[QUOTE=Nate5.0;4545749]You could pick any one. There is not a SURE one that automatically reverses a tragedy.


We get your point but you are take a large presumption to assume that if your take the booze away that they 110% survive this or the accident does not happen at all. Sorry but that is just not a sure bet or factual statement.[/QUOT

Bet the judge would pick alcohol if they hit or harmed anyone.

[QUOTE=Interceptor;4545872]I know someone that years ago was sitting at a stop light and got hit from behind. He was drunk at the time and It was decided it was his fault.

The reasoning was that since he was drunk he should never have been driving the vehicle in the first place. To the judge the car should not have been there.

[QUOTE=Interceptor;4545872]And?

They all can play a factor. You can't single one out as a factual fault that if removed makes this instance not happen.

[QUOTE=Wildman_grafix;4545878]
By the letter of the law it was his fault.

Again....if we take Booze out of this.....are you telling me that this never happened at all?

You can't. It was one of many bad decisions and faults that had a tragic end.

[QUOTE=Nate5.0;4545883]Booze is a mind altering drug. This means he probably would not have made the same decisions and choices all along the way if he had not been drinking (Booze) a mind altering drug. Correct?
So that means if you took one thing out of the equation then a whole lot of things change! Does that fix the whole problem? that is not provable either way.
I dont nor no one knows what decisions would have been different but I can guarantee alot of things would have happened differently by not drinking, every person will make different decisions or judgement calls along that path if they have been drinking or not.
Some people get courage from drinking, some people become timid from drinking, some people show off when drinking, some people think there skills are better than they are when drinking. Everyone is different. The only common thing is everyone makes different decisions when drinking then they would have when sober.

So, Yes alot of things caused this particular crash, but one single item would have changed alot of those variables. May not have driven so fast, may have been able to see better, may have reacted differently... All those variables get changed with just the drinking and driving aspect.

Boats and high speeds are dangerous and should be respected as that.

Fast cats aren't particularly safe. Ground effects aircraft with no control surfaces.

This is a great thread and a great debate.

My view is that cats (or any boat) with big power require years of experience at 125 mph+ to manage the variables that always come up (wakes, wind, obstacles, etc), I just think there are many and even most out there that do not have the operator skill to match the performance offered. They may think they do, but they don't.

I do not suggest any law or insurance changes etc.. We live in America and should have the right to do what we want as long as we do not negatively affect others.

This has nothing to do with the boat, it has everything to do with the Alcohol. Intoxication makes WALKING deadly.

"An estimated 36 percent of pedestrians killed had BACs of
.08*g/dL or higher in 2004 and 2013."

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api...ication/812124

In this case, I completely agree, per my earlier post. Alcohol is a non starter.

However, other deaths have occurred simply because the skill set was not equal to the potential the boat had.
That was my point..

Yeah sure... So following that logic if he was in a runabout this wouldn't have happened, or driving as the conditions dictated.