Hb 847 Meeting In Concord.

[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.

[Islander]

Skip why do you do this. You sit back saying nothing then jump in with an accusation and long non-responsive answer. I'm sure you are aware that what I posted was correct, yet you pretend I have made some sort of mistake.

I posted that Dan was not convicted of BWI

I posted that his speed was determined to be 28 mph.

Both of those things are true! Why do you pretend I have made some kind of error? Please just answer the question. Was Dan convicted of BWI or found not- guilty of BWI? Just because you don't like his being found not-guilty is not a justification to pretend it didn't happen.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Islander

Skip why do you do this. You sit back saying nothing then jump in with an accusation and long non-responsive answer. I'm sure you are aware that what I posted was correct, yet you pretend I have made some sort of mistake.

I posted that Dan was not convicted of BWI

I posted that his speed was determined to be 28 mph.

Both of those things are true! Why do you pretend I have made some kind of error? Please just answer the question. Was Dan convicted of BWI or found not- guilty of BWI? Just because you don't like his being found not-guilty is not a justification to pretend it didn't happen.

I am just presenting the facts of the case, and that the jury could and did consider Littlefield intoxicated, and that intoxication was the primary reason he was unable to maintain a proper lookut of his vessel.

That you refuse to acknowledge the facts as clearly stated by the Belknap Superior Court cast cited previously is your own business. However, the readers of this particular thread are entitled to see that your interpretation of the case is wrong.

I only step in when you grossly misrepresent case law, New Hampshire statutes or basic concepts of law.

Which you continue to do so with this particular case.

I hope this answers your questions.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Skip

I am just presenting the facts of the case, and that the jury could and did consider Littlefield intoxicated, and that intoxication was the primary reason he was unable to maintain a proper lookut of his vessel.

That you refuse to acknowledge the facts as clearly stated by the Belknap Superior Court cast cited previously is your own business. However, the readers of this particular thread are entitled to see that your interpretation of the case is wrong.

I only step in when you grossly misrepresent case law, New Hampshire statutes or basic concepts of law.

Which you continue to do so with this particular case.

I hope this answers your questions.

Except that you are not presenting the facts in the case are you. You can not answer a couple of simple questions.

I only claimed that he was found not-guilty of BWI. Was my statement true or not?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Islander

Except that you are not presenting the facts in the case are you. You can not answer a couple of simple questions.

I only claimed that he was found not-guilty of BWI. Was my statement true or not?

Any reasonable person can determine for themselves whether the question asked has been answered.

Spin on....

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Skip

Any reasonable person can determine for themselves whether the question asked has been answered.

Spin on....

Thanks Skip.

Skip has confirmed the not-guilty of BWI verdict. He was charged with BWI, he was found not-guilty of BWI. I hope that is the last we hear on that subject.

[chipj29]

So let me ask this. If there was a speed limit of 25 at night, would that have prevented the Littlefield accident?

[Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

So let me ask this. If there was a speed limit of 25 at night, would that have prevented the Littlefield accident?

Possibly, we will never know. If there had been a 45/25 speed limit in place for many years before the accident, Dan might have been operating a bow rider. Or someone on board may have said "hey isn't there a nighttime speed limit?" Or Dan may have said to himself "I need to be careful not to break the speed limit, I don't want them to stop me for speed and find out I have had two glasses of wine tonight and a couple of beers this afternoon!".

[hazelnut]

The irony of the whole speed limit debate is that the proponents only have one or two cases over a 40 year period to even present as "evidence." It is laughable. I'll even concede them to you and say YES you are 100% right, whatever you want to prove with those cases, bravo, well done. So where does that leave us? 40 years with 2 incidents that YOU say COULD have been prevented by a speed limit? Hysterical, that's what it is. We should base a law on this? If the senate doesn't see right through this they may need a vacation. So far it has been a colossal waste of their time when they could have been debating more important real issues. Not too mention we probably set ourselves back years in terms of addressing the real needs of lake winni. It will be a while before they take up any new initiatives I'm sure. So what are we left with? A potential 45/25 law that will have little or no affect on safety on the lake. Then what? Does winnfabs cry wolf again? The legislature will then see the organization for what it is, an organization with an agenda. They will ignore it and those of us that are REALLY concerned with safety will have no voice. Thanks winnfabs, great work!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

The irony of the whole speed limit debate is that the proponents only have one or two cases over a 40 year period to even present as "evidence." It is laughable. I'll even concede them to you and say YES you are 100% right, whatever you want to prove with those cases, bravo, well done. So where does that leave us? 40 years with 2 incidents that YOU say COULD have been prevented by a speed limit? Hysterical, that's what it is. We should base a law on this? If the senate doesn't see right through this they may need a vacation. So far it has been a colossal waste of their time when they could have been debating more important real issues. Not too mention we probably set ourselves back years in terms of addressing the real needs of lake winni. It will be a while before they take up any new initiatives I'm sure. So what are we left with? A potential 45/25 law that will have little or no affect on safety on the lake. Then what? Does winnfabs cry wolf again? The legislature will then see the organization for what it is, an organization with an agenda. They will ignore it and those of us that are REALLY concerned with safety will have no voice. Thanks winnfabs, great work!

Once again you have forgotten that safety is only one of the many reasons to have a speed limit.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

The irony of the whole speed limit debate is that the proponents only have one or two cases over a 40 year period to even present as "evidence." It is laughable. I'll even concede them to you and say YES you are 100% right, whatever you want to prove with those cases, bravo, well done. So where does that leave us? 40 years with 2 incidents that YOU say COULD have been prevented by a speed limit? Hysterical, that's what it is. We should base a law on this?

There have been plenty of “incidents” in just recent years – that was pretty evident at the House hearing that I attended. The problem is that those in opposition to the bill are saying that we don’t need a speed limit since no one’s been killed on Winni lately.

Well, I’m not willing to wait for a fatality – especially when I could become the fatality. No one officially records close calls, near misses, or fortunate escapes from harm – yet those happen all the time. I have personally had dangerous “incidents” on Winni and I believe a speed limit would have prevented most of those, or at least reduced the danger involved.

Boats on Winni, which were traveling well in excess of 45 mph, have violated my 150 foot zone by a considerate amount . . . in some cases, within 50 feet of me - because the operator was traving too fast.

And this has occurred more than once – sometimes even more than once in a single outing. And many other paddlers on the lake have experienced this as well.

The bill is about safety – no matter how you try to spin it. And that’s what the Senators should be looking at. I contend that speeds above the limits in the bill are very unsafe on a busy lake that is populated with small, slow moving boats.

I’ve seen the difference that a speed limit cam make on a large NH lake. Squam is not only a good example – it also shows the NH’s Marine Patrol is perfectly capable of enforcing a speed limit.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

There have been plenty of “incidents” in just recent years – that was pretty evident at the House hearing that I attended. The problem is that those in opposition to the bill are saying that we don’t need a speed limit since no one’s been killed on Winni lately.
Well, I’m not willing to wait for a fatality – especially when I could become the fatality. No one officially records close calls, near misses, or fortunate escapes from harm – yet those happen all the time. I have personally had dangerous “incidents” on Winni and I believe a speed limit would have prevented most of those, or at least reduced the danger involved.

Not true, we're saying we don't need a speed limit because the stats don't support it.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Boats on Winni, which were traveling well in excess of 45 mph, have violated my 150 foot zone by a considerate amount . . . in some cases, within 50 feet of me - because the operator was traving too fast.

And this has occurred more than once – sometimes even more than once in a single outing. And many other paddlers on the lake have experienced this as well.

Based on the very low number of boats that actually travel over 45MPH the the unusually high number of close calls with these boats you say are traveling over 45MPH I suggest you really don't know what 45MPH looks like as you claim to. I have had my 150' zone violated by idiots before. And that's the real problem, and a speed limit won't fix that. You can't fix stupid. But we can enforce the laws on the books and this is our first full year with mandatory boater certification so I already feel "safer" (not that I felt unsafe).

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The bill is about safety – no matter how you try to spin it. And that’s what the Senators should be looking at. I contend that speeds above the limits in the bill are very unsafe on a busy lake that is populated with small, slow moving boats.

Actually the bill is about fear and perceived safety. The 150' rule addreses your concern about fast moving boats getting along with small, slow boats.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I’ve seen the difference that a speed limit cam make on a large NH lake. Squam is not only a good example – it also shows the NH’s Marine Patrol is perfectly capable of enforcing a speed limit.

Squam is small and a totally different lake than Winni, not even a valid comparison.

[Lakegeezer]

Looks like the existing laws worked. While there wasn't enough evidence to convict for BWI laws (because it was a hit and run), the jury used the evidence to declare that he was going to fast for his condition. BWI was indeed part of the conviction. This makes more sense than a speed limit.

Defining a speed for all conditions (or condition) - and changing a status quo that has proven to be safe and effective, is what the the debate should be about. Discussion about how to ban boat types as a tribute to Littlefield's victim should be a different debate.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Looks like the existing laws worked. While there wasn't enough evidence to convict for BWI laws (because it was a hit and run), the jury used the evidence to declare that he was going to fast for his condition. BWI was indeed part of the conviction. This makes more sense than a speed limit.

Defining a speed for all conditions (or condition) - and changing a status quo that has proven to be safe and effective, is what the the debate should be about. Discussion about how to ban boat types as a tribute to Littlefield's victim should be a different debate.

Thanks for posting that decision, first time I had read it all. To use that case, or any of the others, in relation to a discussion over GF boats or speed limits is quite telling.

It's obvious, not just from the testimony, but from his actions leaving the dock, he was at least somewhat impaired. If he was piloting a 18 foot bowrider, he would be equally impaired. The fact that he was doing 28 mph, is a pretty ludicrous analogy to supporting a 25 mph speed limit at night. Now if you want to state your gut feeling that a Baja boat owner is more likely than an 18' bowrider owner to get involved in such an accident, then by all means, do so.
It's been my experience on this bog lake over here, that the really dangerous boaters tend to be the smaller boats, particularly 18 feet to 24 feet or so. Just a broad observation I know, but many in the $100,000 dollar an up crowd tend to realize what they have. Yes, there are some that have far too much testosterone for their own good

As for water quality and erosion debates. There can't be a reasonable debate about the size of waves from a cruiser versus the go fast boats can there? The cruiser's wake is pretty large from 10 mph up to higher speeds. The GF boats have a momentary larger wake getting to plane, then it levels out to very normal.

I can understand the unstated intent of the law, or at least, the supporters. I really can. It would have been far more reasonable to attack the alleged problems by first, targeting enforcement of the 150' rule. I note that nobody commented on my post, which specifically mentioned the problem. Wonder why? Enforcement requires funding, step 1. If you want a speed limit to quietly address the fact that you would love to rid the lake of "those boaters", then at least have the common sense to enact a speed limit that doesn't limit the huge percentage of boats that safely can travel at 60 mph. I'll bet many proponents of this new law PO me when their boats go by as well. Go 15mph or so in front of my soon to be rocking boat, and I'll think up some new laws myself.

Rid the waters of violators, and you'll have a safer boating experience.

Disingenuous arguments leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

[Airwaves]

It's clear that the supporters of HB847 aren't pushing the measure because of safety issues.

I have proposed, several times, a measure already in place for most of the boating community that would give the Marine Patrol the "tools in their arsenal" that supporters of HB847 say they need without having to spend additional money or divert manpower. No takers!

I have asked several specific questions of supporters that have made strong claims to provide data, they have not.

So now let me ask, why this bill now? Why would they be pushing so hard during this and the prior leglislative session for this speed limit bill?

Could it be that because safe boating certificates are now mandatory and it has been shown conclusively that boater education reduces boating accidents and that in all likelihood the lake will become an even safer place to enjoy? That fact will make it more difficult for them to perpetuate the lies that the lake isn't safe in order to get a bill like this passed later!

Not a single supporter of HB847 that claims that this is about safety has even commented on the suggestion that the language of HB847 be replaced with the language of Nav Rule 6.

Since the proposed compromise has been out there for a while without comment from those claiming that this is about safety I now submit to you that even those supporters who claim that this is about safety realize that everyone is finally aware that HB847 is nothing more than an effort to ban a certain type of boat from Lake Winnipesaukee.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Once again you have forgotten that safety is only one of the many reasons to have a speed limit.

Exactly. And there is no evidence that shows that the lake is not safe right now.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

Exactly. And there is no evidence that shows that the lake is not safe right now.

Do you mean other than the accidents and deaths.

We had a death last summer, doesn't that indicate the lake is not safe?

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

We had a death last summer, doesn't that indicate the lake is not safe?

Deaths occur from many things. You have not presented any arguments that indicate your proposed speed limits would have any net, or measurable, increase in lake safety.

Almost every recreational activity has some amount of deaths associated with it. Do not take this to mean that the world needs more laws...

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Do you mean other than the accidents and deaths.

We had a death last summer, doesn't that indicate the lake is not safe?

There have been several deaths on I-93, does that indicate that the highway is not safe?

What was the cause of the accident in which someone died last summer on the lake?

[Silver Duck]

Islander

You are correct that Dan was not convicted of BUI (though the jury seems to have considered alcohol to be a contributing factor to "failing to maintain a proper lookout") and that the speed at the time of collision was determined to be 28 mph.

However, I'm curious whether you think that, had an otherwise identical collision occured at 25 mph rather than 28 mph, the outcome would have been materially different? If so, on what do you base this conclusion? To me, it seems counter intuitive that 3 mph would have made a big difference. However, I'm willing to listen to scientific evidence to the contrary if you have some to present!

I'll happily admit that 25 mph at night is a safer speed than 45 mph, or 65 mph; I limit myself to hull speed after dark (about 7 - 8 mph). I just don't think that 25 mph is slow enought to eliminate the likelihood of another tragedy should a collision occur. Personally, I think that safety at night can only be attained through a combination of operator vigilence and, perhaps, something that makes a boat easier to spot from astern. I know from exoperience that it's sometimes difficult to tell from a distance whether the white light in front of you is a boat's stern light or somebody's porch light!

I just don't think that, by itself, the 25 mph speed limit after dark will be enough to make it completely safe to be out there at night.

Silver Duck

[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?

[Islander]

Originally Posted by parrothead

You just seem to have a different conclusion, so please enlighten me, why would the speed limit have saved Mr. Hartman?

See post 158

[parrothead]

Originally Posted by Islander

See post 158

But the speed limit wouldn't have saved Mr. Hartman. Littlefield would still have over taken the Hartmans and collided with them if he was going 25.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Bear Islander

That is really ridiculous KonaChick, you should be ashamed of yourself. To what crazy ends will you go to try and make a point. As if that article has ANYTHING to do with this discussion.

It seems to me it's perfectly germain to this discussion if you're bringing up accidents that have nothing to do with speed on Lake Winnipesaukee and insist that they are relevant to this discussion. The article KonaChick links to discribes a very pleasant place to be, not the fear gripped kids, counselors and directors that you would like us to believe populate the camps.

[Neanderthal Thunder]

]Parrothead wrote,

You just seem to have a different conclusion, so please enlighten me, why would the speed limit have saved Mr. Hartman?

I see one way.

If a limit had been in place, the Marine Patrol could have given a written warning. Once stopped, the MPs could have noticed slurred speech, and given a field sobriety test. A NHMP boat on patrol wouldn't appear any different from any other boat in the darkness to Littlefield. Until the the flashing blue lights went on, that is.

There is no way to stop a Littlefield or identify any other drunken boater under existing laws.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Neanderthal Thunder

]Parrothead wrote,

I see one way.

If a limit had been in place, the Marine Patrol could have given a written warning. Once stopped, the MPs could have noticed slurred speech, and given a field sobriety test. A NHMP boat on patrol wouldn't appear any different from any other boat in the darkness to Littlefield. Until the the flashing blue lights went on, that is.

There is no way to stop a Littlefield or identify any other drunken boater under existing laws.

This is assuming that they had been there to speed check the boat in the first place. Most indicators are that this is somewhat unlikely.

Additionally, if the speed was only 28MPH, it's unlikely they would have done anything about a boat going 3MPH over.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Neanderthal Thunder

I see one way.

If a limit had been in place, the Marine Patrol could have given a written warning. Once stopped, the MPs could have noticed slurred speech, and given a field sobriety test. A NHMP boat on patrol wouldn't appear any different from any other boat in the darkness to Littlefield. Until the the flashing blue lights went on, that is.

There is no way to stop a Littlefield or identify any other drunken boater under existing laws.

There is SERIOUS problem with your assumption....

1. The accident occurred just past the Meredith NWZ... the offending boat was or just had transitioned to on-plane... not a whole lot of time for the NHMP to grab a speed reading...

2. Unless the NHMP radar gun was on the EXACT same path & bearing, the Law Of Cosines WOULD have shown the offending boat traveling at a speed LESS than 28MPH! So they wouldn't have been stopped anyway!

3. Perhaps had the Common Man not overserved Danny that night (and convieniently LOST the recipt that showed just how much alcohol had been consumed) this tragedy might not have occurred at all!

Woodsy

[Neanderthal Thunder]

Sorry for the delay. I was out of town, having surgury.

It doesn't matter where the Marine Patrol nails his butt. At night, and at 25 mph, a good place would be off the waterfront gin mills. There is no point in prowling the usual places during the day, and having no success. Just showing the flag only slows the drunks for a while, and hasn't worked for decades to stop the drunks . Darkness conceals all the NHMP presence.

Again, there is no way to stop a Littlefield or identify any other drunk boater under existing laws.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Neanderthal Thunder

Sorry for the delay. I was out of town, having surgury.

It doesn't matter where the Marine Patrol nails his butt. At night, and at 25 mph, a good place would be off the waterfront gin mills. There is no point in prowling the usual places during the day, and having no success. Just showing the flag only slows the drunks for a while, and hasn't worked for decades to stop the drunks . Darkness conceals all the NHMP presence.

Again, there is no way to stop a Littlefield or identify any other drunk boater under existing laws.

You think we should have a law in place that's sole purpose is to provide the police an opportunity to violate the 4th amendent? If the police don't have a good reason to stop you, I don't think that traveling 3 MPH over the speed limit would give them reason. The MP are very good at spotting drunks, they don't need to violate our rights to do it.

Now I agree that the MP should stake out waterfront gin mills. But they should do it day and night. Remember the goal is to prevent drunk driving, arresting drunk drivers serves that goal. Scareing drunks not to drive also serves that goal.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Neanderthal Thunder
At night, and at 25 mph, a good place would be off the waterfront gin mills. There is no point in prowling the usual places during the day, and having no success. Just showing the flag only slows the drunks for a while, and hasn't worked for decades to stop the drunks . Darkness conceals all the NHMP presence

Originally posted by jrc
Now I agree that the MP should stake out waterfront gin mills.

I wonder if that would even be legal if done on a regular basis? If it is legal then I would speculate that it isn't done more often because of political/economic or even legal (harassment) pressure that the owners of the establishments would bring to bear?

[fatlazyless]

Today's www.citizen.com has a news article about yesterday's Senate Transportation Committee vote of 3-2 to recommend approving HB 847. It says that the full 24 member Senate will probably vote next Thursday.

One interesting thought to consider. Senator Joe Kenney (R) Wakefield has mentioned that he supports the Winnipesaukee speed limits. His district includes Wolfeboro. As you probably know, he is running for Governor, and he works a communications specialist in the US Marine Corps where he has been an officer since 1980.

Semper Fidelis, Senator Kenney!

[Island Lover]

The Citizen artice quotes the owner of Thurstons Marina. If speed limits were bad for boating and tourism, why would so many marina owners support HB847?


Jeff Thurston of Thurston's Marina in Weirs Beach is among the local dealers supporting the proposed law as a way of ensuring that everyone can use the lake with a sense that they are safe.

Thurston said he has traveled to Lake George in New York and witnessed that a speed limit can work and not have negative consequences on business.

"I think it's long overdue, and I applaud the insight that was displayed by the House and now this committee. Families and children should feel safe being out on the water," said Thurston.

The Weirs Beach business owner expressed his feeling that officials must act to "nurture" a lake that is among its biggest tourist draws in the state.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

The Citizen artice quotes the owner of Thurstons Marina. If speed limits were bad for boating and tourism, why would so many marina owners support HB847?

Probably because he has no stake in it, all of his lines are small and will not be affected in sales. What does he care? A few of his Cobalts (the ones that don't end up on the bottom) would be the only ones that would break the proposed limit-and not by much.

The opponents list contains almost every dealer on the lake besides them. Here is a portion of the list-mostly marine related:

ACL Industries - Manchester
Adam's Marina - Winnisquam
Andrew's Marine Service - Alton Bay
Atlantic Watercraft Club (charter of American Watercraft Association) - Salem
Averys Auto & Marine - Newport
Back Bay Marina - Wolfeboro
Biggart Marine - Plaistow
Bob's Beacon Marine - Newbury
Browns Auto and Marine - Newport
Center Harbor Dock & Pier Co. - Center Harbor
Channel Marine - Laconia
Dasilva Motorsports - Hampstead, Moultonboro
Dave’s Motorboat Shoppe, LLC - Gilford
Derry Marine & Salvage - Derry
Diamond Shine Boat Detailing - Gilford
Dock Doctor - Gilford
Dover Marine - Portsmouth
East Coast Marine Storage - Epping
Eastcoast Flightcraft Marine of New Hampshire - Meredith
East Coast Performance Center - Salem
Epping Motor Sports - Epping
Extreme Motor Sports - Windham
Gator Signs - Gilford
George's Marina - Dover
Gillan Marine Inc - Alton Bay
Granite State Boatworks - Milford
Glendale Marina - Gilford
Gray's Marina - Enfield
Great Bay Marina - Newington
Green's Marine, Inc. - Hooksett
Goodhue Marine, Inc. - Center Harbor
Hampton River Marina - Hampton
Harpers Boat Restoration - Meredith
HK Powersports - Laconia, Tilton, Hooksett
Irwin Marine - Laconia, Hudson, Alton, Litchfield
Jack Willey's - Tilton
JFG Enterprises Prop
Jim's Mopar Performance - Salem
JP Boating, LLC - Laconia
Lakeport Landing Marina - Laconia
Lakes Region Fiberglass - Laconia
Lakeside Boat Rentals - Alton Bay
Little Bay Marina - Dover
Lucky Lenny's Power Place - Tilton
Marine USA - Milford
Marlin Products Div. Pompanette LLC - Charlestown
Melvin Village Marina - Melvin Village
Miles Marine - Gilford
Moultonborough Canvas - Moultonborough
National Boat - Deerfield
Nault's Windham Honda - Windham
New England Boat & Motor - Laconia
New England Correct Craft - Rochester
Nimar International, Inc. - Walpole
Norm's Marina Inc. - Hinsdale
North/South Performance Boats - Alton Bay
One Stop Toy Shop - Epping
Outdoor Performance Center - Bridgewater
Outdoor Prop Service - Laconia
Owen's Marine - Hooksett
Philbricks Sports Center - Dover
Plaistow Motorsports - Plaistow
Pompanette, LLC - Charlestown
Production Trailer + Dock - Meredith
Professional Mariner, LLC - Rye
R & R Cycles - Manchester
Ray’s Marina & RV Sales, Inc - Milton
Ray Marine, Inc. - Nashua
Rochester Motor Sports - Rochester
Rockingham Boat Repair and Sales - Hampstead
S & W Sports - Concord
Sargents Marine - Georges Mills
Shep Brown's Boat Basin - Meredith, Gilford
Ship Shape Marine Works - Meredith
Shorline CoverWorks - Laconia
SilverSands Marina - Gilford
Sonic Power Marine of New England, LLC - Weirs Beach
Sunapee Harbor Marine - Sunapee
The Trailer Outlet - Tilton
Vintage Race Boat Shop - Wolfeboro
Ward's Boat Shop - Center Ossipee
Watermark Marine Construction - Gilford
Wentworth by the Sea Marina - New Castle
West Marine - Portsmouth
Windham Marine - Windham
Winnipesaukee Motorsports - Meredith
Winnipesaukee Marine Construction - Gilford
Winnisquam Marine - Winnisquam
Y Landing Marina - Meredith

Thurston won't see any of my money going forward...That is for sure.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

The Citizen artice quotes the owner of Thurstons Marina. If speed limits were bad for boating and tourism, why would so many marina owners support HB847?


Jeff Thurston of Thurston's Marina in Weirs Beach is among the local dealers supporting the proposed law as a way of ensuring that everyone can use the lake with a sense that they are safe.

Thurston said he has traveled to Lake George in New York and witnessed that a speed limit can work and not have negative consequences on business.

"I think it's long overdue, and I applaud the insight that was displayed by the House and now this committee. Families and children should feel safe being out on the water," said Thurston.

The Weirs Beach business owner expressed his feeling that officials must act to "nurture" a lake that is among its biggest tourist draws in the state.

Thurston's loses a lot of Cobalt sales to East Coast Flightcraft. East Coast Flightcraft also happens to be a Fountain (GFBL) dealer. It's easy to see why Jeff Thurston likes the bill, it goes for the throat of his biggest competitor.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

The Citizen artice quotes the owner of Thurstons Marina. If speed limits were bad for boating and tourism, why would so many marina owners support HB847?

How exactly do you extrapolate 1 quote to be "so many marina owners"?

It appears that there are far more marinas opposed to the bill than for it. The only marine-related stores that would seem to logically support the bill would be the paddle-boat sellers.

This is about more than bad/not bad for tourism, it's about more needless laws that will go unenforced and solve no issues.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

How exactly do you extrapolate 1 quote to be "so many marina owners"?

It appears that there are far more marinas opposed to the bill than for it. The only marine-related stores that would seem to logically support the bill would be the paddle-boat sellers.

This is about more than bad/not bad for tourism, it's about more needless laws that will go unenforced and solve no issues.

Thurston's is not the only one, there are more on this supporters list.

The Common Man
Ashalnd Insurance
Strictly Rentals
Wild Meadow Canoes and Kayaks
Centre Harbor Cellars
Center Harbor Inn
AMC (Appalachian Mountain Club)
NH Audubon
New Hampshire Lakes Association (NHLA)
Decker Machinery Company
The Architectural Studio
Fay’s Boat Yard
Birch Island Camp Association
Gilford Islands Association (GIA)
Jolly Island Association
Lockes Island Association
Belknap Landscaping Company
Design Quest
DK Net Design
E&S Insurance LLC
The Hair Factory
Mike’s Ala Carte Catering
Pepi Herrmann Crystal, Inc.
Glendale Marine
River Edge Marina
Squam Lakes Association (SLA)
Cottage Place on Squam Lake
Squam Lake Inn
Me Designs
Barrons Billiards
Blooms Vanity
J&J Printing
LaBelles Shoe Store
Central & Northern Title
Haughey, Philpot & Laurent
Lakeside Hotel Assoc.
Sundial Shops
Paugus Bay Marina
Best Western Silver Fox Inn
Griffin Bodi Krause
Municipal Resources, Inc.
Great Northern Trading Co
Meredith Marina
Y-Landing
Bear Island Conservation Association (BICA)
East Bear Island Conservation Association
AMC- 3 Mile Island
Winnipesaukee Rowing Club
Alexandria Lamp Shop
Case N’ Keg
Chris Dupont Painting
Christopher P. Williams, Architects
Eisenberg Chiropractic
Hawkins Photography
Hobo Railroad
Landscapes By Tom
League of NH Craftsmen
Mastiff Builders
Omni Signs
Patricia’s “Specially for You”
Pemi Glass Company
Pretty Petunias Garden Center
Remax Bay Side Real Estate
Remcon/North
Sagecliff Software, Inc.
The Village Perk
Winnipesaukee Scenic Railroad
GASCO Realty, LLC
51 Main Street, LLc
Inns & Spa at Mill Falls
Meredith Bay Painting
The Lake House Grille
Lago
Camp
Town Docks Restaurant
Mame's
The Gallery at Mill Falls
Oglethorp
Guiseppies Resturant
Northern Air Trading
Lady of the Lake Clothing
Adorments
Creative Clothing
Christopher P. Williams, Architect
Oak Street Associates
Old Mill Insurance
Innisfree Bookstore
Phoenix Leasing, Inc.
Silver Top Ventures
Minuteman Plumbing & Heating
Sava Designs
Horn Insurance
Harts Restaurant
Fermentation Station LLC
Hunter's
Waukewan Antiques
Village Greenery
Etcetera Shop
Associated Surveyors
Moulton Farm
Barber Pole Association
Trexler’s Marina
Land’s End
Wyman Trail Association
Loon Preservation Committee
1st T Development Corporation
The Woodshed Restaurant
Castle in the Clouds
Amoskeg Insurance
EPTAM Plastics
The Common Man Inn
Corner House Inn
Seacoast Kayak
Tilton Veterinary Hospital
Waterville Valley Condo Rental
Thurston’s Marina
Lighthouse Inn
Weirs Beach Motel and Cottages
Van's Hotel Enterprises
Wolfboro Inn
Island Real Estate of New Hampshire
LB Boat Restoration
Millie B
Wolfeboro Trolley Company
Wolfetrap Restaurant

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Thurston's is not the only one, there are more on this supporters list.

Funny to see Y-Landing on both lists... Even more funny being that since they sell higher octane gas they are the preferred fillup spot for many performance boaters.

I have heard of Glendale not being a supporter as well, especially being that they are pushing high performance pontoons. When I see Gary this weekend I will ask what their true stance is.

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Funny to see Y-Landing on both lists... Even more funny being that since they sell higher octane gas they are the preferred fillup spot for many performance boaters.

I have heard of Glendale not being a supporter as well, especially being that they are pushing high performance pontoons. When I see Gary this weekend I will ask what their true stance is.

Glendale is on both lists as well. Something funny going on there.

[Neanderthal Thunder]

Codeman wrote:

How could he be charged for BWI? No solid witnesses, a restaurant that probably disposed of the real proof that they overserved him (to save their own a** from a lawsuit and loss of liquor license), and since he fled the scene there was no stop to be made. Why is this going to deter drunks that are not using their heads???

The best solid witness that night is the NHMP. The stop and arrest could have been prior made before anything worse happened.

Drunks "not using their heads" will be stopped by the NHMP, before a night crash over 25.

jrc wrote:

Did the police see him get in and drive the boat drunk?

*A MP stop of the boat would still be necessary.

*Without a 25 mph speed limit, there is no way to identify a drunk with the power and speed to kill other boaters at night. A speed over 25 is not trumped up if the results are a warning, a field sobrity test, or the arrest of a drunk boater.

*Woodsy defended him, saying that he was overserved, not up on a plane, and leaving a NWZ. That's "Victimhood". Llttlefield is not the victim.

*Except for a collision with an island or another boat, enforcing speeds would result in the most dangerous drunk boaters being arrested. I don't know how to catch drunk boaters any other way. What police officer would say "I saw the defendent weaving", when no boat takes a straight path on the lake?

*A close up view of the driver's condition would require a police stop. At night, there are just no other means to determine a driver's condition.

*At night, there is no way a drunk can see that the NHMP is monitoring his speed by radar.

*Any poll you post supporting enforcement of drunk driving laws is just handwringing and will continue do nothing to halt 2008's drunk boaters.

*If he's too drunk to obey a speed limit, ONLY a speed limit offers the NHMP any opportunity to stop the nighttime drunk.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Thurston's is not the only one, there are more on this supporters list.

The Common Man
The Lake House Grille
Lago
Camp
Town Docks Restaurant
The Common Man Inn

Why not pad that list some more... I'm sure the Tilt'N Diner is a supporter as well. How about the Airport Deli or whatever it is in Manchester that's a CMan property as well..

[Islander]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

Why not pad that list some more... I'm sure the Tilt'N Diner is a supporter as well. How about the Airport Deli or whatever it is in Manchester that's a CMan property as well..

Check the opposition list for padding as well. There are many a long way off. And a toy store in Epping.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

How exactly do you extrapolate 1 quote to be "so many marina owners"?

I was wondering the exact same thing!!

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

It appears that there are far more marinas opposed to the bill than for it. The only marine-related stores that would seem to logically support the bill would be the paddle-boat sellers.

8 marinas in support of HB 847 hardly compares to 80+ against it!

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

I was wondering the exact same thing!!




8 marinas in support of HB 847 hardly compares to 80+ against it!

Where is the list of 80+ marinas against?

I count 8 in support and 7 against.

Winnipesaukee doesn't have 80 marinas.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

8 marinas in support of HB 847 hardly compares to 80+ against it!

Please explain the 80+

[tis]

I think we all need to remember which businesses are for the speed limits and boycott them.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by jrc

"...The MP are very good at spotting drunks..."

Yup. The MPs start by looking for debris fields: shards of fiberglass, styrofoam coolers, sponges, engine compartment hoods, PFDs, hats, shoes, swim platform fragments, ejected passengers...et-cetera.


Hey...Nobody's noticed that it got through Transportation? With "Ought To Pass"?