What's your guess?
05-31-2002, 03:58 AM
#11
Charter Member#157
Charter Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Minneapolis, Mn, Usa
Posts: 1,859
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
For those from the MN area we can all remember the accident a few years ago on July 4th weekend. This act of stupidity on hte part of 2 seperate boats caused enough havock for the rest of us for years to come 
The accident was caused by not just one thing but several.
1 am, raining, river running, fast boats, and most importantly ALCOHOL. It was a very tragic thing. But due to it they have cracked down severly on speeds. They have implemented longer no wakes, slower speed limits, not to mention the harrasement of the patrol boats to begin with. What I have not seen being cracked down on is the drinking n boating
I will not take my boat to this part of the river ever again. It is just ridiculous.
Speed limits and special mandates are always at the lawmakers whims. It was really amazing after this that they started to crakc down on loud exhaust as a way to be able to stop boaters.
Once the performance guys started to complain about the house boats and cruisers being AS loud or louder, the lawmakers( that owned the house boats and cruisers) upped the dB level to allow the house boats and cruisers to be LEGAL.
It is all at their whim and notion. What we need to do is our part on not giving them a reason to tax or mandate laws on us.
Looks what happened to the PWC's. They were taxed and givin stricter laws because someone did not like them.
We cannot allow this.
JMHO
that min speed tp plane can be 20-25mph for some cats 
not to mention what it can take a cruiser to get up onto and then maintain planing.
The accident was caused by not just one thing but several.
1 am, raining, river running, fast boats, and most importantly ALCOHOL. It was a very tragic thing. But due to it they have cracked down severly on speeds. They have implemented longer no wakes, slower speed limits, not to mention the harrasement of the patrol boats to begin with. What I have not seen being cracked down on is the drinking n boating
I will not take my boat to this part of the river ever again. It is just ridiculous.
Speed limits and special mandates are always at the lawmakers whims. It was really amazing after this that they started to crakc down on loud exhaust as a way to be able to stop boaters.
Once the performance guys started to complain about the house boats and cruisers being AS loud or louder, the lawmakers( that owned the house boats and cruisers) upped the dB level to allow the house boats and cruisers to be LEGAL.
It is all at their whim and notion. What we need to do is our part on not giving them a reason to tax or mandate laws on us.
Looks what happened to the PWC's. They were taxed and givin stricter laws because someone did not like them.
We cannot allow this.
JMHO
Originally posted by Jana
There may be more speed limits in the future. After several deaths in recent years, there is now a "minimum speed to plane" limit in effect at night on Lake Conroe near me.
There may be more speed limits in the future. After several deaths in recent years, there is now a "minimum speed to plane" limit in effect at night on Lake Conroe near me.
not to mention what it can take a cruiser to get up onto and then maintain planing.
__________________
This Cat is trying to keep up with the Big Dogs
This Cat is trying to keep up with the Big Dogs
05-31-2002, 07:30 AM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
If we can't police ourselves, than obviously someone else has to do it for us. If a single life is saved, than isn't it worth getting to your destination a little bit later?
I don't mean to turn this thread into a philisophical debate over the value of a human life, but unfortunately, that is not the ultimate bottom-line when making a determination regarding boating (any) laws. It is, indeed, the facade in many cases (environmentalists, lobbyists, $$$$, etc.).
I agree that laws are made, in many cases, for financial purposes. But, what do you think would happen if President Bush's daughter had been killed in that tradgedy in NJ. Makes one wonder. It's only a matter of time.
Education and self regulation is the only answer.
Jennifer
To the person that asked about maximum HP on a boat. (I'm quoting from memory here - someone fill in the blanks) CG regulation stipulates that boats under 16-feet have a maximum HP rating, which is 100 hp. Boats over 16 feet have no maximum hp.
I don't mean to turn this thread into a philisophical debate over the value of a human life, but unfortunately, that is not the ultimate bottom-line when making a determination regarding boating (any) laws. It is, indeed, the facade in many cases (environmentalists, lobbyists, $$$$, etc.).
I agree that laws are made, in many cases, for financial purposes. But, what do you think would happen if President Bush's daughter had been killed in that tradgedy in NJ. Makes one wonder. It's only a matter of time.
Education and self regulation is the only answer.
Jennifer
To the person that asked about maximum HP on a boat. (I'm quoting from memory here - someone fill in the blanks) CG regulation stipulates that boats under 16-feet have a maximum HP rating, which is 100 hp. Boats over 16 feet have no maximum hp.
05-31-2002, 08:58 AM
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Believe it or not, the majority of almost all regulations stem from safety, someone has died, and yes, when the person has related position power the laws are put through sooner rather than later. Most of what we do is based from data calls and statistical numbers. Alcohol-The numbers showed that alcohols contribution to boating or water related deaths was huge. A federal BUI law was imposed and the numbers have declined. From the Federal level money is never a consideration and the Coast Guard certainly doesn't benefit from it. In fact our official guidance when dealing with commercial vessels is that financial considerations shall not be considered regarding safety deficiencies.
To clear up a few things. The CG did not FORCE a speed limit on PWC's. In April of 1999 the CG safe boating council supported a Manufacture Voluntary self-imposed speed restriction of 65 MPH. I believe their primary reason was money and fear of new regulations. The manufactures were getting a bad rep from all the press and millions were being spent outdoing each other as fast as possible. A 95 XP that I ordered in December of 94 and took delivery in April of 95 was outdated by October of the same year, it was worse than the computers!
If speed limit laws are imposed they would have to be done at the state level. You are not going to be able enforce a speed limit consistently throughout joint jurisdictional waters and forget about anything on the open ocean.
There are Federal water speed limits but other than marine events where they are imposed for a short time with special regulation, the only permanent ones I know of are for Commercial Shipping transiting in Vessel Traffic Systems or in a narrow channel where erosion is the primary concern. (enviromental law)
There is no specific law (federal) that prohibits anyone on any boat regarding horsepower or engine size. Monohulls only; less than 20 feet are required to have a capacity plate. If your plate restricts you to 150HP and you put a 250 on the transom’ oh well. You might have an insurance or liability problem, and you may be cited for overloaded condition but the condition must be clearly articuable.
Once a regulation is proposed it is published in the Federal Register and open for public comment. Most of the time few comments come. The child PFD law is an example where public comment was not received and the regulation went forward, in about a week it was temporarily withdrawn after people commented because it wasn’t written well.
User efforts to control the over regulation of our recreation is what we need and it will continue to be a problem as more and more users get on the water. I do agree that many local and state regulations are plain stupid, and great forums like this will ultimately help combat those with little knowledge who impose rules that are ineffective and flat ridiculous.
Brad
To clear up a few things. The CG did not FORCE a speed limit on PWC's. In April of 1999 the CG safe boating council supported a Manufacture Voluntary self-imposed speed restriction of 65 MPH. I believe their primary reason was money and fear of new regulations. The manufactures were getting a bad rep from all the press and millions were being spent outdoing each other as fast as possible. A 95 XP that I ordered in December of 94 and took delivery in April of 95 was outdated by October of the same year, it was worse than the computers!
If speed limit laws are imposed they would have to be done at the state level. You are not going to be able enforce a speed limit consistently throughout joint jurisdictional waters and forget about anything on the open ocean.
There are Federal water speed limits but other than marine events where they are imposed for a short time with special regulation, the only permanent ones I know of are for Commercial Shipping transiting in Vessel Traffic Systems or in a narrow channel where erosion is the primary concern. (enviromental law)
There is no specific law (federal) that prohibits anyone on any boat regarding horsepower or engine size. Monohulls only; less than 20 feet are required to have a capacity plate. If your plate restricts you to 150HP and you put a 250 on the transom’ oh well. You might have an insurance or liability problem, and you may be cited for overloaded condition but the condition must be clearly articuable.
Once a regulation is proposed it is published in the Federal Register and open for public comment. Most of the time few comments come. The child PFD law is an example where public comment was not received and the regulation went forward, in about a week it was temporarily withdrawn after people commented because it wasn’t written well.
User efforts to control the over regulation of our recreation is what we need and it will continue to be a problem as more and more users get on the water. I do agree that many local and state regulations are plain stupid, and great forums like this will ultimately help combat those with little knowledge who impose rules that are ineffective and flat ridiculous.
Brad
05-31-2002, 09:39 AM
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
"Paternal Laws" have thier basis in the gov'ts right to protect us from ourselves.... Helmut Laws are the most obvious that come to mind... The thoery here behind them is we citizens are unable to make the right "Choices" with regard to our own safety... so the Gov't has the right, no the responsibilty i believe they say, to protect us from ourselves.... However regarding Helmut laws here in NY... much of the debate centered around how costly it was for the State to care for the accident victims for the rest of thier lives if they incurred a severe head injury... so again it comes down to free choice vs. cost....
05-31-2002, 10:23 AM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Great example GRH. A big reason for helmet laws is to prevent the gov't aka TAXPAYERS from paying for the medical expenses of those seriously injured in accidents. Of course the opponents say that it's their choice take take the chance.
I again would like to state that I am not in favor of Gov't control, BUT, I understand the neccesity of certain "protection" laws.
I again would like to state that I am not in favor of Gov't control, BUT, I understand the neccesity of certain "protection" laws.
