|
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
Interesting response to this tragedy.....
At least the proposed horsepower restriction isn't entirely draconian- 500-HP is enough for most applications. 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- or should the government's role be limited to ensuring that whatever boat is operated by whomever- it is operated safely?. Can Joe Doaks rig his boat with 3000 HP, as long as he obeys the 10-knot speed limit? Item: ********************** AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) - An incident in which a large boat sliced through a smaller boat - killing two people this summer on Long Lake - has prompted a legislator to propose limits on motors allowed on that lake. Rep. Richard Sykes, R-Harrison, wants to submit a bill limiting boat motors to 500 horsepower or less on Long Lake, where the accident happened Aug. 11. Sykes also proposes better enforcement of boating laws, including hiring a summer warden on the lake during high-traffic periods, and requiring boaters to take tests before they can operate on Maine waters. Other lawmakers want to submit similar bills during the 2008 session, which begins in January. Legislative leaders must vote to allow the bills to be introduced if they are to be considered. Two people were killed when 34-foot, high-performance boat with twin, 435-horsepower engines slammed into a smaller, 14-foot boat in Harrison on Aug. 11. Robert LaPointe Jr. of Medway, Mass., has been indicted on charges of manslaughter and operating under the influence in connection with the collision, which took the lives of Terry Raye Trott, 55, of Naples, and Suzanne Groetzinger, 44, of Berwick. LaPointe, 38, and his passenger, 19-year-old Nicole Randall of Bridgton, were thrown into the water while their boat raced ashore. LaPointe posted bail earlier this month and was released from jail. Under present state law, the high-powered boat that was involved in the Long Lake accident "could have been operated by a 12-year-old kid," said Sykes, who wants to set a minimum age of 16 for the operation of certain boats. State law currently allows a 12-year-old to operate a boat of more than 10 horsepower if someone at least 16 is supervising. The state Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, which enforces boating laws on the state's lakes, is not taking a position on the bills until the final language is drafted. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictionsfor boaters
Chuck Gould wrote:
Interesting response to this tragedy..... At least the proposed horsepower restriction isn't entirely draconian- 500-HP is enough for most applications. 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- or should the government's role be limited to ensuring that whatever boat is operated by whomever- it is operated safely?. Can Joe Doaks rig his boat with 3000 HP, as long as he obeys the 10-knot speed limit? Item: ********************** AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) - An incident in which a large boat sliced through a smaller boat - killing two people this summer on Long Lake - has prompted a legislator to propose limits on motors allowed on that lake. Rep. Richard Sykes, R-Harrison, wants to submit a bill limiting boat motors to 500 horsepower or less on Long Lake, where the accident happened Aug. 11. Sykes also proposes better enforcement of boating laws, including hiring a summer warden on the lake during high-traffic periods, and requiring boaters to take tests before they can operate on Maine waters. Other lawmakers want to submit similar bills during the 2008 session, which begins in January. Legislative leaders must vote to allow the bills to be introduced if they are to be considered. Two people were killed when 34-foot, high-performance boat with twin, 435-horsepower engines slammed into a smaller, 14-foot boat in Harrison on Aug. 11. Robert LaPointe Jr. of Medway, Mass., has been indicted on charges of manslaughter and operating under the influence in connection with the collision, which took the lives of Terry Raye Trott, 55, of Naples, and Suzanne Groetzinger, 44, of Berwick. LaPointe, 38, and his passenger, 19-year-old Nicole Randall of Bridgton, were thrown into the water while their boat raced ashore. LaPointe posted bail earlier this month and was released from jail. Under present state law, the high-powered boat that was involved in the Long Lake accident "could have been operated by a 12-year-old kid," said Sykes, who wants to set a minimum age of 16 for the operation of certain boats. State law currently allows a 12-year-old to operate a boat of more than 10 horsepower if someone at least 16 is supervising. The state Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, which enforces boating laws on the state's lakes, is not taking a position on the bills until the final language is drafted. Simply limiting the HP is not going to resolve the underlying problem. Even at 500HP, those two poor souls would not have had a chance. The issue of whether or not a 12-yr old could operate that boat is irrelevant to the crash. It is highly unlikely the average 12-yr would be operating such a boat after 9 pm after a day of drinking. What good would a change in law for an increased minimum age be to prevent this from happening again? Something else sounds a bit fishy here. What reason can a 38 yr old use to explain being out drinking with a 19 yr old 'family friend'? |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:22:50 -0400, DownTime
wrote: What reason can a 38 yr old use to explain being out drinking with a 19 yr old 'family friend'? rasises hand OBJECTION, your Honor. This is irrelevant and immaterial. Perry Mason |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ps.com... Interesting response to this tragedy..... At least the proposed horsepower restriction isn't entirely draconian- 500-HP is enough for most applications. 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- or should the government's role be limited to ensuring that whatever boat is operated by whomever- it is operated safely?. Can Joe Doaks rig his boat with 3000 HP, as long as he obeys the 10-knot speed limit? Huh? Governments determine how cars can or cannot be equipped. For instance, you can't run certain types of slicks on your car, at least not on public roads in NY. However, the problem is not how that boat was equipped. The problem is the DUI laws. Drunks who kill should face a different law - they should be tried for murder, not manslaughter, and judges' hands should be tied with rules for draconian mandatory sentences. Drinking and driving/boating is a conscious choice you make. Once you start the engine, there is intent to kill. Very simple. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
|
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictionsfor boaters
Dave Hall wrote:
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:10:09 -0500, lid wrote: On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:22:50 -0400, DownTime wrote: What reason can a 38 yr old use to explain being out drinking with a 19 yr old 'family friend'? I can think of a couple of VERY good reasons that should not only be acceptable, but encouraged! (Now let's see, if he was 38 and I am 50 then the equivalent gal for me would be 31 - that's not bad, but I wouldn't mind younger). rasises hand OBJECTION, your Honor. This is irrelevant and immaterial. Perry Mason Well, i am 46, by your math, it gives me a 27 yr old 'family friend' for boating adventures. Legal in every state, except one, The Spousal State Of Mind. Ah, but a boater can always dream, can't he? |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
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. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictionsfor boaters
DownTime wrote:
Dave Hall wrote: On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:10:09 -0500, lid wrote: On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:22:50 -0400, DownTime wrote: What reason can a 38 yr old use to explain being out drinking with a 19 yr old 'family friend'? I can think of a couple of VERY good reasons that should not only be acceptable, but encouraged! (Now let's see, if he was 38 and I am 50 then the equivalent gal for me would be 31 - that's not bad, but I wouldn't mind younger). rasises hand OBJECTION, your Honor. This is irrelevant and immaterial. Perry Mason Well, i am 46, by your math, it gives me a 27 yr old 'family friend' for boating adventures. Legal in every state, except one, The Spousal State Of Mind. Ah, but a boater can always dream, can't he? NO WAIT! I double checked the math, 19 is one-half of 38. That gives you a 25 and me a 23. ;) |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote
Drinking and driving/boating is a conscious choice you make. Once you start the engine, there is intent to kill. I see belong to both the temperance league and the drama club... |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
"Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message
et... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote Drinking and driving/boating is a conscious choice you make. Once you start the engine, there is intent to kill. I see belong to both the temperance league and the drama club... Temperance? You never saw me say people should not drink at all. Drama? In a county south of here, the district attorney tried a drunk driver for murder rather than manslaughter. The jury almost went for it, too. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
"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. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
"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. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote
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 sure you've got this story straight? Was it a plea bargain or a jury trial? How'd he put her away if the jury "almost" went for it? |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
"Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote 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 sure you've got this story straight? Was it a plea bargain or a jury trial? How'd he put her away if the jury "almost" went for it? Does it matter at this point? Your logic is flawed. Considering the level of public awareness about DWI, there is only one way you could not know that drinking a certain amount and then driving makes you dangerous: You're retarded, in which case you probably won't have a license to begin with. If you're aware of the danger and you go ahead anyway, you have intent. It's crystal clear. It saddens me that you can't see it. You know it's dangerous to leave a baby in the bath tub unattended. If you do it anyway and the baby drowns, there was intent. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote
Does it matter at this point? It was your example. If it doesn't matter to you, I'm good. Your logic is flawed. By yours, someone who gets busted at a road stop with a .08 BAC should be charged with attempted murder. I don't have a problem with your logic, I just think you're wrong. If you're aware of the danger and you go ahead anyway, you have intent. It's crystal clear. It saddens me that you can't see it. I prefer a legal system that differentiates between negligence and malice. Sorry about your sadness. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
"Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message
et... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote Does it matter at this point? It was your example. If it doesn't matter to you, I'm good. Your logic is flawed. By yours, someone who gets busted at a road stop with a .08 BAC should be charged with attempted murder. I don't have a problem with your logic, I just think you're wrong. If you're aware of the danger and you go ahead anyway, you have intent. It's crystal clear. It saddens me that you can't see it. I prefer a legal system that differentiates between negligence and malice. Sorry about your sadness. But, it's not negligence any more. 50 years ago, maybe that's how it was defined. Not any more. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
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. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictionsfor boaters
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! |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
On Oct 30, 12:58?pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"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. The drunk driver's intent was really just to get home without getting caught. The jury had to be dumb as a box of rocks if they "almost" went for it. Can you picture some guy in a bar getting deliberately loaded so that he'd cause an accident and kill somebody? Drunk driving or boating is a very serious offense. First time offenders should be slapped pretty hard, and repeat offenders should do some serious time.....however, if the offense goes beyond simply being on the road or the waterway to the point where there are victims involved the nature of the crime is one of negligence or recklessness, not one of specific intent. Reckless endangerment, negligent homicide, or vehicular manslaughter would be appropriate charges. Any definition of murder that involves specfic intent is just political grandstanding- if he or she is too drunk to drive or operate a boat, how can the perp actually form "intent"? |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
On Oct 30, 12:58?pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"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. The drunk driver's intent was really just to get home without getting caught. The jury had to be dumb as a box of rocks if they "almost" went for it. Can you picture some guy in a bar getting deliberately loaded so that he'd cause an accident and kill somebody? Drunk driving or boating is a very serious offense. First time offenders should be slapped pretty hard, and repeat offenders should do some serious time.....however, if the offense goes beyond simply being on the road or the waterway to the point where there are victims involved the nature of the crime is one of negligence or recklessness, not one of specific intent. Reckless endangerment, negligent homicide, or vehicular manslaughter would be appropriate charges. Any definition of murder that involves specfic intent is just political grandstanding- if he or she is too drunk to drive or operate a boat, how can the perp actually form "intent"? |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
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. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com... On Oct 30, 12:58?pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "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. The drunk driver's intent was really just to get home without getting caught. The jury had to be dumb as a box of rocks if they "almost" went for it. Can you picture some guy in a bar getting deliberately loaded so that he'd cause an accident and kill somebody? Drunk driving or boating is a very serious offense. First time offenders should be slapped pretty hard, and repeat offenders should do some serious time.....however, if the offense goes beyond simply being on the road or the waterway to the point where there are victims involved the nature of the crime is one of negligence or recklessness, not one of specific intent. Reckless endangerment, negligent homicide, or vehicular manslaughter would be appropriate charges. Any definition of murder that involves specfic intent is just political grandstanding- if he or she is too drunk to drive or operate a boat, how can the perp actually form "intent"? All these terms of yours suggest the word "accidental", which does not apply. Sorry, Chuck. When a drunk murders a friend of yours, you will think like me, and nothing will sway you. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictionsfor boaters
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... On Oct 30, 12:58?pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "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. The drunk driver's intent was really just to get home without getting caught. The jury had to be dumb as a box of rocks if they "almost" went for it. Can you picture some guy in a bar getting deliberately loaded so that he'd cause an accident and kill somebody? Drunk driving or boating is a very serious offense. First time offenders should be slapped pretty hard, and repeat offenders should do some serious time.....however, if the offense goes beyond simply being on the road or the waterway to the point where there are victims involved the nature of the crime is one of negligence or recklessness, not one of specific intent. Reckless endangerment, negligent homicide, or vehicular manslaughter would be appropriate charges. Any definition of murder that involves specfic intent is just political grandstanding- if he or she is too drunk to drive or operate a boat, how can the perp actually form "intent"? All these terms of yours suggest the word "accidental", which does not apply. Sorry, Chuck. When a drunk murders a friend of yours, you will think like me, and nothing will sway you. Joe, From what I can tell by your post, the guy never actually went to trial, that was a little bit of grandstanding on your part. From what I can tell from your post, they DA was using the Murder charge (most likely 2nd degree murder) as his leverage in a plea bargain. There have been cases where people have been found guilty of 2nd degree murder, but that charge is not dependent upon intent, it is based upon dangerous conduct with complete disregard for human life. That is completely different than the first degree murder (with premeditated malice intent), that you were stating in your orginal post. I can agree with 2nd degree murder, but your first degree murder case would never fly. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
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 ~~ |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictionsfor boaters
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. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:45:39 -0400, " JimH" ask wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . 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 ~ Thank goodness Ivan Pavlov did not share your opinion. ;-) That's patterning behavior. Regulating behavior isn't the same thing. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
"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. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
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. :) |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Ernest Scribbler" wrote in message et... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote Does it matter at this point? It was your example. If it doesn't matter to you, I'm good. Your logic is flawed. There have been a couple of fatal DUI's tried as murder in this state. But all the cases were people with previous DUI's. The rampant disregard of the law is the difference over someone who is a first time DUI. And the BAC was always 2-3x legal limit. By yours, someone who gets busted at a road stop with a .08 BAC should be charged with attempted murder. I don't have a problem with your logic, I just think you're wrong. If you're aware of the danger and you go ahead anyway, you have intent. It's crystal clear. It saddens me that you can't see it. I prefer a legal system that differentiates between negligence and malice. Sorry about your sadness. But, it's not negligence any more. 50 years ago, maybe that's how it was defined. Not any more. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:37:59 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:45:39 -0400, " JimH" ask wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message . .. 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 ~ Thank goodness Ivan Pavlov did not share your opinion. ;-) That's patterning behavior. Regulating behavior isn't the same thing. On second thought, I take that back. My bad. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:42:16 -0400, "Ernest Scribbler"
wrote: "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. Yeah - I'll admit I was wrong about that. Plus, I tried to make a little joke as part of it and it just didn't work. I need a vacation. :) |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
|
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictionsfor boaters
JimH wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... 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. Admit it..........it was not a joke Tom. At least your reply to my last post indicates so. "To err is human". That is why we put erasers on pencils. ;-) I thought the Thorazine, Valium was funny. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
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. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:30:43 -0500, John H.
wrote: On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:45:23 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: 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. :) Don't take a Disney Cruise! Oh crap - not again. :) |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
On Oct 30, 3:28?pm, 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 ~~ Every *regulation* that addresses behavior, ("thou shall do this, thou shan't do that") is a regulation of behavior- so of course you can. You can't force compliance, but you can enforce the regulation so that evil-doers are penalized or removed from society and those flirting with temptation might think better of it. An example of regulating behavior vs. restricting property ownership: It's Ok for you to own a firearm. It's not OK to run around discharging it at random in a residential neighborhood. The regulation addresses behavior, not ownership. Should you be able to own a boat that does 100 knots? Heck yes. Should you be able to run 100 knots in any situation or circumstance simply because you own a boat that can? No- not when the public welfare or personal safety of others is placed at risk by your doing so. |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:45:23 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: 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. :) Don't take a Disney Cruise! |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:19:38 -0400, " JimH" ask wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:55:13 -0400, " JimH" ask wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... 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. Admit it..........it was not a joke Tom. At least your reply to my last post indicates so. "To err is human". That is why we put erasers on pencils. ;-) Absoutely - me more so than anybody. However, I was trying to combine a little humor with social commentary and it failed miserably. I need a vacation. :) Hey, we all need a permanent vacation. Some folks are lucky enough to inherit that luxury.... the worthy *earn* it. I think we have a couple of folks here who achieved the latter. ;-) If your son spends 30 years in the Marines, he'll have earned it! |
Deadly accident prompts call for engine limitation, age restrictions for boaters
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:34:59 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote: On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:30:43 -0500, John H. wrote: On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:45:23 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: 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. :) Don't take a Disney Cruise! Oh crap - not again. :) ~~chuckle~~ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com