"Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message
et...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote
Drama?

Yes, drama.
I can't say what the guy's intentions were when he took 19 year-old Nicole
for a ride in his big fast boat, but I wouldn't want to be the prosecutor
who tries to prove that killing people was what he had in mind.


The DA who did it near here used the tactic so the murderer could only plea
bargain for the next worst thing: Maximum sentence for vehicular
manslaughter. He put the woman away for something like 22 years. Without the
option to charge her with murder, she could've bargained for quite a bit
less.

The jury did not have a problem with the idea of intent, by the way. You
might, but they didn't, according to interviews after the trial.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:47:41 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

Question would be; does the local government really have the right to
dictate who can run a boat and how that boat can be rigged on a public
waterway

The answer is yes. There are many lakes with local restrictions. Some
allow no power boats at all, and some limit horsepower, typically to
under 10 hp or some such.

On Oct 30, 10:56?am, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:47:41 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
Question would be; does the local government really have the right to
dictate who can run a boat and how that boat can be rigged on a public
waterway

The answer is yes. There are many lakes with local restrictions. Some
allow no power boats at all, and some limit horsepower, typically to
under 10 hp or some such.

While I generally agree that the public should be able to regulate the
use of publicly owned waterways (through their elected
representatives), I lean more toward regulating behavior than
restricting property ownership.

For example: Here in Seattle we have a long stretch of water with
speed restrictions- it starts at the entrance to the Shilshole entry
channel out in Puget Sound, continues through the locks, runs all the
way across the E-W axis of the city and doesn't end until the
shoreline of Lake Washington. There is a 7-kt speed limit, which makes
all the sense in the world considering that during much of the year
this area is very congested and the shorelines are packed solid with
parks, marinas, residences, businesses, and other developed areas that
would suffer from excessive wakes.

As far as I'm concerned, if a guy is going 7 knots it shouldn't matter
whether he has 5-HP or 3,000.

Some reasonable exceptions make sense- for instance when people are
boating on a lake that is used as a reservoir for drinking water it
can be prudent to minimize pollution by restricting or prohibiting IC
propulsion.

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Oct 30, 10:56?am, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:47:41 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
Question would be; does the local government really have the right to
dictate who can run a boat and how that boat can be rigged on a public
waterway
The answer is yes. There are many lakes with local restrictions. Some
allow no power boats at all, and some limit horsepower, typically to
under 10 hp or some such.

While I generally agree that the public should be able to regulate the
use of publicly owned waterways (through their elected
representatives), I lean more toward regulating behavior than
restricting property ownership.

For example: Here in Seattle we have a long stretch of water with
speed restrictions- it starts at the entrance to the Shilshole entry
channel out in Puget Sound, continues through the locks, runs all the
way across the E-W axis of the city and doesn't end until the
shoreline of Lake Washington. There is a 7-kt speed limit, which makes
all the sense in the world considering that during much of the year
this area is very congested and the shorelines are packed solid with
parks, marinas, residences, businesses, and other developed areas that
would suffer from excessive wakes.

As far as I'm concerned, if a guy is going 7 knots it shouldn't matter
whether he has 5-HP or 3,000.

Some reasonable exceptions make sense- for instance when people are
boating on a lake that is used as a reservoir for drinking water it
can be prudent to minimize pollution by restricting or prohibiting IC
propulsion.



Admit it...you just like all the boats to go no faster than yours!

On Oct 30, 2:13?pm, HK wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Oct 30, 10:56?am, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:47:41 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
Question would be; does the local government really have the right to
dictate who can run a boat and how that boat can be rigged on a public
waterway
The answer is yes. There are many lakes with local restrictions. Some
allow no power boats at all, and some limit horsepower, typically to
under 10 hp or some such.

While I generally agree that the public should be able to regulate the
use of publicly owned waterways (through their elected
representatives), I lean more toward regulating behavior than
restricting property ownership.

For example: Here in Seattle we have a long stretch of water with
speed restrictions- it starts at the entrance to the Shilshole entry
channel out in Puget Sound, continues through the locks, runs all the
way across the E-W axis of the city and doesn't end until the
shoreline of Lake Washington. There is a 7-kt speed limit, which makes
all the sense in the world considering that during much of the year
this area is very congested and the shorelines are packed solid with
parks, marinas, residences, businesses, and other developed areas that
would suffer from excessive wakes.

As far as I'm concerned, if a guy is going 7 knots it shouldn't matter
whether he has 5-HP or 3,000.

Some reasonable exceptions make sense- for instance when people are
boating on a lake that is used as a reservoir for drinking water it
can be prudent to minimize pollution by restricting or prohibiting IC
propulsion.

Admit it...you just like all the boats to go no faster than yours!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I truly enjoy my regular opportunities to get out on boats that run
15, 20, 25, or 30 knots. Heck, even 10 knots is faster than I normally
travel. When I write up descriptions of the boats I have been on and
note that most of these boats burn 4-8 times as muh fuel per mile as I
do, I remember why I'm very happy to go a bit slower.

My opinion is that you should be able to run as fast as you like, as
long as you aren't endangering other people. The place for 30 or 40
knot operation is in wide open water with great visibility, not a
congested canal, after dark, or in a bank of fog.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:12:11 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

I lean more toward regulating behavior than
restricting property ownership

How? Thorazine? Valium? Cocaine?

You can't regulate behavior.

~~ sheesh ~~

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:12:11 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

I lean more toward regulating behavior than
restricting property ownership

How? Thorazine? Valium? Cocaine?

You can't regulate behavior.

~~ sheesh ~~

No, but you can slap their wrist or take their heads off.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:28:33 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:12:11 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

I lean more toward regulating behavior than
restricting property ownership

How? Thorazine? Valium? Cocaine?

You can't regulate behavior.

~~ sheesh ~~

I think you're confusing regulate with control. Speed limits are a
'regulation' of behavior. I don't think the horsepower limitation of 500hp
would do ****. Maybe a 35hp limit would be suitable. Whether a hp limit or
a speed limit, the attempt is to regulate behavior.

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:25:09 -0500, John H.
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:28:33 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:12:11 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

I lean more toward regulating behavior than
restricting property ownership

How? Thorazine? Valium? Cocaine?

You can't regulate behavior.

~~ sheesh ~~

I think you're confusing regulate with control. Speed limits are a
'regulation' of behavior. I don't think the horsepower limitation of 500hp
would do ****. Maybe a 35hp limit would be suitable. Whether a hp limit or
a speed limit, the attempt is to regulate behavior.

Another joke gone wrong.

I need a vacation. :)

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote
You can't regulate behavior.

Don't be silly. All laws are designed to regulate behavior.

With the exception of the one about better enforcement of existing laws, the
proposed new regulations that the OP says were prompted by this incident
don't really address the behaviors that led to it, which is a great recipe
for unintended consequences. The guy was well above the proposed minimum
operating age so that's a total red herring. I can't imagine how the results
would have been substantially different if the boat had been powered with
twin 250s instead of twin 435s. According to another report, the cigarette
boat was doing 45mph at the time, which says to me that he probably wasn't
using all 870 horses anyway. The age and horsepower limits strike me as very
poorly conceived remedies. Most of us here recognize reckless when we see
it, and it's already illegal.