Lake George Speed Limit working?

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Umm, how many people died in Lake George last year? You want Winnipesaukee to be just like Lake George? I think the safety record there would be the last thing I'd refer in an argument about the ideal model for safe lakes. The marine patrollers there are apparently so concerned with speed, noise, BWI, and PWCs operating at >5 MPH <500 feet from shore (what a silly law!) that they can't be bothered to ensure PFDs are put on people in wheelchairs.

It is a measure of how desperate the oppositions arguments are getting, that they have to sink so low as to blame a freak, tragic accident on the speed limit.

20 senior citizens, mostly in wheel chairs, died. Probably because of overloading and design problems. Now the opposition claims these people died because the marine patrol were to busy enforcing the speed limit. How low can you get? And how absurd the argument?

Does New York have a law requiring people in wheel chairs to wear PFDs? And if there is such a law (which I doubt) its the responsibility of the tour boat captain to see they are on.

These ridiculous, low blow arguments are not helping your cause!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

It is a measure of how desperate the oppositions arguments are getting, that they have to sink so low as to blame a freak, tragic accident on the speed limit.

And who was it that kept telling us how their neighbor was killed by a Performance boat when they know very well it could have just as easily been a cruiser that couldn't even do 45 mph:rolleye1?:

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by Cal

And who was it that kept telling us how their neighbor was killed by a Performance boat when they know very well it could have just as easily been a cruiser that couldn't even do 45 mph:rolleye1?:

What we keep telling you is that the performance boat was traveling at a speed greater than the proposed limit. The type of boat is of far less importance.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

What we keep telling you is that the performance boat was traveling at a speed greater than the proposed limit. The type of boat is of far less importance.

And at the risk of being called tiresome and a quibbler, what makes 25 so safe and 28 not ? If I find a single accident (? need it be fatal ?) at a speed under 25, can I then claim that 25 is too high and the speed limit should be lower ? How can coming up behind a boat at a closing speed under (or just over) the proposed limit be unsafe while a head on situation, where the closing speed would be legal at 50, be safe ? Can you at least understand why I and others find this such a difficult concept to grasp ? Why we think that Littlefield is not speed related ?

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

And at the risk of being called tiresome and a quibbler, what makes 25 so safe and 28 not ? If I find a single accident (? need it be fatal ?) at a speed under 25, can I then claim that 25 is too high and the speed limit should be lower ? How can coming up behind a boat at a closing speed under (or just over) the proposed limit be unsafe while a head on situation, where the closing speed would be legal at 50, be safe ? Can you at least understand why I and others find this such a difficult concept to grasp ? Why we think that Littlefield is not speed related ?

Who says 25 mph was safe that night? Certainly not me!

You are forgetting that under HB162 the night speed limit will NOT be 25 mph. The speed limit will essentially be reasonable and prudent but never more than 25 mph.

As I remember it was a warm moonless night with lots of boat traffic. Perhaps reasonable and prudent under those conditions was 10 or 20 mph. Perhaps reasonable and prudent was 14 mph and the boat was doing twice the speed limit.

In a similar, future, fatal accident with the boat going 20 mph, the question for the jury will be if 20 mph was reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions.


X.(a) No person shall operate a vessel at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

X.(a) No person shall operate a vessel at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.

It seems to me you just quoted the main reason for the people that don't support 162.The law is already on the books.

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

It seems to me you just quoted the main reason for the people that don't support 162.The law is already on the books.

No, its not already on the books!

What I was quoting from is HB162, I'm glad you like it.

"Reasonable and prudent" will be law when HB162 passes. At this time there is no speed limit of any kind on the books.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

No, its not already on the books!

What I was quoting from is HB162, I'm glad you like it.

"Reasonable and prudent" will be law when HB162 passes. At this time there is no speed limit of any kind on the books.

I stand corrected.And yes I do like it as you so politely put it.If HB162 consisted of just this I would be all for it.At this time there is no need for a speed limit of any kind on the books!

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

And yes I do like it as you so politely put it.If HB162 consisted of just this I would be all for it.

The minority amendment does comprise of just using reasonable and prudent.

Amendment to HB 162
Proposed by the Minority of the Committee on Resources, Recreation and Development - R
Amend the title of the bill by replacing it with the following:
AN ACT relative to safe operation of vessels on New Hampshire waters.
Amend the bill by replacing all after the enacting clause with the following:

*1 Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats; Driving Record. Amend RSA 270:29-a to read as follows:
270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Any conviction under this section shall be reported to the commissioner of the department of safety, division of motor vehicles, and shall become a part of the motor vehicle driving record of the person convicted.
*2 New Paragraph; General Rules for Vessels Operating on Water; Speed. Amend RSA 270-D:2 by inserting after paragraph IX the following new paragraph:
X. No person shall operate a vessel at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing.
*3 Boating and Water Safety; Penalties; Driving Record. Amend RSA 270-D:9 to read as follows:
270-D:9 Penalties. Any person who violates any provisions of this chapter or any rule adopted under RSA 270-D:8 shall be guilty of a violation. Any conviction under RSA 270-D:2 shall be reported to the commissioner of the department of safety, division of motor vehicles, and shall become a part of the motor vehicle driving record of the person convicted.
*4 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2007.

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

It seems to me you just quoted the main reason for the people that don't support 162.The law is already on the books.

I think the confusion is that snipet Bear Lover showed is a portion of the Majority amendment, which poses that restriction as well as the speed limits of 45 day/25 night. There is no reasonable and prudent on the books now.

Full amendment:

Amendment to HB 162
Proposed by the Majority of the Committee on Resources, Recreation and Development - R
Amend the title of the bill by replacing it with the following:
AN ACT relative to general rules for vessels operating on water.
Amend the bill by replacing all after the enacting clause with the following:

*1 New Paragraphs; General Rules for Vessels Operating on Water. Amend RSA 270-D:2 by inserting after paragraph IX the following new paragraphs:
X.(a) No person shall operate a vessel at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.
(b) Where no hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with subparagraph (a), the speed of any vessel in excess of the limit specified in this subparagraph shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful:
(1) 25 miles per hour during the period from 1/2 hour after sunset to 1/2 hour before sunrise; and
(2) 45 miles per hour at any other time.
(c) The speed limitations set forth in subparagraph (b) shall not apply to vessels when operated with due regard for safety under the direction of the peace officers in the chase or apprehension of violators of the law or of persons charged with, or suspected of, any such violation, nor to fire department or fire patrol vessels, nor to private emergency vessels when traveling to emergencies. This exemption shall not, however, protect the operator of any such vessel from the consequences of a reckless disregard of the safety of others.
(d) The speed limitations set forth in subparagraph (b) shall not apply to boat racing permitted under RSA 270:27.

XI. Any conviction under this section shall be reported to the commissioner of the department of safety, division of motor vehicles, and shall become a part of the motor vehicle driving record of the person convicted.
*2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2007.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

Who says 25 mph was safe that night? Certainly not me!
You are forgetting that under HB162 the night speed limit will NOT be 25 mph. The speed limit will essentially be reasonable and prudent but never more than 25 mph.
As I remember it was a warm moonless night with lots of boat traffic. Perhaps reasonable and prudent under those conditions was 10 or 20 mph. Perhaps reasonable and prudent was 14 mph and the boat was doing twice the speed limit.
In a similar, future, fatal accident with the boat going 20 mph, the question for the jury will be if 20 mph was reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions.

X.(a) No person shall operate a vessel at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.

Well this is a new take on that incident. When we left Meredith that night I don't recall there being that many boats out and about but to be fair we left some 40+ minutes ahead of Littlefield and not from the immediate area of the collision. Visibility was not limited that I remember. I think there's an opportunity here to discuss a bit more about what "reasonable and prudent" is. I know SD started an inquiry similar to this but perhaps we can try it again, if in a limited form. What, in your opinion, made 20 the highest prudent speed ? And can I properly believe that it's your opinion that had Littlefield been doing that 20 (or less) that the collision would likely not have occurred ?

ps - I do think juries in a "Littlefield" type trial (negligent homicide) presently can consider whether speed in any given fatality was a factor and was unreasonable or imprudent. I don't believe they don't need a speed limit law to make that judgement but perhaps a legal scholar can tell me for sure. But let's say I'm wrong and juries will use not just "R & P" but, as a matter of law, presume that any speed in excess of the max permissible is not "R & P". This, to me, makes it all the more important that the speed limits be set according to some basis in fact. That speed in excess of the max posted is indeed unsafe and not set because it's some limit somebody thought was "thrilling enough". Which of course leads us back to what really is reasonable and prudent and why.

[Bear Lover]

When two boats are converging on a collision course, if you change the speed of either boat the collision does not occur. This would not be true if the boats were on the SAME course, however one look at the accident recreation photo shows you they were not on the same course.

Also a slower boat speed would have given BOTH drivers a little more time to see the other boat.

Thirdly, the cruiser was going at a slower speed. Possibly the driver picked this speed because he thought it to be reasonable and prudent for the conditions that night.

We will never know if a speed limit would have changed anything. What we can say is that the accident involved a speed greater than the proposed 25 mph "fixed" limit. And that the reasonable and prudent limit may have been even lower than 25.

We have been asked by the opposition to provide facts and evidence. Clearly the "fact" of this accident is "evidence" in a HB162 discussion.

[B R]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

When two boats are converging on a collision course, if you change the speed of either boat the collision does not occur. This would not be true if the boats were on the SAME course, however one look at the accident recreation photo shows you they were not on the same course.

I'm sorry; but this is a stretch. Let's say you're right and they weren't on the same course. And let's say that there was a speed limit that he decided to obey while BWI and was going 20 mph--R&P under the conditions you decribed above. They would not have intersected and Mr Hartman would be alive today. OK, it's a streatch, but let's say all this were true. With that same logic, can I wonder if he would have run over a different boat and perhaps killed on entire family? I hope we can all agree that this seems a bit far fetched. Both sides of this "what-if" senario.

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by B R

I'm sorry; but this is a stretch. Let's say you're right and they weren't on the same course. And let's say that there was a speed limit that he decided to obey while BWI and was going 20 mph--R&P under the conditions you decribed above. They would not have intersected and Mr Hartman would be alive today. OK, it's a streatch, but let's say all this were true. With that same logic, can I wonder if he would have run over a different boat and perhaps killed on entire family? I hope we can all agree that this seems a bit far fetched. Both sides of this "what-if" senario.

Its not a stretch to say that if the boat was going 20 instead of 28, and they were not on the same course, then the accident would not have happened. Its simple mathematics.

I will grant you there are an infinite number of what-if scenarios. And that changing any of a thousand different factors just a little would have changed the outcome.

However my purpose is bringing this up is to show that this accident belongs in a HB162 dialog.

The opposition has repeatedly, and vehemently claimed there are no accidents on Winnipesaukee that could have been prevented by a 45/25 speed limit. But I believe I have shown that we have a FATAL accident that occurred on Winni that might have been prevented by a speed limit. This is especially true when the "reasonable and prudent" test of HB162 is brought into the question.

[B R]

I understand that it could have been avoided if any number of different things happened that night, and your scenario is certainly one of them. But I believe that IF the alleged drinking did occur and that BWI law was already being ignored, what makes you think he would have obeyed a speed limit--R&P or any other defined speed limit? By his own admission he had 3 to 5 drinks at Braun Bay BEFORE going to the restaurant and possibly having more drinks--this was never proved. But IF it was the case that he consumed even more alcohol after his day out drinking on the lake; don't you think alcohol had more to do with the accident than the lack of a speed limit? If a speed limit were in effect, why do you think he would have allegedly ignored a BWI law already on the books and obeyed a speed limit law? I suspect things would have turned out the same with or without HB162.

[Bear Lover]

Originally Posted by B R

I understand that it could have been avoided if any number of different things happened that night, and your scenario is certainly one of them. But I believe that IF the alleged drinking did occur and that BWI law was already being ignored, what makes you think he would have obeyed a speed limit--R&P or any other defined speed limit? By his own admission he had 3 to 5 drinks at Braun Bay BEFORE going to the restaurant and possibly having more drinks--this was never proved. But IF it was the case that he consumed even more alcohol after his day out drinking on the lake; don't you think alcohol had more to do with the accident than the lack of a speed limit? If a speed limit were in effect, why do you think he would have allegedly ignored a BWI law already on the books and obeyed a speed limit law? I suspect things would have turned out the same with or without HB162.

You may "suspect things would have turned out the same" but you do not know.

And your admission that my scenario is plausible means that this accident should be considered in evaluating the need for HB162.

[B R]

I believe just about anything is plausible; but that does not make it reality. I do not believe he would have followed proposed HB162 laws since he allegedly had total disregard for the current BWI laws.

Please answer the question; let's assume he was BWI; why do you think he would have obeyed HB162 and not the current BWI laws on the books.

I think that's a fair question since you keep brining up the case.

[Woodsy]

Oh my head!

The Littlefield/Hartman tragedy has absolutely nothing to do with speed limits!

Things might have been different if Rusty & Alex's Common Man restaurant had shut Danny off... but they didn't (overserved?)

Things might have been different if Danny had not decided to drive the boat while under the influence of alcohol... but he didn't (designated driver?)

Things might have been different if Danny had not decided to drink at all...

Things might have been different if Danny was keeping a proper lookout...

Have you guys noticed a pattern here? It wasn't the boat, or the conditions, it was the DRIVER! A person who consistently made bad choices that when added up tragically ended the life of Mr. Hartman. He has been tried and convicted of negligent homicide, by failing to keep a proper lookout.

By using the logic of some people, lets make the speed limit on our roads lower because drunks drive on them...

Woodsy

[Ski Man]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

The Littlefield/Hartman tragedy has absolutely nothing to do with speed limits!

FACT: We'll just never be able to know whether the accident would have been avoided or whether Mr. Hartman would have survived if Mr. Littlefield had been driving within HB162's limits.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Things might have been different if Danny had not decided to drive the boat while under the influence of alcohol...

FACT: A jury of Mr. Littlefield's peers acquited him of boating under the influence.

Originally Posted by Woodsy

A person who consistently made bad choices that when added up tragically ended the life of Mr. Hartman.

FACT: There are hundreds of boaters on our lakes who continuously make bad choices everytime they drive their boats...but the most dangerous of those choices, driving at high speeds on a crowded lake, is presently perfectly legal.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Ski Man

FACT: but the most dangerous of those choices, driving at high speeds on a crowded lake, is presently perfectly legal.

FACT: That's an opinion. One could easily argue that starting a boat with a bilge full of gasoline vapor or driving a boat into another boat are far more dangerous than driving fast and not hitting anyone.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Ski Man

FACT: A jury of Mr. Littlefield's peers acquited him of boating under the influence.

True he was aquitted, rather tough to prove without an open admission or a BAC test...

[B R]

Originally Posted by codeman671

True he was aquitted, rather tough to prove without an open admission or a BAC test...

or a restaurant not keeping tabs on their drinking patrons. how do they get away with that anyway?

[Ski Man]

Originally Posted by B R

or a restaurant not keeping tabs on their drinking patrons. how do they get away with that anyway?

I guess our laws against over-serving drinks are not fully enforceable or fully obeyed. So maybe we should not bother to have them?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Ski Man

FACT: There are hundreds of boaters on our lakes who continuously make bad choices everytime they drive their boats...but the most dangerous of those choices, driving at high speeds on a crowded lake, is presently perfectly legal.

Yep, and so far the speed as caused how many deaths on Winnipesaukee??? I think it is clear which is the dangerous choice when comparing boating when smashed vs speeding sober. Facts have proven that.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Yep, and so far the speed as caused how many deaths on Winnipesaukee??? I think it is clear which is the dangerous choice when comparing boating when smashed vs speeding sober. Facts have proven that.

In recent years there has been one fatality were speed was involved. I'm hoping HB162 will help there be none in the future.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

In recent years there has been one fatality were speed was involved. I'm hoping HB162 will help there be none in the future.

Which one? Please provide details. Please tell me this is not Hartman again...

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

When two boats are converging on a collision course, if you change the speed of either boat the collision does not occur. This would not be true if the boats were on the SAME course, however one look at the accident recreation photo shows you they were not on the same course.

Also a slower boat speed would have given BOTH drivers a little more time to see the other boat.

Thirdly, the cruiser was going at a slower speed. Possibly the driver picked this speed because he thought it to be reasonable and prudent for the conditions that night.

We will never know if a speed limit would have changed anything. What we can say is that the accident involved a speed greater than the proposed 25 mph "fixed" limit. And that the reasonable and prudent limit may have been even lower than 25.

We have been asked by the opposition to provide facts and evidence. Clearly the "fact" of this accident is "evidence" in a HB162 discussion.

Sure, if we change the speed or the timing then the collision won't occur. But that's not the idea behind this thought exercise. To play the what if scenario to see if speed was the issue we need to alter the timing (which is purely coincidental in any case) to allow a possible collision for the new speed. Then we ask if the collision is likely to still occur or not. Of course we can never be 100% sure of anything but we can perhaps extract some tentative conclusions from the exercise.

I see it this way. Littlefield had ample time to see the Hartman boat. It's not like they were in fog or rain or that visibility was obscured. I state this as fact as I was out that night. Now we replay the incident at 2 different speeds. In what we think is the original case we have a differential speed of lets say 25 mph. At 500 ft distance between the 2 boats, Littlefield has 13.6 secs to see and react accordingly. At 400 ft it's 10.9 secs, at 300 ft it's 8.2 secs and at 200 ft it's 5.5 secs. Of course the times go up as we slow Littlefield down but when was the last time you were out at night and didn't see a properly lighted boat until you only 200 ft away ? Do you think you need more than 5.5 secs to react ? Sure if we give Littlefield more time, he might, maybe have seen the Hartmans but then again maybe not. My thinking is that if you're going to make the assertion that Littlefield is a case for speed limits you need to make the case that the above reasoning is wrong. That the average joe,and not Capt B, needs more time or wouldn't see the Hartman's boat until a closer distance. So at what distance do you think a reasonable person would see the Hartman boat ? How much time does this person need to react. I think 5 secs is more than sufficient time to perceive and react in this case and more importantly 500 ft is more the norm min distance to see another vessel at night. Otherwise the only way I see that someone can make a case for Littlefield to be a "speed" accident is to say that we should set speed limits to allow the most incompetent, most negligent (due to whatever underlying cause) person to set the bar that we must all now duck under.

Again to anyone reading ... what are the factors the make R&P, well, reasonable and prudent ? And maybe we can start specifically with night boating re: boat-boat collision advoidance since "we" can probably find some common ground in this limited scenario. May I ask that only after we've exhausted this scenario that "we" meander into other scenarios (ie - daytime) ?

WRT coincidence : I'm reminded of a story where a man goes to cross the street. He looks down and sees that his shoe is untied. He bends over and re-ties it and then goes to step into the street only to see a car pass in front of him. He then thinks, "Boy, tying my shoe saved my life". Well he might be right for this instance but do we think that stopping for the amount of time to tie a shoe before we cross the road will save us or should we just look before we cross the street ?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

What we keep telling you is that the performance boat was traveling at a speed greater than the proposed limit. The type of boat is of far less importance.

Seems to me you ALWAYS had to emphasize the fact that it WAS a performance boat , not just a boat. Because that is what YOU want to get rid of. The vast majority of power boats can probably do an estimated 28 mph. A 14' aluminum rowboat with 25hp outboard will do 28 mph
And let us not forget it was an estimated speed not a clocked or radared speed.
And why didn't the MP stop him before he took off into the darkness and the security if a boat house. Oh yeah , they weren't there. Which means they couldn't have done much about him speeding anyway.
Most every hit and run I've ever heard of involved alcohol which strangely enough is very hard , if not impossible to prove the next day when these poor little lambs turn them selves in , lawyer in tow
Speed was not the determining factor and for an estimated extra 3 mph wouldn't have made much difference but you have certainly worked it for all it's worth and that's just as low in my IMHO.
I had a coworker , who was jogging , killed by a H&R driver and the story could have been the Hartman/Littlefield story. Lots of witnesses but NO blood/alcohol test from that night. "Oh , I thought I hit a street sign" , was the guys story.
Don't get me wrong here , I have no problem with night time speed limits. There's been many times I wouldn't even do beyond headway speed , but speed limits are NOT the answer.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Bear Lover

It is a measure of how desperate the oppositions arguments are getting, that they have to sink so low as to blame a freak, tragic accident on the speed limit.

20 senior citizens, mostly in wheel chairs, died. Probably because of overloading and design problems. Now the opposition claims these people died because the marine patrol were to busy enforcing the speed limit. How low can you get? And how absurd the argument?

Does New York have a law requiring people in wheel chairs to wear PFDs? And if there is such a law (which I doubt) its the responsibility of the tour boat captain to see they are on.

These ridiculous, low blow arguments are not helping your cause!

I don't really have a cause, and nothing at stake. I was just pointing out the absurdity of the whole situation. You keep blaming the death of your neighbor on the lack of a speed limit which is just as absurd as my argument. The deaths and the speed limit are both completely unrelated to eachother. That said, considering what happened, don't you think it's really silly to point to Lake George as a testament to boating safety? It was quite likely the deadliest lake to be on last year.