Payback Time

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Great way to legislate BI, throw enough excrement against the wall and see what sticks? Hey what the heck lets give it a try.

Seriously

As a society I really thought we had advanced beyond the ole hey we have a problem lets use no scientific evidence and treat a bullet wound with chewing gum approach cuz its cheap and easy method. Guess I was wrong?

That doesn't sound to crazy to me. The chewing gum might stop the bleeding long enough to get them to a trauma center. I guess the opposition method is to chew the gum while watching them bleed to death.

Expecting a speed limit to reduce accidents is not exactly voodoo science. I think its main stream logic.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

That doesn't sound to crazy to me. The chewing gum might stop the bleeding long enough to get them to a trauma center. I guess the opposition method is to chew the gum while watching them bleed to death.

Expecting a speed limit to reduce accidents is not exactly voodoo science. I think its main stream logic.

Expecting a speed limit to reduce the number of over 45 mph accidents that aren't happening is a pipe dream

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

That doesn't sound to crazy to me. The chewing gum might stop the bleeding long enough to get them to a trauma center. I guess the opposition method is to chew the gum while watching them bleed to death.

Expecting a speed limit to reduce accidents is not exactly voodoo science. I think its main stream logic.

WOW did FLL get a hold of BI's computer and screen name????

[EricP]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

WOW did FLL get a hold of BI's computer and screen name????

It's heat stroke

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It will be quicker if I define denial.

from Webster Online Dictionary

Denial de·ni·al
Pronunciation: \di-ˈnī(-ə)l, dē-\
Function: noun

refusal to admit the truth or reality

My personal definition is "refusal to admit the relevance of US Coast Guard speed statistics to HB847".

For the one hundredth time...define excessive speed as the USCG gas defined it for the sake of their statistics.

You don't want to define it, as it does not fit your agenda, and you know it.

[Chris Craft]

Originally Posted by chipj29

For the one hundredth time...define excessive speed as the USCG gas defined it for the sake of their statistics.

You don't want to define it, as it does not fit your agenda, and you know it.

Don't hold your breath waiting for the answer you will turn blue and die first.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

For the one hundredth time...define excessive speed as the USCG gas defined it for the sake of their statistics.

You don't want to define it, as it does not fit your agenda, and you know it.

We all know the Coast Guard definitions. There is no point in going over them again. Post them if you like. You are able to convince yourself that they do not pertain to speed limits. Which only shows how far people can go to rationalize their behavior.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

We all know the Coast Guard definitions. There is no point in going over them again.

Certainly there is , because excessive speed AKA Coast Guard definition , doesn't necessarily means high speed.
You could have 200 accidents in Weirs channel all at "excessive" speed and all be less than 10 mph
So to campaign for a speed limit lets just lump them into one catagory to scare people.

[Islander]

Its no use BI there heads are firmly buried in the sand. In their world there in no connection at all between "excessive speed" and "speed limits".

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Islander

Its no use BI there heads are firmly buried in the sand. In their world there in no connection at all between "excessive speed" and "speed limits".

There is no connection. They are 2 completely different things and this is exactly what was used to pass HB847, lumping them together along with inciting fear.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by EricP

There is no connection. They are 2 completely different things and this is exactly what was used to pass HB847, lumping them together along with inciting fear.

The New Opposition Logo!

[EricP]

actually...

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Islander

The New Opposition Logo!

Islander I know you are just BI's parrot but do you even get it?

The reality is that you supporters keep posting the coast guard stats on accidents that involve "excessive speed" and sighting the need for a speed limit to cure the "problem, yet "excessive speed" could be 20MPH when a boat is 25 feet away from another vessel or even 10mph in a NWZ or even 6mph when hitting a dock. Is this such a difficult concept to grasp???

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

We all know the Coast Guard definitions. There is no point in going over them again. Post them if you like. You are able to convince yourself that they do not pertain to speed limits. Which only shows how far people can go to rationalize their behavior.

We do? OK what are the Coast Guard definitions? How does the CG define excessive speed?

Originally Posted by Islander

Its no use BI there heads are firmly buried in the sand. In their world there in no connection at all between "excessive speed" and "speed limits".

You are correct. In my world, there really IS NO connection between excessive speed and speed limits.

I will ask yet again...is excessive speed as defined by the CG a speed over the limits defined in HB847?
A yes or no answer will suffice.

[Bear Islander]

Excessive speed can be any speed depending on the situation.

In some situations excessive speed will be less than HB847 limits, and in some instances it will be more.

In situations where the speed of the boat is excessive but less than 45/25, a speed limit is unlikely to make much difference. Excepting that the boat may not even be on the lake if the operator has moved to a lake without speed limits. Boats that have left the lake, can NOT be in accidents on the lake.

In situations where the speed of the boat excessive AND more than 45/25 a speed limit is VERY effective and could save lives.

You guys keep coming up with examples of the first situation. Now why don't you try responding to the second situation. Is a speed limit effective in those situations when the speed is over 45/25?

Tell me some scenarios of excessive speed OVER 45/25 where HB847 doesn't change anything.

[Chris Craft]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Excessive speed can be any speed depending on the situation.

In some situations excessive speed will be less than HB847 limits, and in some instances it will be more.

In situations where the speed of the boat is excessive but less than 45/25, a speed limit is unlikely to make much difference. Excepting that the boat may not even be on the lake if the operator has moved to a lake without speed limits. Boats that have left the lake, can NOT be in accidents on the lake.

In situations where the speed of the boat excessive AND more than 45/25 a speed limit is VERY effective and could save lives.

You guys keep coming up with examples of the first situation. Now why don't you try responding to the second situation. Is a speed limit effective in those situations when the speed is over 45/25?

Tell me some scenarios of excessive speed OVER 45/25 where HB847 doesn't change anything.

Simple: If some one is traveling over the speed limit and they hit some one the law does not help anyone. The person will have already his some one, the damage is already done. Do you really think that the guy that was in voilation is at that time going to care about the speeding ticket? They will be more worried about the damage of the accident.

The problem is how many accidents have occored on lake Winni over your speed limit? How many have happened under your speed limit? The answer is FAR MORE under the speed limit. So have you made the lake safer? NO

Your first point about says it all, remove the boats you do not like from the lake and make them go to another. That is what this is all about.

"Overall, boating remains a safe, enjoyable way for Americans to recreate," adds Rear Admiral Watson

Ooops late for work try and finish later

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Chris Craft

The person will have already hit some one, the damage is already done. Do you really think that the guy that was in voilation is at that time going to care about the speeding ticket?

WOW! Are you wrong about this one!

If your boat is going say 70 mph and you are in a fatal accident do you think the ticket is going to be your only problem?

Even if you did nothing else wrong the speeding violation can make it Criminaly Negligent Homicide!

If nobody dies you will still have a lot more hot water to deal with than a speeding ticket. You are being naive.

[Chris Craft]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

WOW! Are you wrong about this one!

If your boat is going say 70 mph and you are in a fatal accident do you think the ticket is going to be your only problem?

Even if you did nothing else wrong the speeding violation can make it Criminaly Negligent Homicide!

If nobody dies you will still have a lot more hot water to deal with than a speeding ticket. You are being naive.

You need to go back and re-read my post because you just said the exact same thing that I did. Lets say the guy barrels into a crowd of boats at 70 and kill some one, they likely will never see the speeding ticket show up as that fine will likely be dropped anyhow as they go through the trial as part of the plee process. As you said the fact that the person traveling at 70 would be facing criminal chages of that magnitude would far outweigh the concern of the speeding ticket. The fact is the guy would face the same changes if they did it today as they did in one year. You make it sound like if I ran over some one today on the lake I would walk off scott free. That is totally false. He will face the same chages.

The problem is you guys are passing a law for a problem that simply does not exist. The one accident that is pointed to over and over again happened at an estimated 1-2MPH over the new mimit? He would not have received a speeding violation.... It is just another law on the books that is there to try and protect people from a problem that does not exist.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Chris Craft

You need to go back and re-read my post because you just said the exact same thing that I did. Lets say the guy barrels into a crowd of boats at 70 and kill some one, they likely will never see the speeding ticket show up as that fine will likely be dropped anyhow as they go through the trial as part of the plee process. As you said the fact that the person traveling at 70 would be facing criminal chages of that magnitude would far outweigh the concern of the speeding ticket. The fact is the guy would face the same changes if they did it today as they did in one year. You make it sound like if I ran over some one today on the lake I would walk off scott free. That is totally false. He will face the same chages.

The problem is you guys are passing a law for a problem that simply does not exist. The one accident that is pointed to over and over again happened at an estimated 1-2MPH over the new mimit? He would not have received a speeding violation.... It is just another law on the books that is there to try and protect people from a problem that does not exist.

I think your wrong about this. Perhaps Skip can help us.

If the only law the operator was breaking at the time of the accident was HB847, then that law will have an enormous impact on the situation.

Skip?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I think your wrong about this. Perhaps Skip can help us.

If the only law the operator was breaking at the time of the accident was HB847, then that law will have an enormous impact on the situation.

Skip?

I think you are the one that is wrong. The RSA is the RSA. The penalties of breaking the RSA are predetermined. What would come into play is other laws broken that already exist which hold a higher penalty- reckless op/driving to endanger, possibly vehicular homocide if there was a fatality, failure to maintain proper lookout, safe passage, and many others that are already on the books. The speeding ticket is not going to land someone in jail (unless their existing record warrants it), nor is it going to yield an excessive fine.

A prosecutor is going to go for the throat, they are not going to screw around with fighting a speeding ticket. It would most likely be included but not the focus of litigation.

[winnilaker]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I think your wrong about this. Perhaps Skip can help us.

If the only law the operator was breaking at the time of the accident was HB847, then that law will have an enormous impact on the situation.

Skip?

270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats.
– Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

In what situation would unsafe behavior/boating threatening lives not be covered by this law?

House Bill 847 only suggests a violation for a speed infraction, 270:29-a enables more of a penalty for those who drive recklessly and makes it a misdemeanor! HB847 has nothing to do about safety or facts, it's about sending message to those who are unwanted. Like those, as lazy put it, BIG MONSTER BOATS! Sounds more like the haves vs. the have nots.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Excessive speed can be any speed depending on the situation.

In some situations excessive speed will be less than HB847 limits, and in some instances it will be more.

In situations where the speed of the boat is excessive but less than 45/25, a speed limit is unlikely to make much difference. Excepting that the boat may not even be on the lake if the operator has moved to a lake without speed limits. Boats that have left the lake, can NOT be in accidents on the lake.

In situations where the speed of the boat excessive AND more than 45/25 a speed limit is VERY effective and could save lives.

You guys keep coming up with examples of the first situation. Now why don't you try responding to the second situation. Is a speed limit effective in those situations when the speed is over 45/25?

Tell me some scenarios of excessive speed OVER 45/25 where HB847 doesn't change anything.

My point to you is this:
You are interjecting the limits in HB847 in the Coast Guard statistics regarding excessive speed. Yes, there may be some accidents above the HB847 limits. But the point it that HB847 does not eliminate the excessive speed accidents that you are referring to.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by chipj29

My point to you is this:
You are interjecting the limits in HB847 in the Coast Guard statistics regarding excessive speed. Yes, there may be some accidents above the HB847 limits. But the point it that HB847 does not eliminate the excessive speed accidents that you are referring to.

Your point is only valid if EVERYBODY IGNORES THE LAW!!!!!!! I will concede that some people will break the law and speed. However most people will obey the law and stay under 45/25, thereby preventing most of the accidents that would otherwise have taken place at excessive speeds over the limit. This is so basic I wonder that you can't see it.

Most people will obey the law. Most boats will stay under 45/25. Most high speed accidents will be prevented.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Your point is only valid if EVERYBODY IGNORES THE LAW!!!!!!! I will concede that some people will break the law and speed. However most people will obey the law and stay under 45/25, thereby preventing most of the accidents that would otherwise have taken place at excessive speeds over the limit. This is so basic I wonder that you can't see it.

Most people will obey the law. Most boats will stay under 45/25. Most high speed accidents will be prevented.

I completely agree with the bolded statement.
However...of the statistics given by the USCG, how many of the excessive speed accidents were above the limits in HB847?

This is such a basic question, I wonder why you can't answer it?

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by chipj29

I completely agree with the bolded statement.
However...of the statistics given by the USCG, how many of the excessive speed accidents were above the limits in HB847?

This is such a basic question, I wonder why you can't answer it?

I'm glad you admit at last that HB847 will prevent accidents.



Your question does not specify a year or years. Coast Guard statistics are quite extensive.

Is there any reason you can't look this up yourself? Why is it my job to do research for you?

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Your question does not specify a year or years. Coast Guard statistics are quite extensive.

Is there any reason you can't look this up yourself? Why is it my job to do research for you?

It is your agenda and your burden to prove...

Apparently, a burden you are unable to alleviate, without equivocating...

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I'm glad you admit at last that HB847 will prevent accidents.



Your question does not specify a year or years. Coast Guard statistics are quite extensive.

Is there any reason you can't look this up yourself? Why is it my job to do research for you?

Because you and BI keep implying that excessive speed means >45/25.

Pick a year, any year.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Islander

Its no use BI there heads are firmly buried in the sand. In their world there in no connection at all between "excessive speed" and "speed limits".

Some like to tout the USCG statements, but absolutely hate the definition. Rule 6 was another favorite.

From the advocate's responses, you'd think Winni was overcome with tremendous accidents due to speed. But like most other bodies of water, they aren't.

It's been admitted here many times that the primary problems are inattention and drunks. Some say since we can't enforce that, the speed limits are good.

Just how stupid is that?

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Cal

Certainly there is , because excessive speed AKA Coast Guard definition , doesn't necessarily means high speed.
You could have 200 accidents in Weirs channel all at "excessive" speed and all be less than 10 mph
So to campaign for a speed limit lets just lump them into one catagory to scare people.

I’ve explained all this numerous times before, but you guys still refuse to accept that speed and accidents are connected, so I'll repost this part yet again:

Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski, Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Station Fort Piercelace happens to agrees with me: “Avoiding collisions on the water differs in many ways from avoiding collisions while driving in your car. The one contributing factor which is similar between boats as compared to automobiles is SPEED. It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced.” http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/122098tip.htm