And I will agree with you there.

In regards to your comments regarding the other 3 accidents it is my understanding and what I have heard first hand from people on the scene is as follows and Jim Melling being a personal friend.
1) The crash at Lanier had no alcohol test done. Funny huh? However there were pics of jello shots on the deck and bottles that were cleaned up at the crash site. Funny also that the run has now changed too.
2) It was said that the outerlimits crash that he was not wearing a helmet. If that were the case it was an error in judgement and not to discredit Paul by any means but IMO did not have countless hours running a cat.
3) Jim and Garth were the only ones that had a lot of seat time, were prepared for the worse and knew they were pushing the envelope.

We can all learn something from this but growing up in S. FL and boating all my life I can tell you more often than not Alcohol and boating don't mix. If things continue the next disclaimer in our insurance policies will be NO POKER RUNS either. That may change things for life as we know it.

CORRECT. Dangerous talk.
I'll bet half the people on here drink and drive, the difference is, they know their limits...right?
There are laws about drinking and driving, and thats where it must end.

They weren't 'cruising', they were going for speed trials. And, yes, I consider 100-110 'cruising' in a 44 MTI.

But I give up. You think speed is the problem? I gotta agree with you. They should have been idling being double the limit impaired.

Sounds like you want to make America great again! :ernaehrung004:

It seems true that each of the incidents have several contributing conditions, some of which are present consistently, others not so much (sun glare/alcohol...)

Looking at the obvious consistencies, IMO helps define the most urgent action items and most likely operational procedures/equipment involved in these incidents. The style of boat is almost 100% consistent. The brand can be narrowed to almost two. The HP (>1000 a side) and MPH (>125'ish) are almost 100% consistent. These should be strong clues.

Choosing to drink and drive anything is wreckless behavior. While we are all entitled to live our lives as we choose, we are not entitled to risk other people's lives doing so. This concept also applies to rich guys running "offshore" monster boats down a crowded open waterway over 100 mph on a Saturday afternoon. That is wreckless behavior if your not drunk and unthinkable if you have been drinking. Without trying to paint with a broad brush I think there are some obvious patterns that have emerged. Not trying to disrespect any one group either. JMO.

That's not going to go over well.

That's cool. Not trying to get one over on anyone, or speaking of any individual(s).

If there's discussion about how laws are born or how insurance underwriters approach a risk pool, finger pointing usually doesn't come into play. They tend to follow more concrete evidence and historical record. That's all.

Everyone knows operating under the influence is a bad idea and against the law. What are the other consistent factors present in the incidents?

I could care less if someone engages in risk that has potential fatal consequences, what's unfortunate is the devastation thrust upon families/friends or others as a result of that, sometimes more consideration needs to be given to them.

Ya think? :party-smiley-004: