Hb 847 Meeting In Concord.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Woodsy we were talking about a possible future situation where, many years from now, we look back at previous years and determine if the speed limit was needed or not.

This is hard to do as we can't know about accidents that were prevented. If they were prevented they never happened.

How can we say if any accidents have been prevented? What is the benchmark? Because right now, the bar has been set at zero accidents. It will be kind of hard to improve on that.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

How can we say if any accidents have been prevented? What is the benchmark? Because right now, the bar has been set at zero accidents. It will be kind of hard to improve on that.

It is only "Zero Accidents" if you have your head stuck in the sand.


No matter how many times you say it, or wish it, that doesn't make it so.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It is only "Zero Accidents" if you have your head stuck in the sand.


No matter how many times you say it, or wish it, that doesn't make it so.

My head is firmly above water, thanks. Please tell me about the last fatal accident that occurred at a speed over the proposed limit (I know about Littlefield).

This time, tell me about one on Lake Winnipesaukee.

[BlackCatIslander]

I don't think anyone is changing sides and the volleys seem to be pretty fast. As somewhat of a neutral observer, it seems as civility is in danger of becoming a casualty.

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by BlackCatIslander

I don't think anyone is changing sides and the volleys seem to be pretty fast. As somewhat of a neutral observer, it seems as civility is in danger of becoming a casualty.

What he said.

I too have been watching these volleys for some time now. The same basic points have been going back and forth for several years now. Yet no one has budged from their basic positions.

Why don't you guys give it a rest?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Merrymeeting

What he said.

I too have been watching these volleys for some time now. The same basic points have been going back and forth for several years now. Yet no one has budged from their basic positions.

Why don't you guys give it a rest?

Because the press reads this forum and the Senate has not voted yet.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Because the press reads this forum and the Senate has not voted yet.

Ditto,

Democracy is messy business. I too have been following these exchanges and while they are certainly passionate, they have been for the most part respectful.

While these debates are outside of the normal course of these forums, our webmaster has set aside a special area for this topic so that people offended or sick of the debate can easily avoid it. Please use this option and avoid the debate if it bothers you, rather than complaining here about the debate and jeopardizing this medium. This sub forum has been priceless for ferreting out the truth as to what the speed limit is about.

Thank you Don.

[Dave R]

If Senators are really reading this forum, they should know that Bear Island is adjacent to one of the busiest narrow passages on the lake. Any law that reduces the number of boats on the lake would benefit Bear Island residents, especially those on the northwest side, greatly. The support of speed limits, HP limits, and displacement limits by Bear Islander, clearly indicates his desire to reduce the number of boats on the lake. His motives are extremely self-serving.

I can empathize, but I cannot support a law aimed squarely at reducing boats when everyone in NH should be able to enjoy the lake in a safe and reasonable manner, not just those with lakefront homes near busy areas.

Most of the speed limit opponents are family boaters, like me, who do not have fast boats, and probably never will. We won't be affected by a speed limit, but we are not naive enough to think it's really about safety. It's not, it's pure, selfish, snobbery.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Because the press reads this forum and the Senate has not voted yet.

So, now we are to believe the Senate members have Old Timer's (Alzheimer’s) and must constantly be reminder that the Lake is unsafe and a Speed Limit is a panacea for its ills.

Finally, some rationale for the constant ranting...

And here I thought it was the old adage, tell yourself a lie often enough and you will believe it to be the truth...

[Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

My head is firmly above water, thanks. Please tell me about the last fatal accident that occurred at a speed over the proposed limit (I know about Littlefield).

This time, tell me about one on Lake Winnipesaukee.

If you know about Littlefield then you were lying when you said zero accidents!

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Islander

If you know about Littlefield then you were lying when you said zero accidents!

Again, must I really clarify? OK then.

Please tell me about the last accident that happened on Lake Winnipesaukee in which the primary cause was speed in excess of the proposed speed limit.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Again, must I really clarify? OK then.

Please tell me about the last accident that happened on Lake Winnipesaukee in which the primary cause was speed in excess of the proposed speed limit.

Littlefield

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Islander

Littlefield

Laughable...We all know it was alcohol.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by EricP

Laughable...We all know it was alcohol.

That's not what the jury determined.

[VtSteve]

It seems that one of the most obvious things lacking in this argument is enforcement. The 150' law is not being enforced, they are not able to enforce it effectively, or it's the perception of many that it's not the law that's important, but the speed.

Fact is, the 150' law has always been a good one. If the marine patrol was able to enforce it diligently, it would deter unsafe boating practices. If they can't enforce that, how's the speed limit going to be enforced? In addition, any and all information available for the lake suggests that the vast majority of all lake boating accidents occurs at speeds lower than the speed limit set. It's pretty obvious what the intended result of the limit is.

My boat is only 22', yet can go 55 mph or faster. Many of today's boats can in fact exceed the speed limit. Speed clearly isn't the issue. Common sense and respect is. I'd be in favor of a 200' distance limit frankly. Maybe it would be easier for people to estimate. But then again, I've kept a safe distance and close lookout on boats for my entire life. There are idiots out there, so get them to comply, or get them to leave.

It's fairly obvious that many are disturbed by these large, and many times, noisy boats. That's obvious. Many will still be disturbed by them whether they are traveling at 30 mph or 60 mph. They simply want them to leave. They probably feel the same way about those boats that I felt living on Winni with those obnoxious Cruisers making obscene wakes. Hint: The wakes from boats on plane are usually fairly small. The Cruisers wakes are always damaging whether they are going 10 mph or 30. Check your boat at the dock when they go by. I understand how hard it would be to pass a law that states "We Want Those Boats Gone."



USCG Rule 6, dealing with Safe Speed, is a universal standard that deals with common sense. Someone pointed this law out, but no responses. As always, it's usually the enforcement of existing laws that is lacking. BWI and reckless behavior are the two most prevalent causes of boating accidents. There are laws against them, but they continue to be the highest contributing factor.

The speed limit advocates should at least be honest. If the law passes, they should immediately start concocting excuses and spins designed to explain the accidents in the future. If history is a guide, the accidents, close calls, and fearful feelings will continue.

It's really very simple.

1) When in congested waters, be alert, slow down, be careful as heck.

2) When pulling a skier/tuber/wakeboarder. Do so safely, you don't own the lake either. Have some common sense. If not born with it, buy some.

3) PFC's. Come on already, buy a clue.

4) Unpowered vessels. It was not safe 50 years ago to be where some of you venture now, and nothing's changed.

5) Large cruisers. Your wakes can be very destructive, and even dangerous. A primary reason for shore stations. Try to at least give the impression that you care.

6) Go Fast Boats. All of the above apply to you as well. It's simply not OK to be launching your boat at 70 mph and doing Whoopies in congested waters where other boats are going far slower. The 150' limit is breached with ease, and the speed does not allow you time enough to weave in and out of traffic.

It's dangerous, and would be covered under the reckless boating laws in place now. It's simply not OK to do as you please, as with all boaters, and you've painted a target on your backs as a result. This obviously applies to the small percentage that just don't have any common sense or courtesy. I know many of these people, and most are responsible, safe boaters.

[jrc]

Great first post, Vtsteve!

[Dave R]

Welcome VTSteve. Perhaps I'll drop in ya on Champlain this Summer.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

...There are idiots out there, so get them to comply, or get them to leave....

...They probably feel the same way about those boats that I felt living on Winni with those obnoxious Cruisers making obscene wakes. Hint: The wakes from boats on plane are usually fairly small. The Cruisers wakes are always damaging whether they are going 10 mph or 30. Check your boat at the dock when they go by...


5) Large cruisers. Your wakes can be very destructive, and even dangerous. A primary reason for shore stations. Try to at least give the impression that you care.

6) Go Fast Boats. All of the above apply to you as well. It's simply not OK to be launching your boat at 70 mph and doing Whoopies in congested waters where other boats are going far slower. The 150' limit is breached with ease, and the speed does not allow you time enough to weave in and out of traffic.

It's dangerous, and would be covered under the reckless boating laws in place now. It's simply not OK to do as you please, as with all boaters, and you've painted a target on your backs as a result. This obviously applies to the small percentage that just don't have any common sense or courtesy. I know many of these people, and most are responsible, safe boaters.

Thanks VtSteve, for pointing out that large cruisers and GFBLs are create big destructive wakes and dangerous situations.

I don't think we can get them to comply so I think we should "get them to leave" as you suggest.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Islander

Littlefield

Originally Posted by EricP

Laughable...We all know it was alcohol.

Originally Posted by Islander

That's not what the jury determined.

You cannot be serious...

[Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

You cannot be serious...

You guys always want facts and evidence. The only "evidence" produced at trial was a couple of glasses of wine. The rest was unsupported testimony of his demeanor. The "fact" is the jury, that were on the case for weeks, found him not guilty of BWI.

I guess that doesn't fit your agenda!

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Islander

You guys always want facts and evidence. The only "evidence" produced at trial was a couple of glasses of wine. The rest was unsupported testimony of his demeanor. The "fact" is the jury, that were on the case for weeks, found him not guilty of BWI.

I guess that doesn't fit your agenda!

The fact is the jury found him guilty of not keeping a proper lookout while operating a boat.

No mention of his operating a boat at an unreasonable speed.

To quote you:

Originally Posted by Islander

I guess that doesn't fit your agenda!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Islander

You guys always want facts and evidence. The only "evidence" produced at trial was a couple of glasses of wine. The rest was unsupported testimony of his demeanor. The "fact" is the jury, that were on the case for weeks, found him not guilty of BWI.

I guess that doesn't fit your agenda!

Of course they didn't find him guilty of BWI- he took off and hid for a day or two and avoided being stopped/caught. It takes more proof than a couple glasses of wine on a receipt to prove BWI. I am sure Skip can enlighten you on the process of incrimination in a BWI/DWI case.

Do you honestly believe that this accident wasn't somewhat alcohol induced? It clearly was not speed. If you do, you are probably the only one.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Of course they didn't find him guilty of BWI- he took off and hid for a day or two and avoided being stopped/caught. It takes more proof than a couple glasses of wine on a receipt to prove BWI. I am sure Skip can enlighten you on the process of incrimination in a BWI/DWI case.

Do you honestly believe that this accident wasn't somewhat alcohol induced? It clearly was not speed. If you do, you are probably the only one.

yeah , and OJ wasn't guity either

[Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Of course they didn't find him guilty of BWI- he took off and hid for a day or two and avoided being stopped/caught. It takes more proof than a couple glasses of wine on a receipt to prove BWI. I am sure Skip can enlighten you on the process of incrimination in a BWI/DWI case.

Do you honestly believe that this accident wasn't somewhat alcohol induced? It clearly was not speed. If you do, you are probably the only one.

The question here is which boating accidents should be attributed to alcohol. I think accidents where there is a conviction for BWI can be attributed to alcohol. Are you suggesting the Coast Guard statistics should be based on the majority opinion of the people that frequent the local internet boating forum? That doesn't sound very scientific, does it.

No official determination of BWI was made. However it WAS officially determined that the speed was 28 mph. And that, as we all know, is more than the proposed limit.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Islander

.... However it WAS officially determined that the speed was 28 mph. And that, as we all know, is more than the proposed limit.

Actually if you believe Skip, then Littlefield was not operating beyond the limits in proposed law.

Originally Posted by Skip

...The proposed law this year is in the same format as previous proposals, the speed limit will be a "prima facie" limit based on the unreasonable speed concept and not an "absolute" limit, as found in nearby Maine.

The difference? Significant to law enforcement personnel.

In Maine and other States that have "absolute" speed limits, it is an accepted concept that regardless of conditions any speed over the posted limit is proof of guilt.

In New Hampshire the proposed boating speed limits will be based on the same principles as our terrestial limits, the "prima facie" and "unreasonable speed" concept.

Simply stated, while any spped over the posted limit is "prima facie" evidence that an offense has occured, the operator can use an affirmative defense that given the time, place and conditions the speed at the time was not "unreasonable".

Let's say that it is 5:00 PM on a Wednesday afternoon in the middle of the Broads. Its a bright and clear day with unlimited visibility. Its only you and the MP radar boat. You will not receive a ticket for 46 in a 45 unless that poor MP officer never wants to face the wrath of that particular court again.

It is a pretty poorly kept secret that in New Hampshire, depending on the Department, the leeway under normal conditions to succesfully get a conviction before a Municipal Court judge is anywhere from 10 to 15 MPH over the posted limit.

Can anyone seriously argue that if Littlefield had been sober and maintained a proper watch that 28 MPH was "unreasonable" on that normally clear night? If 28 MPH is unreasonable on a normal night, then the Marine patrol operates unreasonably pretty much every night. So Littlefield would not have been quilty of violating the HB-847 if it existed at the time.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by jrc

Actually if you believe Skip, then Little field was not operating beyond the limits in proposed law.



Can anyone seriously argue that if Littlefield had been sober and maintained a proper watch that 28 MPH was "unreasonable" on that normally clear night? If 28 MPH is unreasonable on a normal night, then the Marine patrol operates unreasonably pretty much every night. So Littlefield would not have been quilty of violating the HB-847 if it existed at the time.

Another explanation that 28 is less than 25.

This is really very funny

The opposition repeatedly insists that Littlefield is guilty, guilty, guilty of BWI. Yet at the same time they insist he would be innocent, innocent, innocent of speeding if there had been a speed limit.

Why is it so important that was not speeding, but is guilty of BWI? Can anyone imagine a reason? Could it be because that fits the opposition agenda?

[Skip]

It is unfortunate that even though the public record of this felony is published and readily available, some still have not taken but a moment to review the case they cite.

We have covered this several times before, but once again I will provide the link to the full transcript of the Littlefield appeal HERE and accentuate pertinent portions of the following paragraphs where the Court clearly recognizes the jury’s right to consider the ample evidence provided of Daniel Littlefield’s intoxication on the night of the tragedy.

As this transcript and the original trial transcript clearly show, Daniel Littlefield committed, was convicted and served his sentence for the felony of Negligent Homicide while failing to maintain a proper lookout while operating his vessel due in part to his intoxicated state.

From the appeal:


...There was significant evidence presented concerning the defendant’s consumption of alcohol and his attention level that evening. The defendant testified that he drank four beers during the afternoon of August 11. He also testified that he drank two full glasses of wine, and a portion of a third glass, over the course of the evening in Meredith. Steven Plimpton testified that at approximately 9:00 p.m., he observed the defendant grab a railing after apparently stumbling up the stairs from the beach to the bar area of the Town Docks restaurant. Plimpton also testified that he commented to Tsakiris, "Wow, he seems intoxicated." Tsakiris testified to this same incident. Diane Girard, who had known the Littlefields for a number of years, testified that she started to talk with the defendant that evening, but eventually walked away because she couldn’t understand him very well; it appeared to her that he had been drinking too much — he was slurring his words, and was unsteady on his feet. Jeff Jaran, the chief of police in Sandwich, knew the defendant as an acquaintance for many years. Chief Jaran testified that he spoke with the defendant that evening. He believed the defendant had had "a lot to drink"; the defendant was obviously impaired and "visibly intoxicated," his speech was slurred, and he was unsteady on his feet.
Judith Kelley, a long-time friend of the defendant’s, spoke to the defendant at the Town Docks restaurant that evening. Aware that the defendant had returned the previous day from a two-week business trip overseas, she testified that he "looked tired," and she thought "that maybe he had jet lag or . . . he just didn’t seem wide awake and bright-eyed." Robert Phelps testified that as the Baja prepared to leave the Meredith docks shortly before 9:30 p.m., he observed that the operator had difficulty installing the boat’s stern light, and in pulling away from the dock, because he "realized that he hadn’t undone the stern line." The defendant testified that as he piloted the Baja, he held the boat’s wheel with one hand and had his other arm around his wife, with whom he carried on a conversation. He further testified that prior to the collision, he was looking "straight ahead" at the lights on the Weirs and some boats "way out in the distance."
Given our standard of review in this case, we believe there was substantial evidence of the defendant’s intoxication, his attention level while piloting the Baja, the speed at which he operated his boat on a dark, moonless night, and his failure to see a properly illuminated boat in front of him.
The defendant contends, however, that the jury’s verdict of not guilty on indictment #03-S-007 meant that it had reached a unanimous decision that Mr. Hartman’s death did not occur because the defendant’s ability to operate the Baja was impaired by alcohol to any degree. The defendant further contends that because the jury acquitted him on indictment #03-S-007, it could not take into account evidence of his intoxication in deciding its verdict on the charge of failure to keep a proper lookout. Thus, he argues that we cannot consider that same evidence in our review of the sufficiency of the evidence. The State argues that the jury could consider the evidence of the defendant’s intoxication on the charge of failure to keep a proper lookout. We agree with the State, as our established jurisprudence regarding inconsistent verdicts, and the ability of the jury to consider all of the evidence in deliberating on either charge, belies the defendant’s argument. See State v. Brown, 132 N.H. 321 (1989); Ebinger, 135 N.H. 264; Pittera, 139 N.H. 257...

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Islander

Another explanation that 28 is less than 25.

This is really very funny

What's even funnier is that the best example the pro-speed limit crowd can come up with is a case where the details are highly debatable, at best.

I'd wager that you, and everyone else, reading and commenting on these threads have gone "28 in a 25" on many occasions, even if you were attempting to adhere to speed limit laws. Trying to get an accurate MPH (or KPH) reading in most boats is an exercise in futility. For the purposes of the arguments here about speed limits, 28 MPH is equivalent to 25 MPH. You can turn this into a statistical argument, but I've personally never heard of someone getting pulled over for 3MPH over the limit.

You trumpet on and on about how a speed limit law will be some magic savior for the lake. Soon the sun will shine, kayakers will be able to paddle without fear and camp directors can raise a new generation of little sailors. This Rockwell-ian magazine cover is not brought about by slowing down 2% of the boats on the lake.

The pro-speed limit group is operating off of NO solid evidence or statistics to support their position. The majority of the "pro" cases are peoples own guesses and interpretations about how a speed limit law will help the lake. However, reality shows that speeding is not really an overall issue on Winnipesaukee.

The senators who read this forum must also know that a speed limit for the lake won't really solve any problems. The bill is written as a 2 year "test drive". With ZERO deaths or accidents on the lake attributed solely to speed IF the bill passes you had better hope that number stays at zero. A single case after the bill would be a 1000% increase in the wrong direction. The other "quality of life" type factors touted as benefits from a speed limit law are difficult to measure, at best, and near impossible to link to any laws passed.

If there was a bona-fide case for speed limits, these debate threads wouldn't go on for hundreds of posts. It is difficult for even the most pig-headed person to argue against a well organized list of sold statistics. Despite what you might think, there is no such list of undeniable pro-speed limit facts in play here. This is nothing more than an emotional issue.

Should HB847 pass, the only thing on your side is the current economy, which will do more to minimize boat traffic on the lake than all your rally cries amplified 100 times.

[parrothead]

Originally Posted by Islander

Another explanation that 28 is less than 25.

This is really very funny

The opposition repeatedly insists that Littlefield is guilty, guilty, guilty of BWI. Yet at the same time they insist he would be innocent, innocent, innocent of speeding if there had been a speed limit.

Why is it so important that was not speeding, but is guilty of BWI? Can anyone imagine a reason? Could it be because that fits the opposition agenda?

Islander, OK if the boat was traveling above the speed limit. Are you happy? It has been said. He was guilty of speeding. He was above the posted speed limit . If HB-847 is passed. But can you look beyond your agenda to see that is not the reason why this accident occurred? Are you going to sit there and say the only reason why this accident occurred was because Littlefield was going 28 mph instead of 25. Nothing else contributed to the accident. Can you say with absolute certainty that this accident would never have occurred because the speed limit was in place. Can you say that he wasn't intoxicated at the time with certainty. How fast was the other boat going? Was it going 25 mph? If both boats were following the speed limit law to the exact MPH then obviously they would have never collided. So ok I provided the one scenario that would cause the speed limit to be pertant here. If both boats were going exactly 25 mph, not 1 mph less or more, then the speed limit would have saved this accident. But the real reason was that Littlefield wasn't paying attention and ran over another boat. If he had seen it he would have avoided it. We can't say for certain he was drunk because he ran, and there was enough time before the police got him for the alcohol he allegedly drank wore off. But according to eye witness accounts, which I don't think you are one, he was slurring his words and stumbling. I mean come on we are not sheep here. We can reason on our own and come to a conclusion. You just seem to have a different conclusion, so please enlighten me, why would the speed limit have saved Mr. Hartman?