Lt. Dunleavy, NHMP, responds....

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

No you have not answered the question. There are no Bass boats in this scenario.

We are talking about a REAL accident that killed three people on Winnipesaukee. A Cigarette boat at high speed. The question is would a horsepower limit have prevented that accident?

I believe he already answered the question, but I'll answer it as well:

No.

To say otherwise is to imply that a 200 to 300 hp boat could not possibly strike land and kill its occupants, when of course it could. What do you think would happen to me if my 260 hp boat struck a rocky shore at its maximum speed of approximately 52 mph? If you ask me, I would say the most likely scenario would be death. Survival would be pure luck.

Why are there no bass boats in this scenario? Does your horsepower limit also contain a ban on bass boats?

[chipj29]

The point that BI is trying to make is that if there had been a horsepower limit in place, that particular boat would not have been on the lake, therefore the accident would have been prevented. In his eyes anyway.

In my eyes, the accident still would have happened, just on a different boat. Many many boats, with a lot less than 300 HP have the power and speed to get in that same accident.

[Woodsy]

BI,

Your logic path is so FLAWED it amazes me! It's your position that had there been HP Limits in place in 1975, this boat would not have been on Lake Winnipesaukee and therefore this horrific accident would not have occurred and 3 people might be alive? Correct?

By following that same logic, IF the operator of the boat in question had not been drinking, and was sober the accident would not have occurred! (we already have BWI laws)

(This same logic can be applied to the Littlefield/Hartman accident as well)

We can further extrapolate: Had the operator in question been operating another lower HP boat drunk, all things being equal, the accident still would have occurred.... and 3 people would still be dead! Reference the accident last year when the boat ran up on Eagle Island... It was not a high HP boat and it went quite aways onto Eagle Island! But for the grace of God, (I firmly believe he has a soft spot for Fools) those darn DRUNKEN kids are alive to tell the tale!

Most accidents that involve alcohol would not occur if you removed the alcohol from the equation! Show me a fatal high speed collision (boat or land)that occurred on Lake Winnipesaukee with a SOBER operator....

I will be waiting patiently for your reply!

Woodsy

PS: For the record, a 1975 Cigarette didn't go faster than 60-65MPH.... it probably had twin 454's with TRS drives... they were amazingly HEAVY boats and those Drives took alot of HP to spin.

[hazelnut]

How many times has Bear Islander "claimed he wasn't targeting a certain type of boat?" Hmmm funny how his true colors seem to be so vivid in this debate.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

How many times has Bear Islander "claimed he wasn't targeting a certain type of boat?" Hmmm funny how his true colors seem to be so vivid in this debate.

I have explained this several times, so I think you know the answer and are only doing this for effect. Here it is one more time, try and get it straight.

I have NEVER claimed I am not targeting high power boats. My idea, as you know very well, is a 300 HP limit for boats made after 2008.

I am not targeting any boats on the lake now. Only ones made after 2008.

This has been my position for the last 5 years.

Got It?

[chmeeee]

Here you say that its only for new boats:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

My idea, as you know very well, is a 300 HP limit for boats made after 2008.

I am not targeting any boats on the lake now. Only ones made after 2008.

This has been my position for the last 5 years.

Got It?

But here, in response to my post, you said it would be for all boats:

Originally Posted by chmeeee

Even if they enacted a horsepower limit, which I sincerely doubt they would, it would have to only cover boats that were produced after the date the law was enacted. I am going to assume that the boat that crashed into the house was produced before today, no?

They're not going to enact a law that renders their own residents' possesions illegal and nearly worthless, it just would never happen. Given that, it would take at least 20 years, if not more, to get the high power boats off the lake with a HP limit, since it would take that long for them to wear out. In fact, they'd probably last even longer since there would be added incentive to keep them up.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It has happened before many times, it will happen again. Many years ago I was involved with another lake passing similar limits. At the hearing many residents asked who is going to pay for their useless boats. The unspoken answer was nobody.

Besides a horsepower limit doesn't make your boat worth less. Sell it, or use it elsewhere.

In this accident scenario we are supposing that a speed limit or horsepower limit was in place at that time. I thought that was obvious.

The point is that once you regulate a boat off of the lake it can no longer have accidents here. And a boat that leaves voluntarily because of a speed limit can't be involved in accidents either. Problem Solved!

Do you enjoy contradicting yourself so much?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chmeeee

Here you say that its only for new boats:

But here, in response to my post, you said it would be for all boats:

Do you enjoy contradicting yourself so much?

I'm not contradicting myself. But I can understand that you are confused.

I would like to see a horsepower limit. To be fair I think it should be grandfathered so it doesn't force existing boats off the lake. I have said 2008 but it may be more like 2020 by the time it happens.

In another discussion I was suggesting hypothetically that a horsepower limit would have prevented an accident that happened in 1975.

My comment about selling a boat was to demonstrate that a horsepower limit does not change the value of a boat. And just because I think grandfathering is a good idea doesn't mean that's what the law will say when passed. The legislature rarely checks with me before they pass a law. If they did HB847 would be a horsepower limit.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

BI,

Your logic path is so FLAWED it amazes me! It's your position that had there been HP Limits in place in 1975, this boat would not have been on Lake Winnipesaukee and therefore this horrific accident would not have occurred and 3 people might be alive? Correct?

By following that same logic, IF the operator of the boat in question had not been drinking, and was sober the accident would not have occurred! (we already have BWI laws)

(This same logic can be applied to the Littlefield/Hartman accident as well)

We can further extrapolate: Had the operator in question been operating another lower HP boat drunk, all things being equal, the accident still would have occurred.... and 3 people would still be dead! Reference the accident last year when the boat ran up on Eagle Island... It was not a high HP boat and it went quite aways onto Eagle Island! But for the grace of God, (I firmly believe he has a soft spot for Fools) those darn DRUNKEN kids are alive to tell the tale!

Most accidents that involve alcohol would not occur if you removed the alcohol from the equation! Show me a fatal high speed collision (boat or land)that occurred on Lake Winnipesaukee with a SOBER operator....

I will be waiting patiently for your reply!

Woodsy

PS: For the record, a 1975 Cigarette didn't go faster than 60-65MPH.... it probably had twin 454's with TRS drives... they were amazingly HEAVY boats and those Drives took alot of HP to spin.

There is a huge hole in your theory. We can't fix drunks. There is no way to keep them off the lake. BWI was against the law in 1975 and he violated the law BECAUSE HE COULD.

A drunk can not get in a high horsepower boat and hit a cottage if there are no high horsepower boats on the lake.

I do understand he could get in a lower horsepower boat and have a similar accident. The damage however would be far less, and with a little luck, not fatal.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

There is a huge hole in your theory. We can't fix drunks. There is no way to keep them off the lake. BWI was against the law in 1975 and he violated the law BECAUSE HE COULD.

A drunk can not get in a high horsepower boat and hit a cottage if there are no high horsepower boats on the lake.

I do understand he could get in a lower horsepower boat and have a similar accident. The damage however would be far less, and with a little luck, not fatal.

What science are you basing this on. You HAVE to be kidding us here? So a 250hp Bass Boat going 70 or a 300hp Bowrider going 50 slamming into the shore wouldn't do damage and kill the occupants. I'll tell you what give it a try and let me know the outcome. (Please don't actually do it because we will be scraping you up with a spatula.)

This is where credibility comes into play.. I'm sorry but it just does. Got it?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

What science are you basing this on. You HAVE to be kidding us here? So a 250hp Bass Boat going 70 or a 300hp Bowrider going 50 slamming into the shore wouldn't do damage and kill the occupants. I'll tell you what give it a try and let me know the outcome. (Please don't actually do it because we will be scraping you up with a spatula.)

This is where credibility comes into play.. I'm sorry but it just does. Got it?

The science is physics.

I notice you picked two boats right next to each other on the spectrum. Now try a 15 hp alumacraft and a 1,700 hp Nor-Tech. Who lives this time?

Your trying to say size, weight, length, speed and horsepower don't make a difference in an accident. Which of course is silly. You don't need an engineering degree to know that (however I have one).

[Skip]

Man, this thread is really starting to get a little nasty.

You know, I have had the pleasure to share healthy give & take with most of you here for years, and found you all to (under some of the occasional gruffness ) really be a great bunch of folks.

I have even had the pleasure of meeting some of you personally at a couple of forum fests, and know that in person you guys are really quite pleasant to be around (right Rich?)....

A simple request from me...as the one who started the thread. Could we all (myself included) find our way back to the orignal intent of the thread, try to keep the personalities in check and maybe gracefully bow out if we don't have anyting new or substantial to offer?

We all frequent Don's great site out of our love for the same Lake and its surrounding beauty, many of us just enjoy the freedom to worship it in our own unique way.

And lest we forget; in the end, no matter what the outcome, we all have to share the same beautiful gift Mother Nature has gracefully bestowed upon us!

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The science is physics.

I notice you picked two boats right next to each other on the spectrum. Now try a 15 hp alumacraft and a 1,700 hp Nor-Tech. Who lives this time?

Your trying to say size, weight, length, speed and horsepower don't make a difference in an accident. Which of course is silly. You don't need an engineering degree to know that (however I have one).

BECAUSE YOU SAID A 300 HP LIMIT !!!!!!!!! OH MY GOOD GOD!!!!! Seriously Bear Islander take a break you are losing it.

OK YOU KNOW WHAT.... Yep you're right a HP limit WOULD HAVE prevented that accident from happening.... There are you happy..... Lets all drive our aluminum 15hp boats and we'll all be so happy and everything will be wonderful and nobody will be scared and we can all sing and hug.......

[Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

BECAUSE YOU SAID A 300 HP LIMIT !!!!!!!!! OH MY GOOD GOD!!!!! Seriously Bear Islander take a break you are losing it.

OK YOU KNOW WHAT.... Yep you're right a HP limit WOULD HAVE prevented that accident from happening.... There are you happy..... Lets all drive our aluminum 15hp boats and we'll all be so happy and everything will be wonderful and nobody will be scared and we can all sing and hug.......

Why don't you go back and read Skip's last post.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Islander

Why don't you go back and read Skip's last post.

I noticed you didn't tell Bear Islander to go back and read it. Stop seeing his posts with rose colored glasses and please stop addressing me.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

I noticed you didn't tell Bear Islander to go back and read it. Stop seeing his posts with rose colored glasses and please stop addressing me.

He is not "yelling" with capitals. He is not using long strings of !!!!!!!!!, he doesn't post things like "OH MY GOOD GOD!!!!! Seriously Bear Islander take a break you are losing it."

I am amazed at his patience!

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

....Your trying to say size, weight, length, speed and horsepower don't make a difference in an accident. Which of course is silly. You don't need an engineering degree to know that (however I have one).

You can't correlate these factors with safety. The safest mode of transportation is jet airliner and they can weight 750,000 lb and travel near the speed of sound. The key factor in safety is not hitting other things.

BTW I'm still looking for facts on that 70's accident.

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

First if you want to represent things as FACTS, you need to explain how you know them. For instance where did you get the information that unmarked boats were used? Are you a MP officer? Things are not facts because they are anonymously posted on the internet...

Was it a Cigarette (brand) or a cigarette (nickname)? How fast was it going? How many HP did it have? Who was killed, boaters or islanders?

So far, all I have is somebodies uncle said something at a hearing.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jrc

You can't correlate these factors with safety. The safest mode of transportation is jet airliner and they can weight 750,000 lb and travel near the speed of sound. The key factor in safety is not hitting other things.

BTW I'm still looking for facts on that 70's accident.



Was it a Cigarette (brand) or a cigarette (nickname)? How fast was it going? How many HP did it have? Who was killed, boaters or islanders?

So far, all I have is somebodies uncle said something at a hearing.

I posted the link this morning, Sorry if you missed it.

http://www.winnipesaukeeforum.com/ar...mes;read=62784

Once again, I got involved with this accident by responding to a post by SIKSUKR. Perhaps he has more data on the boat and owner. He is the one that supplied a lot of that information to the forum back in 2003. I don't know if he knew the owner, but he knew where the owner worked and lived.

Why does this matter?

[Airwaves]

Islander, it took you to get me to go back on my pledge that I was done with this thread because of your claim that Bear Islander doesn't YELL in caps or use !!!!!.

Bear Islander wrote this post directed at me regarding his statement that summer camps are afraid to allow campers onto the water because of performance boats going too fast. When I questioned him about it he denied making a link between summer camps and performance boats. As you may recall I repeatedly challenged him on that position, eventually he wrote YELLED this;

#429

I HAVE NOT POSTED ABOUT THE SUBJECT EITHER WAY. I HAVE NOT POSTED THEY ARE COMMITTING VIOLATIONS. I HAVE NO POSTED THEY ARE NOT COMMITTING VIOLATIONS. I HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED TO LINK THE TWO.

STOP PRETENDING THAT I HAVE!!!!!!!

Can you really not understand that these are two totally different things? I think you understand perfectly but can't let it go.

DROP IT!!!!!!!

Of course Bear Islander's post # 35 states exactly the opposite of what he denied during the “He said she said” session in which he claimed he never tried to link speed, perfomance boats and and summer camps.

“And I am just one person fighting to have a lake where a camp director can send children out in small boats without fear that they will get run down by high performance boats enjoying the last place they can legally go 130 mph.”

By writing
"I am just one person fighting to have a lake where a camp director can send children out in small boats without fear that they will get run down by high performance boats enjoying the last place they can legally go 130 mph.”

Bear Islander linked the two issues in his argument and by denying it, he/she lost most of their credibility. The great thing about a forum like this is that anyone can go back and look at what was actually posted.

As for the mid 70's Cigarette Boat accident that killed 3 that Bear Islander and his supporters are bringing up, I was directed to this posting on Winnipesaukee.Com

Posted By: Waterbaby
Date: Tuesday, September 2, 2003 at 10:09 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Boat enters cottage - upside down... (SIKSUKR)

You are right, and it was my uncle and his sister and brother-in-law who were killed. At the time it was the only Cigarette on the lake, and it was late March or early April of 1975.

The ONLY Cigarette on the lake! That seals it! Lets ban all performance boats for an accident that happened 32 years ago!

I don't know what happened and I submit to all of you that unless you were directly involved with the accident or investigation, you don't know what happened 32 years ago either.

In March/April 1975 laws and attitudes were very very different than they are today. Do not try to impose today's standards on accepted practices of 30 years ago.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Islander, it took you to get me to go back on my pledge that I was done with this thread because of your claim that Bear Islander doesn't YELL in caps or use !!!!!.

Bear Islander wrote this post directed at me regarding his statement that summer camps are afraid to allow campers onto the water because of performance boats going too fast. When I questioned him about it he denied making a link between summer camps and performance boats. As you may recall I repeatedly challenged him on that position, eventually he wrote YELLED this;

#429

Of course Bear Islander's post # 35 states exactly the opposite of what he denied during the “He said she said” session in which he claimed he never tried to link speed, performance boats and and summer camps.



By writing
"I am just one person fighting to have a lake where a camp director can send children out in small boats without fear that they will get run down by high performance boats enjoying the last place they can legally go 130 mph.”

Bear Islander linked the two issues in his argument and by denying it, he/she lost most of their credibility. The great thing about a forum like this is that anyone can go back and look at what was actually posted.

As for the mid 70's Cigarette Boat accident that killed 3 that Bear Islander and his supporters are bringing up, I was directed to this posting on Winnipesaukee.Com


The ONLY Cigarette on the lake! That seals it! Lets ban all performance boats for an accident that happened 32 years ago!

I don't know what happened and I submit to all of you that unless you were directly involved with the accident or investigation, you don't know what happened 32 years ago either.

In March/April 1975 laws and attitudes were very very different than they are today. Do not try to impose today's standards on accepted practices of 30 years ago.

Hello

I have read your post very carefully and I find no contradiction in what BI posted. In one instance he says he wants a lake where "a camp director can send children out in small boats without fear that they will get run down by high performance boats enjoying the last place they can legally go 130 mph.”

It is clear he is talking about the fear in the minds of camp directors. Fear in the mind of a camp director is not the same as violations by performance boats. Seeing a big boat coming at you at high speed can cause fear even if the boat violates no regulations. A parent or camp director watching small children out in a boat while high performance boats go by may be in extreme fear, even if the performance boats are operating legally.

You may see this as being a very fine point, however he is quite correct when he said he never posted about violations. He posted about fear. Woodsy has said its not about speed, its about fear. He has a point.

There is a big difference between a mother (or director) saying she is afraid to let her children go onto the lake on weekends, and saying that boats are breaking the law. I will also add that the greater the speed the greater the fear, and the idea of a boat going 130 mph when my kids are on the lake scares the hell out of me!

I just checked and the two posts in question came 65 days apart. Even if I agreed with your interpretation, wouldn't it be a case of bad memory? Why do you assume its part of a plot? You are looking very hard to find fault when you are comparing posts that are months apart.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

There is a huge hole in your theory. We can't fix drunks. There is no way to keep them off the lake. BWI was against the law in 1975 and he violated the law BECAUSE HE COULD.

A drunk can not get in a high horsepower boat and hit a cottage if there are no high horsepower boats on the lake.

I do understand he could get in a lower horsepower boat and have a similar accident. The damage however would be far less, and with a little luck, not fatal.

BI...

It wasn't the boat that killed him... He killed himself and the others...

He violated the law not because he could, but because he was DRUNK and didn't care... didn't think it could happen to him... etc, etc... and it cost him and 2 others thier lives! I refer to this as AIS (Alcohol Induced Stupidity)

WE CAN FIX DRUNK BOATING/DRIVING! There has been a HUGE cultural shift in attitude towards DWI/BWI! Aggressive enforcement coupled with harsh BWI/DWI penalties is the key! Thats what the LEO community and the government have been telling us! In 1975 when this accident occurred, you could still legally drink & drive in NH! You really can't apply todays moral attitude to an accident that occurred 33 years ago.

For example... 33 years ago "All In The Family" was a top rated show! Widely considered an icon of american television, the humor on that show would at best be described as racist & homophobic today. That show would never be produced today!

As far as HP limits go... how do you propose to enforce them? Is the NHMP going to dyno test every alleged violator? Yet another unfunded mandate the NHMP would be charged with enforcing?

Woodsy

PS: Still waiting for the High Speed SOBER accident data!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

BI...

It wasn't the boat that killed him... He killed himself and the others...

He violated the law not because he could, but because he was DRUNK and didn't care... didn't think it could happen to him... etc, etc... and it cost him and 2 others thier lives! I refer to this as AIS (Alcohol Induced Stupidity)

WE CAN FIX DRUNK BOATING/DRIVING! There has been a HUGE cultural shift in attitude towards DWI/BWI! Aggressive enforcement coupled with harsh BWI/DWI penalties is the key! Thats what the LEO community and the government have been telling us! In 1975 when this accident occurred, you could still legally drink & drive in NH! You really can't apply todays moral attitude to an accident that occurred 33 years ago.

For example... 33 years ago "All In The Family" was a top rated show! Widely considered an icon of american television, the humor on that show would at best be described as racist & homophobic today. That show would never be produced today!

As far as HP limits go... how do you propose to enforce them? Is the NHMP going to dyno test every alleged violator? Yet another unfunded mandate the NHMP would be charged with enforcing?

Woodsy

PS: Still waiting for the High Speed SOBER accident data!

You make some good points about alcohol abuse. However it is still a big problem in our society.

A horsepower limit is easy to enforce. The HP is listed on your registration.

Yes, I know, in many cases when you register a boat they just write down what you tell them. However then you would be breaking another law with a false registration. I'm sure some boats could sneak it under the wire, but try telling the MP your Nor-Tech is 299 HP.

There are many other lakes that have horsepower limits and enforce them without to much trouble.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

BI...

For example... 33 years ago "All In The Family" was a top rated show! Widely considered an icon of american television, the humor on that show would at best be described as racist & homophobic today. That show would never be produced today!

Another freedom already lost

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Islander

Hello

I have read your post very carefully and I find no contradiction in what BI posted. In one instance he says he wants a lake where "a camp director can send children out in small boats without fear that they will get run down by high performance boats enjoying the last place they can legally go 130 mph.”

It is clear he is talking about the fear in the minds of camp directors. Fear in the mind of a camp director is not the same as violations by performance boats. Seeing a big boat coming at you at high speed can cause fear even if the boat violates no regulations. A parent or camp director watching small children out in a boat while high performance boats go by may be in extreme fear, even if the performance boats are operating legally.

You may see this as being a very fine point, however he is quite correct when he said he never posted about violations. He posted about fear. Woodsy has said its not about speed, its about fear. He has a point.

There is a big difference between a mother (or director) saying she is afraid to let her children go onto the lake on weekends, and saying that boats are breaking the law. I will also add that the greater the speed the greater the fear, and the idea of a boat going 130 mph when my kids are on the lake scares the hell out of me!

I just checked and the two posts in question came 65 days apart. Even if I agreed with your interpretation, wouldn't it be a case of bad memory? Why do you assume its part of a plot? You are looking very hard to find fault when you are comparing posts that are months apart.

Islander...

ANY boat at ANY speed near children should be a serious concern to all! But to my knowledge no child attending a summer camp here on Lake Winnipesaukee has been struck by a speeding powerboat! EVER! While it is definitely natural to worry about children, especially when they are on the water, there are certainly other ways that fear of being struck by a boat can be mitigated... Without taking away another person's liberty!

Someone proposed a "Camp Zone" as a buffer around the Summer Camps? You already have a 150' NWZ buffer, why not double it or triple it around camps to 300' - 500'? Drop a few bright orange info buoys and be done with it? Why would this not work?

The way you post, you would think it was a routine thing to see a boat going 130 MPH on Lake Winnipesaukee... this is blatantly not the case! There are MAYBE 5-6 boats on the lake that can top 100 MPH! That Nortech everyone keeps using as an example was guest on the lake...

Woodsy

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...Reference the accident last year when the boat ran up on Eagle Island...it went quite aways onto Eagle Island! But for the grace of God, (I firmly believe he has a soft spot for Fools) those darn DRUNKEN kids are alive to tell the tale...!

They didn't "just hit the island": They hit shallows before running out of inertia. If they hadn't hit shallows (and a bunch of trees), the cottage that they landed at would have been their terminal destination. (Add the hazard of downed electrical wires for them—and rescuers).



The Mount advised NHMP that the boat was "traveling at a high rate of speed", and never reappeared on the other side of Eagle Island.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...For the record, a 1975 Cigarette didn't go faster than 60-65MPH...they were amazingly HEAVY boats..."

Suitable for ocean waters? An ocean-racer? Heavy and slow? And now they are fast?

Originally Posted by Seeker

"...Anyone with a modicum of nautical experience should be able to see that if the 150' rule was to be strongly enforced it would be much more effective in preventing collisions than any arbitrary speed limit..."

Anyone know how many years we've been complaining about the ineffectiveness of "Unsafe Passage", and how many years complaining of the ineffectiveness in the enforcement of "Unsafe Passage"?

We tried "The New Hampshire Way", but I think it's proven: "Unsafe Passage" was a well-intentioned flop from the 50s. Ridding the lake of unproven high-speed "drivers" with a proven track record remains the task for the terminal safety of us "lesser boaters".

Originally Posted by jrc

"...BTW I'm still looking for facts on that 70's accident...So far, all I have is somebodies uncle said something at a hearing..."

Here's the link: (Interesting reading, but don't expect The Opposition to elaborate favorably.)

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...The ONLY Cigarette on the lake...!"

Yup...and the only boat to make such tragic headlines, too.

Had those same headlines made their appearance last year, even Woodsy would have tossed in his hand.

(Well, maybe not Woodsy—make that Winnilaker).

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...Do not try to impose today's standards on accepted practices of 30 years ago..."

Huh??? Thirty years ago, cottages were sorta-still considered "off-limits" to 34-foot boats entering their dining rooms at high speed.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...Most accidents that involve alcohol would not occur if you removed the alcohol from the equation! Show me a fatal high speed collision (boat or land)that occurred on Lake Winnipesaukee with a SOBER operator....

FACT: Alcohol is in use on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...IF the operator of the boat in question had not been drinking, and was sober the accident would not have occurred! (we already have BWI laws)...(This same logic can be applied to the Littlefield/Hartman accident as well)..."

FACT: Alcohol is in use on Lake Winnipesaukee.

(But I repeat myself).

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I posted the link this morning, Sorry if you missed it.

http://www.winnipesaukeeforum.com/ar...mes;read=62784

Once again, I got involved with this accident by responding to a post by SIKSUKR. Perhaps he has more data on the boat and owner. He is the one that supplied a lot of that information to the forum back in 2003. I don't know if he knew the owner, but he knew where the owner worked and lived.

Why does this matter?

To be fair BI,this incident was from recall and I can't substantiate fact.What my aging brain remembers(and I could be wrong but this is how I remember)was that the driver was the owner of Davidson Construction which I believe at the time was located in Manchester.I recall that a "cigarette boat",not necesarily the brand but the type,crashed into a home on the lake at night and the driver was DWI and killed.I don't know of other fatalities whether they were on land or in the boat.That's pretty much all I recall.