06/15/08 Diamond Island Fatality

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

It was cloudy, but the visibility after midnight was fine for me. It was dark, but like it's always dark after midnight. Laconia Airport had three miles of visibility. The moon was full (Gibbous moon), and was overhead at 2AM. Posters at the BoaterEd.com forum are being very critical of operating this boat in fog. Those who witnessed conditions at the time know better.

I was a few miles from the crash scene but was easily able to see landforms and other boats out after midnight from my porch.

Timing, as they say, is everything and my observations were 2 hours prior to the collision. Things weather wise can change from hour to hour, but the full moon should have provided ample light even through clouds.

I know over at Boater Ed, and here, the conditions were dark, raining, possibly fog.

[SIKSUKR]

I ask the webmaster to please moderate this yoyo.He is clearly here only to instagate and inflame forum members.Do the right thing and ban this clown.This forum has a much higher standard than what is being displayed by this troll.

[BroadHopper]

Being the second cousin of the deceased, Stephanie. I have to agree with SIKSUKR. Please moderate this user. No need of this at this time.

[2Blackdogs]

Huh?

One of those links goes to this site.

The other goes to a site that states:

This forum is dedicated to promoting boater safety and education. Discussing events and there possible causes is what we do. It's a shame that anyone gets hurt out on the water and it certainly is a tragedy to the families.

An alarm-sounding depth finder would be a good suggestion for those who travel the Big Lake at night. That is one of safety suggestions I'd hoped to read here. It should have been put forth by a member in opposition to speed limits, which is the bulk of the replies here. Balancing pros and cons is why this sub-forum was created.

The Bizer chart shows a steep rise off Diamond Island. But the reality is that the bottom slopes gradually enough that a depth alarm would have worked in this case. Where else would that suggestion be seen at this time but at a site devoted to the Big Lake?

I stand on what I saw two hours before the collision and the moon being full. Laconia airport should have the visibility archived online (WMUR, 3 miles).

Did the video of the scene operate for you? I got only audio, went to the scene, went only once, and wasn't the only boater there. The ledge is four feet above the lake, not six feet. There was much personal information shared among the other boaters. Because it was incidental to the collision, none will be repeated by me on this forum.

Three messages have arrived for me. One is unprintable, another is supportive, saying "it took courage to write what we're all thinking". The last is generally supportive, but asks that an NHRBA error be fixed. When I hear back, I'll make the correction.

And there was absolutely no sarcasm to the suggestion that a memorial wreath should be floated there, as it should. And soon.

[parrothead]

Maybe you should have started differently on your post then. Don't try to drag this into the speed limit debate, until all the facts are out. But a thread on 'Due to the current tragedy what equipment should one have while boating at night?" And then your depth sounder with an alarm is a constructive suggestion.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

It was cloudy, but the visibility after midnight was fine for me. It was dark, but like it's always dark after midnight. Laconia Airport had three miles of visibility. The moon was full (Gibbous moon), and was overhead at 2AM. Posters at the BoaterEd.com forum are being very critical of operating this boat in fog. Those who witnessed conditions at the time know better.

And kudos to the doctor, the real hero at a time when heroes were needed.

It was that very hard working doctor that stated what the conditions were when he bravely paddled out to help those in need. You've "insinuated" otherwise.

Enough of that.
_______________________________
This is an emotionally charged event. It occurs shortly after a dumb law was passed, a law which does not pertain to this accident now. Two women are seriously injured, and a third is deceased. The emotional impact of this sad tragedy is one which we all hope we never know in our own families.

It's great for people to discuss the safety aspects of boating, since it is an activity with inherent risks. It's vitally important for everyone to follow the official investigation, since the skipper was an experienced boating person. Whatever went wrong, it serves notice to all of us that life can pass in a fleeting second, for a variety of reasons.

Hopefully, we can all learn something from yet another tragedy, and log it in our skipper's database. I think the majority of us know all the things that could have happened, which is why we don't discuss it now. It's a terrible thing to happen to families and friends, and from what I've read, these women have positively impacted many lives. Out of respect for the victims and the families, it think it would be nice to discuss the safety aspects of boating, and leave the personal and technical aspects of this particular case alone until the real facts come out.

If boating safety discussions can help save even one person from this type of accident, I think we'd be doing the victims and the families proud. I have it in my will that special donations be made to a local group specifically designed for on water instruction for new boaters. Not a bad idea in this case at all. No matter how old we get, there's not a skipper alive that doesn't have more to learn.

[2Blackdogs]

VtSteve writes, in part,

It was that very hard working doctor that stated what the conditions were when he bravely paddled out to help those in need. You've "insinuated" otherwise.

Just wrong.

I was enrolled in a pre-med college curriculm. Nobody can appreciate a doctor's call to duty more.

Parrothead writes,

Don't try to drag this into the speed limit debate, until all the facts are out.

Enough facts are out for a highly esteemed moderator of a highly esteemed cruiser website to write the following days ago. The significant phrase has received my emphasis,

Here's an update for the "defenders"

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...3-9a64d0d487e4

Headline reads Boat crash: Beer cans, a night out

THAT, OF COURSE, LED TO THIS,

ttp://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=054393b9-c34e-48d6-a4a6-117786073e99

Headlined, Governor to sign boat-speed bill


Les Hall, ATC Forum Host

The crash definitely affected the signing, but I am "a ghoul" for visiting the site, and yesterday called "bloodthirsty" by one who followed up with his own visit to the site!

The expressions of condolence should remain under "Boating", and not here at the "Speed Limits" subforum, IMO. I also think the topic definitely belonged in the "Speed Limit debate" when the damaged boat first appeared in the news.

Analysis of the wreck in this thread should have been without "ghoul", "bloodthirsty, and "pond scum" mentioned anywhere, especially by those invited to join here recently by a knowledgable, long-time member, although out-of-state member. They would have no interest in having Winni's worst boaters trailering to their own state's waters.

It has "Wind Energy" and Ted Kennedy's hypocritical comments writ large.

[parrothead]

2BD, you can speculate that speed was involved but there is no confirmation provided. So why should this be discussed in the speed limit thread? If speed is found to be the cause of this accident then you can post an "I told you so". I don't know any of the people involved, and have no first hand knowledge of what happened. So I am reserving judgment until the investigation is complete. And even after that how is my judgment important? There will still be someone who has been killed, and two others who's lives are changed forever. Who am I to sit in judgment? We all have had things happen, or made decisions that we wish we could redo. Unfortunately there is no rewind in life. So sit on your high horse, and hand down your edicts without facts to back them up. I will wait until the investigation is completed and take whatever lessons can be learned from that. It is just unfortunate that these three women's lives had to be irrevocably altered for the rest of us to possibly learn a lesson.

[VtSteve]

BD, You go far, far out of your way to mischaracterize people's posts. You never directly respond to what is posted. I was trying to get you to respond to your weather reporting, which stated it was clear that night, and you could make out the outlines of the land. The good doctor stated it was raining even harder when he appeared on the scene, not very nice out. My commnets had nothing to do with the good doctor's work, which as I stated, was brave and timely. He might possibly have saved a life or two. So what I Insinuated, was that your weather observations were not correct for the accident time, as I most clearly stated. Try that one gain.

As usual, your reply was off target and not related to mine.

In the end, there is little doubt that what many in the no SL crowd have been saying, will be proven true once again. Excessive speed is speed unprudent for the conditions, not what you say it is. I'm sure you were thinking a clear night, going like heck, AHA. That's where the weather observations came into play.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

Huh?

I stand on what I saw two hours before the collision and the moon being full. Laconia airport should have the visibility archived online (WMUR, 3 miles).

Baloney!!! I said it before and I'll say it here. I was on a boat that night, it was pitch dark and even raining at times. Stand all you want, you're wrong.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Have you ever noticed that the entire lake does not have the same weather at the same time. We have become rather proficient at watching the radar and getting off the island while the bad weather is a couple miles away.

[VtSteve]

Lots of good people posting at that boater ed site. I note that Les has made some good comments, but it appears both he and a couple more have some axe to grind about that 2002 accident.

What is it about a boat hitting land that relates to speed limits? Too fast for conditions is mentioned by most, but no law for that is ever pushed.

Emotional and irrational responses.

[2Blackdogs]

Agreed that the weather can be different in places, especially for you're not in a boat at that time. A boat can experience all the weather on the lake during those hours but only remember the rain.

For one, I don't like boating on weekends, and rain would find me anchored or not going out at all in the first place. It was clear after midnight, clear at the time of the boat recovery, and clear according to WMUR's account of Laconia Airport. It was drizzly for sure, as my yard was damp by morning.

The moon was full, however. We should watch for the next full moon over Winni and our collective interpretations of visibility in overcast or clear skies.

jrc writes:

I hope this thread can stick to the facts and details of the accident. If anyone wants to discuss political opinions, I hope they take it to the other section.

Meaning the "Speed Limits" section?

The facts, details and legalities were already being discussed at a respected boating website directly after the collision broke on the news.

Before long, you can count on New Hampshire resident and forum host/moderator Les Hall to arrive with his always-on-target analysis.

His latest regarded the Governor,

"After this, the public would have been all over him if he had vetoed the legislation."

This topic should have no trouble being discussed here without any demonizing, even by the anti-speed limit folks, www.winnilakers.com members, out-of-staters, and the NHRBA members who do have dogs in this fight.

I'll try to remember to mention that Winnipesaukee docks should be required to have lighting, especially as solar powered lights are more readily available today and reasonably priced. That should merge nicely with the NHRBA's charter which begins, "chartered to protect the interests of boaters".

It's amazing that you can't read of this event anywhere in the "Performance Boat" forums. Even the usual ScreamAndFly and SpeedWake discussions are opaque to Google this year.

OSO has hidden the topic for a good three years, as Chris Craft can tell you, so only finding it nowhere else, except at this a Maine site, is surprising to me.
http://www.asmainegoes.com/forum/vie...050ed8a2082795

Thank you, jrc, very much for that sensible suggestion. It should work out quite well.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

I'll try to remember to mention that Winnipesaukee docks should be required to have lighting, especially as solar powered lights are more readily available today and reasonably priced. That should merge nicely with the NHRBA's charter which begins, "chartered to protect the interests of boaters".

No thanks! We don't need more light polution on the lake.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

....

Thank you, jrc, very much for that sensible suggestion. It should work out quite well.

Please do not drag me into your world. All I wanted to suggest is that we discuss the news about this tragic accident in the boating forum. Since I guessed that people would want to tie this accident into the speed limit debate, I suggested that those discussions take place in the speed limit forum. It was just a suggestion, I don't run this site. I enjoy it very much and the moderator has clearly separated the speed limit debate from everything else in order to maintain decorum.

I've tried to stay out of these discussions until some facts are known. You however, only talk about this subject and your adoration of Les Hall and his site. I'm not sure why his opinion or his member's opinions are so important to you, the few people on his site that know Winnipesaukee, also post here.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

A law against bad weather would be just as effective at preventing an "accident".

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by EricP

Baloney!!! I said it before and I'll say it here. I was on a boat that night, it was pitch dark and even raining at times. Stand all you want, you're wrong.

He is full of it...A mutual friend of Tom and Nancy Rock and I heard from them directly that it was pea soup at the time of the incident. It took MP 45 minutes to reach the scene in the fog/rain. With plenty of HP, radar, gps, etc and boats usually on patrol somewhere it would not have taken that long in fair conditions.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by codeman671

He is full of it...A mutual friend of Tom and Nancy Rock and I heard from them directly that it was pea soup at the time of the incident. It took MP 45 minutes to reach the scene in the fog/rain. With plenty of HP, radar, gps, etc and boats usually on patrol somewhere it would not have taken that long in fair conditions.

I think once it's all said and done the lousy conditions that night will be a huge contributing factor to that terrible accident.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by EricP

I think once it's all said and done the lousy conditions that night will be a huge contributing factor to that terrible accident.

I would think so. But since the report of the conditions that night, I think first by the good Doctor, BD has tried to obscure that part of the discussion. The drinking statements have only added to his frustration. It was a big, bad, speeding Formula driven at a high rate of speed by someone who is a vocal opponent of something he supports. I think it frustrated him to the enth degree when I said I agreed mostly with Les.

[2Blackdogs]

Maidencove, that is a very serious BAC number. I very seriously question your source. From what I've read, that number is even more serious for the female driver. Still more serious, any extended hours driving out on the water especially at night. What hour does the WolfeTrap close their bar scene?


What dinghy can go that fast to endanger its passengers or other boats, anyway?

Holy smokes, everybody out on the lake Sunday was endangered by nearly 8 tons of fiberglass and iron.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

I would think so. But since the report of the conditions that night, I think first by the good Doctor, BD has tried to obscure that part of the discussion. The drinking statements have only added to his frustration. It was a big, bad, speeding Formula driven at a high rate of speed by someone who is a vocal opponent of something he supports. I think it frustrated him to the enth degree when I said I agreed mostly with Les.

Agreed mostly with Les? I agree 100% with Les Hall's comments!

Which of us, then, is the one being "intellectually dishonest" regarding a proven expert, a proven moderator, at a proven site devoted exclusively to boating, with no high-speed cruiser agenda, and who has been 100% proven on-target on our Winnipesaukee Speed Limits question in the past?