Boating Accident/Death off Diamond Island

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Seadoo

wow congrats you know a SEA DOO is a jet ski, nothing gets by anyone on this forum.

also congrats on sailing you own boat to bermuda and back, and singledhanded wow you must feel great!

The funny thing about all the computers that run our lives is that they misread data and sometimes are worse then boating the "old" way, using land points around the water ways to help one get from point A to point B. Regaurdless on what GPS system one is using they still do fail more so in the rain and stormy weather, as it was that night.

Don't forget, Sea Doo also makes and sells boats.

[TomC]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

???? WHAT ???? You make this comment based on what evidence?

Can anyone back up this statement. Does GPS fail in the rain?

rain, moisture, fog, heavy cloud cover (any atmospheric condition that is "conductive") can attenuate RF. So it isn't necessarily a matter of "failing", but a degradation that may result in less frequent positional updates due to weak(er) signals. In the extreme, yes, loss of signal could occur which would render the device inoperative.

[Pineedles]

I know my Garmin has a hard time "Locating Satellites" when it I turn it on if there are storm clouds and rain; but it eventually comes on-line. It sometimes messages "Waiting for Better Accuracy" if it is really cloudy.

[VtSteve]

Technically, Jet Ski is the brand name for Kawasaki I believe.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

???? WHAT ???? You make this comment based on what evidence?

Can anyone back up this statement. Does GPS fail in the rain?

His statement doesn't seem that far fetched. GPS systems receive signals from satellites. When there is weather, it stands to reason that the already relatively weak signals could be affected, making it harder for the device to lock on and get an accurate reading.

There are many reasons why things like GPS and LORAN-C should be considered navigational AIDs and not replacements for familiarity with the water you're operating in.

[hazelnut]

OK I guess... I've never had it happen to my Standard Horizon in any cloud cover whatsoever, or rain. I also had a hard time finding evidence of failure of GPS in rain and clouds online. I'll take your word for it that it has happened to you though.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

I know my Garmin has a hard time "Locating Satellites" when it I turn it on if there are storm clouds and rain; but it eventually comes on-line. It sometimes messages "Waiting for Better Accuracy" if it is really cloudy.

The problem I have had with GPS accuracy on the lake is the loss of "WAAS" (Wide Area Augmentation System) which keeps your GPS accurate within 3 meters. For the life of me I can't understand why in such an open area I keep losing the WAAS signal on my GPS, and for some reason it seems worse this year than last. Does anyone else have this problem on the lake???

Without WAAS, accuracy can be as much as 100 meters off and I have personally seen this inaccuracy on my GPS. I have rarely loss total GPS / satellite signal however.

GPS is a another extra wonderful tool to HELP with navigation but should never be relied upon totally. It is NOT fail proof and it is never 100% accurate.

Dan

[upthesaukee]

see this article

http://www.landairsea.com/gps-tracki...-gps-accuracy/

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

OK I guess... I've never had it happen to my Standard Horizon in any cloud cover whatsoever, or rain. I also had a hard time finding evidence of failure of GPS in rain and clouds online. I'll take your word for it that it has happened to you though.

I have had issues with my Standard Horizons (I have had the CP155C, CP175C and currently have a CP180I) in the past on crappy nights. It does happen. Sometimes they have problems acquiring a link in inclement weather.

[sa meredith]

Can you imagine being on the boat that night if a false GPS reading was indeed the cause of the accident?! Holy Christ! Stop and think about it for a second...try to put yourself there.
Cruising along, happy to be with good friends, and laughing about the prank you had just pulled. Maybe a small "glow on" from a beer or three (come on now, we've all been there) trusting your GPS in the fog and rain, because, well, it has never failed you before, not once. Blasting along, but keeping a close watch on your GPS screen, staying right on course, and then out of nowhere, AN ISLAND! Way too late to do a darn thing, except thing, "Wow, this really going to suck!"

[Skip]

While all of this talk of GPS accuracy and anomalies is fascinating we must all remember one thing:

Regardless of GPS, RADAR, compass, depthfinders or the like a captain, at all times, must maintain a proper lookout. Maintaining a proper lookout is one of the most basic rules of seamanship that everyone must master and understand before taking the helm.

Failure of an installed navigational aid, or the inability to interperet such aid accurately is never an excuse for not maintaining a proper lookout, or operating your craft at an appropriate speed with regards to surrounding water & atmospheric conditions!

[luckypete]

greetings all,

here's another link to check out

http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/waas.html

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

Can you imagine being on the boat that night if a false GPS reading was indeed the cause of the accident?! Holy Christ! Stop and think about it for a second...try to put yourself there.
Cruising along, happy to be with good friends, and laughing about the prank you had just pulled. Maybe a small "glow on" from a beer or three (come on now, we've all been there) trusting your GPS in the fog and rain, because, well, it has never failed you before, not once. Blasting along, but keeping a close watch on your GPS screen, staying right on course, and then out of nowhere, AN ISLAND! Way too late to do a darn thing, except thing, "Wow, this really going to suck!"

I am not relating this comment to the accident referenced in this thread specifically...

IMO, anyone who needs a TV screen to navigate at night needs to stay off the damn water. GPS, especially on a small inland lake, is a sanity check, not an auto pilot.

So, no, I cannot picture the scene you describe because there is no way I would EVER trust an electronic device to guide me in close quarters at speeds that could cause harm to vessel or person if it malfunctioned.

[BroadHopper]

Another thing you should keep in mind about GPS accuracy. The DOD owns and operates the Global Positioning System. in case of an attack on the US govt. DOD can and will change the gps algorithm. This is too confuse the enemy/attacker(s) if they use GPS for tracking their 'smart' ammunitions.

A buddy od mine who serve in the Armed Forces told me this little tidbit.

If your GPS goes crazy we must be under attack!

[Woodsy]

For those of you who might like a little better GPS reception...

http://www.gilsson.com/

Woodsy

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

I am not relating this comment to the accident referenced in this thread specifically...

IMO, anyone who needs a TV screen to navigate at night needs to stay off the damn water. GPS, especially on a small inland lake, is a sanity check, not an auto pilot.

So, no, I cannot picture the scene you describe because there is no way I would EVER trust an electronic device to guide me in close quarters at speeds that could cause harm to vessel or person if it malfunctioned.

I think you may have misinterpeted my intent...it was not to offer an excuse as to what happened, or even an explanation. Also, it was not to say needing a GPS (day or night) is right or wrong. The post was for none of those things...I simply said "imagine" if this is what happen. And how shocking an event it would have been.
You say you cannot picture (imagine) the scene I describe? Do you lack an imagination? How do you watch TV, Movies, or read books????

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

I am not relating this comment to the accident referenced in this thread specifically...

IMO, anyone who needs a TV screen to navigate at night needs to stay off the damn water. GPS, especially on a small inland lake, is a sanity check, not an auto pilot.

Best point made yet! It is scary to think about someone with their head buried in a 12 inch screen cruising along at night!!!

I understood what you meant sa meredith and yes I agree if that were ever to happen I could imagine the boater being scared to death... if they survived the impact.

[sa meredith]

Yes, of course it is wrong to be cruising along, with your head buried in a screen...or even really NEEDING the screen in the first place. No one could argue against that. Wrong and dangerous.

I was simply sharing an image that popped into my head.
Not trying to start any trouble.

[Lakepilot]

Had an airplane with GPS in it. Have thousands of hours IFR and hundreds flying in the rain and the GPS never failed (due to the rain). We have Direct TV and it has been known to fail during heavy rain and thunderstorms.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

I think you may have misinterpeted my intent...it was not to offer an excuse as to what happened, or even an explanation. Also, it was not to say needing a GPS (day or night) is right or wrong. The post was for none of those things...I simply said "imagine" if this is what happen. And how shocking an event it would have been.
You say you cannot picture (imagine) the scene I describe? Do you lack an imagination? How do you watch TV, Movies, or read books????

No worries, I understood where you were coming from. You usually seem to be rational, so I got the spirit of your post. My reply wasn't meant to be lobbed at you in an accusatory manner, sometimes text doesn't translate very well, and I often tend to be kind of direct in my replies.

Could I "imagine" it from the perspective of another person, yes, of course. Could I imagine myself in that scenario? Not really?

[4Fun]

Originally Posted by Lakepilot

Had an airplane with GPS in it. Have thousands of hours IFR and hundreds flying in the rain and the GPS never failed (due to the rain). We have Direct TV and it has been known to fail during heavy rain and thunderstorms.

Different frequencys react differently to weather. My XM radio antenna can have 1' of snow on it and work fine. Direct TV hardly works at all in the snow. I would say GPS is pretty resiliant. Mine works great all the time even in some heavy snow when snowmobiling.

Maybe she was "flying on instruments"....

[fatlazyless]

As everyone knows, the Diamond Island boat crash took place on June 16, 2008, at about 2am, which is one year ago today.

For the driver of the boat it's had to be a very long year, but for her deceased close friend it's had to be a forever year. Nothing that happens in the Belknap County legal process will bring her back.

[lakershaker]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

I am not relating this comment to the accident referenced in this thread specifically...

IMO, anyone who needs a TV screen to navigate at night needs to stay off the damn water. GPS, especially on a small inland lake, is a sanity check, not an auto pilot.

I completely agree. GPS gives people a false sense of security, and when they are heads-down, they may be going the right way, but not aware of other boats around - which unfortunately don't show up on GPS. And even if there is radar on the boat, not all boats show on radar. I think "instument flying" at night on the lake is a huge problem, and with the proliferation of GPS, it's only going to get worse.

There is no substitute for first hand knowledge of the lake and a good current chart. The GPS is as stated in other posts a nice double check, but can't be the primary means of getting around at night. You need your head up, your night vision, and a strong ability to navigate using any visible landmarks and nav aides. If you can't, you shouldn't be on the water at night - you are risking not only your life but everyone else in the area's as well.

[jeffk]

I use GPS to fix my position at night and then constantly check against what I can see. For example, if the GPS says I should be approaching a flasher I locate that flasher and lock on to it visually until I can locate my next point of reference. If my visibility is compromised the first thing to go is SLOW DOWN! probably to headway speed until I can obtain another visual fix.

In essence, when traveling at significant speed I can always see my next visual marker AND I can always confirm my position on GPS. If I lose confidence in either I slow down until I am confident in both again. I also use a general compass heading as confirmation. I know that heading home is generally a N heading and check that every now and then as well.

[ApS]

I guess we'll hear eventually of any GPS involvement in this collision: It's my understanding that a GPS can record the passage it has taken.

Originally Posted by lakershaker

"...GPS gives people a false sense of security, and when they are heads-down...even if there is radar on the boat, not all boats show on radar...I think "instument flying" at night on the lake is a huge problem, and with the proliferation of GPS, it's only going to get worse...You need your head up, your night vision..."

Even when equipped with radar, fathometers, and incredible measures to preserve night vision, the U. S. Navy ran three ships aground one foggy winter night in Canada. Occurring within 1 mile and 10 minutes of each other, that 15-kt collision with land was the subject of the book, Standing into Danger, by Carrie Brown. (Available at Amazon and elsewhere.) The two smallest ships were of the Navy's Destroyer class!

When Googling the book's availability, results included night-vision (Coast Guard .pdf files), and then to invention. The Dutch have apparently invented night-vision imagery that makes night appear as though "shot in broad daylight"—in full color!

Will technology introduce still another screen to the helm that will make "heads-up" night boating obsolete?

What a concept!

[jrc]

Originally Posted by jeffk

I use GPS to fix my position at night and then constantly check against what I can see. For example, if the GPS says I should be approaching a flasher I locate that flasher and lock on to it visually until I can locate my next point of reference. If my visibility is compromised the first thing to go is SLOW DOWN! probably to headway speed until I can obtain another visual fix.

In essence, when traveling at significant speed I can always see my next visual marker AND I can always confirm my position on GPS. If I lose confidence in either I slow down until I am confident in both again. I also use a general compass heading as confirmation. I know that heading home is generally a N heading and check that every now and then as well.

I use a similar technique when night boating. You must use all the data you can when boating in limited visibility. That means your eyes, and your GPS or radar (if equipped). I also use my depth finder. If the GPS says it should be 50 feet deep and my depth finder says 20 feet, I slow down figure out what going on. Usually its the depth finder whacking out on something. You have to be a fool not to use all the tools you have, none of them are perfect, all of them can give you false data once in awhile, even your own eyes.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by jrc

I use a similar technique when night boating. You must use all the data you can when boating in limited visibility. That means your eyes, and your GPS or radar (if equipped). I also use my depth finder. If the GPS says it should be 50 feet deep and my depth finder says 20 feet, I slow down figure out what going on. Usually its the depth finder whacking out on something. You have to be a fool not to use all the tools you have, none of them are perfect, all of them can give you false data once in awhile, even your own eyes.

I think that's what's most important here. Some fixate on GPS or whatever being the only thing that's right or wrong. But even during the daylight hours, it's important to be aware of everything around you, including what's up front and behind, a complete 360 viewpoint. It's equally dangerous to either fixate your eyes on a screen while piloting a boat as it is to have your eyes peeled dead ahead, with no regard to the port or starboard viewpoints.

Obviously, some folks have a deep felt dislike of all things electronic, while others believe 100% in them. But I think most of us have a valuable cynicism that understands what you just stated. Our own eyes can betray us sometimes just as a GPS can. It pays dividends to understand that, and proceed with caution.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Skip

While all of this talk of GPS accuracy and anomalies is fascinating we must all remember one thing:

Regardless of GPS, RADAR, compass, depthfinders or the like a captain, at all times, must maintain a proper lookout. Maintaining a proper lookout is one of the most basic rules of seamanship that everyone must master and understand before taking the helm.

Failure of an installed navigational aid, or the inability to interperet such aid accurately is never an excuse for not maintaining a proper lookout, or operating your craft at an appropriate speed with regards to surrounding water & atmospheric conditions!

Skip, thanks for injecting a dose of common sense into this part of this thread. Anyone who fixates on a GPS while driving a boat is an accident waiting to happen. The first and most important thing to do while navigating a boat is to watch where you are going. This includes at night. The big lake theory of collision avoidance doesn't work. You are sharing the lake with thousands of other people, your attention should never be fixated on a gps screen or any other screen for that matter. Your main focus should be in front of or around your boat using the gps and other tools as reference/backup.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Just Sold

In 2005 an "experienced boater" ran aground on Rattlesnake Is at night while trying to approach an unlighted dock. So it can happen to anyone anytime.
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...sh+Rattlesnake

I think I mentioned this very accident sometime earlier in the thread. So to put some balance back into the discusssion it might well be argued that visibility was limited (to ground level) but not "zero" that night and Erica seeing the shoreline lights, thought she was the proper distance from shore. I've run the route I now believe she was taking that night countless times and the shoreline isn't dark in that area. Most nights I don't consult the GPS (coming back that route) until after I'm home and find that my deviation from the programmed route is negligible. So could it have been a simple error ... sure. Again the testimony of her friend onboard and Dr Rock as to the conditions that night will narrow a lot of the speculation as to what happened.

[Mink Islander]

Failure to maintain a safe watch and going too fast for the conditions.

If you can't see something bearing dead ahead and consequently hit it with such force that you destroy the boat, kill a passenger and severely injure the two other individuals in the boat (including yourself), it's no simple error. It's reckless behavior by the operator and a clear violation of a number of fundamental boating laws. Seems to me, the only question here is whether she was legally impaired by alcohol and therefore compounded her legal problems that night. The rest appears pretty open and closed.

I think we all feel sympathy for the situation. It's a huge tragedy for all involved. No, she didn't head out that night planning to crash her boat and kill her friend. But she did operate the boat in a manner that was reckless given the conditions and CAUSED an major accident with a fatality as a result. Yes CAUSED it. It was entirely avoidable and she alone owns that. She needs to be held accountable for her actions and boaters need to learn from this so it doesn't happen again.

We can't just excuse this away as some random "could have happened to anyone" situation. If you think this could happen to you, then you should consider the possibility that you are taking extreme and unnecessary risks when you boat at night and are potentially a hazard to yourself and others. We should all believe we're operating in a manner where this type accident COULDN'T happen to us. Because it really shouldn't be possible if you are a competent, cautious and sober captain.

[jrc]

Wow its amazing, why even have a trial, just read a few newpaper articles, write a few forum posts, talk to some friends and then start building the gallows.

[Mink Islander]

Remember this?


I'm not saying that she is innocent, just that without evidence of intoxication, this is far from a slam dunk. My guess is if the BAC evidence is excluded she walks with no jail time. Probably will be a plea bargain.


You wrote it in this thread. I guess it's okay for YOU to have an opinion that she will walk based on your slant on the information, but everybody else is off base if they take an alternate view?

Little hypocritical, don't you think??

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Mink Islander

...

Little hypocritical, don't you think??

Maybe, but I was guessing at an outcome, not declaring her guilty or innocent. Maybe a subtle difference.

I still think she will get off pretty easy, if the booze evidence is surpressed or if she wasn't drunk. I still think she will easily be convicted if she was drunk.

If she was drunk, she is pretty much automatically guilty in my opinion and in practice and in that case I hope she goes to jail.

If she was not drunk, then I would really like to hear all the evidence before I made an decision. It gets into degrees of negligence and visibilty and conditions and a whole bunch of other factors. Accidents do happen, even to competent, cautious and sober captains.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Mink Islander

Failure to maintain a safe watch and going too fast for the conditions.

If you can't see something bearing dead ahead and consequently hit it with such force that you destroy the boat, kill a passenger and severely injure the two other individuals in the boat (including yourself), it's no simple error. It's reckless behavior by the operator and a clear violation of a number of fundamental boating laws. Seems to me, the only question here is whether she was legally impaired by alcohol and therefore compounded her legal problems that night. The rest appears pretty open and closed.

I think we all feel sympathy for the situation. It's a huge tragedy for all involved. No, she didn't head out that night planning to crash her boat and kill her friend. But she did operate the boat in a manner that was reckless given the conditions and CAUSED an major accident with a fatality as a result. Yes CAUSED it. It was entirely avoidable and she alone owns that. She needs to be held accountable for her actions and boaters need to learn from this so it doesn't happen again.

We can't just excuse this away as some random "could have happened to anyone" situation. If you think this could happen to you, then you should consider the possibility that you are taking extreme and unnecessary risks when you boat at night and are potentially a hazard to yourself and others. We should all believe we're operating in a manner where this type accident COULDN'T happen to us. Because it really shouldn't be possible if you are a competent, cautious and sober captain.

Out of curiousity, what charges should have been brought against the person mentioned in JustSold's recent post ? Sure there wasn't a death and I don't believe any alcohol was involved but still he hit Rattlesnake hard enough to break bones (if that matters).

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

I think I mentioned this very accident sometime earlier in the thread. So to put some balance back into the discusssion it might well be argued that visibility was limited (to ground level) but not "zero" that night and Erica seeing the shoreline lights, thought she was the proper distance from shore. I've run the route I now believe she was taking that night countless times and the shoreline isn't dark in that area.

Just curious about your comment of shoreline lights in that area. Diamond Island does not have electricity last time I checked, so unless someone was running a generator or had a crapload of candles going that island would have been pitch black. There is not a lot of houses in that area of the island either. I have been to Dr. Rock's house before. If you are talking about lights on the mainland I can understand however visibility was crap that night and that would be misleading... Just sayin'

[ApS]

Originally Posted by jrc

"...You have to be a fool not to use all the tools you have, none of them are perfect, all of them can give you false data once in awhile, even your own eyes..."

While in Long Island Sound's notorious fog, I've had occasion to stop altogether and use my ears. Though what I heard was actually traffic noise along the shoreline, I thought it was surf along the shoreline. (No matter, my location was then plotted to suit the shoreline).

I've learned to develop and to trust my senses and among all the senses—to trust my eyes the most.

One example of using those senses was just last Tuesday: Totally unexpected, I smelled cigar smoke wafting off a calm, quiet, and empty lake. I turned upwind and there—about ½-mile away—was an oversized cruiser at anchor!

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...It's equally dangerous to either fixate your eyes on a screen while piloting a boat as it is to have your eyes peeled dead ahead, with no regard to the port or starboard viewpoints..."

I'm at a loss to describe any Jet-Skis or bass boats running onto Winnipesaukee shorelines—especially as their number is so large here!

Bass boats in particular run in dim morning fog: Because of the nature of their respective helms, they are focused dead-ahead all the time.

Originally Posted by Mink Islander

"...the only question here is whether she was legally impaired by alcohol..."

In taking that first drop of alcohol, the first casualty will always be Judgment.

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...that island would have been pitch black..."

It's because of that fact that I proposed that docks be fitted with a blue-colored solar light—right here at the forum in 2005.

There was, of course, the usual skepticism:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...48&postcount=5

I wonder how this skepticism plays out this June?

Point being: Even at the darkest hour—in fog—on a lake—in June—and with the moon in the night sky, the sky overhead will provide a lighter contrast against which to silhouette shorelines.

__________________

[Mink Islander]

I guess it's how the term is used. Accident that is. Preventable accident? Accident caused by reckless behavior? As I said earlier, I don't think this is a "could of happened to anyone" situation and the way we throw around "accident" makes it sound like it was just fate that caused this tragedy. No blame need be assigned.

The reality is that the accident happened because the captain made some terrible judgements -- and killed someone as a result. Had she followed even the most common sense rules of boating, this would never have happened. That's the real tragedy here. It highlights the dangers of boating at night and in bad weather and the heightened level of caution required by the captain in those situations.

Unless there's some new evidence (mechanical failure, etc.) that we haven't heard yet, then, yes, I am highly confident she will be convicted of the primary charges. What does she have as a defense?

It's the BWI charge that's more difficult to prove, though it sounds like the State has a much better case (stronger direct evidence) here than they did with Mr. Littlefield. Lose on that charge and the penalty will be much harsher.

I expect that the court will take into account her suffering, contrition, etc. but I'll be surprised if she walks with no jail time at all. Someone died as a direct result of her actions. Personal suffering or not, that's a pretty serious crime. Even some modest jail time will highlight for everyone that this wasn't "just an accident".

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Just curious about your comment of shoreline lights in that area. Diamond Island does not have electricity last time I checked, so unless someone was running a generator or had a crapload of candles going that island would have been pitch black. There is not a lot of houses in that area of the island either. I have been to Dr. Rock's house before. If you are talking about lights on the mainland I can understand however visibility was crap that night and that would be misleading... Just sayin'

I agree that Diamond I is usually very dark, in contrast with Rattlesnake which often has lights, especially that house that has the "runway" lighting. But my reference was to the shoreline lights on the mainland. IIRC there's a mooring feild with a fairly well lit cluster of condos on the shore before you get to Diamond I. Now if visibility was bad enough that these couldn't be seen then you have to wonder about the wisdom of being on plane. If they were seen and she was using them to judge her distance from shore then it becomes a more understandable mistake.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by jrc

I use a similar technique when night boating. You must use all the data you can when boating in limited visibility. That means your eyes, and your GPS or radar (if equipped). I also use my depth finder. If the GPS says it should be 50 feet deep and my depth finder says 20 feet, I slow down figure out what going on. Usually its the depth finder whacking out on something. You have to be a fool not to use all the tools you have, none of them are perfect, all of them can give you false data once in awhile, even your own eyes.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

While in Long Island Sound's notorious fog, I've had occasion to stop altogether and use my ears. Though what I heard was actually traffic noise along the shoreline, I thought it was surf along the shoreline. (No matter, my location was then plotted to suit the shoreline).

I've learned to develop and to trust my senses and among all the senses—to trust my eyes the most.

One example of using those senses was just last Tuesday: Totally unexpected, I smelled cigar smoke wafting off a calm, quiet, and empty lake. I turned upwind and there—about ½-mile away—was an oversized cruiser at anchor!

I hope this wasn't on a clear morning with good visibility Fog is a very real hazard, both on land and at sea.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I'm at a loss to describe any Jet-Skis or bass boats running onto Winnipesaukee shorelines—especially as their number is so large here!

Bass boats in particular run in dim morning fog: Because of the nature of their respective helms, they are focused dead-ahead all the time.

Two points here. I know personally that bass boats and Jet-Skis typically do not run at lower cruising speeds. So you point out that two classes of craft, both that typically run at faster speeds than most (bass boats typically at Much faster speeds, and you say they are "focused Dead-Ahead all the time". So we have craft going fast that never look to the sides or behind them? I agree that they should concentrate the majority of their attention to what's in front, but boats coming in from the port or starboard side, out of their concentrated field of vision can be hazardous to their health.

I'm amazed that these two craft classes, which you point out are in large numbers, haven't been involved in many accidents. Would this indicate that their speeds aren't a dangerous factor, that maybe something else might be in play as to why other boats that are operating at slower speeds, and are presumably in lesser numbers, have more accidents?


BTW, I think your suggestion for lights on docks is a very good one. Excellent idea.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Two points here. I know personally that bass boats and Jet-Skis typically do not run at lower cruising speeds. So you point out that two classes of craft, both that typically run at faster speeds than most (bass boats typically at Much faster speeds, and you say they are "focused Dead-Ahead all the time". So we have craft going fast that never look to the sides or behind them? I agree that they should concentrate the majority of their attention to what's in front, but boats coming in from the port or starboard side, out of their concentrated field of vision can be hazardous to their health.

I'm amazed that these two craft classes, which you point out are in large numbers, haven't been involved in many accidents. Would this indicate that their speeds aren't a dangerous factor, that maybe something else might be in play as to why other boats that are operating at slower speeds, and are presumably in lesser numbers, have more accidents?
BTW, I think your suggestion for lights on docks is a very good one. Excellent idea.

I think one of the reasons regarding bass boats and jet skis not being involved in many accidents might be the fact that jet skis are not legal at night, and there typically are not a lot of bass boats on the water at night. They are usually in bed, since they have to get up so early in the AM to do their fishing!

Another reason for jet skis might be the maneuverability of the craft. They can see all around them and avoid potential probs fairly easily-if the operator is looking around and not only straight ahead.

[VtSteve]

Good points on the night time variances, forgot to mention them. There are countless examples of PWC accidents all over the country every year, no need for more at night. Heck, there are many PWC collisions with docks and other boats each year in broad daylight

As always, there are accidents that are just plain accidents, can't really eliminate them. I would say most accidents are the result of inattention, poor skills, alcohol, shear stupidity and thrill seekers, and I'm sure somewhere down on that list is someone focused on their little screen.

But the fact remains that all over the country we have bass boats doing well north of 70 and they seem to be fine for the most part, and people running over boats and hitting islands that are doing less than 30. Seems to me you need to go fast to be safe.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

But the fact remains that all over the country we have bass boats doing well north of 70 and they seem to be fine for the most part, and people running over boats and hitting islands that are doing less than 30. Seems to me you need to go fast to be safe.

No wonder I have been 'incident' free for over 50 years. I go tooo fast!

[VtSteve]

Exactly

Perhaps people that go faster concentrate more.

[winnilover]

Thoughts and prayers go out to the families of these women. Sadly it seems everyone has forgotten that these are human beings not just the breaking news of the day. Sad !

[sa meredith]

If you read all 700+ posts, YOU'LL FIND PLENTY OF THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS!
PLENTY!
These last few post have had much to do with GPS, and it's proper use, and little to do with the accident. Everyone understands the ruined lives, and the horrible aftermath of this event for Erica.
Her justice has been delayed, probably a bit too long, but who knows.
You want to send out thoughts and prayers? Fine, Great.
Where were you a year ago?!
Don't be be critical of the thread in your first post...it's not becoming.
No one has treated it as breaking news for many many months now.
Anyway....welcome to the Forum.

[BrownEyedGirl]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

If you read all 700+ posts, YOU'LL FIND PLENTY OF THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS!
PLENTY!
These last few post have had much to do with GPS, and it's proper use, and little to do with the accident. Everyone understands the ruined lives, and the horrible aftermath of this event for Erica.
Her justice has been delayed, probably a bit too long, but who knows.
You want to send out thoughts and prayers? Fine, Great.
Where were you a year ago?!
Don't be be critical of the thread in your first post...it's not becoming.
No one has treated it as breaking news for many many months now.
Anyway....welcome to the Forum.

Yikes! Way to welcome someone!

[winnilover]

sa meredith . I wasn't trying to be critical of others in my post , while reading some of the post I was just overwhelmed with what the families were going through during this tragedy, I have had something similar happen to someone close to me many years ago.I have called the Lake my sanctuary for over 20 years and I guess it just hit home. My sincere apologies. Thank you for your comment and I appreciate your advice and your welcome.

[Tank151]

Originally Posted by Nadia

Tank151,
A one minute investigation into your posting history and your user profile, along with your "classy" response to me reveals the following information:

A. You are the text-book definition of an internet troll
B. You have a history of randomly insulting people
C. You flame, use foul language, call family of the deceased "dopes", and encourage operating under the influence in a thread about a tragic boating accident.

How I got lucky enough to be the next person you bark at, I have no idea. Glancing at your behavior in the other thread regarding this topic you have established a regular pattern. When the words get too big for you, and the conversation a little too complex, you start throwing around obscenities and stamping your feet for attention Yes I am married, and no my husband is not whittled. Why do you ask? Is your wife indeed...a Tank? My husband would kick your you know what from one end of the Lakes Region to the other. Here are my suggestions: Go to your Doctor, and become heavily medicated. I think some Paxil may be in order. Crawl back under the rock you came out from and stay there. The world is a scary place for people with your mentality--

Nadia,

Based on your numerous and lengthy threads you have WAY TO MUCH time on your hands! Your one whos knows alot about NOTHING and a little bit about ALOT!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

"...what charges should have been brought against the person mentioned in JustSold's recent post...he hit Rattlesnake hard enough to break bones (if that matters)..."

'Never saw any follow-up articles on that Rattlesnake Island crash. Perhaps the damage didn't exceed the newest NH threshhold of $2000.

If he was badly hurt, he could already have missed the deadline for reporting the injury. (And I wouldn't have felt comfortable reporting it in his place).

(That new $2000 threshhold is a very likely reason we don't read of Jet-Ski "crashes" on this lake, and why "Safety" is improving. )

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...I hope this wasn't on a clear morning with good visibility...Fog is a very real hazard, both on land and at sea..."

1) New York's Long Island Sound is filled with high-speed automobile ferries, and I don't trust their use of technology.

2) Those ferries are managed by some who are considered among the demographic already scientifically known for poor risk management of selves—those 26 to 34-year-old boaters. They are also the most likely to use "texting". (Already responsible for dozens of fatalities on land).

3) Fog is normally intense on The Sound and can last all day. Fog keeps those who have built on the hills overlooking Lake Winnipesaukee from a morning view of the lake!

Originally Posted by jrc

"...Accidents do happen, even to competent, cautious and sober captains..."

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...As always, there are accidents that are just plain accidents, can't really eliminate them..."

Radio traffic announcements use "crashes", "collisions", and "roll-overs".

The word "accident" is mentioned 34 times just on this one page! "Accident" has been over-used: I have an "accident" when I injure myself. Perhaps those who have selected the word "accident" are also perpetual supporters of Senator Kennedy's" accident"—and willingly continue him in office.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...There are countless examples of PWC accidents all over the country every year, no need for more at night...there are many PWC collisions with docks and other boats each year in broad daylight

Some areas of the country prohibit Jet-Ski operation within 300 yards (or even further) from shore. One Florida county prohibits Jet-Skis for 12-miles!

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...Perhaps people that go faster concentrate more..."

How about self-preservation?

Bass boats only have about 8 feet of fiberglass ahead of the helm—and not the cocoon of 5-tons to 8-tons of fiberglass we've seen in the collisions with other boats and islands here.

With their vision focused directly forwards—by self-preservation and by boat design—you don't see bass-boaters or Jet-Skiers taking pictures of their wakes. (Or their passengers either, for that matter).

[sa meredith]

Um Tank....don't know if you noticed, but I don't think that's going to be a problem anymore.

[VtSteve]

I'm perfectly OK with calling what happened in this case a CRASH, or a COLLISION, even a SCREW UP.

You insist on trying to fill people's responses in for them, while ignoring their responses. In the Wake Picture "incident", it's pretty clear to everyone that it wasn't the Skipper taking it. If you continue to throw barbs in like this, your credibility will not go any higher. If you can't address the facts, stop making them up.

DOUBLE-THINK comes to mind.

We have a group that actually thinks PLANE (boating reference) is a bad word, a SKEERY word. Boating at night is something akin to jumping off a cliff for some. But the real dangers and the real issues are never addressed. I wonder why this is?

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Never read of any follow-up articles: Perhaps the damage didn't exceed the newest NH threshhold of $2000. That new threshhold is a very likely reason we don't read of Jet-Ski "crashes" on this lake, and why "Safety" is improving.

Perhaps you could explain why the threshold of $2000 applies in this case. As you well know when there's an injury an accident report must be filed. The damage limit doesn't apply. Just thought people reading might want the true facts.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

If you continue to throw barbs in like this, your credibility will not go any higher. If you can't address the facts, stop making them up.

You are new here aren't you ....

[John E]

FWIW we were at Lake Wylie NC a month ago for a Mastercraft reunion.

One of our group was heading home around 10 pm at wake speed because they were unfamiliar with the lake. They were having trouble with their bow light, but the stern was functioning.

They were in a 20' boat and got T boned by a bass boat estimated to be going 45 mph. I can't imagine going that fast without a clear view of what is approaching. Though my friend's bow light was possibly out, they could have just as well been anchoring and have been hit.

Somehow none of the 9 involved were hurt. Just shaken up. And a couple of totaled boats.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

You are new here aren't you ....

I was trying to be civil.

[Paugus Bay Lake Girl]

Blood test results OK'd in boating fatal
Laconia:

By BEA LEWIS
bwheel@metrocast.net


Thursday, April 30, 2009
Blood evidence taken from the operator of a boat involved in a fatal accident on Lake Winnipesaukee last summer can be used against her, a judge has ruled.

Erica Blizzard, 35, of 65 Gold St. in Lakeport, who is charged in the accident which claimed the life of one of the boat's two passengers, had sought to disallow blood alcohol test results from being introduced as evidence, claiming that investigators failed to show probable cause when they obtained a judge's permission to take blood samples.

But on Monday Superior Court Judge Kathleen McGuire ruled that Marine Patrol had probable cause to believe that Blizzard was intoxicated and, as a result, blood samples were lawfully taken from the suspect.

McGuire ruled evidence that Blizzard drove a boat headlong into an island at an unreasonable rate of speed given the weather conditions provided the probable cause Marine Patrol needed to believe the defendant had been drinking alcohol and that evidence of intoxication would be found in the defendant's blood.

Investigators allege that Blizzard was the driver of a 2008 Formula 370 SS and was traveling southeasterly "on plane" when the vessel struck Diamond Island in Gilford on June 15, 2008 at around 2:30 a.m.

In addition to claiming the life of Stephanie Beaudoin, 34, of Meredith, another passenger, Nicole Shinopolous of Burlington, Mass., suffered a fractured jaw. Blizzard also suffered serious facial injuries that required surgery.

The impact of the crash demolished the bow of the boat and apparently broke Beaudoin's neck, killing her instantly, according to Dr. Thomas Rock, an orthopedic surgeon who lives on the island and who rushed to help after hearing the crash. Rock rowed to the sinking boat with his wife and saw Blizzard slumped over the controls of the boat, court records indicate.

Blizzard is charged with alternate counts of negligent homicide, charging that she was either under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the crash that resulted in the death of one of her passengers or that she failed to keep a proper lookout. She is also charged with one count of aggravated driving while intoxicated.

Court records also show that it was rainy and foggy when the boat hit the rocky shoreline of the island and that Shinopolous told Marine Patrol they were traveling at about 25 or 30 mph when the accident occurred.

Photographs of the controls of the boat taken by Marine Patrol the night of the crash show the steering wheel in a straight-ahead position.

The shift lever for one of the engines was in full position while the shifter for the second engine was in reserve at almost full throttle.

All of the gauges were normal and at least one of the engines had broken its mount. Fiberglass was embedded in a granite ledge about five feet off shore, showing the point of impact by the boat, according to court records.

Attorney James Moir of Concord, who is representing Blizzard, had argued for the results of his client's blood test to be thrown out.

Belknap County Attorney Jim Carroll maintained that the state was relying upon exigency as a legally valid exception to the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Part I, Article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution.

He argued Marine Patrol had to act fast since Blizzard was being transferred to Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, which placed her beyond the immediate control of local law enforcement.

The state seized six samples of Blizzard's blood, some taken by Lakes Region General Hospital as part of efforts to save her life, court records indicate. The first sample was taken two hours after the crash.

Moir had argued that Marine Patrol lacked probable cause to obtain the warrants it used to seize samples of Blizzard's blood taken at LRGH and DHMC, where she was later transferred for treatment of her injuries.

The affidavit filed by Marine Patrol Lt. Tim Dunleavy, Moir argued, failed to show probable cause that the test results from the blood samples would prove intoxication. Judge McGuire disagreed.

"The state has also met its burden of showing exigent circumstances, given that this accident occurred in the middle of the night when obtaining a warrant is more difficult," the court wrote.

The judge also cited the "evanescent nature of blood alcohol evidence making its preservation impossible without removing samples from the body."

An affidavit filed with the court cites Shinopolous telling a Marine Patrol officer that the trio drank alcohol at the Wolfe-Trapp in Wolfeboro earlier in the day and Marine Patrol's discovery of "several" empty beer cans at the crash site.

Moir said the affidavit was defective because it failed to state how much the woman drank, exactly when, where the beer cans were found or how they relate to the crash or the driver.

In discovery materials Moir said Shinopolous told Marine Patrol Sgt. Joshua Dirth they had "two drinks, if that" and reported that the defendant and Beaudoin had "Grey Goose and cranberry" but did not finish their drinks.

Moir challenged whether Judge Edward Gordon would have signed the warrants had that information been included in the affidavit, as well as Shinopolous' opinion that Blizzard wasn't drunk.

She was interviewed by Marine Patrol two days after the crash and asked whether she thought Blizzard was impaired. She replied, "No," prompting Sgt. Dirth to inquire, "None at all?"

"No, I carried on conversations with her; she seemed to really be about herself; there was nothing that would make me think she was impaired at all," Shinopolous said.

Blizzard remains free on $75,000 personal recognizance bail. A pretrial hearing has been set for next Wednesday with jury selection now scheduled for May 26.

[kara1]

My heart goes out to the families affected by this tragedy.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Paugus Bay Lake Girl

Blood test results OK'd in boating fatal
Laconia:

By BEA LEWIS
bwheel@metrocast.net


Thursday, April 30, 2009
Blood evidence taken from the operator of a boat involved in a fatal accident on Lake Winnipesaukee last summer can be used against her, a judge has ruled.

Erica Blizzard, 35, of 65 Gold St. in Lakeport, who is charged in the accident which claimed the life of one of the boat's two passengers, had sought to disallow blood alcohol test results from being introduced as evidence, claiming that investigators failed to show probable cause when they obtained a judge's permission to take blood samples.

But on Monday Superior Court Judge Kathleen McGuire ruled that Marine Patrol had probable cause to believe that Blizzard was intoxicated and, as a result, blood samples were lawfully taken from the suspect.

McGuire ruled evidence that Blizzard drove a boat headlong into an island at an unreasonable rate of speed given the weather conditions provided the probable cause Marine Patrol needed to believe the defendant had been drinking alcohol and that evidence of intoxication would be found in the defendant's blood.

Investigators allege that Blizzard was the driver of a 2008 Formula 370 SS and was traveling southeasterly "on plane" when the vessel struck Diamond Island in Gilford on June 15, 2008 at around 2:30 a.m.

In addition to claiming the life of Stephanie Beaudoin, 34, of Meredith, another passenger, Nicole Shinopolous of Burlington, Mass., suffered a fractured jaw. Blizzard also suffered serious facial injuries that required surgery.

The impact of the crash demolished the bow of the boat and apparently broke Beaudoin's neck, killing her instantly, according to Dr. Thomas Rock, an orthopedic surgeon who lives on the island and who rushed to help after hearing the crash. Rock rowed to the sinking boat with his wife and saw Blizzard slumped over the controls of the boat, court records indicate.

Blizzard is charged with alternate counts of negligent homicide, charging that she was either under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the crash that resulted in the death of one of her passengers or that she failed to keep a proper lookout. She is also charged with one count of aggravated driving while intoxicated.

Court records also show that it was rainy and foggy when the boat hit the rocky shoreline of the island and that Shinopolous told Marine Patrol they were traveling at about 25 or 30 mph when the accident occurred.

Photographs of the controls of the boat taken by Marine Patrol the night of the crash show the steering wheel in a straight-ahead position.

The shift lever for one of the engines was in full position while the shifter for the second engine was in reserve at almost full throttle.

All of the gauges were normal and at least one of the engines had broken its mount. Fiberglass was embedded in a granite ledge about five feet off shore, showing the point of impact by the boat, according to court records.

Attorney James Moir of Concord, who is representing Blizzard, had argued for the results of his client's blood test to be thrown out.

Belknap County Attorney Jim Carroll maintained that the state was relying upon exigency as a legally valid exception to the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Part I, Article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution.

He argued Marine Patrol had to act fast since Blizzard was being transferred to Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, which placed her beyond the immediate control of local law enforcement.

The state seized six samples of Blizzard's blood, some taken by Lakes Region General Hospital as part of efforts to save her life, court records indicate. The first sample was taken two hours after the crash.

Moir had argued that Marine Patrol lacked probable cause to obtain the warrants it used to seize samples of Blizzard's blood taken at LRGH and DHMC, where she was later transferred for treatment of her injuries.

The affidavit filed by Marine Patrol Lt. Tim Dunleavy, Moir argued, failed to show probable cause that the test results from the blood samples would prove intoxication. Judge McGuire disagreed.

"The state has also met its burden of showing exigent circumstances, given that this accident occurred in the middle of the night when obtaining a warrant is more difficult," the court wrote.

The judge also cited the "evanescent nature of blood alcohol evidence making its preservation impossible without removing samples from the body."

An affidavit filed with the court cites Shinopolous telling a Marine Patrol officer that the trio drank alcohol at the Wolfe-Trapp in Wolfeboro earlier in the day and Marine Patrol's discovery of "several" empty beer cans at the crash site.

Moir said the affidavit was defective because it failed to state how much the woman drank, exactly when, where the beer cans were found or how they relate to the crash or the driver.

In discovery materials Moir said Shinopolous told Marine Patrol Sgt. Joshua Dirth they had "two drinks, if that" and reported that the defendant and Beaudoin had "Grey Goose and cranberry" but did not finish their drinks.

Moir challenged whether Judge Edward Gordon would have signed the warrants had that information been included in the affidavit, as well as Shinopolous' opinion that Blizzard wasn't drunk.

She was interviewed by Marine Patrol two days after the crash and asked whether she thought Blizzard was impaired. She replied, "No," prompting Sgt. Dirth to inquire, "None at all?"

"No, I carried on conversations with her; she seemed to really be about herself; there was nothing that would make me think she was impaired at all," Shinopolous said.

Blizzard remains free on $75,000 personal recognizance bail. A pretrial hearing has been set for next Wednesday with jury selection now scheduled for May 26.

That article was dated back over 2 months ago...

[Paugus Bay Lake Girl]

NH boating fatal trial delayed 5 months


LACONIA, N.H. (AP) - The trial of a woman charged in a 2008 boating crash on Lake Winnipesaukee that killed 1 of her passengers has been postponed until Oct. 13 so she can have more surgery to repair injuries she suffered in the crash.

The attorney for Erica Blizzard, James Moir of Concord, and Belknap County Attorney Jim Carroll agreed to the continuation and it was approved during an in-chambers meeting with Judge Bruce Mohl, The Citizen reported.

The trial had been scheduled for May 26.

According to court filings, Blizzard is scheduled to have surgery at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon on July 9. She reportedly suffered facial injuries, a lower back fracture and bleeding in her brain when the boat she was piloting hit Diamond Island in rainy, foggy weather.


Information from: Citizen, http://www.citizen.com

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by Paugus Bay Lake Girl

NH boating fatal trial delayed 5 months


LACONIA, N.H. (AP) - The trial of a woman charged in a 2008 boating crash on Lake Winnipesaukee that killed 1 of her passengers has been postponed until Oct. 13 so she can have more surgery to repair injuries she suffered in the crash.

The attorney for Erica Blizzard, James Moir of Concord, and Belknap County Attorney Jim Carroll agreed to the continuation and it was approved during an in-chambers meeting with Judge Bruce Mohl, The Citizen reported.

The trial had been scheduled for May 26.

According to court filings, Blizzard is scheduled to have surgery at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon on July 9. She reportedly suffered facial injuries, a lower back fracture and bleeding in her brain when the boat she was piloting hit Diamond Island in rainy, foggy weather.


Information from: Citizen, http://www.citizen.com

This article was posted here on May 7, 2009...post #531. And discussed pretty harshly for a week or so.
Where ya been??????

[VtSteve]

Her surgery is scheduled for tomorrow..... I wish her well, hope all goes well.

[BrownEyedGirl]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

This article was posted here on May 7, 2009...post #531. And discussed pretty harshly for a week or so.
Where ya been??????

Not everyone checks the forum 20 times a day......

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by BrownEyedGirl

Not everyone checks the forum 20 times a day......

Ok but 20 times a month would have covered this.....

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by BrownEyedGirl

Not everyone checks the forum 20 times a day......

Was not trying to start trouble. Just saying...that info is certainly pertinent to this very lengthy thread, and I would think it would be obvious the article was posted. That's all.

But since you brought it up...
May 7th......July 8th So 6 or 7 times a year would have it covered.
Once every 7 weeks or so...

Hazelnut...check your PMs. After 3 today, no computer for me for 10 days.

[BrownEyedGirl]

Not looking for trouble either, just an observation

[ironhorsetim]

This weeks papers about a Laconia man getting 2.5-8 years for the death of his girlfriend (on a bike). Anyone think this will be a sign of things to come in this case? How about it Skip what's your opinion?

[Pineedles]

I haven't heard any news on this for a while. But my main intention here is that I don't like to see the posts stop at 666.

[ironhorsetim]

It was kind of eeeerie

[VtSteve]

The trial was postponed until October if memory serves me.

[ApS]

A similar R.I. case (alcohol, boating, acquaintance dies), was resolved this summer with only a 2½ years minimum-confinement sentence:

http://www.projo.com/news/content/GR...8.3ead4c8.html

(Though it seems like there should be a 2nd-offense penalty law written for such sentences).

[SIKSUKR]

Your starting to sound like M&M now.

[fatlazyless]

A negligent homicide decision for a triple death, head-on collision between a car and two motorcycles in Thornton NH in June 2006 was reversed on appeal in the NH Supreme Court in June 2009. The driver of the car had had no alcohol and crossing the yellow center line for some unknown reason was voted by the judges 3-1 as not meeting the definition of negligence.


As I see things, it seems like the severity of the collision with three deaths and a 4th severly injured, should be considered in determining negligence, alcohol or no alcohol.

What were the three judges thinking? Why is this triple death now considered to be a tragic accident and not a crime what with the 20-something year old male driver having been released from a 12 year sentence for his time served ?

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

A similar R.I. case (alcohol, boating, acquaintance dies), was resolved this summer with only a 2½ years minimum-confinement sentence:

http://www.projo.com/news/content/GR...8.3ead4c8.html

(Though it seems like there should be a 2nd-offense penalty law written for such sentences).

Sad case, kid should have gotten more. There is a real teenage drinking problem in that town and the parents think the police are unfair to arrest kids for drinking ... and driving. The judge in that case was an idiot for blaming the Police Chief for not going after teenage drinking (which was not true) but the real problem is the parents that condone teen drinking. A case of the privileged (read rich) few literaly getting away with murder.

Not directly Winni related so it may be

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

As I see things, it seems like the severity of the collision with three deaths and a 4th severly injured, should be considered in determining negligence, alcohol or no alcohol.

What were the three judges thinking? Why is this triple death now considered to be a tragic accident and not a crime what with the 20-something year old male driver having been released from a 12 year sentence for his time served ?

The difference between a tragic accident and a crime is easy to illustrate. A bee flies into your car and gets stuck between your eyeball and your glasses. You swerve across the road as a result and head-on another car killing 9 infants. Most would call this a tragic accident.

Constrast this with dropping a pickle out of your $1 meal and then drifting across the road as you fish around the car to retrieve said pickle. You hit no car but the local PD witnesses it all. This is negligent driving (IMO).

The severity of the outcome may play a part in the punishment/sentencing phase but should have no part in determining whether a crime was committed.

[ironhorsetim]

:

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Your starting to sound like M&M now.

Did you mean...
Eminem the candy or...
M&M the wrapper...lol.get it wrapper (rapper)
Sorry, couldn't resist

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Your starting to sound like M&M now.

Originally Posted by ironhorsetim

:

Did you mean...
Eminem the candy or...
M&M the wrapper...lol.get it wrapper (rapper)
Sorry, couldn't resist

Wha dis ?!? Some phool be gankin my game ? For shizlle ? That's just wack. Wizzle best be findin his own rhyme. Peace out.

[fatlazyless]

What determines if an accident was avoidable or negligent depends on who is doing the determining and examining the driver's sobriety. If the driver was drunk then determining negligence is a 'no-brainer.'

I've heard of a trucking company of 18-wheel, tractor-trailers which considers hitting a moose to be an avoidable accident on their driver's record. Why is that? Because a moose is so much larger than a deer and should be easy to see and to avoid.

The company is based in Alabama !

"Well, hush my puppies....if you all cannot see a great big moose up ahead and steer around that, then it's your own damn fault......yessir!"

Now, that's one company's opinion, Southern style. ...

[Airwaves]

Orignially posted by FLL

I've heard of a trucking company of 18-wheel, tractor-trailers which considers hitting a moose to be an avoidable accident on their driver's record. Why is that? Because a moose is so much larger than a deer and should be easy to see and to avoid.

More likely it's because a Moose hit can cause considerable damage $$$ to the tractor! They are just as hard to see in the dead of night.

[trfour]

CDL, and Boating operation, are two different animals.

Quote; "Well, hush my puppies....if you all cannot see a great big moose up ahead and steer around that, then it's your own damn fault......yessir!"



However, you are a dear, and you know how we love you!

PS, please sign up for the special Winnepesaukee.com FLL commensurate trophy.

[OCDACTIVE]

It was reported this morning that the trial has been postponed until January 2010.

[DEJ]

This time it is the State that is holding up the process. Below is a quote from the Citizen on line article.

"The attorney for Erica Blizzard, James Moir of Concord, said the state has not been able to obtain an expert report on toxicology issues, so he has not been able to prepare a report in response. The New Hampshire Union Leader reports Belknap County Attorney Jim Carroll did not object to the request."

[VtSteve]

Did their computer lock up or something?

[Skip]

Story this morning in the Citizen about the latest delay. Can be read in full by clicking HERE.

[fatlazyless]

...in today's Dec 30 www.unionleader.com., January 18....jury selection scheduled in Belknap County court...

Nobody asked me but I just think that drinking and boating is totally different from drinking and driving, and therefore the drinking laws simply Do Not Apply! Boating and beer goes together like cake and ice cream, like hotdogs and mustard, like peanuts and popcorn, like boating and beer....see what I mean!

Especially, when you consider that this accident happened at 2pm out in the middle of a totally deserted lake with no other boaters.....so where is the harm with boating and a wee small can of beer, or two .....gee whiz?

[drhankz]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Especially, when you consider that this accident happened at 2pm out in the middle of a totally deserted lake with no other boaters.....so where is the harm with boating and a little beer.....gee whiz?

How about 2 AM or have you been sipping ADULT Beverages Already

[robmac]

Or perhaps on the way home from church after sipping a little sacramental wine maybe FLL.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

...in today's Dec 30 www.unionleader.com., January 18....jury selection scheduled in Belknap County court...

Nobody asked me but I just think that drinking and boating is totally different from drinking and driving, and therefore the drinking laws simply Do Not Apply! Boating and beer goes together like cake and ice cream, like hotdogs and mustard, like peanuts and popcorn, like boating and beer....see what I mean!

Especially, when you consider that this accident happened at 2pm out in the middle of a totally deserted lake with no other boaters.....so where is the harm with boating and a wee small can of beer, or two .....gee whiz?

As friend of both the driver and the victim, I see very little humor in your post FLL. Do you ever think about how some of your insensitive posts will effect others?

[Gilligan]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

...in today's Dec 30 www.unionleader.com., January 18....jury selection scheduled in Belknap County court...

Here is a working link to the story mentioned by FLL.


Jury selection next month in homicide trial

Interesting comments appear after the story. It seems that the GPS data for Diamond Island was possibly altered at the time of the accident.

[sa meredith]

Off topic, I know. But worth mentioning.
Very soon this thread will have 100,000 views. I assume this is a forum record. And one that will probably stand for quite a while.

On another note, after gassing up one morning this past summer, I ran in for a couple bags of ice, as myself and two friends somehow ended up with a warm 30 pack of Bud Light. Although I had never met her, the person behind the counter at the marina was quite obviously Erica.
And it's funny...it instantly served as a reminder as to what can happen when people become careless, and mix in a few drinks. Suddenly, cruising the lake with the boys, and tipping a few in the process, didn't seem like such a good idea.

[OCDACTIVE]

In all honesty while driving my boat I have a zero tolerence policy for myself. People on the boat can have what ever the like but I can't see taking the risk... Especially with a GFB I already stand out. I usually will go to the Naswa and they laugh at the amount of sprite with limes I will drink.

I am not saying this is what everyone should do but it is just my 2 cents.

The specifics and evidence have not yet been brought to light and I think it is in very bad taste to take a tragic accident and make speculations.

All I know is it is something we all can learn from and make the lake a safer place.

[trfour]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

In all honesty while driving my boat I have a zero tolerence policy for myself. People on the boat can have what ever the like but I can't see taking the risk... Especially with a GFB I already stand out. I usually will go to the Naswa and they laugh at the amount of sprite with limes I will drink.

I am not saying this is what everyone should do but it is just my 2 cents.

The specifics and evidence have not yet been brought to light and I think it is in very bad taste to take a tragic accident and make speculations.

All I know is it is something we all can learn from and make the lake a safer place.

Sprite with lime has been my choice as well. Another very refreshing drink is Diet tonic water with lime, after all, if you're a captain and driving the boat, you're passengers are trusting YOU, and as a captain we need to give the trust back in safe passage!

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

Off topic, I know. But worth mentioning.
Very soon this thread will have 100,000 views. I assume this is a forum record. And one that will probably stand for quite a while.

I believe that Don has said that 100,000 views means a 100,000 unique viewers and not a 1000 people looking a 100 times. Truly a big number.

[ApS]

1) Another 2008 Massachusetts fatal collision—also "faulting" GPS—resulted in a ten-year supervised probation, a three-year ban from boating, a one-year suspended sentence, a five-year revocation of boating license, and a three-month suspension of driver's license. Alcohol was not a factor.
—January, 2010 Soundings magazine—no other resolution of this case was found at Google. (!)

2) Learning of quite obviously Erika—and putting on my unaccustomed F. Lee Bailey hat—this is the one rare case that I would put the defendant on the witness stand.

(In a wordless plea for sympathy ).

3) If you slowly cruised past the crash scene this season, you'd see somebody has added a rather tasteless lighthouse model.

Originally Posted by Gilligan

"...Interesting comments appear after the story. It seems that the GPS data for Diamond Island was possibly altered at the time of the accident..."

A GPS display that is staggered can't be a helpful defense in the face of BWI evidence.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

I believe that Don has said that 100,000 views means a 100,000 unique viewers and not a 1000 people looking a 100 times. Truly a big number.

It is technically possible and very likely some were counted more than once, but still a very impressive showing.

[Grady223]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

In all honesty while driving my boat I have a zero tolerence policy for myself. People on the boat can have what ever the like but I can't see taking the risk... Especially with a GFB I already stand out. I usually will go to the Naswa and they laugh at the amount of sprite with limes I will drink.

I am not saying this is what everyone should do but it is just my 2 cents.

The specifics and evidence have not yet been brought to light and I think it is in very bad taste to take a tragic accident and make speculations.

All I know is it is something we all can learn from and make the lake a safer place.

Everyone should do it - there should be a zero tolerance for drinking and operating a boat; they don't mix.

[Tank151]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

As friend of both the driver and the victim, I see very little humor in your post FLL. Do you ever think about how some of your insensitive posts will effect others?

Fat Lazy Less' comments are very insensitive and hope the folks here on the forum realize what a dope he really is!

[Kamper]

It's the same responsibility as operating any equipment, or activity that involves risk to yourself or others. You also have to consider the "risk to others" as the efforts that could be made by rescue personnel. Every year some responders are involved in accidents on their way to incidents and are hurt or killed along with other people at that scene. People can also be hurt during the rescue attempt when fuel tanks explode, equipment fails or somebody simply slips.

Only a fool would express that drinking and boating is without risk. The proof of that is the accidents we see where alchohol is listed as a factor.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

In all honesty while driving my boat I have a zero tolerence policy for myself. People on the boat can have what ever the like but I can't see taking the risk... Especially with a GFB I already stand out. I usually will go to the Naswa and they laugh at the amount of sprite with limes I will drink.

I am not saying this is what everyone should do but it is just my 2 cents.

The specifics and evidence have not yet been brought to light and I think it is in very bad taste to take a tragic accident and make speculations.

All I know is it is something we all can learn from and make the lake a safer place.

I travel with my daughters and my grandchildren. Not only is it a responsible thing to do, it set a good example to the younger generations.

My girl friend's sister was involved in a BUI accident, and I respect her wish that there will be no drinking. It's common sense and the right thing to do.

[Mink Islander]

What a stretch that argument will be. Driving a boat late at night -- in the rain -- and fog -- on plane -- after knocking back a few -- but relying on your GPS to keep you from running into anything? What about maintaining a safe watch? Your GPS doesn't see other boats! What about driving too fast for the conditions? If you'd been going slower (a lot slower), the impact wouldn't have been so catastophic and probably a life would have been spared. No, the captain owns full responsibility for this accident.

Moreover, I think telling the court you were relying on your electronics to keep you out of trouble and that a failure there caused the accident would seem to support a wreckless boating argument not excuse causing the accident.

But when you have little defense, I guess you try any argument.

[Mink Islander]

FLL is known (notorious?) for obtuse, sometimes sarcastic and yes, even offensive posts. But please don't make things worse by violating other posting rules. The forum has an ignore feature for a reason. Try that instead please.