Payback Time

[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.

[fatlazyless]

Has anybody mentioned Lake Winnisquam? It's the state's third largest lake, after Winnpesaukee and Squam.

It's maybe a little easier to get to, from the south, than Winnipesaukee, as it is pretty close to Route 93, exit 20.

As HB 847 applies only to Winnipesaukee, Lake Winnisquam will still be a venue for high speed boats. It has a brand new state owned boat ramp and parking area. It has a number of marinas. It has a convenience store that sells beer, potato chips and worms with its own dock right next to Mosquito Bridge. It has a popular rafting spot that attracts a lot of boats including a public toilet boat.

It is a large and, very well marked, and has a natural sandy bottom, with hardly any rocks, anywhere.

After boating on Winnisquam, the high speed boaters will be saying: 'So who needs Winnipesaukee, we love Winnisquam!'

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by winnilaker

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?

HB847 defines an unsafe condition.

Isn't that true of all the other boating regulations? Why do we need a 150' rule. Doesn't 270:29-a already cover that. We need the 150' rule to let operators, MP officers and judges know what the standard for minimum distance is. Otherwise it's just everyones opinion.

So I don't think your argument holds. By your way of thinking all we need is 270:29-a it covers everything.

I disagree, the community needs standards of operation and behavior to further define what constitutes "Careless and Negligent Operation".



Additionaly HB847 sets a different punishment than 270:29-a allowing for violations to effect your drivers license. HB847 also defines an exact time when boaters must change from the daytime speed limit to a nighttime speed limit. And exact limits for both circumstances. Your "Careless and Negligent Operation" rule leaves these things open to interpretation, or to being ignored entirely.

HB847 contains specific language defining the situation, circumstances, offense and punishment. None of that can be found in "Careless and Negligent Operation".

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

HB847 defines an unsafe condition.

Isn't that true of all the other boating regulations? Why do we need a 150' rule. Doesn't 270:29-a already cover that. We need the 150' rule to let operators, MP officers and judges know what the standard for minimum distance is. Otherwise it's just everyones opinion.

So I don't think your argument holds. By your way of thinking all we need is 270:29-a it covers everything.

I disagree, the community needs standards of operation and behavior to further define what constitutes "Careless and Negligent Operation".



Additionaly HB847 sets a different punishment than 270:29-a allowing for violations to effect your drivers license. HB847 also defines an exact time when boaters must change from the daytime speed limit to a nighttime speed limit. And exact limits for both circumstances. Your "Careless and Negligent Operation" rule leaves these things open to interpretation, or to being ignored entirely.

HB847 contains specific language defining the situation, circumstances, offense and punishment. None of that can be found in "Careless and Negligent Operation".

True, but as I mentioned above the punishment comes in the form of a speeding ticket and points on your license, unless you already have a bunch of points on your record and are that close to suspension anyhow it is a simple fine. Other laws in existance hold criminal charges, such as the one that winnilaker mentioned. The gripe seems to be whether having a speed limit law on the books will have serious effect in a negligent boating accident, I do not see that it would. A fine gets paid, if in fact they actually could prove speed.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

True, but as I mentioned above the punishment comes in the form of a speeding ticket and points on your license, unless you already have a bunch of points on your record and are that close to suspension anyhow it is a simple fine. Other laws in existance hold criminal charges, such as the one that winnilaker mentioned. The gripe seems to be whether having a speed limit law on the books will have serious effect in a negligent boating accident, I do not see that it would. A fine gets paid, if in fact they actually could prove speed.

I will agree that the penalties for speeding can't be more than specified in HB847. However if you are talking about a charge like criminally negligent homicide, I would expect that the speeding violation could make a big difference.

If you were going twice the speed limit when the accident occurred, that is a strong indication you were negligent, even criminally negligent.

With no speed limit you can argue the speed you were going was reasonable, you may win that battle of you may lose. However if you were going twice the legal speed limit it's going to be very hard to show you were not negligent.

I'm surprised Skip has not jumped in on this one, he must have experience in this.

[Mashugana]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

HB847 defines an unsafe condition.

Isn't that true of all the other boating regulations? Why do we need a 150' rule. Doesn't 270:29-a already cover that. We need the 150' rule to let operators, MP officers and judges know what the standard for minimum distance is. Otherwise it's just everyones opinion.

So I don't think your argument holds. By your way of thinking all we need is 270:29-a it covers everything.

I disagree, the community needs standards of operation and behavior to further define what constitutes "Careless and Negligent Operation".



Additionaly HB847 sets a different punishment than 270:29-a allowing for violations to effect your drivers license. HB847 also defines an exact time when boaters must change from the daytime speed limit to a nighttime speed limit. And exact limits for both circumstances. Your "Careless and Negligent Operation" rule leaves these things open to interpretation, or to being ignored entirely.

HB847 contains specific language defining the situation, circumstances, offense and punishment. None of that can be found in "Careless and Negligent Operation".

We have heard all this rhetoric many times already . Why do we need a 150 foot rule if careless and negligent operations rules took care of every offense? If we do not need speed limits defined for us then why have safe passage defined? That is a flawed argument. You seem to say we need to define every possible unsafe situation or it can not be enforced.

You neglect to talk about all the rules regarding reasonable safe speeds for the conditions and boating responsibly and safely. The rules in place right now are more than adequate to provide proper tools for the Judges and the Marine Patrol.

Your insistance that if we don't need these new speed limits then we don't need many of the other laws is a faulty argument. No new laws are needed. Stronger enforcement of what is in place right now is the solution.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Mashugana

You neglect to talk about all the rules regarding reasonable safe speeds for the conditions and boating responsibly and safely. The rules in place right now are more than adequate to provide proper tools for the Judges and the Marine Patrol.

What rule are you talking about? Can you quote a New Hampshire law or boating regulation that refers to "reasonable safe speeds".

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

HB847 defines an unsafe condition.

Isn't that true of all the other boating regulations? Why do we need a 150' rule. Doesn't 270:29-a already cover that. We need the 150' rule to let operators, MP officers and judges know what the standard for minimum distance is. Otherwise it's just everyones opinion.

So I don't think your argument holds. By your way of thinking all we need is 270:29-a it covers everything.

I disagree, the community needs standards of operation and behavior to further define what constitutes "Careless and Negligent Operation".

Additionaly HB847 sets a different punishment than 270:29-a allowing for violations to effect your drivers license. HB847 also defines an exact time when boaters must change from the daytime speed limit to a nighttime speed limit. And exact limits for both circumstances. Your "Careless and Negligent Operation" rule leaves these things open to interpretation, or to being ignored entirely.
.

OK here's a stunning thought from me.I actually agree with BI in the most part with this post.What I don't agree with is the premiss that this law will change the occurances of the very few accidents that were at so-called "high" speed.I also disagree about this law setting "exact"limits on speed as has been pointed out by SKIP in another thread.

[Chris Craft]

BI: Lets say hypothetically there are twice as many accidents in 09 as 08, would you then remove your sapport of renewing the speed limit and opt. for some other change?

[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.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by chipj29

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

Pick a year, any year.

I never implied that. The Coast Guard definition is not tied to a specific speed. It's based on the circumstances. It can mean higher or lower than the 45/25 limit.

[Lakegeezer]

Maybe a down home analogy would get the point across. Let's imagine there was a septic leak from a four bedroom island property that caused a fish kill. We could pass a law to restrict island properties to 3 bedrooms or less. The argument would be made that this would reduce the toxic spill from island properties - and it might. Would it solve the problem? Not really...

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Maybe a down home analogy would get the point across. Let's imagine there was a septic leak from a four bedroom island property that caused a fish kill. We could pass a law to restrict island properties to 3 bedrooms or less. The argument would be made that this would reduce the toxic spill from island properties - and it might. Would it solve the problem? Not really...

Can we add to this analogy a group opposed to any new septic restrictions. Their slogan is "NO RESTRICTIONS". They do not offer any viable alternative plan to improve water quality of limit spills. They cling to the fact that government water quality specifications do not specifically mention four bedroom homes. Therefore, they believe, they do not apply.

Sometimes you can't solve the problem, you can only limit the damage.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I never implied that. The Coast Guard definition is not tied to a specific speed. It's based on the circumstances. It can mean higher or lower than the 45/25 limit.

Thank you for admitting that.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Islander
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.

Most boats stay under the 45/25 proposed limits now, with no speed limit law!

You still have left unanswered the question I raised after you made a wild accusation about the number of accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee in 2006 caused by speed. Let me remind you by posting what you have still refused to back up in your haste to fear monger and even provide you the link to the stats for NH.


Here is a link to the 2006 NH Boating Stats provided by Woodsy
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=4283

Islander, you make claims and fear monger and yet when called on it the silence is deafening!
Quote:

Then:
Quote:

Quote:
I responded:
I used data from the same year that Bear Islander's article used that claimed to show a major jump in boating accidents in New Hampshire. I gave you the link that I used and I broke down everything that I saw.

The data I presented was for the entire state of New Hampshire not just Lake Winnipesaukee, so you didn't bother to read it, heh?

You claim 47 accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee in 2006 involving speed? Please document your claim and define "speed".

For these discussions I define "speed" as the proposed limits to YOUR law, 45/25.

I only show 2 accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee and 4 in the entire state that come close to that definition using New Hampshire statistics, none involving another vessel or a GFBL boat.

On Lake Winnipesaukee one PWC at 50 MPH and the other PWC at "Excessive Speed"..."Excessive Speed"...the definition that many supporters of HB847 claims does not exist...and it involved a turn so it was probably less than 45 mph.

Your move.
What you continue to fail to do, or ignore, is any statistic, report or fact to back up your claim!
Again I ask, ISLANDER, YOU CLAIM
Quote:

SHOW ME WHERE!
I have shown you my statistics, my references and my links. All you do is say NO NO NO. Prove it!

[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