Hb 847 Meeting In Concord.

[Neanderthal Thunder]

jrc wrote:

You think we should have a law in place that's sole purpose is to provide the police an opportunity to violate the 4th amendent?

Weren't you surprised to see in the transcript that Skip provided, that a police officer saw Littlefield's condition on land? Nothing happened.

Even roadblocks were found legal under the 4th Amendment by the US Supreme Court. A Winni stop could be intended for a written warning, while allowing the officer to observe the boater's ability to function.

To a layperson, this thread's defense of a drunk boater by overserving, not on plane, 3 mph, etc., makes the speed limit appear to be more urgently needed, not less. Few drunk arrests are recorded on NH waters statewide, much less Winni. Even the most famous Winni drunk doesn't have a BWI on his rap sheet. A night speed limit gives law enforcement the only tool in the drawer against overserved, or just plain drunk, Winni boaters.

It was a drunk who decided that 28 mph was the speed that served his needs that night. Now we've decided that the boating drunks who think their going slow shouldn't be in charge of making those decisions. Drivers who aren't thinking at all, in the case of Long Lake, definately won't be trailering to a lake with a night speed limit.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Neanderthal Thunder

Even the most famous Winni drunk doesn't have a BWI on his rap sheet. A night speed limit gives law enforcement the only tool in the drawer against overserved, or just plain drunk, Winni boaters.

It was a drunk who decided that 28 mph was the speed that served his needs that night. Now we've decided that the boating drunks who think their going slow shouldn't be in charge of making those decisions. Drivers who aren't thinking at all, in the case of Long Lake, definately won't be trailering to a lake with a night speed limit.

Do you understand what happened that night? How could he be charged for BWI? No solid witnesses, a restaurant that probably disposed of the real proof that they overserved him (to save their own a** from a lawsuit and loss of liquor license), and since he fled the scene there was no stop to be made. It is hard to convict someone of a crime without proof that they did it, in this case BWI. Nobody had any doubt that he was drunk and not paying attention, but proving it is a different story.

In this case, a speed limit clearly would not have saved anyone. My boat will do 55mph, does that mean I do it wherever/whenever I go out? No. is it big enough to squash a 21' boat? Yes it is. Speed limit or not, am I deterred from the lake? No I am not. Why is this going to deter drunks that are not using their heads???

Originally Posted by islander

Where is the list of 80+ marinas against?

I count 8 in support and 7 against.

Winnipesaukee doesn't have 80 marinas.

No, there certainly is not 80 marinas on Winnipesaukee, but out of the 8 supporters highlighted on BI's list, 1 is on Squam not Winnipesaukee, and 2 are on both lists. Adding in marinas on other lakes/bodies of water only tips it even further way, probably 2x if not more. Try again.

I can post the entire list of opponents if you like, it is considerably larger.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Neanderthal Thunder

Weren't you surprised to see in the transcript that Skip provided, that a police officer saw Littlefield's condition on land? Nothing happened....

There's no law about walking around drunk (within reason). Did the police see him get in and drive the boat drunk?

Originally Posted by Neanderthal Thunder

Even roadblocks were found legal under the 4th Amendment by the US Supreme Court. A Winni stop could be intended for a written warning, while allowing the officer to observe the boater's ability to function...

Well if you can have roadblocks, you don't need to trump up a 3 mph speed limit violation to pull the guy over.

Originally Posted by Neanderthal Thunder

To a layperson, this thread's defense of a drunk boater by overserving, not on plane, 3 mph, etc., makes the speed limit appear to be more urgently needed, not less. Few drunk arrests are recorded on NH waters statewide, much less Winni. Even the most famous Winni drunk doesn't have a BWI on his rap sheet. A night speed limit gives law enforcement the only tool in the drawer against overserved, or just plain drunk, Winni boaters.

It was a drunk who decided that 28 mph was the speed that served his needs that night. Now we've decided that the boating drunks who think their going slow shouldn't be in charge of making those decisions. Drivers who aren't thinking at all, in the case of Long Lake, definately won't be trailering to a lake with a night speed limit.

No one on this board, pro or con on speed limits, has defended a drunk boater. I'm sure that if I took a poll, every one would vote for strict enforcement of drunk boating laws.

Having a speed limit makes drunk boaters more likely. Every MP looking at a radar gun, is distracted from his real job, keeping the lake safe from drunks and reckless operators.

A boat operator too drunk to know he is dangerous and he should not operate, is too drunk to obey a speed limit.

You can't enforce BWI laws by accidently catching drunks while looking for speeders. Wouldn't you rather look for drunks?

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Neanderthal Thunder

jrc wrote:

Weren't you surprised to see in the transcript that Skip provided, that a police officer saw Littlefield's condition on land? Nothing happened.

Even roadblocks were found legal under the 4th Amendment by the US Supreme Court. A Winni stop could be intended for a written warning, while allowing the officer to observe the boater's ability to function.

To a layperson, this thread's defense of a drunk boater by overserving, not on plane, 3 mph, etc., makes the speed limit appear to be more urgently needed, not less. Few drunk arrests are recorded on NH waters statewide, much less Winni. Even the most famous Winni drunk doesn't have a BWI on his rap sheet. A night speed limit gives law enforcement the only tool in the drawer against overserved, or just plain drunk, Winni boaters.

It was a drunk who decided that 28 mph was the speed that served his needs that night. Now we've decided that the boating drunks who think their going slow shouldn't be in charge of making those decisions. Drivers who aren't thinking at all, in the case of Long Lake, definately won't be trailering to a lake with a night speed limit.

Drunks don't obey laws, otherwise they'd not be operating while drunk.

Nobody, but nobody, has ever defended the drunk.

The Drunk hit a boat while going 28 mph. What if he had been going 20 mph, or even the hallowed 25 mph? Would that make you feel better? How would enforcement, given the facts stated in this case, been able to prevent this?

The real culprits in that case were on land. A police officer of all folks, and all of the witnesses that testified to his condition.

I think we should have laws on the water to prohibit operating while drunk, and to prohibit hitting another boat.

Oh, wait, it's already illegal to operate while drunk, and the 150' distance limit should eliminate all accidents above headway speed. Why is it they don't? Why didn't the marine patrol issue a ticket for the guy being so close to the boat he hit?

Why don't all the proponents of the bill go back to the truth, which has been mentioned maybe twice on here.

1) You want to discourage the GFBL boats from being on the lake.

2) You "think" the lake would be better, safer, quieter, less congested.

3) You have no idea how to get additional enforcement dollars, and hope like heck the boaters obeying the speed limit don't break every other rule in the book, like many do now.

4) Most everything else you stated is pure rubbish.