Boating Accident/Death off Diamond Island

[lawn psycho]

OK, I have to open my mouth based on some of the comments. As someone who used to be a long distance commuter on both I-93, 101, I-95, I-89, there is no question she is not some aberration of what's on the road.

First, if I was out on bail you can bet I would be walking a straight line.

However in NH, you have to be doing over 30 MPH for the speed to be more than a simple speeding fine without some truly agregious action. I don't know what the speed limit is where she was stopped.

If a cop is on the side of I-93 waving his arms and then gets miffed at someone speeding by I have to call him an idiot. And you will find that 99.9%of the time I will support the police on their duties. Cars are whizzing by. If someone needs to be stopped, use the car that taxpayers provide you with blue lights on top to pull them over and issue the ticket. Playing frogger on I-93 is his stupidity.

Negligent driving? And how many tickets are written everyday for 80-84 MPH where the driver pulls away with a nice fine to go to the State coffers? Failure to use a signal? Seriously? You have got to be kidding me. I'll bet that officer doesn't use his own signal dozens of time per day.

I say he wanted to be a headline. This smells of overzealous IMO.

[hancoveguy]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

OK, I have to open my mouth based on some of the comments. As someone who used to be a long distance commuter on both I-93, 101, I-95, I-89, there is no question she is not some aberration of what's on the road.

First, if I was out on bail you can bet I would be walking a straight line.

However in NH, you have to be doing over 30 MPH for the speed to be more than a simple speeding fine without some truly agregious action. I don't know what the speed limit is where she was stopped.

If a cop is on the side of I-93 waving his arms and then gets miffed at someone speeding by I have to call him an idiot. And you will find that 99.9%of the time I will support the police on their duties. Cars are whizzing by. If someone needs to be stopped, use the car that taxpayers provide you with blue lights on top to pull them over and issue the ticket. Playing frogger on I-93 is his stupidity.
Negligent driving? And how many tickets are written everyday for 80-84 MPH where the driver pulls away with a nice fine to go to the State coffers? Failure to use a signal? Seriously? You have got to be kidding me. I'll bet that officer doesn't use his own signal dozens of time per day.

I say he wanted to be a headline. This smells of overzealous IMO.

First of all, Stationary radar assignment is the safest and preferred method of speed/traffic enforcement. When you "use the car taxpayers provide you" you then have TWO people speeding and driving like idiots. How fast do you think a trooper needs to drive to catch up to a vehicle traveling 84 mph from a standing start? Easily around 100 mph, yeah thats way smarter than standing in the breakdown lane with a Neon green traffic vest that says "State Police" which, mind you, most drivers that are paying attention will easily see and slow down for. This is evidenced by the fact that, as we all know, there is a mini traffic jam every time rubberneckers see blue lights.

Second, there is a big push nation wide and certaininly state wide (with the new driving and texting law) to enforce distracted driving. The unsafe lane change needed to be noted and cited to prove the texting was a distraction.

Third, when a police officer has an interaction with someone that is either on probation or parole red flags pop up in the computer and very often dictate special considerations ie, calling of a probation officer, checking on pre and post trial release conditions, bail conditions etc...

Respectfully,
HCG

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by hancoveguy

First of all, Stationary radar assignment is the safest and preferred method of speed/traffic enforcement. When you "use the car taxpayers provide you" you then have TWO people speeding and driving like idiots. How fast do you think a trooper needs to drive to catch up to a vehicle traveling 84 mph from a standing start? Easily around 100 mph, yeah thats way smarter than standing in the breakdown lane with a Neon green traffic vest that says "State Police" which, mind you, most drivers that are paying attention will easily see and slow down for. This is evidenced by the fact that, as we all know, there is a mini traffic jam every time rubberneckers see blue lights.

Second, there is a big push nation wide and certaininly state wide (with the new driving and texting law) to enforce distracted driving. The unsafe lane change needed to be noted and cited to prove the texting was a distraction.

Third, when a police officer has an interaction with someone that is either on probation or parole red flags pop up in the computer and very often dictate special considerations ie, calling of a probation officer, checking on pre and post trial release conditions, bail conditions etc...

Respectfully,
HCG

Let's cut to the chase. Speeding violations are revenue enhancement.

Cops run 100MPH everyday to catch speeders every day. If traffic is heavy, the brake lights and slinky effect from the police car in the median or side of the road is actually as much of a hazard as the speeding, etc. There's a reason civil engineers design lanes to keep traffic moving.

I'm not debating that texting is unsafe. But, how many times are cops on their phone or radio while on patrol where technology exists to prevent it? Just playing devils advocate. I also think she was an idiot for breaking even a jaywalking law for someone in her circumstance. Negligent driving sounds like a stretch to me and if she did not have a hit, would have driven away with a speeding fine. Give her the big fat ticket for speeding and move on.

There are much better techniques to catch speeders than standing anywhere on I-93. State Police vest is highly visible? What about to the person riding next to SUVs or tractor trailers and the drivers view of anyone on the side of the road is blocked? May be safer on slower streets but on the highway, absolutely not.

[hancoveguy]

Cops run 100 MPH everyday to stop speeders... Yup, should it be kept to a minimum, absolutely and this was an instance that an experienced, trained trooper deemed appropriate. I'll go with his jdgement, thanks. As far as other circumstances ie, SUV's, tractor trailers etc. Law enforcement deals with these situations appropriately, in other words, when they can not REASONABLY be seen or expect to be seen the practice shouldn't be undertaken and the trooper will typically back off the road to a safe distance until the situation to continue presents itself. If anyone has ever been passed, at highway speeds, within a few feet of any vehicle, much less a tractor trailer, they would know that the suction alone will pull you off your feet and into traffic if you are not paying attention.

HCG

[livefreeordie]

A day after the conviction, Blizzard was stopped by a state trooper on I-93 who said she was traveling 84 mph in a 65 mph zone. Prosecutors said the citation could be a factor in her sentencing.

State police said Blizzard was fumbling with her cell phone when she was seen speeding in a black SUV. The trooper said Blizzard was tailgating the car in front of her while she held a phone.

In his report, the trooper wrote that he "observed her quickly hold the phone out, look at it and then put it back to her ear."

The trooper said he realized she wasn't paying attention, and he had to steer "back into the high-speed lane to prevent being struck by her."

The trooper said he yelled at her to pull over while waving his arms. He said Blizzard "moved her phone away from her ear as she drove past" and then "stopped the vehicle rapidly, pulling into the breakdown lane."



This sounds so fabricated hahah... just a cop trying to get into the news...
How can the guy say she was tailgating then say she almost hit him when there was a car right in front of her. sounds like he was driving not sitting on the side of the road....
you realize 75% of the people on 93 are doing 75-80 MPH whats 4 more MPH

[Airedale1]

Originally Posted by livefreeordie

75% of the people on 93 are doing 75-80 MPH whats 4 more MPH

1. It's excessive

2. If you are doing it while talking on cell phone, it's excessive, irresponsible and dangerous

3. If your are doing it while talking on a cell phone, changing lanes without signaling as you fly by a marked cruiser with a Trooper waving you down on a straight road, where if you were paying attention you should have spotted him a long time ago, on the day after you were released on personal recognizance by a jury of your peers, who found you guilty of a negligent homicide which resulted in the death of your friend and the maiming of yourself and another friend while you were the operator of a powerboat which struck an island in the dark, it is.............

Well, I have my own thoughts on what THAT is, lets see what the Judge says THAT is.

[hancoveguy]

Originally Posted by Airedale1

1. It's excessive

2. If you are doing it while talking on cell phone, it's excessive, irresponsible and dangerous

3. If your are doing it while talking on a cell phone, changing lanes without signaling as you fly by a marked cruiser with a Trooper waving you down on a straight road, where if you were paying attention you should have spotted him a long time ago, on the day after you were released on personal recognizance by a jury of your peers, who found you guilty of a negligent homicide which resulted in the death of your friend and the maiming of yourself and another friend while you were the operator of a powerboat which struck an island in the dark, it is.............

Well, I have my own thoughts on what THAT is, lets see what the Judge says THAT is.

I could not have said it better myself... Point #3 is the first and only example of an outstanding run-on sentence. Seriously Airedale, it was really well stated.

HCG

[Steveo]

On WMUR.com


http://www.wmur.com/news/22998417/detail.html


Important statement:

The county attorney said that the negligent driving charge could impact Blizzard's sentencing in April. She faces 3 1/2 to seven years in prison for negligent homicide due to failure to keep a proper lookout.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

If a cop is on the side of I-93 waving his arms and then gets miffed at someone speeding by I have to call him an idiot. And you will find that 99.9%of the time I will support the police on their duties. Cars are whizzing by. If someone needs to be stopped, use the car that taxpayers provide you with blue lights on top to pull them over and issue the ticket. Playing frogger on I-93 is his stupidity.

Regarding the above portion, I completely agree. I watched a trooper come literally within inches of his life when he walked from the breakdown lane into the right travel lane of I-93 to yell and point at a speeding vehicle in the left lane. There were 2 cars bearing down on him in the right lane, me (towing a trailer) and the car in front of me. The car in front of me was able to stop with inches to spare, and I came damn close to rear-ending the car. That in itself would have caused the car to hit the trooper. Just plain stupid on the troopers part.

[jrc]

Wow, I was surprised how quiet this forum was after the trial. People seemed a little afraid to talk about it. It's hard when you know some people on the forum must know the defendent and maybe the victim. Now I surprised how this latest news is being discussed.

This is really bad news for the defendent. The judge can use this latest event as information on sentencing. The procecutor will weigh this in his re-trial decision. Any re-trial runs the risk of this information coming in.

I still feel there should be a re-trial on the alcohol related charges. I really don't want to see two fatal collisions, obviously related to alcohol, where the driver is unpunished for the the alcohol. It really shakes my belief in the ability of the state to put teeth in alcohol enforcement.

I strongly believe that this is the most life threatening problem facing the lake. Sure 150' rule violations and wake damage have weight, but this is life or death stuff. Comment regarding licenses plates and guns on board seem out of place to me.

[Happy Gourmand]

.......negligent driving.... is it just me or is there a pattern here? And I have to wonder how many times she did it without being detected. Seems like her judgement is deficient. I'm thinking she will be having some time to contemplate her actions...and, hopefully, during that time, we won't have to worry about encountering her either on the water or on the road. My feelings of empathy towards her are much diminished since this second offense of negligence.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by The Phantom Gourmand

.......negligent driving.... is it just me or is there a pattern here? And I have to wonder how many times she did it without being detected. Seems like her judgement is deficient. I'm thinking she will be having some time to contemplate her actions...and, hopefully, during that time, we won't have to worry about encountering her either on the water or on the road. My feelings of empathy towards her are much diminished since this second offense of negligence.

I have to question if the trooper wrote the ticket for negligent driving *AFTER" having contacted any other official. Her attorney could subpeona the radio transmissions. They can also get his record of citations for speeding at 80-85 MPH and show how many were written as negligent driving. If someone other than the officer had a hand in what she was charged with, I think it may actually *HELP* her legal defense at sentencing.

Also, the statement about appearing to not be bothered or whatever she said is based on his personality and his perception of facial expressions. When you get into personal intrepretation like that in a report, I'm sorry but this trooper sounds like a real piece of work. Stick to the facts and don't try and spice up the report. The account said she did apologize.

I seriously question the officers details of the events. Go stand on an overpass on a major highway and watch cars go by. See just how much time you have to "observe". Hint: Don't blink

You can say I'm crazy but I have driven 80k/year at times in my life and could give a list a mile long of stupid moves I've seen the police do that put the public and themselves at risk on the road. I remember one time in MASS when I stopped at a contstruction zone during a major back-up and knocked on a troopers window to ask for directions. He jumped when he woke up No wonder the police fight so hard to keep those construction detail jobs under their control

I'm not cop bashing but I seriously think this trooper is trying to maxmize his opportunity. Don't misinterpret what I'm saying. Being on bail and at risk of going to big house she was an idiot for doing anything outside the law.

However, her actions on the highway occurs every hour/minute of the day. If you don't agree, you don't drive on the same roads I do. We need a different thread to discuss how to change the behavior.

[fatlazyless]

The March 27 www.cmonitor.com has a report on the Route 93, speeding-texting incident too, along with a number of informed and intelligent reader email replies. But, nothing from the state's biggest circulation newspaper, the Union Leader?

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

I have to question if the trooper wrote the ticket for negligent driving *AFTER" having contacted any other official. Her attorney could subpeona the radio transmissions. They can also get his record of citations for speeding at 80-85 MPH and show how many were written as negligent driving. If someone other than the officer had a hand in what she was charged with, I think it may actually *HELP* her legal defense at sentencing.

Also, the statement about appearing to not be bothered or whatever she said is based on his personality and his perception of facial expressions. When you get into personal intrepretation like that in a report, I'm sorry but this trooper sounds like a real piece of work. Stick to the facts and don't try and spice up the report. The account said she did apologize.

I seriously question the officers details of the events. Go stand on an overpass on a major highway and watch cars go by. See just how much time you have to "observe". Hint: Don't blink

You can say I'm crazy but I have driven 80k/year at times in my life and could give a list a mile long of stupid moves I've seen the police do that put the public and themselves at risk on the road. I remember one time in MASS when I stopped at a contstruction zone during a major back-up and knocked on a troopers window to ask for directions. He jumped when he woke up No wonder the police fight so hard to keep those construction detail jobs under their control

I'm not cop bashing but I seriously think this trooper is trying to maxmize his opportunity. Don't misinterpret what I'm saying. Being on bail and at risk of going to big house she was an idiot for doing anything outside the law.

However, her actions on the highway occurs every hour/minute of the day. If you don't agree, you don't drive on the same roads I do. We need a different thread to discuss how to change the behavior.

Why is it that everyone is at fault except Erica Blizzard ? She is incapable of exercising good judgment - PERIOD.

[NoRegrets]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Why is it that everyone is at fault except Erica Blizzard ? She is incapable of exercising good judgment - PERIOD.

I'll bite at your question.....

I do not believe anyone is "defending" Erica and the accident in ony of the posts. Posters are only pointing out surrounding conditions and events based on experiences. This creates a rich thread of multiple perspectives by Winni Forum members. Their thoughts about speed traps, road conditions, or boating conditions are formed as the thread progresses and drifts from the origional post.

There is no "period" or forums would no longer exist.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Why is it that everyone is at fault except Erica Blizzard ? She is incapable of exercising good judgment - PERIOD.

I agree with Lawn Psycho, but not in defense of what Erica did, I simply felt the report form the cop involved was a bit too subjective and it seemed like he had an axe to grind. Also, I find it amazing that all it takes is a moving violation and suddenly people who gave a convicted killer the benefit of doubt are only now convinced she's bad news.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Sorry if I was too definitive but I couldn't help but feel that there were excuses again being made for Erica's behavior. I agree that police are not always the most accurate but even if the trooper was only partially correct she was totally out of line and again showed extremely bad judgement. We all know that many drivers on Interstates do some pretty dumb things but that is no excuse for everyone driving recklessly, especially Erica.

[fatlazyless]

It turns out that yesterday's Union Leader did run the Bea Lewis-Laconia Citizen report in their Saturday printed edition, front page with a somewhat negative title and a not-too-good photograph of Erica.

Apparently, the Union Leader added one paragraph to the end of Bea Lewis' article which quoted Attorney Moir as saying something like; "Why a moving violation has anything to do with this.....I simply do not understand?" ...in reference to why he and client Blizzard have a hearing to go to with with Judge McGuire and Prosecutor Carroll.

Maybe actor Tommy Lee Jones for Attorney James Moir?

[Seaplane Pilot]

Look, let's just plug in the electric chair and get this over with. Then maybe everyone can move on! Man oh man.

[tis]

When a person is being charged with something another incident has nothing to do with it-legally. It cannot be admitted in a court of law.

[Newbiesaukee]

Originally Posted by tis

When a person is being charged with something another incident has nothing to do with it-legally. It cannot be admitted in a court of law.

You are correct, but can it not be brought up in a sentencing hearing which seems to have more latitude and would be more relevant in this situation?

[Airwaves]

Interesting story in today's Boston Globe.

I am not sure how long it will be there before being archived, but this would certainly put a damper on evidence that is presented by prosecutors being accepted as fact without question!

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by tis

When a person is being charged with something another incident has nothing to do with it-legally. It cannot be admitted in a court of law.

I won't state it as fact but I believe that while other actions and even convictions cannot be brought up during the trial I believe it IS legitimate for them to be considered during sentencing. The judge is often allowed quite a bit of latitude if he thinks the circumstances warrant it and he is allowed to consider her whole record in making his decision. If this wasn't true you couldn't have "3 strikes and you're out" laws. Her showing flagrant irresponsibility right after having been convicted would certainly make me wonder if she has really learned anything from the accident.

[RI Swamp Yankee]

I just read the story about Ms Blizzard.

At the risk of being banned from this forum I have to say her actions and disregard for others defines the word stupid.

The day after her conviction she is speeding, negligent vehicle operation, almost hits a Trooper standing next to the road while fiddling with her cell phone instead of paying attention to the road.

That, to me, is a stupid, self centered, irresponsible attitude.

[Bear Island South]

Originally Posted by RI Swamp Yankee

I just read the story about Ms Blizzard.

At the risk of being banned from this forum I have to say her actions and disregard for others defines the word stupid.

The day after her conviction she is speeding, negligent vehicle operation, almost hits a Trooper standing next to the road while fiddling with her cell phone instead of paying attention to the road.

That, to me, is a stupid, self centered, irresponsible attitude.

I think there might be a lot of people who agree with your statement, read the comments from the Union article.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...3-5f55f22b88f0

[pah]

Drivers license was pulled this morning, pending sentencing on the boat charge.
Bail terms were revoked, she had to spend some time in jail while her family went to get the cash for the bail.

[hancoveguy]

Originally Posted by pah

Drivers license was pulled this morning, pending sentencing on the boat charge.
Bail terms were revoked, she had to spend some time in jail while her family went to get the cash for the bail.

Nice...I guess there may be some justice in NH after all...albeit a modicum of justice but justice none the less.

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by Bear Island South

I think there might be a lot of people who agree with your statement, read the comments from the Union article.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...3-5f55f22b88f0

The comments posted under the article in the Union Leader are truly brutal...almost disturbing. Far worse than anything that has ever been posted on this forum, about any subject, at any time. And this coming from someone (me) who enjoys stiring the pot, and a good controversy. The worst ones are posted at the bottom...as they were the earliest.
Certainly not to be read by any members here, who might considered themselves thin skinned.
Some are just way way way over the line.

[jrc]

I wonder how many people here have posted there, a lot of common themes. One name look very familiar but he has denied being the same person before.

It's amazing how crazy people get when they think they are anonymous.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by jrc

One name look very familiar but he has denied being the same person before.

No, that's definately not me posting as F.L.Less in the Union Leader. I have no idea who it might be? Every once in a blue moon, I'll post in the Union Leader and always use my real first name.

The six o'clock WMUR tv news tonight had about a 60-second video report on this morning's Belknap Superior Court hearing which included footage inside the court room and showed most all involved; defendant, prosecutor, defense, judge, and state trooper as he testified. Could be it will be replayed at 11-pm?

[WinnDixie]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

The comments posted under the article in the Union Leader are truly brutal...almost disturbing. Far worse than anything that has ever been posted on this forum, about any subject, at any time. And this coming from someone (me) who enjoys stiring the pot, and a good controversy. The worst ones are posted at the bottom...as they were the earliest.
Certainly not to be read by any memebers here, who might considered themselves thin skinned.
Some as just way way way over the line.

_____________________________________
Said to myself I would not get into this thread at all...ever...but...here I am. I have to agree with sa meredith. I have been reading the articles and comments in the Monitor and the Union Leader as this has gone on. I am amazed that a couple of them in this latest article...and you can easily tell which...have not been taken off. Highly inappropriate, and only a few "voices in the wilderness" seeming to point that out. A bad situation made worse.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Just Sold

"...From WMUR - it does not sound as if the officer was standing in the road on 93 or on the side in any way. Operative word "steer" Note that the high speed and breakdown lanes are referenced in the quoted report below so I doubt an officer ran across the highway...The trooper said he realized she wasn't paying attention, and he had to steer "back into the high-speed lane to prevent being struck by her..."

Regarding this traffic stop:

I checked Google for every possible news source referencing "steer".

WMUR is the only source to use that word.

Originally Posted by WinnDixie

"...I have been reading the articles and comments in the Monitor and the Union Leader as this has gone on. I am amazed that a couple of them in this latest article...and you can easily tell which...have not been taken off. Highly inappropriate, and only a few "voices in the wilderness" seeming to point that out. A bad situation made worse..."

In forums where "inappropriate" remarks appear, it could be due to neighbors, friends, or relatives who have been victims of DUI drivers.

I look forward to a transcript of this trial: until then, I put the blame for those negative remarks on one or more members of the jury. They were high on empathy and sympathy—and inadequate in Logic and Reason.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by RI Swamp Yankee

The day after her conviction she is speeding, negligent vehicle operation, almost hits a Trooper standing next to the road while fiddling with her cell phone instead of paying attention to the road.

I hate to say it (because I was fully convinced she was guilty of negligent homicide prior to the trial) but she is only being charged with these offenses, she has not been convicted. There's no "smoking gun" evidence (like a smashed up boat and a dead passenger) of any of these offenses. This could be nothing more than a vindictive police officer exaggerating about a perceived speeding offense.

[robmac]

Well I agree with you Dave, it's going to be how the judge feels about what the LEO reported in his report that'll tell how much it will affect sentencing. I would think as a smart person someone would be more careful when your facing a sentencing date coming up. Just my opinion

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by Dave R

This could be nothing more than a vindictive police officer exaggerating about a perceived speeding offense.

Let's forget about any percieved bias or editorializing by the officer.

Fact 1: She was driving significantly over the speed limit. She doesn't seem to be disputing this and it appears there are enough witnesses if needed.

Fact 2: While speeding, she was using her phone. A fact I'm sure can be verified through phone records, and one validated by her comments after being pulled over (unless you want to accuse the officer of outright fabrication)

Given the circumstances of the day before and her situation, even after you discount any believed bias or inappropriate reporting by the officer, her actions are one thing... STUPID!

The officer wouldn't have had a report to write if she didn't give him the opportunity.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Merrymeeting

Let's forget about any percieved bias or editorializing by the officer.

Fact 1: She was driving significantly over the speed limit. She doesn't seem to be disputing this and it appears there are enough witnesses if needed.

Fact 2: While speeding, she was using her phone. A fact I'm sure can be verified through phone records, and one validated by her comments after being pulled over (unless you want to accuse the officer of outright fabrication)

Given the circumstances of the day before and her situation, even after you discount any believed bias or inappropriate reporting by the officer, her actions are one thing... STUPID!

The officer wouldn't have had a report to write if she didn't give him the opportunity.

I was under the impression she was charged with going 19 MPH over the speed limit. I think that's considered a moving violation. I've been given friendly verbal warnings for worse speed violations. IMO, it's not a big deal; the state does not seem to think so either, as far as I know, they only require the payment of a fine, no court appearance. It's basicaly a radar tax.

I was also under the impression that using a mobile phone while driving was not illegal in NH. Might be dumb, but it's probably not illegal.

If the officer wished to charge her with "distracted driving" (assuming that's a crime in NH), I'd think he'd have good reason to paint her in the worst possible light in his report.

I agree that if she did indeed do the things the police officer reported, she was acting very stupidly, especially considering she was out on bail.

[robmac]

IMHO, a definate lack of good judgement. We'll only have to wait and see the legal fallout as a result.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I was under the impression she was charged with going 19 MPH over the speed limit. I think that's considered a moving violation. I've been given friendly verbal warnings for worse speed violations. IMO, it's not a big deal; the state does not seem to think so either, as far as I know, they only require the payment of a fine, no court appearance. It's basicaly a radar tax.

I was also under the impression that using a mobile phone while driving was not illegal in NH. Might be dumb, but it's probably not illegal.

If the officer wished to charge her with "distracted driving" (assuming that's a crime in NH), I'd think he'd have good reason to paint her in the worst possible light in his report.

I agree that if she did indeed do the things the police officer reported, she was acting very stupidly, especially considering she was out on bail.

There is no law against using a cell phone to make phone calls in NH. Texting is however illegal.
There is a distracted driving law on the books as well.

[John A. Birdsall]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I was under the impression she was charged with going 19 MPH over the speed limit. I think that's considered a moving violation. I've been given friendly verbal warnings for worse speed violations. IMO, it's not a big deal; the state does not seem to think so either, as far as I know, they only require the payment of a fine, no court appearance. It's basicaly a radar tax.

I was also under the impression that using a mobile phone while driving was not illegal in NH. Might be dumb, but it's probably not illegal.

If the officer wished to charge her with "distracted driving" (assuming that's a crime in NH), I'd think he'd have good reason to paint her in the worst possible light in his report.

I agree that if she did indeed do the things the police officer reported, she was acting very stupidly, especially considering she was out on bail.

************************************************** ***
Having the opportunity of being stopped by NH state police in February I was doing 71 mph in a 35 mph zone. The officer dropped it to 60 otherwise she would have to arrest me for Negligent driving. So its not just speeding. I was wrong, I was passing someone and realized the passing lane was ending faster then I thought so I stepped on the gas. Oh yeah, the officer was in the car directly behind me.

[ApS]

She can beat this charge.

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

"...If she hasn't learned from her mistake then she indeed needs to be taught a harsh lesson...."

Mistake?

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

"...I seriously question the officers details of the events. Go stand on an overpass on a major highway and watch cars go by. See just how much time you have to "observe". Hint: Don't blink ...No wonder the police fight so hard to keep those construction detail jobs under their control ...However, her actions on the highway occurs every hour/minute of the day. If you don't agree, you don't drive on the same roads I do..."

Massachusetts "construction detail jobs" are mandated by Legislature. ("Overtime" rules for pensions need changing).

_____________________________________

"Don't blink"?

I think the LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) had adequate time for all of his observations—why?

Spend some time actually witnessing how LEOs do a "roadside stop". (Or try to launch from a trailer on route 109).

1) Absolutely nobody launching at the Libby Museum ramp can avoid blocking northbound traffic; however, it's the southbound traffic that's the problem.

If I see a logging truck is barreling towards our creeping trailer, I step into the roadway—put up my hand—and slow the vehicle ahead of that truck.

2) Plus, an example from those of us charged with enforcement in automobile racing:

When an infraction of a "no-contact rule" occurs, oftentimes the entire race car field is "black-flagged" in.

(Black flags are displayed around the track to signal the entire field to abandon the event and to enter the pits single-file. This is done to separate the driver from any others involved, and to "chill" discussions of the incident with others).

Once again, an official will step into the stream of "black-flagged" cars—raise his hand—and slow the vehicle ahead of the offender.

Hopefully, I've explained the concept here adequately.

Originally Posted by secondcurve:

It looks like there is some new information on Blizzard. Care to comment? Clearly she is a menace not only on our waterways but on our roadways. I'm sure it wasn't her fault maybe her gas pedal was defective like all those Toyota's. I think if I were her I'd also change my vanity plate, but that is just me.

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE:

this is not new information concerning the tragic loss of life from a boating accident.
__________________
proud sbonh member - www.sbonh.org

Indeed, it is not:

1) LaPointe killed two after amassing 22 traffic convictions—in Massachusetts alone! (After how many tickets got "beaten"?)



(Boats assembled above, just an instant before the fatal crash).

2) While not fatal, the following was a close call. The boater who cut a kayak in half last season later proceeded to run over a pedestrian!!!

"...Knott drove away after the crash, but campus police were able to locate his vehicle in a nearby parking lot a short time later.

Prosecutors said Knott could hardly walk when a Breathalyzer showed his blood alcohol level at .18 and .20 -- twice the legal driving limit...Knott was also involved in an incident on Lake Sunapee on Aug. 6, New Hampshire Marine Patrol said. Officials said Knott was driving a power boat towing a water skier when he slammed into a kayak. The kayaker was able to jump out of the boat before the crash, officials said.

"I don't know anything about that. I can't tell you anything about that. I can tell you he has no record," defense attorney Thomas Drechsler said..."

Lastly:

LEOs don't make the laws: LEOs are charged by State Legislature with enforcement.