafting for the NASCAR set) you or flashing their lights.

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Boating under the influence is already against the law! That is my point, speed is the only major factor not yet addressed by law.

Doesn't the safe passage law address speed? Any distance within 150 of another boat limits speed to 6 mph or less.

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

Doesn't the safe passage law address speed? Any distance within 150 of another boat limits speed to 6 mph or less.

Are you trying to be funny?

Does the "No Limits" slogan refer to the Minimum Safe Passage rule? I didn't know you were trying to repeal that one!

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Are you trying to be funny?

Nope, wasn't, your statement was that speed is not addressed by law, when it fact it is. If you are referring to excessive speed, well that definition is to be defined, I'll follow the US Coast Guard where they define safe speed, and conclude that anything above their definition of safe speed is excessive speed. And since they define that safe speed is driving at a speed at which is safe to avoid a collision, I also conclude that a collision requires 2 objects (boats or anything). And since the safe passage law clearly defines a buffer of 150 feet between 2 objects must be driven at a speed of 6 mph or less, its seem that your original post that "speed is not address by law" is incorrect. But this is just my interpretation.

[Bear Lover]

I think it is clear to an impartial observer that when I said there were no laws addressing speed, I meant in the context of a "speed limit" as in HB162. Lets not pick nits.

The Minimum Safe Passage rule does not address "speed" on lake Winnipesaukee.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Lets not pick nits.

Judging by the number for times you've repeated the "(Estimated)28 mph night time accident involving your neighbor" and made it sould like gosple that a 25 mph limit would have prevented it , you must have an entire pocket full of nits by now.
Not that I am minimizing the depth of this tragedy but we all know there were a number of poor decisions made prior to that fateful night

[overlook]

Somebody please tell me of an accident involving two boats on lake Winni. that was in excess of 45 mph. Or an accident at night that an operator was not controling there vessel in a manner that not to endanger others. As long as a vessel is moving - speed is a factor.

45-25 came from lake George, without any cosideration for safe passage!


Lake George 21
Lake winni. 0

[ApS]

Originally Posted by overlook

Somebody please tell me of an accident involving two boats on lake Winni. that was in excess of 45 mph.

A fair question.

The MPs, who seem most enthusiastic when enforcing sailboat registrations, haven't been exactly handing out reports like candy. I've never seen a single-solitary Marine Patrol report in all my years on Winnipesaukee!

The only official MP report I've ever seen on-line alleged:

"New Hampshire lakes had the highest number of accidents per acre per 1000 registered boats."

On the US' most dangerous lake -- they reduced its accident rate by half over the last four years.


However, in the same four years, they increased their fatality rate by triple! (Severity of their accidents are on the increase).


'Couldn't be speed, could it?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

A fair question.

The MPs, who seem most enthusiastic when enforcing sailboat registrations, haven't been exactly handing out reports like candy. I've never seen a single-solitary Marine Patrol report in all my years on Winnipesaukee!

The only official MP report I've ever seen on-line alleged:
On the US' most dangerous lake -- they reduced its accident rate by half over the last four years.


However, in the same four years, they increased their fatality rate by triple! (Severity of their accidents are on the increase).


'Couldn't be speed, could it?

Could be booze and drugs combined after reading your Donzi forum link...Take out these factors and it probably would not have happened. Not to mention he had a reckless history, not all people in fast boats do.

Out of 6 deaths in NH that year, two were non-boating related drownings. The other 4 have no causes listed, there is no facts stated that they are speed related, or for that matter even took place in a moving boat! They could be drunken drownings at the sand bar for that matter. Facts please, not assumptions making NH sound more dangerous than it is. NH is considerably smaller in size and overall acreage of water so it makes sense that the concentration would be higher for accidents. IMO it still does not make NH a deadly place to boat.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

A fair question.

The MPs, who seem most enthusiastic when enforcing sailboat registrations, haven't been exactly handing out reports like candy. I've never seen a single-solitary Marine Patrol report in all my years on Winnipesaukee!

The only official MP report I've ever seen on-line alleged:

"New Hampshire lakes had the highest number of accidents per acre per 1000 registered boats."


On the US' most dangerous lake -- they reduced its accident rate by half over the last four years.


However, in the same four years, they increased their fatality rate by triple! (Severity of their accidents are on the increase).


'Couldn't be speed, could it?

Once again conjecture quoted as fact. Actual, complete quote: "One source has estimated New Hampshire leads the nation in accidents per acre of water and per 1,000 boats registered."

Key words here, "One source" and "estimated". Seems to me a statement like this would be easy to verify, why hasn't this been done? Because it's probably not true. Why don't these posters tell the whole story? The truth simply does not support their arguments as shown again and again right here in these posts, if you read carefully.

If you don't read this post carefully, it almost looks like the most "dangerous lake" is Winnipesaukee when in fact it is some lake almost 1000 miles away. Still looking for some real, valid support for the speed limit, none to be found.

[Island Lover]

ITD

The evidence is all around you. You are discounting it because you don't like it.

Go back to the first post, 39 death from Excessive Speed. That's all the evidence most people need.

And we don't care about all the silly quibbles and excuses why these 39 death should be ignored.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

ITD

The evidence is all around you. You are discounting it because you don't like it.

Go back to the first post, 39 death from Excessive Speed. That's all the evidence most people need.

And we don't care about all the silly quibbles and excuses why these 39 death should be ignored.

Yet innattention, recklessness, alcohol, lack of experience and even weather conditions all cause more deaths per year. Make a law banning bad weather during boating season and I am in! Do more to fix the top 3 and put more accountability on alcohol and establishments that serve it and speed will be a non-issue.

[Island Lover]

Quibbles and Excuses

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Quibbles and Excuses

Scare tactics, lack of facts and hidden agendas.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Scare tactics, lack of facts and hidden agendas.

Cman,

By "scare tactics", are you referring to the assertion that the local economy is going to collapse if we slow the very small group of excitement seeking go-fasters down? Or are you referring to the assertion that slow boats are more dangerous because they can't plane and the drivers therefore can't see where they are going when driving "only" 45? Or are you referring to the accusation that this is "discriminatory" against performance boats because they will somehow be the only ones who would have to obey the new limits? Or that this is just a veiled attempt to convert our lakes into "Golden Pond"? Or that the supporters are going to go after all other types of boats next? Or that our shores will be eroded and our environment destroyed by a speed limit? Or that the state will have to impose user fees to enforce a speed limit? Or that even the law abiders will be getting erroneous speeding tickets because of radar that doesn't work on boats? Or that speed limits will actually attract law-breakers to come here for the thrill of the chase? Or that the supporters will all be harrassed by having protest rallies staged in front of their houses? Need I go on?

By "lack of facts", are you referring to the facts that were deleted in all of the go-fast sites? Or to the facts from other lakes where speed limits have been proven so effective? Or to all the high-speed accidents on Winnipesaukee alone over the past few yeras that were mysteriously not classified as "speed-related"? Or to the fact that thousands of lake users (on both sides) testified about the plethora of safety problems on our lakes that our current laws are not preventing? Or, most importantly, to the fact that the overwhelming majority of the lakes' owners want a speed limit, as proven by the legitimate polls done by ARG and NHRBA?

By "hidden agendas", are you referring to the NHRBA pretention that it is a boating safety group? Or to its original "we just care about preserving all boaters' rights" agenda before they finally admitted that this is all just about "excitement"? Or to the supporters' "we just want to be safe on the lakes we own" agenda. when (according to you), what they really want is to rid the lake of boats having a certain shape?

Seems that you've got it all backwards.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

ITD

The evidence is all around you. You are discounting it because you don't like it.

Go back to the first post, 39 death from Excessive Speed. That's all the evidence most people need.

And we don't care about all the silly quibbles and excuses why these 39 death should be ignored.

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Quibbles and Excuses

With all this "evidence all around you" why are you having such a hard time documenting and detailing it. I'll tell you why, it doesn't exist, prove me wrong. 39 deaths due to excessive speed, show me where each death was caused be speed faster than 45 and where the limit would have helped. Bet you won't like the answer if you tried, in fact I'm willing to bet someone on "your side" has tried and found it would support "my side". We ask for answers and we show where your "facts" are wrong or fail miserably to support your cause and the best we get back is "Quibbles and Excuses", give me a break.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by ITD

With all this "evidence all around you" why are you having such a hard time documenting and detailing it. I'll tell you why, it doesn't exist, prove me wrong. 39 deaths due to excessive speed, show me where each death was caused be speed faster than 45 and where the limit would have helped. Bet you won't like the answer if you tried, in fact I'm willing to bet someone on "your side" has tried and found it would support "my side". We ask for answers and we show where your "facts" are wrong or fail miserably to support your cause and the best we get back is "Quibbles and Excuses", give me a break.

I posted the following earlier in another thread about this same stuff.

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Unfortunately, now that will not be possible, because your members have had them all deleted. Of course, I'm sure that at least some of those facts have been saved , but when they are publicized now, we will be accused of selecting. Now your side can conveniently claim that things were not really that bad, but that you are the ones who are unable to prove that.

How prophetic.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by ITD

"...If you don't read this post carefully, it almost looks like the most "dangerous lake" is Winnipesaukee when in fact it is some lake almost 1000 miles away. Still looking for some real, valid support for the speed limit, none to be found..."

How better to describe our Winnipesaukee speed-limit circumstance, than to quote the MPs at a gencourt.state.nh article?

OK, here's a few facts to nibble on:

The following are re-findable, non-ocean, non-celebrity, non-airborne, non-family, non-decapitation, non-foreign, non-dockstander, non-speed testing, non-race, non-racing-spectator, non-Poker Run spectator, non-LOTO, non-Sunapee, non-SOTW Poker Run, non-Sebago, non-Winnipesaukee, non-PWC, non-ski-boat, non-sailboat, non-ejection, non-bass boat, non-paddled boats, and mostly adjudicated, cases. (There's a lot of files here...What'll I do if HB162 passes?)

The first guy is a direct Littlefield-CLONE, but twice faster, and twice more deadly as far as can be determined from Littlefield's own, self-serving, (and widely quoted), "28-MPH" testimony. With civil charges and a BWI charge overhead, why not testify to a "slow" 28-MPH?

The Littlefield-CLONES, boats, condition, hit, sentencings, and (speed):

deTourillon, (Baja-night-rear) 2 killed + dog, not yet adjudicated, (60MPH)
Cody, (Eliminator-day-rear) 1 killed (Speed undetermined)
Colann , (Baja-night-side) Hit & Run, 6 injuries, severings, 1 year + probation (Very high speed)
Cameron (Cigarette-day-side) 6 killed, 84 years (Extremely high speed)
Rush (Rushdesign-day-side) Hit & Run, 3 killed, 1 year + probation (Very high speed)
Frisbie [Boat-safety instructor!] (Powerquest-night-shore) aboard 1 killed, 1 injured, adjudication pending. (60MPH)
Mastronardi, (Cigarette-day-side) 1 killed. 8 years: out on probation, violated probation, back to jail, probation, violated probation again by assault on Canadian Doctor's family, back to jail, out on probation. (Est 45-MPH speed)

(Not everybody had a great 2005 summer on the water).


.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

deTourillon, (Baja-night-rear) 2 killed + dog, not yet adjudicated, (60MPH)
Cody, (Eliminator-day-rear) 1 killed (Speed undetermined)
Colann , (Baja-night-side) Hit & Run, 6 injuries, severings, 1 year + probation (Very high speed)
Cameron (Cigarette-day-side) 6 killed, 84 years (Extremely high speed)
Rush (Rushdesign-day-side) Hit & Run, 3 killed, 1 year + probation (Very high speed)
Frisbie [Boat-safety instructor!] (Powerquest-night-shore) aboard 1 killed, 1 injured, adjudication pending. (60MPH)
Mastronardi, (Cigarette-day-side) 1 killed. 8 years: out on probation, violated probation, back to jail, probation, violated probation again by assault on Canadian Doctor's family, back to jail, out on probation. (Est 45-MPH speed)

(Not everybody had a great 2005 summer on the water).


.

All alcohol or alcohol/drug related. Take out the stimulants and would any of these happened? Would speed limits have saved these victims? I am sure WASTED drivers really care about speed limits. Sounds to me like HB162 should be named Hartmans Bill 162. Absolute tragedy, I certainly do not discount the loss of any of these lives and would love to see stiffer penalties used but none of them would have been saved or for that matter the accident be prevented by a speed limit.

[winnilaker]

FJ,
I don't really see your point here. This is NHRBA's charter, it's on our website.

"We are chartered to promote and protect the interests of boaters and boating enthusiasts in the State of New Hampshire. This is achieved through legislative monitoring, administrative rules efforts, and public outreach programs."

As a side note, we have attempted to make the lake safer in any way we can. Notice, it doesn't say "Hey! we're a safety org", but secretly were gonna fight bills. Nothing hidden there, most people who have joined, have joined specifically to help fight against bills such as HB162. Again, your post is not very useful for all.
WL

PS. As you often state (I don't know about winnfabs), I don't know about those other groups, I only know about NHRBA and NHRBA has not commissioned any survey. So as long as you continue to attempt to give NHRBA a bad name, I will continually defend it against you, since you are the ONLY one on this entire forum that seems to have a problem with NHRBA, at least that has publically stated it. So quote all the posts you want about wanting to fight against HB162, nothing new here! I actually forgot about some of them and its great to see that you are reading up on everything. Look forward to your next post so that I can respond accordingly.

And where do you come up with the notion that those opposing it, are doing it in the name of "Safety." This is a new tactic from you, interesting. My points have been clear, no statistics justify it, difficult to enforce and it's limiting a right we have today. Since you are SO good at digging up posts of mine, I don't have time, please post some from me that I state that safety is the reason we don't want HB162. Darn, you got me, I may have said if everyone slows down, the waters may be more rough, I'll give ya that one.

[Island Lover]

winnilaker

I have a problem with NHRBA.

I joined NHRBA almost a year ago when it was new and before it had "voted" to oppose HB162. I was in favor of a speed limit but thought 45/25 was to low.

After less than 1 week I was called a "rat" and asked to leave NHRBA. So much for your representing all boaters.

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

winnilaker

I have a problem with NHRBA.

I joined NHRBA almost a year ago when it was new and before it had "voted" to oppose HB162. I was in favor of a speed limit but thought 45/25 was to low.

After less than 1 week I was called a "rat" and asked to leave NHRBA. So much for your representing all boaters.

I am very concerned about this. So you joined over a year ago, that would make it before Jan 2005. Correct? I have just reveiwed the membership of all members since April of 2005 and all appear to be members today, except for 1. Are you stating you are that 1 person? I also searched our NHRBA forums for the word "rat", with no results, can you clarify the exact terminology used? The individual that was asked to leave, wanted to bring down NHRBA, not build it, even though the majority of its members wanted to vote against HB162. So, I'm calling your bluff on this one, if you can do some research like FJ, you'll know I helped start NHRBA over 2 years ago and know every little piece of information about it. So be careful that you don't tarnish your reputation on this forum for making false accusations that you can't defend. That is of course you are that 1 person! Then I can agree with you, sorry we didn't see eye FM.

As for FJ's question,
Is this an "unqualified "yes""?
I can say YES fro NHRBA, but I will check with the officers to double check to see if the other groups have.

Also thanks for the quotes, good ones (I stand by all of them), again I think a waste of your effort. I think your point was that NHRBA is a org that says its a safety org, but secretly wants to fight HB162. I'm telling you its a legislative monitoring org that will use its membership to promote boating safety ANY WAY it can. How much more obviously can I be, of course I want to promote boating safety, who doesn't, I have a 1 year son and 3 year old daughter, you think I want to take them boating on a crazy lake with maniacs doing 100mph everywhere, you're right, that's why I boat on Winnipesaukee, because that's not the reality. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean people do it.

[Island Lover]

I said almost a year ago, not over a year ago. I found this so it may have been a little later than I thought.

"Your Web Registration/Membership application Request has been successfully
processed. You will have access to the discussion forum for 3 weeks, if we
have received your member fee by then, your account will be active until
May 1, 2006, if not this registration will be terminated.

If you have any questions please contact us: webmaster@nhrba.com
Thank you,
New Hampshire Recreational Boaters Association registration"

As I remember it, I received the form and filled it out, then my posting privileges were removed and I was asked to leave so I never sent the money in.

My memory of the word was rat. There were several posts at that time talking about opposition strategy. There was no discussion of "boating safety", it was 100% anti speed limit.

I know you're not responsible for everything that was posted. But we both know what was going on then, so lets be honest.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I joined NHRBA almost a year ago when it was new and before it had "voted" to oppose HB162. I was in favor of a speed limit but thought 45/25 was to low. After less than 1 week I was called a "rat" and asked to leave NHRBA. So much for your representing all boaters.

This is not the first story like this I've heard. Why do they say the membership is open to all, then apparently kick out members who join but express a non-GFBL point of view? Of course these are just questions, but; Might they be trying to build up their membership numbers to make the opposition seem larger than it actually is? Might they be trying to confuse? Might they just be trying to raise money by deception? Might you be one of those they count when they say they represent N peopel who oppose speed limits? Was your membership fee used to fund opposition to a bill that you supported?

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

Notice, it doesn't say "Hey! we're a safety org"...And where do you come up with the notion that those opposing it, are doing it in the name of "Safety." This is a new tactic from you, interesting.

On 4/6/05, in the thread you started to announce NHRBA, you said “Does Winnipesaukee and New Hampshire boaters need a non-profit organization...that promotes boating safety?”

Also on 4/6; “Anybody interested in helping shape an organization that ...is focused on promoting boating safety email me”

And on 4/7; “the group looks forward to your help to ...promote boating safety”

On 4/8; “I'm not about GFBL and certainly (sic) hope the NHRBA is not as well or I will get out.”

On 4/13; “I don't want NHRBA to be a GFBL focused membership.”

Again on 4/13; “look forward to working with you to talk about ideas such as boat limits, out of stater fees for using boats in NH, promoting safety, etc. even speed limits.”

On 12/6; “Well nhrba goals will be to continue to make boating safer.”

Sounds to me like a group hiding under the pretense of boating safety. Want more?

Originally Posted by winnilaker

I don't know about those other groups, I only know about NHRBA and NHRBA has not commissioned any survey.

Is this an "unqualified "yes""? Are you stating for the record that you are unaware of any polls conducted on behalf of those opposing HB162?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

How better to describe our Winnipesaukee speed-limit circumstance, than to quote the MPs at a gencourt.state.nh article?

.

All I ask is for quotes that are not edited or cropped to make them more appealing than they actually are to your cause..........

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

OK, here's a few facts to nibble on:

The following are re-findable, non-ocean, non-celebrity, non-airborne, non-family, non-decapitation, non-foreign, non-dockstander, non-speed testing, non-race, non-racing-spectator, non-Poker Run spectator, non-LOTO, non-Sunapee, non-SOTW Poker Run, non-Sebago, non-Winnipesaukee, non-PWC, non-ski-boat, non-sailboat, non-ejection, non-bass boat, non-paddled boats, and mostly adjudicated, cases. (There's a lot of files here...What'll I do if HB162 passes?)
.

Can't really figure this sentence out but I think parts of it are inaccurate based on a quick look at the cases I could find. Typical.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

{clip}

The Littlefield-CLONES, boats, condition, hit, sentencings, and (speed):

deTourillon, (Baja-night-rear) 2 killed + dog, not yet adjudicated, (60MPH)
Cody, (Eliminator-day-rear) 1 killed (Speed undetermined)
Colann , (Baja-night-side) Hit & Run, 6 injuries, severings, 1 year + probation (Very high speed)
Cameron (Cigarette-day-side) 6 killed, 84 years (Extremely high speed)
Rush (Rushdesign-day-side) Hit & Run, 3 killed, 1 year + probation (Very high speed)
Frisbie [Boat-safety instructor!] (Powerquest-night-shore) aboard 1 killed, 1 injured, adjudication pending. (60MPH)
Mastronardi, (Cigarette-day-side) 1 killed. 8 years: out on probation, violated probation, back to jail, probation, violated probation again by assault on Canadian Doctor's family, back to jail, out on probation. (Est 45-MPH speed)

(Not everybody had a great 2005 summer on the water).


.

Again, after a quick look, in more than half of these accidents if not all alcohol was a factor. Why bring this up you ask? Full disclosure, you see not everyone agrees that a speed limit will help, even a little. You are presenting your "facts" to support your case. My problem with your facts is that some if not all of the accused seemed to have been intoxicated, leading me to believe that if they ignored the BWI laws, they would have ignored a speed limit.

[overlook]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

I think it is clear to an impartial observer that when I said there were no laws addressing speed, I meant in the context of a "speed limit" as in HB162. Lets not pick nits.

The Minimum Safe Passage rule does not address "speed" on lake Winnipesaukee.

NWZ
Safe passage
Not to endanger
Reasonable speed when visability allows.

Look right when going and comming, and give way.
You seem to have racing blinders on.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

they define that safe speed is driving at a speed at which is safe to avoid a collision

So I guess it's your position that everything is just fine on Winnipesaukee? Thousands attending hearings, writing to reps and newspapers, and voting in polls that speed is a problem needing repair are just wrong, but the 27 or so from NHRBA that are "forum eligible" know better?

Originally Posted by winnilaker

since the safe passage law clearly defines a buffer of 150 feet between 2 objects must be driven at a speed of 6 mph or less

That 150' rule is forty years old. As boating speeds have increased since then, that 150' "buffer" has shrunk from a safety zone to a microsecond (less that the human reaction time at these speeds). You know all this. You've been at the hearings and heard all these facts. You have engineers in your small membership. When are you going to just admit that you and your minority group of fun-seekers are simply wrong?

[winnilaker]

In case everyone doesn't have the link to the full report:
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2004.pdf

If you do a search on "Excessive Speed" in that document, you will not find it defined as a particular speed, in fact its just a checkbox on the accident report. We would need to contact the US Coast Guard to find out, but my guess would be that excessive speed can be applied in different ways. Yes, a boat traveling 60 mph did a sharp turn and it flipped. Reason X - Excessive Speed, X- Sharp Turn (Look in that report for how that check reasons off)

I would also think that a boat traveling at 20 mph, hits a docks at 20 mph, should have the reasons X- Excessive, X - Operator Inattention

For one, I personally think excessive speed can be a reason applied TO ANY accident if the boats are moving (see definition of safe speed from the US Coast Guard http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/navru...es/Rule06.htm). So I would like to state, at least myself, I'm not saying "speed is not a safety issue". What opposition is saying is that the arbitrary limits choosen are not supported by any facts as they apply to OUR lakes.

[Lakegeezer]

The US Coast Guard report from 2003 and 2004 has some details about speed and accidents.

Boating Statistics 2003 – US Dept of Homeland security – Coast Guard
Accidents and fatalities
Not moving 815 61
Under 10 mph 1,173 164
10 to 20 mph 1,147 43
21 to 40 mph 1,082 56
Over 40 mph 180 14
Not Reported 2,966 365

The numbers in the 2004 report are
Accidents and fatalities

Not moving 810 66
Under 10 mph 1,242 163
10 to 20 mph 1,020 40
21 to 40 mph 933 49
Over 40 mph 137 14
Unknown 2,583 344

SPEED

Where speed was reported, it turns out that there were more accidents and fatalities with boats not moving at all than at over 40. The most dangerous speed is under 10.

In my opinion, excessive speed has little if anything to do with speed limits. I smell a red herring.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Excessive speed has little if anything to do with speed limits. I smell a rotten red herring.

What do you mean by "Excessive speed has little if anything to do with speed limits" that statement contradicts itself. It also contradicts the USCG data that shows it to be the #4 cause of boating accidents.

Lets take the USCG report at face value. Speed Kills!

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

What do you mean by "Excessive speed has little if anything to do with speed limits" that statement contradicts itself. It also contradicts the USCG data that shows it to be the #4 cause of boating accidents.

Lets take the USCG report at face value. Speed Kills!

As the posts that followed yours point out, my statement does not contradict itself. Excessive speed can be 10 MPH, which has little if anything to do with speed limits. Excessive speed is any speed at which an accident occurs which would have not occurred at a slower speed. If an legal definition of excessive speed is set at 45, that becomes a legal point of view, but says nothing about safety. There can still be accidents caused by excessive speed at speeds below 45, and there can be very safe travel at 60mph (even though it would unfortunately become an legal infraction). The main point of argument here is that speeds above 45 alone have not been shown to cause an abnormal share of accidents yet a set speed limit continues to be brought up as a way to improve safety. Going too fast for conditions is a problem and should remain a point of concern. Going fast is not the problem, but sending the message that 44 mph is always ok because its below the speed limit is dangerous.

[winnilaker]

Check out this graph, something looks obvious to me, smaller boats are the problem! Imagine this, we set a minimum length to boats on Winnipesaukee, sorry couldn't resist.

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

Check out this graph, something looks obvious to me, smaller boats are the problem! Imagine this, we set a minimum length to boats on Winnipesaukee, sorry couldn't resist.

Why would you post such misleading data without an explanation?

First, it is the length of the boat THE VICTIM IS IN that is reported by the USCG. So if a 32' boat goes up and over a 19' boat killing someone, the USCG reports it as a death in a boat 16' to 26'.

Second, the vast majority of boats are under 26' probably around 99% (a guess). How would that graph look if it was death per 1,000,000 boats.

[Bear Islander]

winnilaker

There are quite a few deaths in PWCs. They are under 16' and they go much faster than 45 MPH. And many boats under 26' are fast.

HB162 is about SPEED!

[winnilaker]

Bear Islander,
Without using numbers, please define excessive speed? This way we'll all be on the same page. "HB162 can't just be about speed ALONE" or supporters would be trying to pass a No Wake Zone for the entire lake.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

Bear Islander,
Without using numbers, please define excessive speed? This way we'll all be on the same page. "HB162 can't just be about speed ALONE" or supporters would be trying to pass a No Wake Zone for the entire lake.

I will defer my definition of "Excessive Speed" to the RR&D commitee. They believe it to be 25 at night and 45 during the day.

If HB162 passes we will all have a legal definition of Excessive Speed!

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

supporters would be trying to pass a No Wake Zone for the entire lake.

I thought No-Wake zones were reserved for the waters in front of the houses of NHRBA members.

[BroadHopper]

It is not the fact that HB162 is about speed. I'm worried about all the amendments being tacked to it. Like all body of water including 3 miles out to the ocean. Then there are rumors that Sea Rays and SeaCrests belong in the sea, Key West belong in Key West, Yada Yada Yada. Then the hospitaliity industry is going to tell everyone the lakes are safe when in fact they are WRONG. It is no safer with a speed limit law. The MP are too busy to keep the 'Caption Boneheads' in line. If Captain Bonehead hit Bear Islander ot Bear Lover with his pontoon boat, I can see them screaming bloody blue Jeezus and send out a bill to ban pontoon boats!
That is what I am getting at!

Merry Christmas.

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

I thought No-Wake zones were reserved for the waters in front of the houses of NHRBA members.

If you seriously think that was the reason, please let all know!! If yes, it will show your true feelings of the haves vs the have nots.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

If you seriously think that was the reason, please let all know!!

Of course I don't think it was the main reason. I think the biggest part of the reason was to try to diminish the support for and distract attention from HB162. (of course that did not work). Next biggest part was to try to legitimize NHRBA and make it look like it was really intersested in boating safety. The fact that the place you chose to seek a no-wake zone just happened to be right in front of the house of your single most generous personal contributor was probably third, in my opinion. I was actually in favor of the petition, but have to admit it really bothered me to see the person in the newspapers with one of the largest and loudest boats on the lake (one of the richest "haves" on the lake), speaking about his right to roar around the rest of the lake and force the rest of us to put in earplugs and dive for cover, while you guys are working to get what is effectively a personal "quiet zone" for him in front of his house.
So I guess it does say a bit about my true feelings about the "haves vs the have nots".

[Silver Duck]

First, the observation. Excessive speed is easy to define! It's any speed at which you were unable to avoid a collision (and, I'd be happy to stretch that to include a "near miss", too!) If someone is unable to stop or turn their boat with plenty of room to spare, they're going too danged fast, period, no matter what the spedometer reading is!

Now, the question. Are any of the legislators involved with HB162 experienced boaters?

Silver Duck

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Why would you post such misleading data without an explanation?

I'll defer to your post that started this thread, where you don't define excessive speed as it is interpreted for this report.

As for your definition for excessive speed, thank you.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

Check out this graph, something looks obvious to me, smaller boats are the problem!

You are right! So we should make the speed limits of HB162 apply to smaller boats too. Oh wait, they already would.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

In case everyone doesn't have the link to the full report:
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2004.pdf
I would also think that a boat traveling at 20 mph, hits a docks at 20 mph, should have the reasons X- Excessive, X - Operator Inattention

EXACTLY!!!! Facts and figures can LIE , yet be totally truthful.It's all in the way it is presented.
You know that old saying??? "Figures lie and liars figure"...go figure.


The universal answer to the whole problem???alcohol.
If the speed limit proponents stay drunk enough , they won't care how fast the rest go

Seriously though , have a Merry Christmas and DON'T drink and drive

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

What opposition is saying is that the arbitrary limits choosen are not supported by any facts as they apply to OUR lakes.

OUR lake had a fatal night accident at 28 MPH. That is a FACT that proves your statement to be incorrect.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

my guess would be that excessive speed can be applied in different ways.

Herein lies exactly the point (or at least one of them). Once HB162 is passed, there will be no more quibbling and opining about whether a speed was excessive. Aside from what other limitations already exist which can be cited against those going faster or slower, if one is going over 45, his speed will be legally excessive (or 25 if at night). Now that's a law that requires no "guessing".

[chase1]

This report as previous years shows no statistical reason for speed limits on our waterways. Please review the Vessel Information page from this report regarding boat speed. Fewer vessels were involved in accidents at speeds over 40 mph than any other category including not moving once again, with 137 of the total 6,725 vessels in 2004 falling from 180 in 2003. The Coast Guard report does list excessive speed as the fourth top contributing factor for all accidents with operator inexperience, careless/wreck less operation, and operator inattention taking the top three. The same report glossary defines speeding as - operating at a speed, possibly below the posted limit, above that which a reasonable and prudent person would operate under the circumstances. By definition excessive speed / speeding does not have a particular value and therefore can occur at any speed. With 137 vessels nationwide involved in accidents at speeds over 40mph and excessive speed being one of the top contributing factors with all vessels involved (6,725) it can be concluded that most excessive speeding accidents currently occur under 40mph.

Chase1

[winnilaker]

FJ,
Exactly, no more misinterpreting what is and what isn't excessive. That's why I'm personally fighting to get it right the first time. For future generations to not look back and say, "this law doesn't address the majority of the real problems"

You may or may not be aware of a new bill proposed by Rep. Spang and Rep. Currier to look into boating safety in more detail. You have the means to find the bill. If folks want me to post it here I can. Spang and Currier were on the R,R & D committee, Spang for a speed limit and Currier against, yet they both came together to draft this new one to really look into boating safety in NH. It has both opponents and supporters on the commission, so it should be well deversed and objective.

My point here is why pass a new law, when we have the opportunity to dive into the real issues on the lake.

[Woodsy]

Actually, I think you guys are both wrong... I think the quibbling will continue regardless... the conditions prevalent at the time of the incident will always be a factor.

The Coast Guard standard for determining excessive speed bears some serious consideration.

For example, if you are traveling at 25mph in a dense fog and have an accident of some sort, collide with another boat or hit a dock/shoreline. Your rate of travel, 25mph, although legal under HB-162 it would be considered excessive speed by using the Coast Guard standard.

You can be traveling at 45mph thru the Weirs on a busy summer saturday, all perfectly legal under HB-162, regardless of conditions... that is until you collide with someone or something... all within a perfectly legal speed, but it could be considered excessive speed by the Coast Guard standard.

Not to beat a dead horse, but the 28mph the Littlefield boat was traveling at might (and I mean might) have been considered excessive speed for the prevalent conditions. (dark night) It would not have been considered speeding under HB-162. When was the last time anybody got a speeding ticket for 3mph over the limit? The standard is usually 10+MPH over the posted limit.

Woodsy

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

You can be traveling at 45mph thru the Weirs on a busy summer saturday, all perfectly legal under HB-162, regardless of conditions... that is until you collide with someone or something... all within a perfectly legal speed, but it could be considered excessive speed by the Coast Guard standard.
Woodsy

The authorites are always going to have the choice to apply the stricter of two or more laws in any given situation. A 45mph speed limit is not going to override the reckless operation law, the 150-ft law, the BWI law, or any other law that is violated. The 45mph limit merely gives the MP another tool in their holster. If they refuse to use that tool, that's a discussion for next year. That is why it is so curious to see Glendale fighting this with the argument that it would be "ineffective". If it was truly going to be ineffective at slowing the fast few down, would there really be this much of a stink raised about it? Meaningless laws tend to get very little attention. But then, didn't the director also say that he wasn't aware of any boating problems on Lake Winnipesaukee last winter (before thousands came to the hearings to testify from both sides about the infinity of boating safety problems they were witnessing on the lake)?

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

they both came together to draft this new one to really look into boating safety in NH.

Assuming this committee also concludes as the RR&D did that new laws or limits are deserved, and your crowd therefore fights this bill as you have every bill or effort in the past that aimed to put limits on unruly and objectional behavior (noise laws, PWC laws, loon protection, etc), and you are successful in dragging this one out two years as you did HB162, then I will be in my forties. I am getting too old to keep waiting to use our lake again.
Let's go with HB162 for now, then if the committee comes up with some better solution, they can always write directly into that bill a provision for expiring the speed limit law. The statutes are full of deleted obsolete laws...its not that big a deal.

[fatlazyless]

"Help save lives and limbs by supporting speed limit"
While waiting in my barber's today, I came across this letter to the editor sent in by a Nashua orthopedic surgeon in today's Laconia Sun, December 21.

"To the editor.

As an orthopedic surgeon serving the Greater Nashua community for many years and as a lifelong boater on our New Hampshire lakes, I strongly believe that the 45 mph (day) and the 25 mph (night) speed limits as put forth in House Bill 162 are critically needed. Seeing first hand how accidents can harm human life and limb and helping family members manage their injury rehabilitation have made me safety-minded and community-minded. With more and more boats being driven at excessive speed, boating on our lakes in New Hampshire has reached the danger level, for certain, and this bill will help preserve the safety of everyone.
Already, our family centered State has speed limits enforced by the NH Fish and Game and their radar guns on our backwoods trais to ensure the safety of hikers, snow shoers and cross-country skiers, side-by-side ATV's, dirt bikes and snowmobiles. Already, we have speed limits on our town roads to ensure the safety of those bicycling, roller blading, walking, jogging, and pushing baby strollers, side-by-side cars and trucks. It makes sense to do the same on New Hampshire's lakes to protect kayakers, swimmers, sailboaters, windsurfers, canoers, and rowers side-by-side motor boats.
The proposed 45 ph daytime speed limit is plenty fast enough to waterski and to boat from one end of a lake to the other, while allowing enough reaction and stopping time to prevent collisions with objects and other lake enthusiasts. The proposed 25 mph nighttime limit is plenty fast enough to move about at night but at much slower speeds to compensate for the vastly challenged visibility that darkness on water brings.
The New Hampshire House of Representatives will be addressing this bill in January. Please call, write or email your NH legislaturs before then and urge them to support House Bill 162 and the proposed 45/25 mph boating speed limits for New Hampshire. It will save somebody's life or limb.
Douglas Joseph M.D.
Nashua

Letters - The Laconia Daily Sun, Dec 21, 2005

[chase1]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

"Help save lives and limbs by supporting speed limit"
While waiting in my barber's today, I came across this letter to the editor sent in by a Nashua orthopedic surgeon in today's Laconia Sun, December 21...

fatlazyless....

I do not get the point of this. This is just a letter. While I was at the barber shop today I read the USCG 2004 Boating Statistics report. You should look at it. This report as previous years shows no statistical reason for speed limits on our waterways. Please review the Vessel Information page regarding boat speed. Fewer vessels were involved in accidents at speeds over 40 mph than any other category including not moving once again, with 137 of the total 6,725 vessels in 2004 falling from 180 in 2003. USCG accident statistics should rank over some letter that expresses the opinion of one individual.

"With more and more boats being driven at excessive speed" - as an experienced boater he should know that excessive speed occurs at any speed and proposed limits therefore HB162 not reduce his income.

I read a tabloid while in line at the market once and a printed copy of a letter sent in from some Jack confirmed alien life forms working in Arizona.

The source is important when judging content.

Chase1 MD

[Bear Lover]

If you will read that USCG report again you will find that MORE THAN HALF of all fatal boating accidents were at "Speed Unknown".

344 deaths in 2004 where the speed was unknown. Perhaps those boats were going so fast their speed could not be estimated.

And to be fair lets mention that these statistics are for ALL vessels, including row boats, kayaks, inflatable boats, canoes etc. When you take that into account, it's no wonder many fatal accidents are at low speed.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

If you will read that USCG report again you will find that MORE THAN HALF of all fatal boating accidents were at "Speed Unknown".

344 deaths in 2004 where the speed was unknown. Perhaps those boats were going so fast their speed could not be estimated.

Or perhaps their speed was irrelevant.

Lets assume for a moment that high speeds make it harder to estimate speed based on impact damage (they don't, common sense kinda prevails here); do you really believe the USCG would investigate a high speed accident and report nothing more than "speed unknown" if speed was so high that it could not be estimated? C'mon, that's quite a reach.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

If you will read that USCG report again you will find that MORE THAN HALF of all fatal boating accidents were at "Speed Unknown".

344 deaths in 2004 where the speed was unknown. Perhaps those boats were going so fast their speed could not be estimated.

And to be fair lets mention that these statistics are for ALL vessels, including row boats, kayaks, inflatable boats, canoes etc. When you take that into account, it's no wonder many fatal accidents are at low speed.

Wish I had seen thess posts before I had typed my other reply, I could have saved some typing. So what's your point above ? Are you saying that all or most of the unknown speeds are above 40 mph ? Why would you believe that ? Seems to me that it's likely that the distribution of the unknown speeds pretty much follows the distribution of the known speeds. The percentages won't much change then. If you have some reason to belive otherwise please state it.

edit : FWIW the CG entry is for over 40 mph. Should those boats have been going "so fast that their speed couldn't be estimated" I'd think they would have been included in this category.
Investigator: How fast where they going ?
Response : I couldn't tell, it was too fast.
Investigator : [puts checkmark in over 40 box]

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by chase1

fatlazyless....

I do not get the point of this. This is just a letter.
Chase1

The only point is that it is in favor of the speed limit. Pasted below are all the letters not written to any editor from all the other area Orthopedic Surgeons that don't oppose the bill. Their silence is deafening and implies that they must oppose the speed limit.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

#3 Inexperience has already been addressed by the Boating Safety Certificate law.

Do you really believe that the Boating Safety Certificate Law has helped tame inexperienced boaters?? Gimme a break! Any monkey with a laptop and a credit card can take the test anonymously over the internet (even for someone else other than themselves) and look up the answers while taking it. One might claim that at least at that point the material was read but was it really? This is no substitution for hands-on training in a boat. Why don't marinas offer a boat training course for hands-on experience when purchasing a boat? A 10 minute test ride to make sure it starts and runs is not sufficient. Do you really want to make the claim that this was solved and that speed is the true root of all evil???

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Do you really want to make the claim that this was solved and that speed is the true root of all evil???

While I do believe there is work to be done (online course in particular), many have taken the classroom course, I also believe it is working for a large percentage of boaters. I think its the reason, while boat registrations are up and the accidents are continuely going down. 95 in 2000 to 35 last year.

A National Boating Safety Alert recommended 3 things,
1. States should require PFDs for 12 and under. (Which I believe a new bill has been proposed for this) I support it.
2. States should implement a boating education certification program. We did that.
3. States should implement a boating license program. We don't do this. I personally would have no problem requiring boaters to "prove they know how to boat" before they get in one and drive it.

For the full report: http://www.ntsb.gov/alerts/sa%5F007.pdf

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

3. States should implement a boating license program. We don't do this. I personally would have no problem requiring boaters to "prove they know how to boat" before they get in one and drive it.

This is exactly what I am looking for. In class programs are decent, the internet one is far from it but having a hands-on training or test would definitely help.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Lakegeezer did a great job illustrating that Excessive Speed can be 10 mph. Winnilaker and others also point out this flaw in the statistical interpretation. Excessive Speed is relative, it is not a specific number (like 45 mph).

I believe that the US Coast Guard survey includes all areas, not just Lakes similar to Winnipesaukee. Ocean boating is a bit different.

I can not go 45 mph in my boat (unless Columbus was wrong and I fall off the edge) but I do NOT favor any new Lake Speed restrictions.

IMHO: It's not how fast you go, it's how you go fast!

Seasons greetings .

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Do you really believe that the Boating Safety Certificate Law has helped tame inexperienced boaters?? Gimme a break! Any monkey with a laptop and a credit card can take the test anonymously over the internet (even for someone else other than themselves) and look up the answers while taking it. One might claim that at least at that point the material was read but was it really? This is no substitution for hands-on training in a boat. Why don't marinas offer a boat training course for hands-on experience when purchasing a boat? A 10 minute test ride to make sure it starts and runs is not sufficient. Do you really want to make the claim that this was solved and that speed is the true root of all evil???

Please don't expand my statements beyond what they clearly say.

All I said was that the Boating Safety Certificate address the issue of boater experience. How well it is working is open to discussion, however there is a law in place. When it comes to speed there is no law in place.

The certificate is better than nothing, at least it gives new boaters some kind of a clue. It also makes it harder to look a MP officer in the face and say "I never knew that!"

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Please don't expand my statements beyond what they clearly say.

Your statement clearly stated that the issue had been addressed. I do not believe that the solution that was come up with addresses much of anything...I obviously have taken the test as have many others on this forum and I bet that I am speaking for many when I say that the test hardly scratches the surface in proper boater education. I do not believe that by simply taking the test a newbie boater is anywhere near ready to be on the water be it Winni, the ocean or in a puddle. Not to mention how easy it would be for someone to get a certificate without even doing it themselves...

[Cobalt]

It is really unfortunate the HB 162 proponents were not around in 1912. With the night speed limit and a special subsection to address floating icebergs, they may have saved the Titanic.

Happy holidays.

[ApS]

NOT!

Yeah, he was going 60-MPH when he collided with the other boat -- causing a fatality. So what? He was drunk!

Case...after case...after case...of excessive-speed fatalities have been dismissed here, using The Alcohol Excuse.
Aren't we drinking-while-boating responsibly? —Baja Bob
Is everybody doing it?
Does it go with the territory?

This summer, a drunken boating safety instructor drove his boat into his lake's shoreline, injurying one passenger and killing another passenger. It was a 60+MPH nighttime crash.

Pray tell: How do you keep liquor from performance-boaters' heads?