Boating Accident

[ApS]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

"...It's finally over for good..."

The previous headlines can't be so easily dismissed...and we can't know what the future holds.

But as this case fades from the headlines, I recently stumbled upon a prophetic post from this forum.

Just three months after "Ice-Out, 2008", a problem boater brought this quote to reality:

"...Or one can captain one's boat in a sane manner, and pray that problem boaters with problem boats don't take that first drink of alcoholic beverage for the next two seasons..."

Edited to Add:

Newbies to this case can read about it here:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=6190

[Skip]

More penalties levied, trial regarding reckless driving on the horizon.

Full story in today's Citizen can be read HERE....

[tis]

The thing that hits me in the face about that is they keep saying this is NOT A LICENSE. It is just a safety course.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by tis

The thing that hits me in the face about that is they keep saying this is NOT A LICENSE. It is just a safety course.

Good point tis.

We have had this discussion before with some posters adamant that the State cannot revoke the certificate once it is issued.

However, in the case of the State of New Hampshire the law clearly states that after the appropriate hearing held by the Department of Safety the State does indeed have the authority to revoke the certificate it has issued for cause.

The rub?

The individual can then obtain a certificate from another State and operate legally. Director Barrett has publicly admitted this flaw and is working with the Legislature to correct this flaw.

However, the Hearings Officer has attempted to nullify this loophole by not only revoking the certificate for the maximum of one year, but to further suspend Blizzard's right to operate a vessel for a total of three years.

This additional three year suspension is in murkier legal waters, and an appeal by Moir could set a precedent to it's legality or force the Legislature to address any shortfalls in present law.

Why is this important?

If you are one of the number of New Hampshire residents operating on a legally obtained Certificate issued by another State, or using an approved Coast Guard or Auxiliary issued certificate/license then the State does not have an ability to suspend or revoke that certificate. That leaves them with a second option of suspending your right to operate within the State. Moir is intending to appeal this process. If he is succesful then until the laws are changed or modified convicted offenders will be able to operate a vessel regardless of the severity of their crime or the perceived abilty the State has on their ability to safely operate a vessel.

I expect it will be addressed either way in the next legislative session.

[BroadHopper]

Why is it that the state can't get their laws right the first time? The legislature spends too much time trying to fix current laws that are not right and or have loopholes.

They should take a hint from the corporate world. When a corporation enact a new policy, it is scrutinized by their legal eagles, finance dept as well as the board of directors. Once the policy is OK by the depts, then it becomes legal.

Seems like politics takes the ready, shoot, then aim approach. Know wonder the state and nation is in such a mess.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

...

Seems like politics takes the ready, shoot, then aim approach. No under the state and nation is in such a mess.

OK technically not a state law, but have you read the new federal health care law? (just joking, no one has). But my point is that knee-jerk laws are pretty common in the political world.

[XCR-700]

Originally Posted by Skip

I expect it will be addressed either way in the next legislative session.

What strikes me as interesting about this issue and so many others like it is that the legislature will expend significant time and effort on this public safety matter, largely because someone, some group, or some event brought attention to the issue.

Beyond the details of the issue of concern, people will argue that if the law, rule, statue, saves even one life its worth it.

Well I cannot argue with any of that, but it all begs the question of what is the actual risk?

By that I mean likely hood of this potential event to happen, and I would expect hard numbers of actual events, not near misses, not polls showing numbers of people who have great concern for the matter or who have a paralyzing fear it could happen to them or strong preference for the law, rule statue. Show me the hard numbers of actual events!

Once you have that irrefutable data in hand, then you really have to ask the cold and hard question, how does this rank alongside all the other matters that the same legislative body should, could, might focus on.

Is some cases, we agree that the likelihood is very low, but the potential impact is worth focusing on this issue before other more likely situations.

So we pass laws to keep dynamite out of hardware stores before we deal with road safety matters because of the tremendous dangers associated with explosives.

And most are in agreement with such prioritization, but when you start talking about boating safety in the northeast where we get 2 – 3 good months for boating, and that the issues of concern use up extended periods of the legislatures time to address, then I ask you to consider what you are accomplishing.

Are there really so many accidents and fatalities on NH waters that these issues truly warrant putting them ahead of the many other issues that they could be focusing on?

As I am not a resident I cannot say specifically what other matters might come before boating safety, but I suspect there are plenty.

And for those who will ridicule this perspective, please just show me the real numbers because the ones I have seen don’t seem to make me fear for my safety on NH waters, just the opposite in fact, and unfortunately there is only so much time and money in the Government pool, and the legislature will have to pass up something else to deal with your boating safety issues.

As NH residents its your choice, but you might take a moment and step back and take a holistic view of Government and public resources and make sure you have really considered where you want to expend those finite resources. I for one would have a very long list of concerns that comes ahead of boating certificate regulations and boating speed limits and some of these other issues that just dont seem to have hard public safety numbers to support the concern being expressed by some here.

Eeek that’s was a long post,,, Better take a breath,,,

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Originally Posted by Skip

....Full story in today's Citizen can be read HERE....

The story refers to RSA 270 E: 10 -

Marine Patrol also filed a request to suspended Blizzard's boating registration under RSA 270 E: 10 that gives the Commissioner of the Department of Safety the authority to rule that a boat owner is "physically or mentally an improper or incompetent person to operate a vessel" or "is operating improperly or so as to endanger the public." DuClos said Attorney Seymour issued the ruling, not Commissioner John Barthelmes.

but that RSA doesn't match the story (quoted above)

270-E:10 Notice of Transfer; Destruction or Abandonment. – The owner shall furnish the department written notice of the transfer of all or any part of his or her interest, other than the creation of a security interest, in a vessel registered in this state pursuant to this chapter or the destruction or abandonment of such vessel within 15 days of its transfer, destruction, or abandonment. ........

Did MP or The Citizen get it wrong

[Skip]

Originally Posted by RI Swamp Yankee

The story refers to RSA 270 E: 10 -

Marine Patrol also filed a request to suspended Blizzard's boating registration under RSA 270 E: 10 that gives the Commissioner of the Department of Safety the authority to rule that a boat owner is "physically or mentally an improper or incompetent person to operate a vessel" or "is operating improperly or so as to endanger the public." DuClos said Attorney Seymour issued the ruling, not Commissioner John Barthelmes.

but that RSA doesn't match the story (quoted above)

270-E:10 Notice of Transfer; Destruction or Abandonment. – The owner shall furnish the department written notice of the transfer of all or any part of his or her interest, other than the creation of a security interest, in a vessel registered in this state pursuant to this chapter or the destruction or abandonment of such vessel within 15 days of its transfer, destruction, or abandonment. ........

Did MP or The Citizen get it wrong

Good catch!

Probably a typo as the correct RSA is 270-E:17


... 270-E:17 Revocation of Registration. – In addition to any other authority provided by law, the commissioner is hereby authorized to revoke or suspend any registration issued pursuant to this chapter or any privilege to operate a boat, or both, upon a showing that:
I. The owner has violated any provision of this chapter, RSA 270, RSA 270-A, RSA 270-B, or any rules adopted under these chapters, or has allowed another person to violate any of these laws or rules.
II. The owner has failed to pay the boat fee required by RSA 72-A:2.
III. The owner is physically or mentally an improper or incompetent person to operate a vessel or is operating improperly or so as to endanger the public.
IV. The owner has defaulted on a court summons arising from a violation of boating laws or rules.