Speed doesn't matter if alcohol involved

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by chipj29

I am curious as to when the last time there was an accident on the lake where someone was killed or seriously hurt, and the sole cause was found to be speed? I would even like to go a step further. How many accidents have there been in the past 10 years where speed was the main cause?

Chip,
The cause will never be "speeding" so long as any speed is legal. If I run you over on Rte 93 while going 60 MPH, it will surely be recorded as "reckless operation", "operator inattention", etc....the same kind of causes that now head our boating accident report lists. If I was instead going say 70 MPH (over the legal speed limit for Rte 93), the cause would surely include "speeding". Without a speed limit, there can be no "speeding" (unless you foolishly believe in that "reasonable and prudent" nonsense).
Once we have a 45MPH speed limit, then the rare future accident where a boat was going over 70MPH just before, like the boat that flipped in Gilford, the one that flipped in Alton, the fatal Donzi accident in Wolfeboro, the boat that almost flew over Eagle Island, etc, etc, etc, would all be classified to include "speeding".
And Littlefield would presumably also have been charged with "speeding" too had HB162 then been in effect. Remember that 28MPH was the speed that he claims he was going.
And also remember, it is your group that believes that numbers can be made to say anything.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Chip,
The cause will never be "speeding" so long as any speed is legal. If I run you over on Rte 93 while going 60 MPH, it will surely be recorded as "reckless operation", "operator inattention", etc....the same kind of causes that now head our boating accident report lists. If I was instead going say 70 MPH (over the legal speed limit for Rte 93), the cause would surely include "speeding". Without a speed limit, there can be no "speeding" (unless you foolishly believe in that "reasonable and prudent" nonsense).
Once we have a 45MPH speed limit, then the rare future accident where a boat was going over 70MPH just before, like the boat that flipped in Gilford, the one that flipped in Alton, the fatal Donzi accident in Wolfeboro, the boat that almost flew over Eagle Island, etc, etc, etc, would all be classified to include "speeding".
And Littlefield would presumably also have been charged with "speeding" too had HB162 then been in effect. Remember that 28MPH was the speed that he claims he was going.
And also remember, it is your group that believes that numbers can be made to say anything.

Fat Jack...

Wrong again... You don't need a speed limit for excessive speed to be the primary cause of an accident. The MP look at speed in every boating accident. In the Littlefield case, it wasn't Danny Littlefield that gave us the 28 MPH estimate. It was the MP accident reconstruction team. If the MP accident reconstruction team thought that 28MPH that night was excessive for the prevailing conditions, Danny would have been charged with negligent homicide as a result of reckless operation. You really ought to check your facts.

Lets assume you are in a brand new AWD Volvo traveling up Rt 93 at 55 MPH in a 65MPH zone during a rainstorm or snowstorm... you slide off the road and hit a tree, iinjuring yourself andf your passenger. You can bet excessive speed (for the prevalent conditions) will be listed as the primary cause of the accident as your signing the ticket for reckless operation of a motor vehicle with injury resulting.


The issue is that excessive speed is very rarely the primary cause of collisions. Usually there are other mitigating factors such as BWI. Most of the collision pix APS has posted in other threads have been the result of BWI. If a person is willing to run the risk of getting behind the wheel drunk, knowing how severe the penalties are, then a speeding ticket is of little consequence.

Woodsy

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Chip,
The cause will never be "speeding" so long as any speed is legal. If I run you over on Rte 93 while going 60 MPH, it will surely be recorded as "reckless operation", "operator inattention", etc....the same kind of causes that now head our boating accident report lists. If I was instead going say 70 MPH (over the legal speed limit for Rte 93), the cause would surely include "speeding". Without a speed limit, there can be no "speeding" (unless you foolishly believe in that "reasonable and prudent" nonsense).
Once we have a 45MPH speed limit, then the rare future accident where a boat was going over 70MPH just before, like the boat that flipped in Gilford, the one that flipped in Alton, the fatal Donzi accident in Wolfeboro, the boat that almost flew over Eagle Island, etc, etc, etc, would all be classified to include "speeding".
And Littlefield would presumably also have been charged with "speeding" too had HB162 then been in effect. Remember that 28MPH was the speed that he claims he was going.
And also remember, it is your group that believes that numbers can be made to say anything.

A few points. First last I knew the MP investigating any accident can list excessive speed as a cause. We had a PWC run into a boat last summer and I recall the news report saying that the MP was listing that as a "speed too fast for the conditions" accident. How do you think the USCG gets the data they do to list "excessive speed" as an accident cause ?

Second should HB-162 have been in effect in 2002 I don't think a speeding ticket would have been at the top of Littlefield's worries. Jail time for felony manslaughter is leagues above a mere speeding ticket fine.

Third, as to reasonable and prudent ... http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...6004#post26004

Lastly, let's take your 70 mph on Rt 93 example. If I were to take a poll I wonder how many people (answering truthfully) would admit to doing more than 65, admit to doing 70 or more. on Rt93 at times ? I'll opine it would be a majority. Now I'd ask how many believe than in doing such that they were endangering the lives and welfare of the fellow motorists (due to their speeding). I'll opine that nobody will believe they were. So were they ? As long as they're actually paying attention to the task of driving, I'll agree and say no they weren't. If "we" are going to set a speed limit and call everything above that speed as being dangerous then it needs to be the right limit, the actually dangerous limit. So show me that 45 mph is more akin to 100+ on Rt93 and less akin to 55.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Lastly, let's take your 70 mph on Rt 93 example. If I were to take a poll I wonder how many people (answering truthfully) would admit to doing more than 65, admit to doing 70 or more ? I'll opine it would be a majority. Now I'd ask how many believe than in doing such that they were endangering the lives and welfare of the fellow motorists (due to their speeding). I'll opine that nobody will believe they are. So are they ? As ong as they're actually paying attention to the task of driving, I'll agree and say no they aren't. If "we" are going to set a speed limit and call everything above that speed as being dangerous then it needs to be the right limit, the actually dangerous limit. So show me that 45 mph is more akin to 100+ on Rt93 and less akin to 55.

A poll of drivers who exceed the highway speed limit by 5mph isn’t the same as a poll to see if people are in favor of a boating speed limit.

Do a poll and see how many think that we should do away with a highway speed limit.

My maximum speed is 5 or 6 mph (which is actually fast for a kayak) – the proposed speed limit is 8 or 9 times that. Isn’t that enough of a difference? After all, the maximum speed on the Interstate is less than twice what the minimum speed is. So, if you’re going to compare boating speed limits with highway speed limits, we should be trying to pass a maximum speed of 10 mph on lakes.

45 mph is a compromise! Personally I’d rather see it less than that, but I can accept 45 mph. There’s just no way that everyone’s going to be happy with any number – some will always want lower – others will always want it higher.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

A poll of drivers who exceed the highway speed limit by 5mph isn’t the same as a poll to see if people are in favor of a boating speed limit.

Do a poll and see how many think that we should do away with a highway speed limit.

My maximum speed is 5 or 6 mph (which is actually fast for a kayak) – the proposed speed limit is 8 or 9 times that. Isn’t that enough of a difference? After all, the maximum speed on the Interstate is less than twice what the minimum speed is. So, if you’re going to compare boating speed limits with highway speed limits, we should be trying to pass a maximum speed of 10 mph on lakes.

45 mph is a compromise! Personally I’d rather see it less than that, but I can accept 45 mph. There’s just no way that everyone’s going to be happy with any number – some will always want lower – others will always want it higher.

You've missed my point. It wasn't about polling nor about boat vs auto speeds but rather about how to set a proper speed limit given safety is why you're doing it. HB-162 sets limits (let's stick to the 45 mph for the moment) that were determined by a Rep who thought that 45 "was thrilling enough". Does that mean 50 or 55 is automatically unsafe ? Following your reasoning above ... if somebody used the speed of a typical cyclist to set the speed for cars on the highway would you think that's right ? Would it make any sense to you ? Would you agree that anything above that speed would be unsafe ? Simply declaring a speed to be the limit and calling anyone who goes above that unsafe, or stating that any accident above that speed is due to speed, doesn't make it so. We set limits on our roadways (highways around these parts excepted) via engineering analysis not on best guesses or intuition. Why not do the same for the water ?

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Chip,
The cause will never be "speeding" so long as any speed is legal. If I run you over on Rte 93 while going 60 MPH, it will surely be recorded as "reckless operation", "operator inattention", etc....the same kind of causes that now head our boating accident report lists. If I was instead going say 70 MPH (over the legal speed limit for Rte 93), the cause would surely include "speeding". Without a speed limit, there can be no "speeding" (unless you foolishly believe in that "reasonable and prudent" nonsense).
Once we have a 45MPH speed limit, then the rare future accident where a boat was going over 70MPH just before, like the boat that flipped in Gilford, the one that flipped in Alton, the fatal Donzi accident in Wolfeboro, the boat that almost flew over Eagle Island, etc, etc, etc, would all be classified to include "speeding".
And Littlefield would presumably also have been charged with "speeding" too had HB162 then been in effect. Remember that 28MPH was the speed that he claims he was going.
And also remember, it is your group that believes that numbers can be made to say anything.

Jack I am going to have to respectfully disagree with your 93 speeding analogy. Without a speed limit, it is possible for one to be "speeding". Traveling at a speed that is unreasonable and unsafe for conditions. Just throwing a speed limit out there doesn't mean that it will be obeyed. To me it appears as though there have been very few accidents that have been attributed to speed. Most are caused by driver inattention, BUI, etc. Putting a speed limit won't necessarily make an accident attributed to speed.

I also disagree with the Littlefield analogy. I believe that if a 25 mph speed limit were in place that it would be difficult to have given him a speeding ticket. No radar, only "estimated" speed. If the speed limit was 25, do you think he would have actually admitted he was going over that speed? How many boat speedometers do you know that are spot on with the speed of the vessel? Most are within +/- 3-5 mph. So Mr Littlefield could have said he was going 25 but his boat may have been going anywhere from 22-28 mph.

So my question still stands. What are the baseline numbers, and what is the expected result IF HB162 is enacted? I would like hard numbers. I am sure that the proponents have studied this.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by chipj29

I am going to have to respectfully disagree

Why am I not surprised? I think I could say that heavier boats weigh more than lighter boats and you guys would find some reason to disagree. But that's ok, I expect that those who are reading all this stuff and who are not meticulously searching for some iota of justification for the absurd notion that driving boats really fast around a crowded lake is reasonable and prudent behavior will recognize where the common sense lies.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Fat Jack

Why am I not surprised? I think I could say that heavier boats weigh more than lighter boats and you guys would find some reason to disagree. But that's ok, I expect that those who are reading all this stuff and who are not meticulously searching for some iota of justification for the absurd notion that driving boats really fast around a crowded lake is reasonable and prudent behavior will recognize where the common sense lies.

And still, my questions go unanswered.

Jack, to me common sense lies with the operator of a vessel. And if that fails, then it lies with MP. Period. The government should not regulate common sense. Traveling too fast for given conditions needs to be enforced. That I agree with.

But, can you define for me what you think is considered to be "really fast"? And why? Keep in mind that what you and I consider to be really fast may not be what someone else considers really fast. Also, consider that age may play a role in what one considers to be really fast. Quick example. When I was a kid, driving my first car on the highway, 80 seemed to be really fast. Now when I go 70, that seems really fast. And when I pass an elderly person at 60, they probably think I am going really fast. Get my point?

Why is 46 mph considered to be really fast, but 45 is ok?

[fatlazyless]

Please excuse me for interrupting here, but we got to go to a commercial and pay some bills, you understand.


"So, whether you have the need for speed or just are looking for a family fun boat, here at _______ Marine we have what you want!"


Now, back to the action here!

[ApS]

Hide A Beer Can? What speedboat driver would want to do that?

http://www.hideabeercan.com/

You'll never guess what "Un-PC" website features this product; but here's an abbreviated hint...quoting its oft-repeated and self-congratulating slogan:

"THE POWER OF __ __ __"