Proposed Law

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Is that your personal list? Because the US Coast Guard also has a list.

And you will notice that New Hampshire has boating regulations to cover all of the primary causes except excessive speed.




United States Coast Guard

BOATING STATISTICS 2006

Executive Summary
...
Operator inattention, carelessness/reckless operation, excessive speed,
and no proper lookout are the primary contributing factors in all reported
accidents.
...
US Coast Guard - KNOWN ACCIDENT CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 2006
OPERATOR CONTROLLABLE
Operator Inattention ...............611
Careless/Reckless Operation .....517
Excessive Speed ....................464
Passenger/Skier Behavior .........390
No Proper Lookout ..................368
Operator Inexperience .............356
Alcohol Use ...........................351

Which law covers Passenger/skier behavior? What about No Proper lookout?

With all due respect, these statistics have nothing to do with Winni, nor does the US Coast Guard operate on the lake.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Which law covers Passenger/skier behavior? What about No Proper lookout?

With all due respect, these statistics have nothing to do with Winni, nor does the US Coast Guard operate on the lake.

These are National statistics that do include Winnipesaukee. The Marine Patrol reports lake statistics to the Coast Guard.

For "No Proper Lookout" read paragraph 6 here http://www.nh.gov/judiciary/supreme/...5/littl071.htm

Passenger/skier behavior could be anything, but it comes AFTER excessive speed.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

These are National statistics that do include Winnipesaukee. The Marine Patrol reports lake statistics to the Coast Guard.

For "No Proper Lookout" read paragraph 6 here http://www.nh.gov/judiciary/supreme/...5/littl071.htm

Passenger/skier behavior could be anything, but it comes AFTER excessive speed.

I've learned a lot about negligence. The law broken was homicide (no link required).

To avoid another circular arguement about which statistics apply to Winni and what is "excessive" speed, we'll just agree to disagree at this point.

[Lakegeezer]

We're missing the Coast Guard's definition of excessive speed. The NH lawmakers have had their take at it, but it would be nice to understand what definition the pros use when they check that box.

I still think it would be interesting to know how many lawmakers have a boater's certificate. There is no doubt that excessive speed is the cause of accidents, but there is signficant doubt that 45/25 is always excessive speed. Sometimes, like at night and in the fog, excessive speed may mean anything over headway. That's why previously existing laws mentioned reasonable and prudent.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

That's why previously existing laws mentioned reasonable and prudent.

That's just not true.

The anti-speed limit folks have repeated this lie so many times that many well meaning people, like yourself, think its true.

There is no reasonable and prudent speed regulation in New Hampshire. There never has been.

[GusMan]

And when the Governor signs the new speed limit bill...

We *still* won't.

Gusman

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

That's just not true.

The anti-speed limit folks have repeated this lie so many times that many well meaning people, like yourself, think its true.

There is no reasonable and prudent speed regulation in New Hampshire. There never has been.

There should be, and Rule 6 was a good place to start.

But it's articles like this that fully explain both the intent of the new law, and the intent of the supporters.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...7-789376f5182b

"On a calm summer evening in 2002, an elderly Meredith man was out slowly boating with his family when he was run over and killed by a speeding 8,000 pound, 1,200 HP cigarette boat. The cigarette boat operator appealed his conviction to the state Supreme Court, where one of the Justices asked in amazement: "Isn't there a speed limit?" Why can everyone seem to recognize this omission except our Legislature?

John Chase is a musician in Wolfeboro."

Always similar language, and Always a complete disregard for the facts, which is clearly the intent. When just the facts of an incident are reported, it's far less effective as a biased medium.

One thing that's almost always divisive, and ineffective, is being blatantly dishonest and/or misleading. I might add, I do not concur with the reasoning of one Justice, that wondered why there wasn't a speed limit law. The Court affirmed the Insurance company's denial of coverage due to his negligent operation of the boat (http://www.insurancejournal.com/news...2/21/48902.htm)

So, they ruled his operation of the boat that night (at some 28mph I remember?), was negligent, and thus, not covered under his insurance policy. Skip did a great job on posting the facts of this accident awhile back. I believe the same rules apply on our roads and highways, where many have been deemed to be operating too fast for conditions. I must admit, I've never heard of a policies coverage being denied for that, but I don;t follow that stuff either.

[flyry49]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

There should be, and Rule 6 was a good place to start.

But it's articles like this that fully explain both the intent of the new law, and the intent of the supporters.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...7-789376f5182b

"On a calm summer evening in 2002, an elderly Meredith man was out slowly boating with his family when he was run over and killed by a speeding 8,000 pound, 1,200 HP cigarette boat. The cigarette boat operator appealed his conviction to the state Supreme Court, where one of the Justices asked in amazement: "Isn't there a speed limit?" Why can everyone seem to recognize this omission except our Legislature?

John Chase is a musician in Wolfeboro."

Always similar language, and Always a complete disregard for the facts, which is clearly the intent. When just the facts of an incident are reported, it's far less effective as a biased medium.

One thing that's almost always divisive, and ineffective, is being blatantly dishonest and/or misleading. I might add, I do not concur with the reasoning of one Justice, that wondered why there wasn't a speed limit law. The Court affirmed the Insurance company's denial of coverage due to his negligent operation of the boat (http://www.insurancejournal.com/news...2/21/48902.htm)

So, they ruled his operation of the boat that night (at some 28mph I remember?), was negligent, and thus, not covered under his insurance policy. Skip did a great job on posting the facts of this accident awhile back. I believe the same rules apply on our roads and highways, where many have been deemed to be operating too fast for conditions. I must admit, I've never heard of a policies coverage being denied for that, but I don;t follow that stuff either.

{I disagree.} i have investigated this incident pretty well and cant seem to find it saying that speed was the direct link. and another thing, media is BIAS. i have taken a whole class at PSU on how the media is bias so never use or quote a newspaper when your trying to prove a point. all you people hear is "speed boat" killed whoever on the lake and you immediately think the person was speeding and thats why there was an accident. o yeah and by the way that supreme justice that made that comment has never seen this lake nor knows how big it is or how popular it gets. therefor he doesn't have an educated opinion with this matter.