Will NH lakes be safer?

[Woodsy]

The Coastie ignored rule 15 of the COLREGS... and a collision occured! This collision has absolutely nothing to do with HB-162 or Lake Winnipesaukee. Why APS brought it up is beyond me, other than for some sort of inflammatory reason.

www.uscg.mil/vtm/navrules/navrules.pdf

Woodsy

[BroadHopper]

I remember years ago, a marine patrol boat ran over a small whaler type boat in Alton Bay one night. The argument was the MP claimed the other boat had no lights. Not sure what the outcome was but the officer was placed on leave and eventually retired or quit. Can anybody recall that event?

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Broadhopper:
I remember years ago, a marine patrol boat ran over a small whaler type boat in Alton Bay one night. The argument was the MP claimed the other boat had no lights. Not sure what the outcome was but the officer was placed on leave and eventually retired or quit. Can anybody recall that event?

I don't recall that event but I do know that the Colregs require vessels to have lights at night. So if the MP boat operator was correct then he/she was not at fault and was a scapegoat.

Originally posted by APS:
Boating accidents in nearby Connecticut and New Jersey have spiked.

Both states have required Boater Education much longer than New Hampshire. Their "education" programs are keeping accidents down, all right—but only when there's bad weather!!!

New Jersey went for a NEW!!!—AND—IMPROVED!!! BOATER EDUCATION course this year when their accident rate went from 85 to 124.

After ignoring this post for a while I decided it needed to be addressed because someone might actually believe it to be accurate, it's not!

New Jersey's NEW!!!-AND-IMPROVED!!! BOATER EDUCATION course went from requiring operators of PWCs under age 25 to pass a test, to boaters on NON-tidal waters to pass a test! THAT WAS THE NEW AND IMPROVED ASPECT OF THE TEST. It also means ocean boaters are NOT REQUIRED to take or pass a mandatory boating test.

Now I don't know how long their PWC requirement was in effect but the expansion to include NON-tidal waters is much more recent than NH's boater education law!

I'll be the first to admit I don't know alot about boating in New Jersey, but based on a map of NJ I think I am safe in saying the vast majority of boaters are ocean boaters, not lake boaters and are not required to pass a boating education course or pass a test.

So to try to say New Jersey's boating law isn't working when it doesn't require a majority of their boaters to take or pass a boating course is not relevant to anything!
If New Jersey had the same law, or even a similar one to the law in place in NH it might have a place in this discussion!

I have spent some time searching the internet to find a correlation between boater education and increased boating accidents in CT but I haven't found one, could you please tell us your source?

In the meantime I stand by my statement. Boating accidents in NH have decreased every year from 1999 to 2004. Boater education is working, LET IT WORK!

[Cal]

Here's New Jerseys "new and improved" regulations for boaters iin a nut shell

MANASQUAN, N.J. – With the ending of the 211th Legislature, the passage of boater education legislation places New Jersey’s education law amongst the strongest in the nation, according to the Marine Trades Association of New Jersey (MTA/NJ), which said Assembly Bill 2624 (Smith) was a major priority for the association.

The new boater education and safety law applies to all people age 16 years and older who operate registered vessels above 12 feet that are defined as power vessels under the law. It becomes effective over a staggered period of time. Specifically, persons born after December 31, 1978 have to take the course immediately. Persons born after December 31, 1968 and on or before December 31, 1978 have to take the course before June 1, 2006. Persons born after December 31, 1958 and on or before December 31, 1968 have to take the course before June 1, 2007. Persons born after December 31, 1948 and on or before December 31, 1958 have to take the course before June 1, 2008. All other persons need to take the course before June 1, 2009, according to the association.

This bill states that “out of state” boaters 18 years of age and older who operate a power vessel for less than 90 days in New Jersey are exempt from the safety course if they can show proof of similar education from NASBLA, the Coast Guard or other state.

[Airwaves]

This is the part of the NJ law that people have left out:

13. There is appropriated from the General Fund to the Department of Law and Public Safety a sum in the amount of $2,000,000 for increasing the patrolling of the waters of the State by marine police for the purposes of enforcing this act.

So, NJ passes a law for boater education and they provide their law enforcement agency funds to handle it. Is HB162 going to provide the same funding for Marine Patrol?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Broadhopper

I remember years ago, a marine patrol boat ran over a small whaler type boat in Alton Bay one night. The argument was the MP claimed the other boat had no lights. Not sure what the outcome was but the officer was placed on leave and eventually retired or quit. Can anybody recall that event?

Hmmm. Is that the "Littlefield Defense", or the "Marine Patrol Defense"?

I'm wondering just how responsive a media is to "injury-accidents". (In a state dependant on out-of-staters). A kayaker was run over in the Moultonbourough area of Winnipesaukee in 2003. He was airlifted to Dartmouth/Hitchcock Hospital with "broken bones". I heard about it on WRKO-Boston, but heard nothing locally and no follow-ups at any media.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

The Coastie ignored rule 15 of the COLREGS... and a collision occured! This collision has absolutely nothing to do with HB-162 or Lake Winnipesaukee. Why APS brought it up is beyond me, other than for some sort of inflammatory reason.

www.uscg.mil/vtm/navrules/navrules.pdf

Woodsy

The word "collision" appears 19 times in this thread...and a videotaped collision has nothing to do with 45/25?

Videotaping "close-calls" is nothing—finding a video of an actual crash is another. I think it's instructive.

At what speed was the impact? ("Accurate estimate" not required.)

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

The word "collision" appears 19 times in this thread...and a videotaped collision has nothing to do with 45/25?

Videotaping "close-calls" is nothing—finding a video of an actual crash is another. I think it's instructive.

At what speed was the impact? ("Accurate estimate" not required.)

You're right, I think it is very instructive. Watching that guy in the boat that got run over with his head fixed in one direction while there are several boats around shows exactly how dangerous INATTENTION can be. It also shows so called "EXPERTS" can be wrong, the CG driver obviously saw the little boat in plenty of time to AVOID a collision with a simple turn but for some reason ran the guy over. Finally once again, I doubt either boat could go over 45 mph. Maybe you could edit the video, turn down the brightness and claim now you have footage of a night accident to make it fit your agenda.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Hmmm. Is that the "Littlefield Defense", or the "Marine Patrol Defense"?

I'm wondering just how responsive a media is to "injury-accidents". (In a state dependant on out-of-staters). A kayaker was run over in the Moultonbourough area of Winnipesaukee in 2003. He was airlifted to Dartmouth/Hitchcock Hospital with "broken bones". I heard about it on WRKO-Boston, but heard nothing locally and no follow-ups at any media.



The word "collision" appears 19 times in this thread...and a videotaped collision has nothing to do with 45/25?

Videotaping "close-calls" is nothing—finding a video of an actual crash is another. I think it's instructive.

At what speed was the impact? ("Accurate estimate" not required.)

APS...

I cannot find ANY record of a kayaker being run over by a powerboat on Lake Winnipesaukee. You may have thought you heard it on WRKO, but given that we cannot find anything about it I think you were misinformed. Certainly a traumatic accident with major injury such as that would be filed somewhere! We can still find references to the Hartman/Littlefield accident and that happened in 2003. If a kayaker had been run over on Lake Winnipesaukee, given the veracity of the fight over HB-162, I am sure someone from WinnFabs would have brought up this accident as loudly as they brought up Hartman/Littlefield.

As fas as the the video you posted, I agree with you, it is VERY instructive. It shows what happens when someone does not pay attention and does not follow the rules of navigation or COLREGS. It has nothing to do with a speed limit as neither boat appeared to capable of traveling over 45 MPH. Weather wasn't an issue as it was a bright sunny day with excellent visibility. The primary cause of this collision would be operator inattention on the part of USCG boat. When he realized a collision was immenent, he violated the COLREGS by not chopping his throttle and/or throwing the boat into an emergency reverse or stop. He was also required to turn to starboard, not port as he did in the video. The USCG boat violated the COLREGS and caused a collision. Plain and simple!

Woodsy

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

APS...

I cannot find ANY record of a kayaker being run over by a powerboat on Lake Winnipesaukee. You may have thought you heard it on WRKO, but given that we cannot find anything about it I think you were misinformed. Certainly a traumatic accident with major injury such as that would be filed somewhere! We can still find references to the Hartman/Littlefield accident and that happened in 2003. If a kayaker had been run over on Lake Winnipesaukee, given the veracity of the fight over HB-162, I am sure someone from WinnFabs would have brought up this accident as loudly as they brought up Hartman/Littlefield.

As fas as the the video you posted, I agree with you, it is VERY instructive. It shows what happens when someone does not pay attention and does not follow the rules of navigation or COLREGS. It has nothing to do with a speed limit as neither boat appeared to capable of traveling over 45 MPH. Weather wasn't an issue as it was a bright sunny day with excellent visibility. The primary cause of this collision would be operator inattention on the part of USCG boat. When he realized a collision was immenent, he violated the COLREGS by not chopping his throttle and/or throwing the boat into an emergency reverse or stop. He was also required to turn to starboard, not port as he did in the video. The USCG boat violated the COLREGS and caused a collision. Plain and simple!

Woodsy

Maybe APS is trying to plant that little seed of doubt in the minds of the senators before the big vote, just like Dan Rather before the presidential election?????????

[ApS]

Originally Posted by ITD

Maybe APS is trying to plant that little seed of doubt in the minds of the senators before the big vote, just like Dan Rather before the presidential election?????????

Remember this gem?

NO KAYAKS HAVE BEEN RUN OVER ON WINNIPESAUKEE!

From the Old Forum:

In Response To: Re: fatal boat crash (Baja Bob)

"...Last week a kayak was run over by a powerboat on Winnipesaukee. The victim lived, and was transported to a hospital -- maybe Martha Hitchcock Hospital? (a hospital name not familiar to me). It was "just" broken ribs and other bones, I was told...."

The URL:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=45731

(I also think the Coast Guard's impact on the runabout was less than 20MPH—to carry its instructiveness another step).