Clams Canino wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message

Intoxicated operators is a no-brainer, but why the beef with speedboats?
I, like many performance boaters, like things in the fast lane. There
are many myths proliferated relating to operation at speed. Most are a
bunch of hot air.

I dissagree. Alcohol slows reaction time. The faster the boat, the more that
reaction time comes into play. My boat is plenty fast, and you won't find
me out on a busy lake with any measurable B.A.C.

Like I said, BUI is a no-brainer. But why tie BUI operators with
speedboats? You are coming off like you're stereotyping the typical
performance boater. I find that somewhat offensive. I don't drink
alchohol AT ALL when I boat.


The guy with the duel 454's and duel martini's scares me a *lot* more than
the dood with a rowboat and duel six-packs. My cousin was *killed* when a
hotboat overtook him from the rear and drove up over his stern. It's a fact
of math that more HP plus more alcohol = more risk.

Speed and alchohol don't mix, but neither are they surgically attached
at the hip.

I don't fish much, but all I'm saying is that (in my opinion) people that
troll, fish, and drink aren't the real problem out there - as compared to
people that drink and go fast - or drink and pull rope-toys.

It's all a matter of perspective. I don't excuse someone because their
potential for injury is less, as they recklessly disregard the law. In
reality, you're probably right, but it's no excuse to form a bias
against a particular segment of the boating sport.


If I see a guy in a rowboat with a pole and a beer I'd be likely to go by
and say "catch anything much today?" If I see a speedboat with an operator
with a beer I'd be likely to say "so how many beers you had today?" it's
called *discretion*.

In some circles that might be considered "profiling".

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


Like I said, BUI is a no-brainer. But why tie BUI operators with
speedboats? You are coming off like you're stereotyping the typical
performance boater. I find that somewhat offensive.

I'm surprised. You, Dave "I wish I was a Vulcan" Hall should see the logic
here. If a speedboater's a mile away and not breaking any rules about speed,
wake or channel, nobody cares and nobody notices. If he's drunk and hits a
wave the wrong way, flipping the boat and killing everyone onboard, so what?

But, here's a REAL LIFE SCENARIO that I see just about every time I take my
boat out: There are a few areas where boats commonly anchor, at least a mile
or two from the channel, and usually behind islands. Very fast boats, which
have the whole world to play in, come flying past these groups of boats,
sometimes as close as 100', and the same boats sometimes do it repeatedly,
as if they just want to be seen.

Now, let's pretend that these boats made absolutely no wake, and that there
was no speed limit in the area. So, they're breaking no laws. But: A
mechanical or operator failure at high speeds could cause quite a disaster
if that boat is too close to other boats. Therefore (and here comes the
logic, Dave), it is perfectly reasonable to assume that someone doing this
is exercising very poor judgement, and might very well be drunk. Whether
they're breaking any laws or not, they deserve a visit from the authorities.

In a motor vehicle, vague offenses are routinely put in the "reckless
driving" category. It's not a problem. You know that.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:12:51 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"noah" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 06:47:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"noah" wrote in message
.. .

I paid the fine, and thanked the judge for making it a very small one.
I think the judge was a fisherman. )


Thank heaven for judges who understand the difference between the essence
of
the law and the letter of the law (unlike the sad troopers who are told
to
sit on the thruway all day and look only for speeders - never mind the
tailgaters, or 30 yr old dump trucks spewing opaque fumes).

Last year, I went to court to explain to a judge that I was doing 79 mph
at
a certain moment, not 80 as the trooper claimed. The dangerous psychopath
ahead of me was in a wheelchair with neck brace and oxygen tank, after
being
beaten mercilessly by 3 DEC officers for being a week gone on his fishing
license. The judge asked him if he was ware of the odd renewal date here
in
NY - end of Sept or something like that. He responded that he understood,
but generally forgot, like almost everyone else who's also preoccupied
with
raking leaves at that time of year. Then, the judge asked him how the
fishing was that day. He told the judge he'd been set upon by bluefills,
and
hadn't caught any steelhead. The judge explained that justice would not
be
served by fining a fisherman who hadn't caught anything worthwhile.


Problem, "Doug"?

I didn't have the "wearable". I got a ticket. It was bull****. I paid
it.
I guess if I had been fishing from a Camaro, it would have been OK.

****ed about something?
Regards,
noah

Well, when I read your message, I was ****ed that I'd run out of grapefruit.
But, my comment on balanced judges seems to fit what you mentioned. You said
the fine was a small one, right? I responded by describing a similar judge.
Did my typo (bluefills instead of bluegills) cause some confusion?
-Doug


Naw, we fish for bluefills all the time.
I think it was the tag-team beating that threw me off. )

Regards,
noah

To email me, remove the "OT-" from OT-wrecked.boats.noah.
....as you were. )

Dave Hall wrote:

Clams Canino wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message

Intoxicated operators is a no-brainer, but why the beef with speedboats?
I, like many performance boaters, like things in the fast lane. There
are many myths proliferated relating to operation at speed. Most are a
bunch of hot air.

I dissagree. Alcohol slows reaction time. The faster the boat, the more that
reaction time comes into play. My boat is plenty fast, and you won't find
me out on a busy lake with any measurable B.A.C.

Like I said, BUI is a no-brainer. But why tie BUI operators with
speedboats? You are coming off like you're stereotyping the typical
performance boater. I find that somewhat offensive. I don't drink
alchohol AT ALL when I boat.


Wish you boated in my waters with your obnoxiously loud boat. I'd have
you cited every time you drove by...



--
Email sent to is never read.

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:53:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
I can see your point, but on the other hand (and there's always another
hand), the police *do* sometimes slow down traffic to peek in cars for seat
belt compliance. There are occasional complaints about this, but mostly it
goes by without much whining.

=================================================

I always wear my seat belt, as do my passengers. I think it's just
common sense, and don't really understand people who have a problem
with fastening their belts.

On the other hand (as you would say), I think the seat belt law is bad
legislation, and I think that police roadblocks to enforce it is
equally bad law enforcement. Surely their are more important things
for our dedicated and highly trained officers to be doing other than
creating traffic jams and trampling on our constitutional rights in
the process. All of these roadblocks and checkpoints for seat belts,
inspection stickers, DWI screening, etc,, smack of border line police
state tactics and should be seriously discouraged no matter how worthy
the goal. The constitutional prohibitions (actually the Bill of
Rights) against unreasonable search and seizure were put there for a
reason; good reasons. Let's not decide 200 years later that none of
this is important. We walk around as free men today (more or less),
because of the wisdom of our ancestors who learned the hard way.

Most traffic laws and enforcement are only revenue generation techniques,
having little to do with safety. For instance, why do you see so many cops
out with radar guns on highways, when most accidents occur at intersections?
Easier to bring in the $$ that way.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:53:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
I can see your point, but on the other hand (and there's always another
hand), the police *do* sometimes slow down traffic to peek in cars for
seat
belt compliance. There are occasional complaints about this, but mostly
it
goes by without much whining.

=================================================

I always wear my seat belt, as do my passengers. I think it's just
common sense, and don't really understand people who have a problem
with fastening their belts.

On the other hand (as you would say), I think the seat belt law is bad
legislation, and I think that police roadblocks to enforce it is
equally bad law enforcement. Surely their are more important things
for our dedicated and highly trained officers to be doing other than
creating traffic jams and trampling on our constitutional rights in
the process. All of these roadblocks and checkpoints for seat belts,
inspection stickers, DWI screening, etc,, smack of border line police
state tactics and should be seriously discouraged no matter how worthy
the goal. The constitutional prohibitions (actually the Bill of
Rights) against unreasonable search and seizure were put there for a
reason; good reasons. Let's not decide 200 years later that none of
this is important. We walk around as free men today (more or less),
because of the wisdom of our ancestors who learned the hard way.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:53:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
I can see your point, but on the other hand (and there's always another
hand), the police *do* sometimes slow down traffic to peek in cars for
seat
belt compliance. There are occasional complaints about this, but mostly
it
goes by without much whining.

=================================================

I always wear my seat belt, as do my passengers. I think it's just
common sense, and don't really understand people who have a problem
with fastening their belts.

On the other hand (as you would say), I think the seat belt law is bad
legislation, and I think that police roadblocks to enforce it is
equally bad law enforcement.

I take a more severe view when it comes to automobiles, so my opinions
aren't very popular. If I won a really BIG lottery and had money to burn,
I'd actually hire someone to do a proper study to find out if one of my
theories is true: 90% of drivers are either drunk, completely distracted,
incompetent, legally blind or dead, too stupid to operate a spoon with other
people around, or too frightened of driving to function safely. As a result,
I have no problem with checkpoints. Driving's a privilege, not a right. Free
travel is a right, but not automobile use.

On a more down to earth level, I know two cops, and both have described what
it's like to arrive at an accident scene and try to figure out which arm
belongs to which child, when both are 50% pulverized against a windshield,
or worse, on the road. They say they actually nab people at the checkpoints
whose kids are romping around the car unbelted. The parents often try the
"Hey....I didn't know" routine. Remember what I said in the previous
paragraph? Too stupid to operate a spoon?

"Keith" wrote in message
...
Most traffic laws and enforcement are only revenue generation techniques,
having little to do with safety. For instance, why do you see so many cops
out with radar guns on highways, when most accidents occur at
intersections?
Easier to bring in the $$ that way.

I'd agree. Each year, before the high-traffic holidays, a NY State Police
spokesperson issues a little recording for radio stations who'd like to use
it. It mentions the most dangerous things drivers can do. Frequently, they
mention tailgating at highway speeds as something which causes more pileups
than anything else, and I'm sure that's true.

In 35 years of driving, I've never spoken to ANYONE who's gotten a ticket
for tailgating on a highway. Give me an unmarked car, and I could easily
write tickets all day long for that offense. But, it can't be measured with
a radar or laser gun, so the cops never do it.

"noah" wrote in message
...


Well, when I read your message, I was ****ed that I'd run out of
grapefruit.
But, my comment on balanced judges seems to fit what you mentioned. You
said
the fine was a small one, right? I responded by describing a similar
judge.
Did my typo (bluefills instead of bluegills) cause some confusion?
-Doug


Naw, we fish for bluefills all the time.
I think it was the tag-team beating that threw me off. )


That was satire! It was a comment on the fact that enforcement is sometimes
wasted on tiny infractions. I mean, at the spot where that guy was busted
for no license, there's also a boat launch. Not a day goes by when I don't
see at least one boat that creates a 30' oil slick when it's backed into the
water. The DEC guy's pickin' his nose someplace else when that happens.

Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:53:16 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
I can see your point, but on the other hand (and there's always another
hand), the police *do* sometimes slow down traffic to peek in cars for seat
belt compliance. There are occasional complaints about this, but mostly it
goes by without much whining.

=================================================

I always wear my seat belt, as do my passengers. I think it's just
common sense, and don't really understand people who have a problem
with fastening their belts.

I usually wear my belt too, but my wife finds it uncomfortable and
refuses to.


On the other hand (as you would say), I think the seat belt law is bad
legislation, and I think that police roadblocks to enforce it is
equally bad law enforcement.

Any law that's enacted for the sole purpose of protecting ourselves from
ourselves is intrusive and unnecessary. If someone does not wear their
seatbelt, and they are in an accident, then it's on them if they get
hurt worse. If someone's comfort is worth more to them, than the
potential for increased injury, it's a choice that should be made by the
individual. If someone wants to be on the fast track to a Darwin award,
who are we to stop them?

I would feel differently if the seatbelt law was designed to protect
other people from an individual's negligence (such as DUI), but that's
generally not the case.


Dave