Coast Guard: Boating Deaths Drop in Northeast

[Damdonzi]

Boating deaths drop in Northeast

http://www.tradeonlytoday.com/me2/di...E008430F838077

[B R]

Does this include Lake George? Because if it does, those numbers are heavily skewed because of one, non-speed related accident

[ITD]

Wow, numbers and statistics and the truth. Lo and behold it does not support a speed limit, big surprise here. Are you watching and really trying to find the truth here state legislators?

[Cal]

I think that IS the LG accident. That means the rest of us have a clean record

[Woodsy]

Lake George (and most of inland NY) are part of the 9th Coast Guard District based in Cleveland Ohio. Their report will contain the deaths from Lake George.

I do find it very interesting that 20 people died in canoes & kayaks... maybe they need a mandatory PFD law?

Woodsy

[Ski Man]

Originally Posted by Damdonzi

Recreational boating fatalities are down for the second consecutive year in the Northeast waters covered by the 1st Coast Guard District.

Speed limits are working! The boating speed limit laws that have been enacted over recent years on the lakes throughout RI, CT, and MA, and on many of the lakes in NY, and on more than forty of NH's lakes, are surely showing results. Thanks for the "evidence" and "statistics".

[B R]

Personally, I think it was the boater eduacation law passed by NH a few years ago.

Boater Education is working!!!!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Ski Man

Speed limits are working! The boating speed limit laws that have been enacted over recent years on the lakes throughout RI, CT, and MA, and on many of the lakes in NY, and on more than forty of NH's lakes, are surely showing results. Thanks for the "evidence" and "statistics".

"Most recreational boating fatalities are the result of a fall overboard or a capsize caused by inexperience, inattention or inappropriate behavior, Johnson says."

Yep, sounds like speed limit is having a major effect according to the comments above... Inexperience, inattention and inappropriate behavior are mentioned but nothing about speed. Although I am sure the "pro" people will attest the by mentioning "inappropriate" it is automatically speed-related...

[Boater]

Originally Posted by Damdonzi

There were 39 fatalities in 2005, down from 41 in 2004

It sounds like a statistical tie to me. The difference of 2 is because of coincidence, not improved safety. A more accurate account would be "Fatalities for 2004 and 2005 were about the same".

Originally Posted by codeman671

"Most recreational boating fatalities are the result of a fall overboard or a capsize caused by inexperience, inattention or inappropriate behavior

Add high speed to "inexperience, inattention or inappropriate behavior" and what do you get? Trouble. The impact of all three is multiplied at high speeds. I've bent a few props because of a moment of inattention. I'm glad I wasn't going 70 at the time.

Where I live there were no auto fatalities last year after 4 in 2004 (all alcohol related). I'm going to ask that our speed limits be removed since there is no evidence of a problem and drunks ignore the laws anyway. Since the problem is alcohol, not speed, everyone in town should agree right? By the way, our police chief is against speed limits (NOT).

[Island Lover]

You guys are a riot!

A Marine Industry publication reports that there are 2 fewer deaths in 2005 than in 2004, and you people think this is an argument against HB162?

Talk about desperate!

There have been many new laws passed in recent years concerning boating safety. I think its great that these laws are starting to take effect and the death toll is dropping.

When every state has a reasonable speed limit the death rate will drop even more. 39 deaths is better than 41, however the goal is zero. HB162 will help us in getting there.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ski Man

So these boaters who have 45/25 speed limits on their own lakes can come up here and go as fast as they want? And they have the nerve to try to influence our laws?
Sounds like the 45/25 limits are pretty standard...same in these states as on the NY lakes.

Sounds good , BUT I'll bet those lakes are a lot smaller. Or can't we mention that????

[Woodsy]

Ski Man...

Before you go off the deep end about people from other states trying to influence laws here in NH... one should check the residency of alot of the PRO HB-162 supporters... they are not all NH citizens...

Island Lover...

Talk about spin... of the 39 deaths... 20 were in human powered craft! I am not seeing you guys push SAFETY legislation that would require all people using canoes and kayaks to wear a life preserver.... even though that would be a STATISTICALLY PROVEN way to improve safety on Lake Winnipesaukee!

Of the 19 deaths that occurred in powerboats, If you don't count NY & NJ, (only because the USCG district divides those states) in 2004 there were 500,052 registered powerboats in New England.

ME - 94,582
NH - 101,626
MA - 150,683
RI - 43,671
CT - 111,992
VT - 32,498

Total: 535,052

If you divide 19 deaths/535,052 boats (we know this number is greater because we didn't include NY & NJ) you get .0000355

Roughly 3.55 deaths per 100,000 registered boats. If you included a partial tally of the boats registered in NY & NJ, the actual number would probably drop to around 3 deaths per 100,000 registered boats. Either way, the numbers are way below the national average of 5.8 deaths per 100,000 registered boats as reported by the U.S. Coast Guard in the 2004 report.

That is a signifigant improvement... almost 50%!!

You will NEVER get to ZERO when dealing with machinery operated by man. While it is a noble goal, it is statistically impossible.

Woodsy

[Island Lover]

Woodsy

If you go out in a canoe without your PFD the only life you risk is your own.

If you mess up while operating a boat at 130 mph a lot of people can be killed.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Roughly 3.55 deaths per 100,000 registered boats. If you included a partial tally of the boats registered in NY & NJ, the actual number would probably drop to around 3 deaths per 100,000 registered boats. Either way, the numbers are way below the national average of 5.8 deaths per 100,000 registered boats as reported by the U.S. Coast Guard in the 2004 report.

Oh, more statisitics that don't support a speed limit, that's a surprise. Tough to argue with numbers.

Originally Posted by Ski Man

Speaking of Speed Limits in our neighboring states, there's a good set of threads that just popped up on another local forum about that...

Come on Ski Man, all three posts started by Fat Jack. The "opposition" looks like a plant, give us a break.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Woodsy

If you go out in a canoe without your PFD the only life you risk is your own.

If you mess up while operating a boat at 130 mph a lot of people can be killed.

And how many boating deaths can you attribute to boats doing 130mph in NH? Or 50mph for that matter??? Who's desperate here???

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by codeman671

And how many boating deaths can you attribute to boats doing 130mph in NH? Or 50mph for that matter??? Who's desperate here???

Right now we have no deaths at 130 mph and with HB162 perhaps we can keep it that way.

There are no deaths yet because only one boat on Winni that can go that fast. Not long ago the fastest boat on the lake could go 90 mph, then a couple of years ago it was 100 mph. Now its 130 mph. Woodsy says there is a boat on Lake George that goes 160 mph, perhaps they will bring it to Winni. WHEN WILL IT STOP!

It will stop when the legislature passes a speed limit. Hopefully they will pass one BEFORE we have a tragedy with lots of body bags. But if they fail to pass it before a tragic accident, they will certainly pass one after. And its only a matter of time.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by codeman671

And how many boating deaths can you attribute to boats doing 130mph in NH? Or 50mph for that matter??? Who's desperate here???

That's not the whole point of having a speed limit.

How many people do not feel that they can safely enjoy boating on Winni or on some other large NH lakes because of the excessive speeds of other boaters? I personally know quite a few. Many NH residents have been effectively forced off some of NH large lakes because they no longer feel that these lakes are safe for them to boat on.

How many NH residents will be adversely affected by a 45 MPH speed limit?

How mamy NH residents will benefit from a 45 MPH speed limit?

To me, these two questions are what the legislature needs to consider most to determine if HB162 is necessary.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Right now we have no deaths at 130 mph and with HB162 perhaps we can keep it that way.

There are no deaths yet because only one boat on Winni that can go that fast. Not long ago the fastest boat on the lake could go 90 mph, then a couple of years ago it was 100 mph. Now its 130 mph. Woodsy says there is a boat on Lake George that goes 160 mph, perhaps they will bring it to Winni. WHEN WILL IT STOP!

It will stop when the legislature passes a speed limit. Hopefully they will pass one BEFORE we have a tragedy with lots of body bags. But if they fail to pass it before a tragic accident, they will certainly pass one after. And its only a matter of time.

And what about accidents at 50mph? Hmm, don't remember any lately... Show me an accident on Winni or in NH for that matter that has a fatality and was due to excessive speed with no alcohol involved.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by codeman671

And what about accidents at 50mph? Hmm, don't remember any lately... Show me an accident on Winni or in NH for that matter that has a fatality and was due to excessive speed with no alcohol involved.

Since the Marine Patrol does not record speed in its accident reports that can be hard.

But there was a young girl run over and killed by a water-skiing boat on Lake Wicwas in 2004.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...Show me an accident on Winni or in NH for that matter that has a fatality and was due to excessive speed with no alcohol involved."

1) The NHMP makes it difficult to find accidents.

Skipper of the CQ stated that the Marine Patrol encouraged its officers to use cellphones to deny radio monitoring by citizens! http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=29141

2) NHMP's Lt. Tim Dunleavy stated this May that 80% of boats have alcohol on board. (Portsmouth Herald).http://www.seacoastonline.com/2005ne...news/43623.htm

From a report base that is already heavily "cloaked", now only the remaining 20%, alcohol-free, accidents can qualify?

'Highly restrictive criteria of yours, guy.

[tis]

codeman-I could not agree with you more. Alcohol and ignoring the rules we already have, such as the 150 foot rule, not speed are our problem.

[Woodsy]

Island Lover...

Just because a boat can do 160 MPH, doesn't mean the operator is going to go 160 on a crowded day. There is a perception that all owners of High Performance boats are essentially lawless cowboys. It is simply not true. If it were true we would have lots of facts & statistics available to support the need for a speed limit. We don't have those, and its not because the Marine Patrol doesn't list excessive speed in accident reports.

In actuality, the Marine Patrol does list excessive speed as a possible cause of an incident. They use the same form as the Coast Guard as shown in the Boater Safety Report. There just hasn't been any accidents where excessive speed was the PRIMARY factor.

I find it odd that you bring up the water skiing accident on Lake Wicwas, WinnFABS and others have repeatedly stated that waterskiing will not be affected by HB-162, yet here you are using that accident as a need for a speed limit? Are waterskiiers to be targeted next?

Evenstar, I do respect your position, but with 20 fatalities in human powered craft, shouldn't we mandate that any user of a human powered craft wear a PFD? I think that would be a great idea! Wearing a Life Jacket while operating a canoe or kayak has been STATISTICALLY PROVEN to save lives!

We have NO FATALITIES of people in canoes or kayaks being run over on Lake Winnipesaukee, or anywhere in NH for that matter.

Woodsy

[Island Lover]

Woodsy

I think you probably believe the things you are saying. But you should realize that the average citizen is not going to buy your arguments. And they own the lake.

Ask a few average citizens if they think boats should be allowed to go 160 mph on Lake Winnipesaukee. I doubt 1 in 10 will say yes. 160 mph is just to fast for a congested lake our size! At speeds like that a horrific accident is just one little miscalculation away. If a boat loses control at 160 mph and hits a crowded Weirs Beach, how many will be killed?

In a couple of years will we see a boat that goes 200 mph or 250 mph. Where does it end, how fast is to fast for this lake? Give me a number!

And I'm sure you know I'm not against water-skiing. That accident is the answer to a question by codeman671 "Show me an accident on Winni or in NH for that matter that has a fatality and was due to excessive speed with no alcohol involved."

[Woodsy]

Island Lover...

So you are saying the accident on Lake Wicwas was due to excessive speed?

There is a large gap between the proposed 45MPH and 160MPH.

How is it that a boat going that fast will do anything to anyone? You are assuming (incorrectly) that someone would actually operate a boat that fast on a busy day... I think that would constitute reckless operation! (A law we already have on the books) You are bringing up worst case scenarios that although statisitcally possible, they are highly improbable. You would have a better chance of getting struck by lightning. The safety statistics speak volumes!

I don't think another law, without adding numbers to the MP will accomplish anything. I would rather see a compromise of reasonable & prudent coupled with some better funding for the MP, specifically to target BWI and serious rules infractions.

Woodsy

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Island Lover...

So you are saying the accident on Lake Wicwas was due to excessive speed?

There is a large gap between the proposed 45MPH and 160MPH.

How is it that a boat going that fast will do anything to anyone? You are assuming (incorrectly) that someone would actually operate a boat that fast on a busy day... I think that would constitute reckless operation! (A law we already have on the books) You are bringing up worst case scenarios that although statistically possible, they are highly improbable. You would have a better chance of getting struck by lightning. The safety statistics speak volumes!

I don't think another law, without adding numbers to the MP will accomplish anything. I would rather see a compromise of reasonable & prudent coupled with some better funding for the MP, specifically to target BWI and serious rules infractions.

Woodsy

I am pleased that you admit that such a horrific accident is possible. I will admit that my Weirs Beach scenario is improbable. But improbable is just not good enough. Improbable things happen daily.

The best way to prevent this kind of tragedy is to not allow boats to go 200 mph on Lake Winnipesaukee. That you can't see this speaks volumes as to where your head is at.

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

The best way to prevent this kind of tragedy is to not allow boats to go 200 mph on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Your hypothetical speeds seem to be rising. I admit that the thought of someone going that fast, near any boat or land, could be dangerous and hope that they get more than a violation of speeding, but a misdemeanor for reckless and negligent boating. It's unfortunate, the supporters are consistently painting the image that EVERYONE on the lake that has a fast boat is driving every which way as fast as they can VS. those opposing the bill are trying to educate NH representatives of the reality that people just are simply NOT doing this on the lake. All of your hypothetical speeds are above 100, is that limit you would like? If yes, why that limit? If no, please let's keep the hypothetical speeds to a realistic ones and determine they real need for a speed limit. I spoke with many people this weekend about this bill and when I asked the number of times they saw boats flying around at crazy speeds, the response was extremely minimal. If there are a few cowboys out there, let's figure out a way to educate them and not penalize everyone else who is responsible. The minority amendment of reasonable and prudent is good compromise.

[Woodsy]

Island Lover...

You didn't answer my question... Are you saying the Lake Wicwas accident was due to excessive speed?

Secondly, who has said anything about 200 MPH boats? I know that in order to buy a boat that goes anywhere close 160 MPH you are looking at almost $1 Million. Very few people have that kind of $$$ for a toy, that can only be used in a short summer season.

I personally don't care if someone goes 160 or 200 as long as it is done is a safe manner consistent with the rules of safe boating. To wit, if someone wants to go as fast as they can in the broads on a September weekday, when next to nobody else is using the lake, its not my concern. I also don't care if a motorcyclist doesn't wear a helmet, or an automobile driver doesn't wear a seatbelt. Its thier responsibility to be safe, not mine.

Now, if they decide to be a Capt. Bonehead and do that on a busy summer weekend... thats a whole different story and I would consider that a gross deviation from reasonable and prudent, thus reckless operation.

It really isn't how fast can the boat go, the issue is how the boat is driven, and what the conditons are at the time. We have all seen many bonehead maneuvers at well below 45 MPH, commited by all types of boaters. Speed should be tied to the prevailing conditions, without an arbitrary limit.

To be truthful, I was originally for no limits at all. But after doing some research and reading all the reports, I think reasonable and prudent is a much safer standard. It is also the standard recognized by the U.S. Coast Guard. I think the reasonable and prudent standard, coupled with better funding for the MP would result in a much safer lake.

Just think as to how much safer Lake Winnipesaukee would be if the MP could permanently station a boat at Weirs, Meridith, Wolfeboro, and Alton, yet till have 2-3 boats roaming around the lake. I think that would cut down alot of the complaints, and make the lake a much safer place for all.

Woodsy

[Island Lover]

Woodsy

As I remember it the girl was bounced out of the boat when it passed over its own wake. It may not have been faster than 45 mph, but that was not the question.

Any definition of "excessive speed" would include a speed that is unsafe in the prevailing conditions. When people start bouncing out of the boat you are using "excessive speed" for the prevailing conditions.

[Woodsy]

Island Lover,

So how would HB-162 prevented this tragedy??

There is no proof the driver of the boat was traveling at speed greater than reasonable & prudent or excessive. The driver of the boat was doing donuts with a child in the front of bowrider, decided to cross his own wake...

I think the death of this poor kid would be classified as a "Fall Overboard/Struck by Motor/Propeller". It would be interesting to see if they cited the driver for "Careless/Reckless Operation" or perhaps "Operator Inattention" I don't think excessive speed would be the culprit in this one... but let me hear your reasoning.

If I were to apply your logic as I understand it, any death that occurs in boat that is/was in gear or in motion could be construed as a death due to excessive speed ie: had the boat not been moving that person would not have died or been injured.

Lets change up the scenario, If the operator of the boat wasn't doing donuts and crossing his own wake, lets say he was out in the broads minding his own business going XX MPH and the girl just bounced out of the front of the bowrider boat, I would agree wholeheartedly that he was traveling faster than what would be considered reasonable & prudent for his boat and the prevailing conditions. Nobody should be bouncing out of your boat...


Woodsy

[Island Lover]

Woodsy

You are way off base here!

I think you are trying to create a controversy!

codeman671 asked me to show him "an accident on Winni or in NH for that matter that has a fatality and was due to excessive speed with no alcohol involved."

He asked me to give him an accident that met his criteria, and I gave him one. His implication was that no such accident existed. It does.

He never asked that it be a perfect test case for a speed limit.

[Woodsy]

Island Lover...

How am I way off base? I am certainly not trying to create a controversy. I am merely trying to understand how you can say that tragedy on Lake Wicwas was the result of "excessive speed"?

I am sure the Marine Patrol did a very thorough accident analysis of this tragedy as they do with all accidents, especially when there is an injury or fatality. I am also sure the Marine Patrol Accident Reconstruction Team did a thorough analysis of the speed at which the accident occured. (Contrary to popular belief, they do analyze a vessels speed as a possible factor/cause of an accident. Hence we got the estimated 28MPH speed of Littlefields boat.) I believe the cause of the accident was determined to be "operator inattention". Speed was not cited, and if speed had been a provable factor the operator would have been charged with reckless operation, serious injury resulting.

You also stated in an earlier post that the MP does not record speed in its accident reports. This is obviously not true.

How is it that you are linking this tragedy to "excessive speed"? I really am trying to understand your thought process, not be a jerk.

Woodsy

[GTO]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Woodsy

As I remember it the girl was bounced out of the boat when it passed over its own wake. It may not have been faster than 45 mph, but that was not the question.

Any definition of "excessive speed" would include a speed that is unsafe in the prevailing conditions. When people start bouncing out of the boat you are using "excessive speed" for the prevailing conditions.

I believe the girl was thrown out out the bow rider after the skier fell , the driver cut the wheel all the way without slowing down, tossing the girl from the bow and into the prop. We've all seen this done on the lake, definitely driver negligence.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Island Lover...
Evenstar, I do respect your position, but with 20 fatalities in human powered craft, shouldn't we mandate that any user of a human powered craft wear a PFD? I think that would be a great idea! Wearing a Life Jacket while operating a canoe or kayak has been STATISTICALLY PROVEN to save lives!

We have NO FATALITIES of people in canoes or kayaks being run over on Lake Winnipesaukee, or anywhere in NH for that matter.

Woodsy

You're not getting my point at all. My point was that high speed boats have a very negative impact on other boaters.

In response to your post:
1.) I don't believe that it was ever even stated that all of those 20 fatalities were caused because none of the victims was wearing a PDF.
2.) It was also never stated how many of those 20 deaths occurred on rivers (as in white water), most of which are not even navitatable for a powerboat. So this data is being used to compare very different types of boating on very different types of water.
3.) Wearing a PDV is much like wearing a helmet on a motorcycle (or while downhill skiing). Both will greatly increase your chances of survival, but if your aren't wearing one, you're the only one who suffers. Not wearing one isn't very smart, but it has no real impact on other boaters (or drivers).
4.) Wearing a PDV is just as important in a powerboat as in a human powered boat.

I'm not sure about fatalities, but paddlers have been seriously hurt but being hit by powerboats, even in NH waters.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by codeman671

"... Show me an accident on Winni or in NH for that matter that has a fatality and was due to excessive speed with no alcohol involved."

Here's a Winnipesaukee fatality due to excess speed—and no alcohol involved—just as you requested:

http://www.citizen.com/news2002/may/01/ap0501ac.htm

Oh, you clicked on it and got:

404 — Page Not Found
The page you have requested is not currently found on our server.

We apologize for any inconvenience.

Where do we go from here, codeman671?

[Cal]

I guess that just goes to show the Citizen has joined the oppositions side and deleted it right

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Here's a Winnipesaukee fatality due to excess speed—and no alcohol involved—just as you requested:

http://www.citizen.com/news2002/may/01/ap0501ac.htm

Oh, you clicked on it and got:



Where do we go from here, codeman671?

The accident in question was caused by an improper turn, improper handling by a boater who obviously did not know how to handle the boat. This was probably a step hull design and probably could have happened at 40mph just as easily. What was the actual brand/model of the boat? I have not been able to verify this in order to validate my point so if you have this please provide.

After test driving a 38' Lightning in October and reading up on the hull design it is just as easy to "hook" the bow and roll as it sounds like happened in this case at 70mph as it is at 40mph. Had the operator known the limitations of the boat this probably would not have happened.

Some dealers, Shep Brown's for instance does not let a customer on a test drive run a performance boat. This is done by an experienced driver from the marina. This is for their safety as well as the consumers.

[Island Lover]

So now we have a 70 mph, non-alcohol, fatal accident on Winni. But it doesn't count because it could have happened at 40 mph? Are you serious???

Another accident doesn't count because it was only 3 mph over the limit!
Another doesn't count because it was REALLY operator inattention!

WE NEED BOATING SAFETY...... NOT EXCUSES!!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

So now we have a 70 mph, non-alcohol, fatal accident on Winni. But it doesn't count because it could have happened at 40 mph? Are you serious???

Another accident doesn't count because it was only 3 mph over the limit!
Another doesn't count because it was REALLY operator inattention!

WE NEED BOATING SAFETY...... NOT EXCUSES!!

I never said it didn't count...I do find it funny that of all the times I have asked YOU for proof you could not provide any, all that I have recieved from YOU is excuses. APS did come with with an example which could or could not be considered speed-related and I did not discount this although did ask for some further clarification. However I think in all fairness you cannot pin this to speed alone either. A performance boat (which I have to assume this was due to the speed) can easily handle a 70mph turn as long as it is done in a manner in which the boat was designed. The same as taking a porsche down I-95 and cutting the wheel all the way to one side at 70mph. This is improper handling and is deadly in both situations.

Boating safety? I think that we all have been asking for this. Proper training? Yep, that too. Boating safety is a different issue than a speed limit, one that you have already stated has been taken care of. By your own post I think that even you do not believe this.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I'm not sure about fatalities, but paddlers have been seriously hurt but being hit by powerboats, even in NH waters.

Proof in NH? And by the way, it is a PFD. Personal Flotation Device. Not a PDF, not a PDV. An experienced paddler should know this.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You're not getting my point at all. My point was that high speed boats have a very negative impact on other boaters.

In response to your post:
1.) I don't believe that it was ever even stated that all of those 20 fatalities were caused because none of the victims was wearing a PDF.
2.) It was also never stated how many of those 20 deaths occurred on rivers (as in white water), most of which are not even navitatable for a powerboat. So this data is being used to compare very different types of boating on very different types of water.
3.) Wearing a PDV is much like wearing a helmet on a motorcycle (or while downhill skiing). Both will greatly increase your chances of survival, but if your aren't wearing one, you're the only one who suffers. Not wearing one isn't very smart, but it has no real impact on other boaters (or drivers).
4.) Wearing a PDV is just as important in a powerboat as in a human powered boat.

I'm not sure about fatalities, but paddlers have been seriously hurt but being hit by powerboats, even in NH waters.

Evenstar...

It doesn't matter where the deaths have occurred. The reality of the situation is kayaks and canoes account for the largest percentage of fatalities, almost all of them drownings that were preventable if they were wearing a PFD. The U.S. Coast Guard report, and the NTSB Boater Safety Alert make this point abundantly clear.

Read the 2004 U.S. Coast Guard Report. I think the data you should read is on page 10. To summarize, there were 136 Canoes/Kayaks involved in accidents, resulting in 98 deaths. Of those 98 deaths 95 were from drowning! 5 deaths were classified as other. It doesn't break down the percentage of those drowning deaths that were the result of not wearing a PFD, but I bet its a pretty high pertcentage... say 90% or so were not wearing a PFD!

Your argument that wearing a PFD is like wearing a helmet on a motorcycle, or in skiing makes no sense. Its not the fall that kills you in skiing or motorcycling, its the sudden decelleration/stop caused by a collision with an immovable object. You are not the only one to suffer... your family, your friends, the rescuers who try to save you, the hospitals etc.

Your statement that paddlers have been hit by powerboats is also subject to interpretation. In 2004 there were 136 Canoes/Kayaks involved in accidents nationwide (see page 10 of the USCG report). Of those accidents 7 were from collisions with another boat. Only 7 collisions NATIONWIDE!


Island Lover and APS...

That accident you posted is a good case in point. The primary cause of the accident was listed as "Operator Inexperience", not speed. Accidents do happen. As with the Littlefield/Hartman tragedy, the tragedy over on Lake Wicwas, and this one, I am sure the NHMP did a thorough investigation into the accident. If speed were the primary factor I am sure it would have been noted as such.

No one is saying accidents "Dont Count". But the issue is with your logic path. You don't seem to think the NHMP are doing thier job, yet the accident & fatality rate are down substantially. You claim that they don't track boat speed, yet in every accident you guys have brought up, there was an estimated speed given by the NHMP Accident Reconstruction Team.

Woodsy

[ApS]

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...The same as taking a porsche down I-95 and cutting the wheel all the way to one side at 70mph. This is improper handling and is deadly in both situations."

Codeman is disagreeing with Woodsy?

"...as he gets a devilish grin on his face, then reefs the helm round as tight as it will go. The boat slams up on it side..."

"APS...How is that post fron Jefe an issue? He didn't do anything inherently unsafe. Do explain?
Woodsy

Now, on to:

Originally Posted by codeman671

The accident in question was caused by an improper turn, improper handling by a boater who obviously did not know how to handle the boat. What was the actual brand/model of the boat? I have not been able to verify this in order to validate my point so if you have this please provide. After test driving a 38' Lightning in October and reading up on the hull design it is just as easy to "hook" the bow and roll as it sounds like happened in this case at 70mph as it is at 40mph. Had the operator known the limitations of the boat this probably would not have happened.

1) You're referencing a Fountain (?)
2) "Obviously did not know how to handle the boat" (??)
3) "Had the operator known the limitations of the boat this probably would not have happened." (???)

The fatality I referenced -- alcohol-free as you requested -- http://www.citizen.com/news2002/may/01/ap0501ac.htm is a Donzi


.

[Dave R]

Maybe the speed limit should just apply to canoes and Kayaks.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by codeman671

it is just as easy to "hook" the bow and roll as it sounds like happened in this case at 70mph as it is at 40mph.

I find this hard to believe. It might be possible at 40 but it's gotta be far more likely at 70, kinetic energy being what it is...

[Woodsy]

APS...

Is that the accident where the mechanic "forgot" to use the safety lanyard? I do know that was Donzi... 22ZX. Forgot to use the lanyard, got ejected from the boat while driving it at approximately 70MPH during a test drive and ended up getting run over by the boat. That accident occured in 1997. Almost 9 years ago! The article you mention was about the lawsuit brought by the family stating that the boat was defective.

Jefe knows how to handle his boat, He did not do anything inherently unsafe. I know you don't know him, but I can and will stand up for Jefe. He did turn that boat as tight as it would turn. It did not hook, or roll or do anything other than turn. Why? because he did it in a safe manner. He is one of those that likes to know EXACTLY what his boat will do in an emergency situation.

Certain stepped hull boats can "Spin Out" or hook as it is called. There is actually some pretty simple reasoning behind it. In simplistic terms the step in the hull allows air to free the hull up from the water, increasing the speed of the boat. This is all well and good until you turn. It used to be with Hi-performance boats, you would lower your nose (trim in) and turn. This was the safest method of turning on non-step hull boats. With a step hull, the opposite is true. You need to trim the nose up, then turn. The air under the boat from the steps causes the rear of the boat to have less friction than the front. If the front suddenly has more friction than the rear, the rear end try to pass the front, hence the spin out or hook.

Thats why alot of these type accidents are written up as "Operator Inexperience". Had the guy known how to drive his boat properly, he would not have spun it out.

Woodsy

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Maybe the speed limit should just apply to canoes and Kayaks.

This shows how bizarre the oppositions claims are becoming! High performance boats are not the problem! Its the canoes and kayaks that are the problem. How absurd can you get!

They don't mention there are probably 1,000 canoes for every high performance boat.

Anyway the question is not how many people die in small boats. The question is how many lives can be saved by a speed limit.

Can the opposition say that a speed limit CAN NOT save lives? Obviously not! The only other possibility is that a speed limit CAN save lives.

Thats good enough for me.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"APS...Is that the accident where the mechanic "forgot" to use the safety lanyard?

Who knows? It referenced a civil case that was still not resolved.

The point I was making is that you're always asking for "Facts", and "Facts" in a state that relies on tourism are hard to come by...look for yourself: http://www.citizen.com/news2002/may/01/ap0501ac.htm

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...He is one of those that likes to know EXACTLY what his boat will do in an emergency situation."

His emergencies are NOT AT ALL like my emergencies.



.

[Seaplane Pilot]

[QUOTE=Island Lover]
Can the opposition say that a speed limit CAN NOT save lives? Obviously not! The only other possibility is that a speed limit CAN save lives.
QUOTE]

Talk about bizzare claims...??

I think I said once before - why don't we just ban all power boating (and cars for that matter)? This can obviously save lives, but it does not make it realistic or right. Life has inherent risks - get on with it.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

This shows how bizarre the oppositions claims are becoming! High performance boats are not the problem! Its the canoes and kayaks that are the problem. How absurd can you get!

They don't mention there are probably 1,000 canoes for every high performance boat.

Anyway the question is not how many people die in small boats. The question is how many lives can be saved by a speed limit.

Can the opposition say that a speed limit CAN NOT save lives? Obviously not! The only other possibility is that a speed limit CAN save lives.

Thats good enough for me.

The smiley face meant nothing to you? The entire statement was obviously meant in jest.

According to the report, 20 people died in canoes and kayaks. Effectively prohibiting the use of kayaks and canoes WILL save lives. That good enough for you too?

Speed limits CAN save lives. I admit it. I don't think anyone who opposes the speed limit will argue that going slower is safer most of the time. Like just about any safety measure, it's a matter of how much individual liberty people are willing to trade for safety. Sitting perfectly still in an plastic bubble with purified air, being fed perfectly balanced nutrients intravenously, is vastly safer than driving downtown and eating sushi, but not much fun.

Personally, I won't rock climb, I won't base jump, I won't white water kayak or canoe, I won't do motorcycle stunts (even on a closed course), I won't wrestle crocodiles on TV, I won't hang glide, I won't race offshore powerboats, and I won't do lots of other inherently dangerous activities. I have no desire to prohibit others from doing them just because they might die though. Even if watching them makes me "feel" bad or scared. I'm a huge fan of individual liberty and responsibility.

I love driving on the autobhans in Germany, I love ripping down B roads at the "crazy high" speed limit of 60 MPH, or less, in Great Britain. These are two classic examples of where the lack of speed limits, or absurdly high speed limits and personal responsibility work just fine.

BTW, I think Route 93, Route 95, Route 101, the Spaulding TPK, and the Everett TPK should have no speed limit and better enforcement of passing lane use. I think all rural back roads should have a limit of 60 MPH, where they do not pass through population centers. I also the US should have vastly tougher standards for getting a license to drive any motorized vehicle, including boats.

I am against speed limits where they are dumb, and for education and testing where they are smart.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Dave R

... Speed limits CAN save lives. I admit it. I don't think anyone who opposes the speed limit will argue that going slower is safer most of the time....

Now Dave, we have something we can agree on. However you are wrong about the rest of the opposition. They have posted many times that a speed limit will NOT save lives. And that slower is NOT safer than faster.

Here is a quote from an earlier post by winnilaker, the leader of the opposition.

Originally Posted by winnilaker

Reality Check Folks ... Speed limits will not make the waters safer, Boater Safety/Education makes it safer. The unfortunate accident that happen a while back, happened under the so called proposed speed limit. I would actually give some serious thought to accepting a speed limit IF the result was to make the water safer. ...

If the opposition admitted that a speed limit COULD save lives, then we could move on to a discussion of the trade-offs to individual freedom. However as you can read in the above quote, that is NOT their position.

I believe their real position is that they want to go fast, and anything that argues against that is incorrect, irrelevant or not pertinent.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Now Dave, we have something we can agree on. However you are wrong about the rest of the opposition. They have posted many times that a speed limit will NOT save lives. And that slower is NOT safer than faster.

I believe their real position is that they want to go fast, and anything that argues against that is incorrect, irrelevant or not pertinent.

I think there have been some silly posts from both sides, MANY from me, but I never said the speed limit would save lives, just that going slow is usually safer than going fast.

Like others, that oppose the speed limit, I don't think it's being proposed with safety in mind, I think it's being proposed as a means to partially rid the lake of "undesireables" while hiding behind a veil of safety conciousness.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I think there have been some silly posts from both sides, MANY from me, but I never said the speed limit would save lives, just that going slow is usually safer than going fast.

Like others, that oppose the speed limit, I don't think it's being proposed with safety in mind, I think it's being proposed as a means to partially rid the lake of "undesireables" while hiding behind a veil of safety conciousness.

I understand that many believe its not really about safety. They are wrong! Sure there must be many supporters of HB162 that just don't like fast boats or the people that drive them. They are the minority. I have been to many HB162 support meetings, and the topic is safety. There is no hidden agenda.

If we just wanted to ban high performance boats we would have written a horsepower limit, many NH lakes already have them. If it was about noise we would have written a tougher noise limit. But its about safety, so we support a speed limit.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

But its about safety, so we support a speed limit.

I respect that. We will likely continue to disagree on the details though.

I'll continue to plod along at my boat's comfy 32MPH cruising speed during the day and about 25 MPH at night; conditions permitting, and continue to obey the boating laws (and try to be a role model while doing so) regardless of the outcome of this bill.

Should the bill pass, I am convinced that I will continue to witness dumb acts by rude or uninformed boaters and nothing about my lake experience will change because of a speed limit. I will also be quite happy to be out there; and forgiving and compassionate toward my fellow boaters, as always.

[Jan]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I don't think it's being proposed with safety in mind, I think it's being proposed as a means to partially rid the lake of "undesireables" while hiding behind a veil of safety conciousness.

Quote about HB162 from Harold C. Lyon Jr. Ph.D.:

As a 65-year veteran of fishing on Lake Winnipesaukee and author of a popular book, “ANGLING IN THE SMILE OF THE GREAT SPIRIT – Six Centuries of Wisdom from the Master Anglers of Lake Winnipesaukee,” I’m concerned about making our lakes and rivers safer for anglers, our families and all the people who enjoy New Hampshire’s water bodies.

Does Dr. Lyon secretly just hate hi-performance boats and his statement is just a "veil"? Since you think that the rest of us are lying about our motives is Dr. Lyon also a liar?

Interesting that there has been no response except mine to his very well written letter. Are those crickets I hear?

Another excerpt from Dr. Lyon's letter:

Over 200 business owners have supported the 45/25 mph boating speed limits effort out of concern about the potential negative impact excessive boating speeds may have on New Hampshire tourism, safety and balance of use on our State’s lakes and possibly their businesses.

Close to a dozen marinas are now in support of this bill, too, as they realize that the future of their sustainable boating business is families, just as family-centered tourism is the heart of New Hampshire’s image and economy.

His comments are hard to dismiss.

The full letter is at http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/...ON02/101150016

J

[Woodsy]

Here we have an interesting dilemma...

The supporters of HB-162 that post here say its all about safety. Speed a problem that needs to be addressed.

However, REP. JIM PILLIOD (you know the guy that sponsored HB-162) has stated that it is NOT ABOUT SAFETY.

Whom should one believe? The posters here on the forum, some (not all) of whom have hidden agendas against hi-performance boaters. Or should one belive what Rep. Pilliod has stated, that it isn't about safety?

The people who are against the majority version of HB-162 (myself included) have posted numerous government reports & statistics that support the position that speed is not a safety issue here on Lake Winnipesaukee.

I do think something needs to be done, and I think the reasonable & prudent standard is a fair compromise.

Woodsy

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Jan

Quote about HB162 from Harold C. Lyon Jr. Ph.D.:
Does Dr. Lyon secretly just hate hi-performance boats and his statement is just a "veil"? Since you think that the rest of us are lying about our motives is Dr. Lyon also a liar?

Interesting that there has been no response except mine to his very well written letter. Are those crickets I hear?

Another excerpt from Dr. Lyon's letter:

His comments are hard to dismiss.

The full letter is at http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/...ON02/101150016

J

I said it was being "proposed" with a veil of safety conciousness, not "supported". I'm sure there are plenty of well meaning folks who support the bill with no ill will toward anyone. Not calling anyone a liar.

Dr. Lyon is an expert in what field???? I mean, why would his opinion matter more than mine? We are both just voters, as far as I know and you have no clue (other than my obtuse writing style) what my level of education is.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Here we have an interesting dilemma...

The supporters of HB-162 that post here say its all about safety. Speed a problem that needs to be addressed.

However, REP. JIM PILLIOD (you know the guy that sponsored HB-162) has stated that it is NOT ABOUT SAFETY.

Whom should one believe? The posters here on the forum, some (not all) of whom have hidden agendas against hi-performance boaters. Or should one belive what Rep. Pilliod has stated, that it isn't about safety? ...


Woodsy

Woodsy - I know its the 11th hour but please stop the distortions. He never said it wasn't about safety as you know very well. Read his comments again below. He is clearly talking about people that FEAR for their SAFETY. How can fearing for ones safety not be about safety.

But quite frankly I don't really care what Dr. Pilliod thinks about the reasons for HB162. He started it, but the bill now belongs to the thousands of lake users that want the insanity to end. A boat going 160 mph on Meredith Bay is just nuts! It is unsafe, unsupportable and insane. If you wanted to talk about a higher limit then we might be able to find common ground, but this "NO LIMITS" idea is what is going to bring your movement down in flames tomorrow.


"Hi Mr. Wood, This is Dr. Jim Pilliod, I am the representative from Belmont that has introduced 262 to the legislature and it is obviously subject to lot of … 162 by the way, not 2. House Bill 162 which is the speed limit bill on Lake Winnipesaukee. It was introduced at the request of a marina owner because he was losing among other things rentals on the weekends because of the crowds and speed. Speed is not the only problem clearly, and I think that the committee has agreed with that. They did pass the bill, so far and it has to go to the state house, err, I mean to the entire House of Representatives and then on to the Senate and the Governor after that. But I will tell you right now I have heard most of the arguments if not all having to do with this and appreciate any comments you might add to it. You can do it either by e-mail or calling me at night if you wish, 524-****, 524-****. However I will tell you that I am, I have thousands literally, of supporters on the lake who are just scared and that’s what it amounts to. Fear. It has nothing to do with death rate, or anything else, the numbers of arrests for speed and all the rest of it. It has to with a lack of courtesy on the part of the, I’ll call them ocean going vessels, like your own, the Donzi’s and the rest of them. And it has to do with just lack of understanding of how people are fearful. And the lake is just not fun anymore. So to respond to this 162, 45 is a perfectly fast speed for anybody that wants to, people who have tried it say “oh boy that’s fast enough, thank you very much”. Because you can go faster doesn’t mean that you should. In any case if you do why don’t you go on the ocean which these boat/boats were designed for. Anyway, to make a long story short, the bill is in the hopper and I’d be happy to have you/ to talk to you about it, but I am not going to be convinced, because I have been supported by too many, hundreds and hundreds, of even thousands of people who are just tired of the bull… of the lake becoming a playground for the very big boats. Now I don’t mean just big, but the ones that are in fact dangerous, even though they don’t have any huge death rate there have been a couple and a lot more other places. These are the speed limits found to be proper and adequate for lakes such as Lake George and so forth. So that’s where we are and if you want to talk I am home and you can call me, but I won’t be convinced I don’t think, because I heard all of the hours of testimony from around the lake and felt that most of the issue had been well aired. And I think it was demonstrated… "

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Codeman is disagreeing with Woodsy?

Now, on to:

1) You're referencing a Fountain (?)
2) "Obviously did not know how to handle the boat" (??)
3) "Had the operator known the limitations of the boat this probably would not have happened." (???)

The fatality I referenced -- alcohol-free as you requested -- http://www.citizen.com/news2002/may/01/ap0501ac.htm is a Donzi.

I referenced a fountain that I had driven and asked for clarification on the type of boat involved, I was not stating that this accident was a fountain but was comparing the characteristics of step hull boats. I never argued on the accident but can attest that this was due to driver error, not speed. The boat can be handled safely at 70mph but was not. I am not disagreeing with Woodsy on anything.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Dave R

I find this hard to believe. It might be possible at 40 but it's gotta be far more likely at 70, kinetic energy being what it is...

To run 70mph in a fountain the boat needs to be further up on plane with the nose higher, a high speed turn would leave less boat in the water to catch. if the boat was trimmed down and an aggressive move was made then the boat is more likely to roll. Most people would not think that a turn at 40mph is dangerous and more mistakes are likely to be made.

Check out the following link, starting on page 47. This tells of the typical handling characteristics of step hulls and how to run them properly.

http://www.fountainpowerboats.com/co...al05online.pdf

Here is an excerpt:

HULL STEP TECHNOLOGY HAS CHANGED THE WAY WE NEED
TO DRIVE!
WHILE SMOOTH OPERATION HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE KEY TO
SAFE HIGH SPEED OPERATION, BEING SMOOTH AND USING
COMMON SENSE IS EVEN MORE CRITICAL WITH TODAY’S
FASTER, MORE TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED HULL
DESIGNS.
THE NEW TECHNOLOGY HAS ALLOWED LARGER, LONGER,
HEAVIER BOATS TO TRAVEL AT MUCH FASTER SPEEDS, WITH
STANDARD HORSEPOWER. THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT
THINGS HAPPEN MUCH FASTER AT HIGHER RATES OF
SPEED, AND LARGER BOATS SIMPLY CARRY MORE ENERGY
ONCE IN MOTION.
INCORRECT TRIM SETTINGS OR IRRATIC TURNING MANEUVERS,
WHILE STILL DANGEROUS AT SLOW SPEEDS, CAN BE
DISASTROUS AT HIGH SPEEDS.
AT HIGHER RATES OF SPEED, THERE IS LITTLE OR NO WARNING
BEFORE THE BOAT REACTS TO RAPID TURNS OR INCORRECT
AND/OR ABRUPT TRIM CHANGES.
COMMON SENSE IS YOUR BEST DEFENSE!
NONE OF US WOULD TAKE A NEW CORVETTE OUT, RUN IT UP
TO 60MPH, GRAB THE WHEEL AND MAKE AN ABRUPT 180
DEGREE TURN ON THE WHEEL. THE SAME CONCEPT
APPLIES TO BOATS.
KNOW YOUR LIMITATIONS, AS WELL AS THE LIMITATIONS OF
THE EQUIPMENT, AND DRIVE WITHIN THEM.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Evenstar...

Originally Posted by Woodsy

It doesn't matter where the deaths have occurred. The reality of the situation is kayaks and canoes account for the largest percentage of fatalities, almost all of them drownings that were preventable if they were wearing a PFD. The U.S. Coast Guard report, and the NTSB Boater Safety Alert make this point abundantly clear.

Read the 2004 U.S. Coast Guard Report. I think the data you should read is on page 10. To summarize, there were 136 Canoes/Kayaks involved in accidents, resulting in 98 deaths. Of those 98 deaths 95 were from drowning! 5 deaths were classified as other. It doesn't break down the percentage of those drowning deaths that were the result of not wearing a PFD, but I bet its a pretty high pertcentage... say 90% or so were not wearing a PFD!

First of all I never said that I was against wearing a PFD – in fact, I actually said that “Not wearing one isn't very smart”. My comparison with not wearing a helmet was valid, because both are omissions for personal safety and are not dangerous to others on the lake/highway. Yet traveling at high speed is potentially dangerous to other boaters/drivers.

My point about the statistics was that statistical reports are only useful when all the facts are known and when the two items being compared are under the same conditions (or in the same environment).

Were talking about boating safely on lakes here, and the data being used covers more than just lakes – and I’m guessing that a large proportion of kayaks and canoe deaths were on rivers - so it does indeed matter where the deaths occurred – otherwise the statistics have no real meaning. Trying to compare paddling on flat water to paddling on white water is like trying to compare waterskiing to downhill skiing.

In the article linked at the beginning of this thread, what is actually written is: “In 2005 manually powered vessels, such as canoes and kayaks, accounted for 20 deaths, while motorized vessels accounted for 19”. So the 20 deaths were for ALL manually powered vessels (which could include anything without a motor – even something not at all seaworthy), not just canoes and kayaks. This article doesn’t give how many of these deaths occurred because of drowning, or how many of the victims were wearing PFDs?

According to the 2004 USCG report:
On page 10 it gives that 93 of the 98 canoe/kayak fatalities were from drowning, but it never gives how many of these victims were wearing a PFD, or how many happened on white water. It’s not at all uncommon to drown in white water or in very cold water while wearing a PFD.

On the same page of the report it gives that 244 of the Open Motorboat fatalities were from drowning. One of my points was that wearing a PFD is just as important in a powerboat as in a human powered boat. Yet how many adults wear a PFD in a powerboat? It’s been my experience that most kayakers wear PDFs.

That same report also gives: “Alcohol was involved in approximately one-third of all boating fatalities in 2004.”

One of my main points in my first post in this thread was that the argument for a speed limit goes way beyond just the number and the causes of boating fatalities – it’s about safety – both real and perceived (feeling safe) - and no one here is even responding to that. You guys just keep trying to bend the fatality statistics in an attempt to prove that we don’t need a speed limit.

You guys keep skipping over the accident statistics from the USCG report:
- “The most reported type of accident was a collision with another vessel.”
- “The most common types of boats involved in reported accidents were open motorboats (42%), personal watercraft (PWC) (25%) and cabin motorboats (15%).”

Your statement that paddlers have been hit by powerboats is also subject to interpretation. In 2004 there were 136 Canoes/Kayaks involved in accidents nationwide (see page 10 of the USCG report). Of those accidents 7 were from collisions with another boat. Only 7 collisions NATIONWIDE! Woodsy

Did you even read what is listed on page 5 of the report?
“This report does not include the following:
1. Accidents involving only property damage of less than $2,000. In calendar year 2004,
the Federal threshold of property damage for reports of accidents involving recreational vessels was $2,000 or more per accident.
2. Accidents involving only slight injury which did not require medical treatment beyond
first aid”

Most kayaks and canoes cost less than $2,000 – so unless someone is killed or hurt badly in a powerboat collision, the accident isn’t even part of these statistics. This means that a powerboat could run right over the front of my $1,700 kayak and the accident would never even make it into a USCG report, unless I’m hurt bad enough to see a doctor!

Funny how statistics can work both ways.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by codeman671

To run 70mph in a fountain the boat needs to be further up on plane with the nose higher, a high speed turn would leave less boat in the water to catch. if the boat was trimmed down and an aggressive move was made then the boat is more likely to roll. Most people would not think that a turn at 40mph is dangerous and more mistakes are likely to be made.

Check out the following link, starting on page 47. This tells of the typical handling characteristics of step hulls and how to run them properly.

http://www.fountainpowerboats.com/co...al05online.pdf

Here is an excerpt:

HULL STEP TECHNOLOGY HAS CHANGED THE WAY WE NEED
TO DRIVE!
WHILE SMOOTH OPERATION HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE KEY TO
SAFE HIGH SPEED OPERATION, BEING SMOOTH AND USING
COMMON SENSE IS EVEN MORE CRITICAL WITH TODAY’S
FASTER, MORE TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED HULL
DESIGNS.
THE NEW TECHNOLOGY HAS ALLOWED LARGER, LONGER,
HEAVIER BOATS TO TRAVEL AT MUCH FASTER SPEEDS, WITH
STANDARD HORSEPOWER. THE SIMPLE FACT IS THAT
THINGS HAPPEN MUCH FASTER AT HIGHER RATES OF
SPEED, AND LARGER BOATS SIMPLY CARRY MORE ENERGY
ONCE IN MOTION.
INCORRECT TRIM SETTINGS OR IRRATIC TURNING MANEUVERS,
WHILE STILL DANGEROUS AT SLOW SPEEDS, CAN BE
DISASTROUS AT HIGH SPEEDS.
AT HIGHER RATES OF SPEED, THERE IS LITTLE OR NO WARNING
BEFORE THE BOAT REACTS TO RAPID TURNS OR INCORRECT
AND/OR ABRUPT TRIM CHANGES.
COMMON SENSE IS YOUR BEST DEFENSE!
NONE OF US WOULD TAKE A NEW CORVETTE OUT, RUN IT UP
TO 60MPH, GRAB THE WHEEL AND MAKE AN ABRUPT 180
DEGREE TURN ON THE WHEEL. THE SAME CONCEPT
APPLIES TO BOATS.
KNOW YOUR LIMITATIONS, AS WELL AS THE LIMITATIONS OF
THE EQUIPMENT, AND DRIVE WITHIN THEM.

Thansk for the link, it's a very well written manual and I think Fountain deserves praise for putting that info out there.

'nuther excerpt from the same document:

"FEEL CLOSELY FOR ANY INDICATION OF LOSS OF
“TRACTION” IN A TURN. IMMEDIATELY REDUCE RATE OF
TURN AND/OR THROTTLE ACCORDINGLY."

To me, this says that one can increase the rate of turn if one decreases the speed, which makes perfect sense. But it also tells me that the boat is less likely to spin out at lower speeds, hence my skepticism of the boat being just as easily "hooked" at 40 as it is at 70. I think you'd have to try much harder to spin out at 40 as you would at 70. Either way though, I don't want to be in that boat during a spin out, thankyouverymuch...

I am by no means a stepped hull expert, but I currently own my second stepped hull boat and love them, so I have a little experience. 'Course, I like them for the fuel economy...

[codeman671]

"FEEL CLOSELY FOR ANY INDICATION OF LOSS OF
“TRACTION” IN A TURN. IMMEDIATELY REDUCE RATE OF
TURN AND/OR THROTTLE ACCORDINGLY."



A definite reduction in speed is necessary in this case however if the trim is not up the bow will dig causing the hook. Simply cutting back on the throttle as one would do in a standard hull without balancing with proper trim can be catastrophic.