US Coast Guard on Speed and Accidents

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Woodsy

Facts and statistics have been posted, there is little point in posting more because the opposition discounts any data that does not support their position. Below are just a few of the rationalizations given to discount data, most are not exact quotes.

The speed was only 3 mph over the proposed limit

Alcohol was involved (even though the operator was found not guilty of that charge by a jury)

That lake does not have a 150' rule

The USCG only says "excessing speed" and that could mean 6 mph

Operator inexperience was the real cause

BWI was the real cause

"falling overboard" is not related to speed

The high performance boats that flipped at high speed were caused by a sharp turn, not speed

"I do not accept your definition of excessive speed"

There was "dense fog"

"All alcohol or alcohol/drug related. Take out the stimulants and would any of these happened?"

speed has nothing to do with speed limits

Island Lover...

I don't discount anything. The Pro HB-162 side has yet to post any Facts or Statistics from any publicly available official government publication! Not one! I have posted data from the United States Coast Guard and the National Transportation Safety Board.

In your post above you bring up thinly veiled references to the Littlefield/Hartman accident. Specifically the first two points you are truying to make. However here is one of your own quotes from another thread.

Originally Posted by Island Lover

We all know that you can drive through speed traps on Rt 93 at 5 or 10 MPH over the speed limit and not be stopped. The same will be true on the lake.

So if you can drive 5-10MPH over the limit with no penalty, how would this have changed the terrible outcome of that night? It is well documented, that if a person is willing to operate a vehicle while under the influence, they really have no regard for any other laws.

As far as your other points go, prevailing conditions at the time of the accident are paramount. Look at the categories the U.S. Coast Guard uses to delineate accident causes. Driving a boat while intoxicated is considered a primary accident cause. 15MPH in a dense fog can be considered excessive speed. Operator Inattention is a primary cause of accidents (thats what Danny Littlefield was convicted of), Operator Inexperience is a primary cause (most likely the primary cause of accidents in which the boats flipped), Hazardous Waters (probably the cause of alot of the kayaking/canoeing deaths), the list goes on.

Do you Pro HB-162 folks have ANY facts or statistics from any official source?

Woodsy

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Do you Pro HB-162 folks have ANY facts or statistics from any official source?

Woodsy

I was at the R, R & D committe meeting when they asked the bills sponsor, Rep. Pilliod that exact question. And this is a FACT, he reply was "NO, I do not!"

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Island Lover...

I don't discount anything. The Pro HBO-162 side has yet to post any Facts or Statistics from any publicly available official government publication! Not one!...

This is a perfect example of your spin Dave. Go look at the first post in this thread. US Coast Guard statistics

I predicted that boats will go 5 or 10 mph over the limit and not get stopped. That does NOT mean it will be legal or that I approve. Its just reality.

[Woodsy]

Island Lover,

What is your point? How am I spinning anything? The Coast Guard did a great job with that report. I merely re-organized the report based on the number of fatalities! BWI was the #1 cause of accidents resulting in death!

I also think the NTSB Safety Alert speaks volumes!

Where is your data & statistics to support your position on HB-162?

You should read page 34 of the 2004 U.S. Coast Guard report. It has yet more interesting facts...

According to the Coast Guard report, in 2004 there were 101,626 registered boats in NH. There were 35 accidents, resulting in 2 deaths (1 by drowning, 1 just listed as "other") and 15 injuries. So if you do the math, 35 accidents/101,626 registered boats =.00034 chance that you will be in a boating accident. If you want to further the math, 15 injuries/101,626 registered boats=.00014 chance of being injured in a boating accident. 2 fatalities/101,626 registered boats=.00001 chance of actually being killed in a boat.

Our Illustrious neighbor to the south, Massachusetts, has 150,683 registered boats. In 2004 they had 55 accidents, resulting in 9 deaths and 35 injuries. They do not require a Safe Boater Certificate for adults...

Seems to me the numbers speak for themselves....

Post your data & statistics!

Woodsy

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

According to the Coast Guard report, in 2004 there were 101,626 registered boats in NH. There were 35 accidents, resulting in 2 deaths (1 by drowning, 1 just listed as "other") and 15 injuries. So if you do the math, 35 accidents/101,626 registered boats =.00034 chance that you will be in a boating accident. If you want to further the math, 15 injuries/101,626 registered boats=.00014 chance of being injured in a boating accident. 2 fatalities/101,626 registered boats=.00001 chance of actually being killed in a boat.

Wow, real numbers and they don't support a speed limit, what a surprise!!!!

Thanks Woodsy.....

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

{snip} I predicted that boats will go 5 or 10 mph over the limit and not get stopped. That does NOT mean it will be legal or that I approve. Its just reality.

I doubt you'll find anyone on either side of the argument that will dispute the above. What I and others have said is that this reality has no negative impact on safety. That Littlefield's speed that night is thought to be only 3 mph above the proposed limit means that to most of us, HB-162 would have made no difference in the outcome. The reasons for this have been hashed out but I can reiterate them if desired. If you really think that 25 is "safe" and 28 is "unsafe" then I'd like to know why. Moreover if I thought that the previous was true I'd be pushing for a much lower speed limit. If 25 or 45 mph had been arrived at by some analysis we could debate the inputs to that analysis or the analysis itself, but they weren't. They (HB-162 limits) were choosen for some reason and left unsupported. If I wanted to be unreasonable I could have proposed limits of 10 and 25 instead and then said any accident above those speeds was, by my definition, due to "excess" speed. But I wouldn't expect anyone to buy into my interpretation. I'd have to somehow prove that my limits were correct and any higher limits were unsafe.

[Island Lover]

Woodsy

You posted "The Pro HBO-162 side has yet to post any Facts or Statistics from any publicly available official government publication! Not one!..." I pointed to the first post in the thread to show that your statement was incorrect. That you don't like these USCG statistics does not change a thing. I really don't care if you think they apply to HB162 or not.

Excessive speed is the #4 cause of boating accidents That is from the USCG and it is my justification for HB162. I do not care about any explanations or quibbles on that point.

28 is more than 25 and a jury acquitted on BWI This is a death on Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than proposed. I do not care about any explanations or quibbles!

I understand you have a long list of reasons why the above is not fair or factual or does not apply. But I reject them! All of them!

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

{snip} 28 is more than 25 and a jury acquitted on BWI This is a death on Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than proposed. I do not care about any explanations or quibbles!

I understand you have a long list of reasons why the above is not fair or factual or does not apply. But I reject them! All of them!

Fine then ... I will propose that the maximum speed allowed on the lake be no wake speed (NWS). Seems pretty plain to me that any speed above NWS has the potential to cause injury or death and so any speed above NWS is therefore unsafe. Safer is slower ! I bet I can find more than 1 case where someone was killed (and many more injured) at a speed above NWS and I'll cite these as proof positive that only NWS is proper and any higher speed is bad. Anything else is quibbling !! How does this sound ?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Woodsy

You posted "The Pro HBO-162 side has yet to post any Facts or Statistics from any publicly available official government publication! Not one!..." I pointed to the first post in the thread to show that your statement was incorrect. That you don't like these USCG statistics does not change a thing. I really don't care if you think they apply to HB162 or not.

Excessive speed is the #4 cause of boating accidents That is from the USCG and it is my justification for HB162. I do not care about any explanations or quibbles on that point.

28 is more than 25 and a jury acquitted on BWI This is a death on Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than proposed. I do not care about any
explanations or quibbles!

I understand you have a long list of reasons why the above is not fair or factual or does not apply. But I reject them! All of them!

The reason they could not convict due to BWI , they didn't have the facts and figures the night of the accident!
USCG excess speed is defined as TOO FAST FOR CONDITIONS and you know that but won't admit it.

The politcians , after hashing over the TRUE facts and figures , will have no choice but to reject HR162. The opponents have done their homework well. It's all but a done deal .Next year you can bring up another bill


After all , 45 is hardly a fast speed

[Woodsy]

Ski Man...

You do not need the boat to be moving to have a fatality. There were 810 accidents resulting in 66 fatalities involving a boat that wasn't moving. There were 1479 collisions involving with other vessels, involving a total of 3003 boats, that resulted in 8 drownings and 60 other deaths. See page 36 of the USCG Report.

Originally Posted by Ski Man

How do you get a chicken without and egg? How can we get statistics that a speed limit reduces accidents if we have no speed limit to use for generating statistics? Perhaps the answer lies in your own message...by looking at how speed limits have worked elsewhere.

Of course, before there were speed limits on our roads, there was no way to get statistics to prove they would reduce accidents, right?

To respond to your post, it is actually pretty simple. Every accident is a statistic. In every vehicular accident, pretty much since the dawn of motorized vehicles, accident statistics have been compiled. Factors such as the weather at the time of the accident, the speed at which the accident occurred, was the operator under the influence of alcohol or drugs, operator inattention, operator inexperience etc. These factors are all compiled and put into the statistical reports.

Originally Posted by Ski Man

And, of course, before there were speed limits on our trails, there were no such statistics, right? I'm sure many excitement loving snowmobilers fought our trail speed limits with your same argument...no statistics. Glad they did not win.

Wrong again… We have a 45 MPH speed limit on our snowmobile trails BECAUSE it was STATISTICALLY PROVEN to be warranted. All of the snowmobile accidents were analyzed and the result was a speed limit of 45 on trails, and no speed limit at all on lakes. (with the exception of two). I read a pretty good article in the NHSA Sno-Traveler written by a Fish & Game police officer on this particular subject.

Originally Posted by Ski Man

I don't think any innocent bystanders are worried about getting killed because a biker was not helmetted. Bad comparison. None of the HB162 crowd has been fighting for this bill, as far as I can find, because they are worried about the GFBL boaters safety. If they were, then this comparison would have some merit. Alternately, I guess this might be the place where you all can use that "live free" argument that makes no sense against HB162.

I don't think any innocent bystanders are worried about getting killed because a driver in another car was was not belted in. Another poor comparison for Hb162, but another place the "live free" argument might be useful.

Actually I wasn’t comparing the lack of a helmet law or seatbelt law to HB-162. They were mentioned as laws in other states that have been STATISTICALLY PROVEN to reduce death or injury, yet they are not laws here in NH.

Originally Posted by Ski Man

I guess I just don't agree with the whole "statistics" defense. If the residents of NH want speed limits on their lakes, why do they have to prove the need to anyone? I don't see that they have any burden to prove anything, except that they are a majority, which they have obviously proven. Its not like they are trying to do something unconstitutional like ban a "protected group" from the lakes. There is no constitutional right to drive boats fast. Is it your position that GFBL's are a "protected group"?

Ski Man, it is your constitutional right not to agree with me. I don’t have a problem with it at all.

I do have a serious problem when there is an attempt to limit my personal freedom without just cause.

Woodsy

PS: What type of skiier are you?

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Ski Man...

PS: What type of skiier are you?

Obviuosly, he doesn't ski barefoot. I love to ski barefoot and this law will not allow me to enjoy my favorite pastime. I'm hoping the kids can enjoy this but I guess not.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Ski Man...
What type of skiier are you?

If it's a snow skier , I think the should be speed limits on them too. My wife was knocked unconsious be a SKI INSTRUCTOR of all people. She was standing perfectly still talking to a friend
It was also her last ski trip

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I do have a serious problem when there is an attempt to limit my personal freedom

Sometimes we give bad things good names to hide what they really are. I think that calling the act of flying across a crowded lake at break-neck speeds a "freedom" is rather insulting to the word freedom. I guess under your definition, f_rting in church and p_ssing in the town pool would be "freedoms" too. Although I guess they are freedoms, technically, if they are things you've always been allowed to do and that you've come to enjoy, but they seem more like "obnoxious offenses" or "hazards" to me. They aren't the kind of things that come to mind when one generally adds up his real freedoms, like "speech" and "worship". Adding "driving real fast in my boat" to that list just doesn't seem appropriate.
People use to smoke in hospitals and sell cocaine before those "freedoms" were taken away too.
What other "freedoms" do you put in this high-speed boating class?
Sometimes we just have to be willing to sacrifice our "freedoms" for the common good.

Now on the other hand, when we talk about "rights", those should never be taken away...Like the "right" of NH's citizens to the safe use of their lakes.

[overlook]

He still would have died if the speed was 25mph.