GFBL owners: the real story

[CMG]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

I think you are way off on this. The "standard" family boat is a 17' to 22' bowrider. There are a few that will do 60 mph but a top speed of 45 mph is more the mark. Mine is 20' 280 hp. It has the largest engine I could get without a twin prop outdrive. With smooth water, no passengers and trimmed just right I can get it to 55. Normal cruising top speed is about 50. This is very fast for a "family" boat.

Formula Outlaw thinks we hate fast boats and fast boaters. That's not true. We just think there need to be limits. 45 mph is not my first choice, I would be happy with 60. If the law doesn't pass at 45, I predict it will be back soon at a higher number. Eventually it will pass. Look at it this way, how much opposition would a 70 mph limit have. Very little!

There is NO way to determine an accurate speed of fiberglass boats - Per the head of the MP. Its not an opinion.

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by CMG

There is NO way to determine an accurate speed of fiberglass boats - Per the head of the MP. Its not an opinion.

I think you misunderstood what he has saying. Read this!

http://www.kustomsignals.com/product...ename=handheld

Boat speed limits are enforced all over the world, including many NH lakes and ponds.

But what does the difficulty of enforcement have to do with the argument. There are many, many unenforceable laws on the books.

If the owners of high performance boats are as law abiding, friendly, reasonable and responsible as has been described in this forum, then enforcement will not be a problem. They will do the right thing and obey the law. Or are you suggesting they will all break the law?

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

I think you misunderstood what he has saying. Read this!

http://www.kustomsignals.com/product...ename=handheld

Boat speed limits are enforced all over the world, including many NH lakes and ponds.

But what does the difficulty of enforcement have to do with the argument. There are many, many unenforceable laws on the books.

If the owners of high performance boats are as law abiding, friendly, reasonable and responsible as has been described in this forum, then enforcement will not be a problem. They will do the right thing and obey the law. Or are you suggesting they will all break the law?

Excellent point!

If the GFBL people are responsible citizens they will obey the speed limit. Most people will obey the law, with or without enforcement. And an officers estimate of speed is admissible in Court anyway.

[FormulaOutlaw]

Maybe I should rename this thread:

Let's argue more about speed limits.
My only question would be what are people going to blame once speed limits are (IF) imposed, and accidents still happen??????

Maybe limiting the size of waves that "Mother Nature" can produce would help.....

[codeman671]

Fat Jack, my quote was taken from the Baja web page, the article which you posted the link for only backs up my theory that the boat can be well on plane at under 30mph. If it will be at full plane with that much hp at only 16.5mph don't you think that with normal hp it will still be on plane at far less? Being on plane is not necessarily related to speed but more so the efficiency of the hull. Once the boat is up out of the water it does not matter how much power you have under you. It wil maintain plane. I think that having a 36' boat on plane at 16.5mph is quite impressive, probably a lower speed than a lot of family boats. My 30' non GFBL bowrider does not plane that slow yet still does upwards of 60mph. Does this qualify me as the evil partying boater that you point at me as being??? Gimme a break..

And correct me if I am wrong there has never been a 100mph speed limit on 93 or anywhere in NH so why "we" be complaining of infringement on our rights if it was to be lessened??? I own two sports cars that are capable of over 150mph but that does not mean I drive that way. I drive safely and defensively. All my posts have tried to do is to back up that boaters are the wrongdoers and fingerpointers, its not the fault of the boat. Obviously you have a vendetta against GFBL's and you are certainly entitled to it. I have a problem with ignorant people who do not know how to handle the boats they are driving, be it a GFBL or a sailboat or kayak.

[codeman671]

Furthermore regarding your speed comments, yes speed kills but is it really the speed or the inability of the person involved handling the speed that they are traveling? A minivan can hit 100mph but does this make it an evil vehicle that should be banned from the streets? Certainly not, unless you are one of this people who gets in their gas powered car every day and drives to work but hates gas powered vehicles and protests of what they do to the environment...

[Fat Jack]

Exactly right!

[FormulaOutlaw]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Exactly right!

I applaud your own admission that you are a hypocritical individual.

I also take extreme offense of you liking us to "children with loaded guns". I can't speak for the GFBL group on "the Lake", (I suspect they are very much like us down here), but down here we are BY FAR the most courteous, responsible, well mannered group that will be found on the water. I have personally been told this many times by every Law Enforcement Agency that patrols our waters.

You don't like our boats, fine. You don't like us, fine. But keep your insulting analogies to yourself.

FO

[ApS]

Originally Posted by FormulaOutlaw

Maybe I should rename this thread: Let's argue more about speed limits.

...And this thread was assumed to go...Where?

Originally Posted by Audiofn

As for the Soaring 70 feet in the air. Don't you think that anyone that would account for a situation like that would have to be discredited as not having any idea what they are talking about? The top of my house is only 17 feet to the peak..."

Everybody else is wrong?

Originally Posted by St. Petersburg Times

"...So plenty of boaters were watching at 2 p.m. when Parker's boat hit a wake 1 mile south of the Gandy Bridge, caught air and rolled to the left before landing upright...."

"...'It is hard to understand why these individuals were traveling at such a high rate of speed,' witness Michael Smith told investigators 'They could have hurt or killed other boaters.'..."

"...Sears, who was sitting beside Parker as he drove, told Manson the boat went about 70 feet into the air after it hit the wake...."

http://www.saintpetersburgtimes.com/...lt_in_fa.shtml

I witnessed a 25-foot Donzi "soar" last summer -- and reported it on this Forum. One of my gauges was a 31-foot-tall mast. The "soar", near shore, easily exceeded twice the Donzi's length. I "caught" the soar -- near the 24-foot-missile's apogee -- when a family member suddenly gasped and pointed at it.

Originally Posted by Mee'n'Mac

"I don't want to start another "war" over this point and I've said this in other forms before so I'll say it just this once more...Of the two (head-on or overtaking) I further say the latter is the easiest collision to avoid. So easy that even [****]'s defense must have figured it out and came up with the lights out story so as to give their client an "out"..."

1) Why didn't the defense select the "I-couldn't-see-over-the-22-foot-bow-on-my-36-foot-Baja-offshore-because-my-trim-tabs-and-my-drives-were-misadjusted-at-night" Theory?
Because they sell GFBLs?

2) At the calculated <30MPH, or <20MPH net, why weren't the boat or passengers struck by GFBL propellers?

3)What normally happens when a "slow" impact from a multi-ton boat overwhelms a one-ton 24-footer?

4) If he "soared" after striking an errant wake (at a speed we can't even imagine), wouldn't that account for the reduced impact "appearance"?

Even Physics can't answer those questions: reenactment is the only resolution.

Originally Posted by Audiofn

"...Unfortunately the boat sank before we got there...and took the owner down with it...The guy was a very famous drag car guy "Johnny Nitrous"...I saw this accident and I still drive my boat as often as I can. It was a sobering thing to watch a man die ...but accidents do happen on the water.

Here's something edifying about one who has the "risk-taker-mentality": Johnny Nitrous:

"Then he replaces the rear end and one month later he's doing 100MPH+ on loop 101 (Phoenix) and drops the drive shaft! OUCH!!!"
http://www.dodgedakotas.com/boards/v8/2393-1.html

I forget what they say about Karma.

[Cal]

As for ANY boat soaring 70 feet in the air , just think how high that really is. An aquaintance of mine was killed in a motorcycle accident and was thrown 50 feet in the air. That was 50' forward NOT 50 FEET STRAIGHT UP. So when someone tells me a boat soared 70 feet in the air , to me that means 70 feet forward. In all reality do you realize how much energy it would take to lift 4 or 5 tons that high?????
Lets have a little reality check before we skew the facts to meet your own agenda

[FormulaOutlaw]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

...And this thread was assumed to go...Where?


Everybody else is wrong?
I witnessed a 25-foot Donzi "soar" last summer -- and reported it on this Forum. One of my gauges was a 31-foot-tall mast. The "soar", near shore, easily exceeded twice the Donzi's length. I "caught" the soar -- near the 24-foot-missile's apogee -- when a family member suddenly gasped and pointed at it.


1) Why didn't the defense select the "I-couldn't-see-over-the-22-foot-bow-on-my-36-foot-Baja-offshore-because-my-trim-tabs-and-my-drives-were-misadjusted-at-night" Theory?
Because they sell GFBLs?

2) At the calculated <30MPH, or <20MPH net, why weren't the boat or passengers struck by GFBL propellers?

3)What normally happens when a "slow" impact from a multi-ton boat overwhelms a one-ton 24-footer?

4) If he "soared" after striking an errant wake (at a speed we can't even imagine), wouldn't that account for the reduced impact "appearance"?

Even Physics can't answer those questions: reenactment is the only resolution.

Here's something edifying about one who has the "risk-taker-mentality": Johnny Nitrous:


I forget what they say about Karma.

Acres, your first comment is EXACTLY what I, and many others, are talking about. This Thread wasn't designed to go ANYWHERE. That's the point. That's why you "never get it". You are constantly takng a subject around Robin Hood's barnyard in a lame effort to have people join you in your abstract points of view. If you ever bothered to take the time and actually make an effort to understand what some of us state here, you might realize water runs downhill.

So one witness states that he can't understand why people would want to go that fast. Now isn't that just reason enough to chain all of us to the docks.....The good thing is that "he doesn't have to understand" why some of us might want to go faster than others. It's not his business. Nor yours.

Chris Parker's accident was just that, a tragic accident. People also get killed at 35 mph, or 60 mph, or 25 mph, and every speed in between. And many of them are just bad luck accidents. Not all, but many. Or some. Or whatever. I'm on the Board of Directors for the boat club that Chris was a member of. He was the first member to be killed in a boating accident. We ALL took it very hard. We know what happened. We have tried to learn from it. We HAVE learned from it. But we still like to go fast, RESPONSIBLY.
Not all the time, but when we safely can, and we have the "want". Whether you understand that or not, I could care less, but stop preaching the sky is falling. Like a friend of mine pointed out: I don't particularly care for the clanking of lanyards or lines, or whatever the sailboat crowd call the, against aluminum masts when docked. But I certainly am not going to complain about it. It's not my business. Those people are enjoying what they enjoy and I have no right whatsoever to discourage those people. NOR DO YOU...

You don't like us fine. You don't like our boats fine. But get off our backs.

[Fat Jack]

Formula Outlaw,
Just curious....Aren't you writing from Florida? Are you a citizen of NH? Do you even own property in NH? Why do you have to get involved in arguments on a forum two thousand miles away, about a lake in a distant part of the country? Why do you argue with the owners of a NH lake about the laws that THEY want to enact on THEIR lake? What interest does Lake Winnipesaukee have to a guy way down in Sarasota? Don't they have any of these forums in Florida that are more relevant to YOUR lakes? Or are those forums all too crowded with people from NH sticking their noses into Florida's business?
I don't mean all this in a bad way, I just want to understand why us Granite Staters have to keep arguing with people from other states about how we manage OUR lake. Shouldn't this argument be limited to the people who own the lake? Then, once WE decide democratically about the rules we want to put down, we will tell you what they are, and you can either abide by them or go somewhere else. This just seems like the way it's supposed to work to me.
FJ

[restauranteer]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

...Why do you have to get involved in arguments on a forum two thousand miles away, about a lake in a distant part of the country?...What interest does Lake Winnipesaukee have to a guy way down in Sarasota? Don't they have any of these forums in Florida that are more relevant ... Shouldn't this argument be limited to the people who own the lake?...This just seems like the way it's supposed to work to me.
FJ

Well, as we say in the kitchen; what's good for the goose is good for the gander!

Where is your outrage when fellow prolific poster Madrasahs...err ApS continually brings up incidents that occur in Florida??? What relevance to this Lake does the constant quotations and URL's to distant websites in distant states have to do with Winnipesaukee?

Don't know about you, but I come here to visit and learn about Winnipesaukee, if I want to read about Florida boating accidents or OBO happenings, I am quite able to navigate there on my own without any additinal help...

You can't have it both ways....

By the way, who, in your opinion, owns the Lake anyway? I have read the State Constitution and laws and regulations of New Hampshire front to back, and I still can't find that receipt that says who owns the Lake!

As always, your appetite may vary!

Salute!

[Fat Jack]

Do you live here? Presuming you do, do you have anything to say about the lake? If you want to talk with APS about the goings on in Florida, I welcome you to join a thread down there.
What, have you been on this forum for a week now? You said when you joined last week that you were doing so to get into arguments. You must be proud of your accomplishments so far. But I'd prefer to stick to Lake Winnipesaukee issues.
I bet there are more challenging arguments down in Florida if that is all you are looking for. In all of your meticulous research, could you find ONE post from me that argued for a speed limit in Florida? For any change in the laws in Florida? Is that why you had to resort to quoting the post of some other member to use against me?

Bon apetit!

[FormulaOutlaw]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Do you live here? Presuming you do, do you have anything to say about the lake? If you want to talk with APS about the goings on in Florida, I welcome you to join a thread down there.
What, have you been on this forum for a week now? You said when you joined last week that you were doing so to get into arguments. You must be proud of your accomplishments so far. But I'd prefer to stick to Lake Winnipesaukee issues.
I bet there are more challenging arguments down in Florida if that is all you are looking for. In all of your meticulous research, could you find ONE post from me that argued for a speed limit in Florida? For any change in the laws in Florida? Is that why you had to resort to quoting the post of some other member to use against me?

Bon apetit!

Let's see now, I believe todays date to be April 16, 2005. Under my screen name on this Forum it clearly states "Join Date Jan. 2005". In the above quoted post you clearly state "What, have you been on this forum for a week now?", which was posted yesterday. Guess that says all that needs to be said about your "powers of observation" or how much effort you put forth to research factual information. Frankly, I'd be quite embarassed over that one. Yes, I am making a little fun of you here.

Again, it makes no difference to me about where I may choose to reside. I see what I believe to be a "wrong" being brought about by a group of self centered individuals and I object to that. If you object to my wading in on these issues because I happen to live in Florida, well object away. That's your right and I welcome you to exercise it. Will your objections keep me off this Forum or out of this debate? ABSOLUTELY NOT.....

You state you prefer to stick to the "Lake Winni" issues. Good for you. I'm not afraid to "expand my horizons" so to speak, if I see something I think is wrong if it pertains to something that I have an interest in. Trust me, I make the time to stick my nose into many issues here in Florida, primarily the Manatee fantasy. I have been asked to start a West Coast chapter of the Citizen's for Florida's Waterways which I am going to eagerly take on. Don't worry though, even with this new venture I am undertaking, I will still make the time to stay active here.

So you see, I'm just one of those people who simply is not afraid to stand up and be counted. And I certainly can understand why people of your group do not care for me because you see me as a hurdle to your personal agenda. Like I said before, until "that group" get off the backs of the GFBL group, I'm not going anywhere. Believe me when I say, you can object all you want, I'm in this for the long haul.

This summer if you see a Formula with "OUTLAW" emblazened on the hullsides, come by and say hello.

[jarhead]

Fat Jack who said you or any one person or group of people own the lake?

[Evenstar]

The lakes in New Hampshire are public waters. Like any other state property, they are collectively owned by the residents of this state.

Here's the legal wording: from: TITLE L - WATER MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION
CHAPTER 483-A
NEW HAMPSHIRE LAKES MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION PROGRAM
Section 483-A:1
483-A:1 Statement of Policy. – New Hampshire's lakes are one of its most important natural resources; vital to wildlife, fisheries, recreation, tourism, and the quality of life of its citizens. It is the policy of the state to insure the continued vitality of New Hampshire lakes as key environmental, social, and economic assets for the benefit of present and future generations. The state shall encourage and assist in the development of management plans for the waters as well as the shoreland to conserve and protect outstanding characteristics, including recreational, aesthetic, and those of community significance, so that these valued characteristics shall endure as part of lake uses to be enjoyed by the citizens of New Hampshire.
Source. 1990, 118:2, eff. June 18, 1990.

[restauranteer]

Isn't it ironic....that we just closed a thread after determining that a certain "member" (don't want to single anyone out) has a right to air his opinion and then that same "member" turns around in his next series of posts and tries to silence the opinion of another "member"!!!

Is ironic the right word, or should I be using the word hypocritical?

Ooops, gotta run....something's burning in the oven!

Bon apetit!

[jarhead]

Where does it state ownership in this chapter??? Thanx for the info.

[Evenstar]

Whatever. Personally I think that this person made a good point . . . that Lake Winnipesaukee is owned by the citizens of New Hampshire, and not by anyone else. The regulatory laws on any lake in New Hampshire should be primarilly for the protection of the lake and for it's citizens, rathar than for outsiders.

I added this part after I read Jarhead's post: The owner is shown by the statement "New Hamphire's lakes" and later, with "citizens of New Hampshire". It's pretty clear to me.

[jarhead]

Where does it state that ?it doesn't . The lakes are resource but they are not owned by anyone , you seem inteligent enough to realize that they are for the residents benifit for econmical ,tourism and personal needs and uses.But nowhere does it state ownership.

[Evenstar]

Hey, I don't want to argue with you about such an obvious point. It does say "citizens of New Hampshire", not "US citizens", or "for all humans".

[jarhead]

Not an argument it is a debate of sorts.does it say own or uses to be enjoyed.I enjoy the lake to does that also mean that i own it, no.

[PROPELLER]

If the lakes in NH are owned by the citizens(or I would rather use residents) of NH, where do second homeowners who are registered to vote in another state & claim permanent residence in another state fit into this equation? As we all well know, many property owners in NH come from other states, namely Massachusetts.

This brings me to my next point. Many of the supporters of the speed limit & no rafting bills are property owners in NH but permanently reside & are registered to vote in another state. This is interesting because at the no rafting bill hearing, one of the sponsors of the bill stated that he was approached by a property owner to write this bill & sponsor it but that property owner happens to be a Massachusetts resident, he was not a constituent of the sponsor or any other NH state legislator. If we believe what Evenstar & Fat Jack said in prior posts then these non voting property owners have no say in how we as NH residents conduct our business or legislate.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

at the no rafting bill hearing, one of the sponsors of the bill stated that he was approached by a property owner to write this bill & sponsor it but that property owner happens to be a Massachusetts resident, he was not a constituent of the sponsor or any other NH state legislator.

It's funny, because I know this property owner well, and he has been a resident of Gilford his entire life. I don't recall anyone saying otherwise at any hearing. If you have any support for your accusation, can you provide more specifics? I would be happy to join you in reporting his illegal status to the proper authorities. Perhaps he is "The Fugitive".

Aside from that, I agree with you. I own property in Massachusetts, but I am not allowed to vote there. Except that I can donate to the campaigns of candidates I like, I cannot influence their elections and have no opportunity to contribute to their legislative processes. That's something I accepted when I chose to reside in NH. I do hope that the residents of MA will vote in a way that compliments my interests too, but I understand that is really out of my control. If they make some laws that really conflict with my interests, then I will consider whether to sell my property or to move to MA and get involved to change those laws back. This is the American way.
I'm sure that those residents of MA who would like to see some law and order returned to the lake are hoping that we, the citizens of NH, succeed in our quest for a reasonable limit on boat speeds. We appreciate whatever support they can give. I'm sure the legislators give some small amount of weight to the opinions of non-resident taxpayers. But if we, the citizens of NH, start to see legislators more concerned with the opinions of MA residents than of us, we will act quickly to get them out of office. That too is the American way. Such is the power of being a citizen of the state.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by PROPELLER

...If we believe what Evenstar & Fat Jack said in prior posts then these non voting property owners have no say in how we as NH residents conduct our business or legislate.

Hey, I quoted a state law. So this was not just my opinion or something that I just said, or made up. This is actually what the NH law says.

[Fat Jack]

Did I post even ONCE in that thread? In fact, I did not have to. Some GFBL tries to quiet my common sense opinions by soliciting her other GFBL buddies to vote me off the forum, claiming it's not because my opinion is different than theirs (ya, right), and all of the real members see right through it and come to my defense.
Again, you must resort to the posts of other members and act as if they are mine. In fact, it was one of your own team that you are citing. So whose the hypocrite now? Those acute researching skills of yours seem to be fading.Try this stuff on some other forum. It's getting old here already, after only a week.
Let's stick to issues related to the lake, assuming again you have ever even been here.

Bon apetit!

[restauranteer]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Here's the legal wording: from: TITLE L - WATER MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION
CHAPTER 483-A
NEW HAMPSHIRE LAKES MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION PROGRAM
Section 483-A:1
483-A:1 Statement of Policy....

... characteristics shall endure as part of lake uses to be enjoyed by the citizens of New Hampshire.[/b]
Source. 1990, 118:2, eff. June 18, 1990.

Ah Evenstar...like a first year cooking student, good try.

But go back and carefully read what you have cited. This policy states that the waterways shall be enjoyed by the citizens of New Hampshire. No where is the word "ownership" used or implied.

Tricky stuff, those New Hampshire laws....like a sticky souffle!

Bon appetit!

[codeman671]

271:20 State Water Jurisdiction; Published List of Public Waters; Rulemaking. –
I. All natural bodies of fresh water situated entirely in the state having an area of 10 acres or more are state-owned public waters, and are held in trust by the state for public use

There is no interpretation needed there, the state clearly claims title.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by jarhead

Fat Jack who said you or any one person or group of people own the lake?

The State Legislature. Do your own research.

[FormulaOutlaw]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Formula Outlaw,
Just curious....Aren't you writing from Florida? Are you a citizen of NH? Do you even own property in NH? Why do you have to get involved in arguments on a forum two thousand miles away, about a lake in a distant part of the country? Why do you argue with the owners of a NH lake about the laws that THEY want to enact on THEIR lake? What interest does Lake Winnipesaukee have to a guy way down in Sarasota? Don't they have any of these forums in Florida that are more relevant to YOUR lakes? Or are those forums all too crowded with people from NH sticking their noses into Florida's business?
I don't mean all this in a bad way, I just want to understand why us Granite Staters have to keep arguing with people from other states about how we manage OUR lake. Shouldn't this argument be limited to the people who own the lake? Then, once WE decide democratically about the rules we want to put down, we will tell you what they are, and you can either abide by them or go somewhere else. This just seems like the way it's supposed to work to me.
FJ

1) yes
2) no
3) no
4,5, and 6) I consider myself a member of the "boating community" which "Lake Winni" is a part of. Therefore I consider myself a "cousin" of the GFBL group that enjoys "the Lake". I am arguing the concept of the "I don't like it so you can't do it" philosophy that is prevalent among a few of the members of this Forum. Where do you think that YOU have the right to decide who and who does not get to enjoy the lake? I don't particularly care for sailboats, but I certainly am not only going to not try to force them off the lake but DEFEND their right to be there.

Whether playing pro hockey, or just dealing with life, I have never been afraid to "stick my nose in it" when necessary. Trying to rid "the Lake" of the GFBL group simply because a few of you don't like these boats is wrong. Ergo, I'm sticking my nose in it.

I'm not arguing about how you run your lake, I'm arguing the self centered concept or ideaology that a few of you display. After all, I'm only expressing my opinion, whether any of you agree or disagree with me does not matter. It seems however as of late, more of this Forum's members seem to be agreeing with me. Does not matter, again, I'm only expressing my opinion.

I think that everyone who enjoys the lake, or just enjoys boating, should be entitled to express their opinion on these issues, which by the way is now on a Thread I started and stated I did not want issues discussed here. Guess I lost that one huh.......

It's no secret that "the group" who wants to rid the lake of the GFBL boats actually has meetings to plan strategy on how to achieve that goal. I can guarantee you this, you people are in for a fight. THAT IS NOT A THREAT....

I can also tell you that even if a speed limit is enacted it will not cause the GFBL group to leave in mass numbers. They will not allow "that group" to "win".

Bottom line is this: one group does not have the right to try to eliminate another group simply based on the fact that the first group does not like the second group's "boat of choice. This is just plain wrong. And there is no way that anyone can spin that to make it right.

I am not alone, by any means, in what I see here. I am not alone in my opinion. However, even if I was, I would still stand up and be heard for what I believe to be right. I defend everyone's right to agree, or disagree with me. That is a whole lot more than what "some" on this Forum would do. And that makes me a much better man for it.

So until "that group" quits trying to railroad the GFBL group, I'm here for the long haul. I also plan on trailering up this year to enjoy "Lake Winnie" along with other spots I am familar with.

Enjoy your summer. FO

[Mee-n-Mac]

Getting a bit OT for the thread here ...

Originally Posted by APS

1) Why didn't the defense select the "I-couldn't-see-over-the-22-foot-bow-on-my-36-foot-Baja-offshore-because-my-trim-tabs-and-my-drives-were-misadjusted-at-night" Theory?
Because they sell GFBLs?

Why oh why would the defense not opt for such a brilliant line of reasoning ? Hmmm I can't say for sure but I suspect it just may have been the I-didn't-trim-therefore-am-a-moron-and-didn't-operate-my-boat-properly-so-convict-me reason. But that's just my guess.

Originally Posted by APS

2) At the calculated <30MPH, or <20MPH net, why weren't the boat or passengers struck by GFBL propellers?

A good question. Perhaps you could ask the MP to release the photos of the stern of the Wellcraft and then reconstruct the accident from the impact marks where the outdrives hit. Without knowing what outdrives were used in that Baja I can't say how much they would have kicked up on impact and how long they would have taken to return to a down position.

Originally Posted by APS

3)What normally happens when a "slow" impact from a multi-ton boat overwhelms a one-ton 24-footer?

Don't know, how slow is your "slow". A more Madrasah-like answer would be "Oh, so you consider that normal !?! "

Originally Posted by APS

4) If he "soared" after striking an errant wake (at a speed we can't even imagine), wouldn't that account for the reduced impact "appearance"?

Continuing in form from #3 .... This would be the errant wake from the "third boat" ? How unlucky that the wake occured just where it did so the Baja didn't just soar, at some unimaginable velocity, right over the Wellcraft completely. Then again I guess the "flip" side of the grassy knoll ... errr ... errant wake theory is that it could have been worse and had the Baja return to lake at just the wrong spot.

Originally Posted by APS

Even Physics can't answer those questions: reenactment is the only resolution.

I'm not so sure about that, the modeling for the 2 boats and water (putting aside errant wakes and snakehead fish and alien abductions) wouldn't be as hard as has been done for other things. Given the computing power readily available these days and finite element analysis* I'd bet a good simulation (aka physics digitized) would yeild as good a result as re-enactment. Via the model you get to play and replay differing scenarios and see the range of possibilites that yeilds the same physical results. Even so I like the idea (re-enactment).

That said I'll doubt you'll ever see either simulation or re-enactment done by the defense. I believe it would blow holes in the "it was just a minor bump" statements. On the chance I'm wrong re: bump severity, the defense should have jumped for a re-enactment. Though it wouldn't make a difference in the basic facts of the case it would have lended credence to the defense's story as to why he motored away afterwards. Ooops I forgot my M-like response ... "Why you could re-enact but it might be hard to find volunteers to sit in the Wellcraft ".


*I'd bet a simple rigid body model would suffice for the boats and still be accurate enough.