Conference vicki::boats

re                       <<< Note 988.0 by PARTKL::RECOS >>>
>                    -< MA Boaters: New Legislation Pending >-

> My primary purpose in posting this is to raise awareness and to determine
> what, if any, oganizations may be out there acting on our behalf.

	Who  "our"  behalf (behalves) ?
	
	My behalf seems to be adequately represented by the content of 
	the bill.

> coming to the floor fora vote. Is there any statewide organization for Mass.
> boaters that can represent our interests on Beacon Hill in such matters???

	who  "our"  interest(s) ?
	
	My interest is in safer boating, fewer drunks can contribute 
	toward that.

	I'm in favor of  MUCH TIGHTER  controls on BWI.  I'm also in favor
of leveraging the loss of street vehicle drivers' licences against 
BWI, what number can I call to express my suppport for this bill ? 

BTW, word a couple of weeks ago was that it had already passed, but 
that was from a guy thats usually too drunk to even get his boat to 
the local pond.  He sits on the dock and sucks cans, sometimes people 
take him for a boat ride.

> Thanks, Rick

	Y'welcome

	Reg

    Having piloted a 225' freighter (military) and lived most of my life
    near the Chesapeake, I tend to disagree with the short sightness of .1.
    
    There's an awful lot of "BWI"s down here that I would love to boat
    nearby as compared to the new boat owner. Ever cruise the Delaware
    River at 2 AM with a sailboater who "has the right of way"? We saw him
    on radar as well as others on the commercial VHS chatter. Was he/she
    BWI? We couldn't determine. His life was certainly in danger and he/she
    certainly was not concious of this.
    
    I'm more inclined to promote boating (safety) education as the primary
    goal. Point your legislation up there where it will do the most good.
    We in Maryland have already been thru this.

    RE: .1
    
    I do not agree that the linkage of BUI offenses and revocation of
    driver's license is appropriate. This represents an
    onerous development in law enforcment efforts. Given that boating
    is a fundamentally different activity than drving an auto, due to 
    the lower speeds attained and extra degrees of freedom, i.e. not
    constrained to lanes of headon traffic at high speeds, it is an
    inherently safer situation to begin with. Laws pertaining to boating
    should reflect that fact. At a minimum, such legislation ought to
    differentiate between various types of craft, with respect to the 
    potential for damage that a particular vessel might inflict.
    
    The other comment I would make is that the law should constitute a 
    measured response to the dimensions of the problem. The need must be 
    demonstrated, e.g. via accident statistics, prior to the imposition
    of additional restrictive legislation. Enforcment of the existing 
    statutes with respect to consumption and boating would constitute
    an adequate response.
    
    I'm sure we're all in favor of removing the truly hazardous operator
    from the waterways of the Commonwealth, however I am contacting the
    sponsors of this bill to express my view that this legislation is not
    the appropriate vehicle for accomplishing that goal.

I agree with .1; drunks on the water can be a problem.  Some of us play in 
areas where they show up more frequently than others, so awareness may not 
be equally shared by all of us.

I've been nearly run down a couple times by pretty obviously drunk 
boaters, and in one case when I yelled for them to slow down in the 
river channel, they came back to throw half a dozen empty and nearly empty
beer cans at me.  I've also witnessed one accident in Essex Bay where a
boater ran down a waterskier, injuring him badly.  The USCG found the
boater was drunk. 

Fact is, statistically the evidence clearly shows that of those cases 
investigated (and we all know the USCG and others aren't on the scene when 
*we* want them), a vast preponderance involve alcohol.  Much moreso than
with automobile accidents.  That's why the bill passed quite easily; who
could argue against the record? 

To argue that it's only a small problem (less than N deaths per year...)
is to ignore that any avoidable injury or damage should not be tolerated. 

And sure, .2, new boaters on the Chesapeake may be more of a headache to
you, but that's irrelevant to the BWI problem.  It deserves attention, too.

In any society it is simply impossible for everyone to do anything they 
want to do anytime they want to without interfering with others' rights to 
peace, safety, privacy, etc some of the time.  Drinking excessively while
operating heavy machinery (one's boat) is just plain irresponsible.  
That's why cocktail hour in the anchorage was invented.  ;-)

Look at the good side -- this bill has no tax included!

John.

    What rational is used to revoke an automobile driving license for a
    boat driving infraction? That is the same as saying I will revoke your
    fishing license for an infraction while hunting. That is crazy! As long
    as the auto license covers only vehicles and doesn't require a boating
    "endorsement" (like motorcycles), I would think that could be
    challenged successfully in court.

    I'm with .1 and .4.
    
    I have been nearly run down on several occasions by drunk boaters as
    well as by apprently drunk skiers. Although I often feel that such
    people should be summarily executed, tying the penalty for infraction
    to the other high-speed motorized vehicle they pilot seems a lot more
    reasonable. I'm a little surprised to see nothing more than a 10-year
    prison sentence associated with "homicide," but I assume .0 was simply
    paraphrasing.
    
    John H-C

Steve, 

While revoking an auto license doesn't seem directly relevant to BWI 
infractions, there is a rationale in the mind of supporters:  

A) Losing a driver's license hits a lot of people where they'll feel it,
and theoretically think twice next time (in an ideal world), 

B) What other on-the-water penalty is there until we license boaters?  

C) Someone inclined to drive drunk on the water might be inclined to drive
drunk on the roads. 

"A" is admittedly a bit of a stretch, but if it gets folks' attention,
that's good.  None of *us* drive a boat drunk, right?  So unless we're
developing careers as civil libertarians, why shouldn't we be glad the
problem is being addressed?  (Please...add salt and ;-] to suit your
taste.) 

In terms of the broader trend (and with this I certainly have many issues 
as well) it's no stretch at all for me to see how this conforms to a
strict law-and-order agenda.  As long as this society sees punishment as
the way to reform behavior rather than pre-emptive treatment or
prevention, one person's earned punishment is going to be infringement on
another.  For now, I'll live with the flaws; anarchy as an alternative
scares me (LA for two days, Kabul, Bosnia-Hercegovnia....)

John. 

And so you don't wonder:

re: -.1, 

>>>  C) Someone inclined to drive drunk on the water might be inclined to drive
>>>  drunk on the roads. 

"C" is also quite a stretch, too!

John.

And so you don't wonder:

>re: -.1, 

>>>>>  C) Someone inclined to drive drunk on the water might be inclined to drive
>>>>>  drunk on the roads. 

>"C" is also quite a stretch, too!

    	I certainly don't see "C" as a stretch. If this intoxicated boater
    has trailer'd his boat to the lake, what's s/he going to do? Fly home?
    
    	A person that operates boats/cars/motorcycles or anything that
    can endanger others while intoxicated is guilty of bad judgement and
    if an accident occurs s/he may be guilty of more than bad judgement!
    
    	Such a person needs help. I'm in favor of any means to help that
    person including "waking him/her up" by revoking their automobile
    driver's license for a BWI offense.
    
    	Rick W. Well said!
    
    	.0 didn't say anything about BAC. After first learning of this bill
    my first thought was if they lowered the BAC for BWI. It was .20 rather
    than .10 for cars and .20 for anyone other than a high-tolerance alki
    is pretty close to unconsious.
    
    	Gee, did any of my personal bias show thru in the note... :-)
    
    Rick

    .3 is outrageous.   This smacks of the "pounding a few beers while
    driving a machine bigger, heavier, and more powerful than most
    cars is harmless", or "part of the sport" argument that went around 
    a couple of years ago.  
    

    You guys sure do get riled up. I still don't think it will stand a
    court test. Has a case been tried?
    

    As a boater with a slip on the Merrimack River, I have seen my share
    of drunken boaters.   (Negotiating the current into a slip sober is
    trick enough for me, thank you)   And I agree that drunken boaters
    propose a hazard HOWEVER, trying to take away their drivers license
    for boating infractions doesn't seem right, nor in some cases,
    feasible.   I know boaters who DO NOT drive.   What then?    
    
    I agree with the note that raised the question about the legality
    of all of this.   Boats and cars are VERY different, operating one
    is nothing like operating the other; taking away ones drivers
    license doesn't serve any purpose.  Statistically most people continue
    to drive with a suspended license -- you can't take away their
    knowledge of driving...The same would probably continue.  Perhaps
    their is another way?   
    
    Maybe boaters should be licensed.  God knows it would eliminate a lot
    of people who have no idea what red vs. green buoys are, or what a 
    "no wake zone" is... Even suspending a boat license probably wouldn't
    stop all of the drunks; Maybe a drunk boater should have his boat
    chained to the dock for a fixed period ;-)
    

    Why not take away their boat registration (or the registration of the 
    boat they were using) for some period of time.  Then put a note in the
    boat registration computer that this person can't register a different
    boat during that timeframe.  I know that when my friend got a ticket
    for coming too close to another boat (he wasn't the operator, he was
    skiing at the time), he was responsible for making sure the operator
    showed up at court to pay the fine or his boat was going to lose it's
    registration.  He made sure the fine was paid!  Everything is on a
    computer now.  Why can't they use them to prevent abuse?
    
    BTW, I fully agree with Rick W.  It's time for boat operator licensing.
    It's in the best interest of evryone involved.
    Wayne

    The way I see of taking care of the problem is. If they get caught drunk
    driving send them to jail for a week or soo and a big fine. If they
    hurt someone Then lock them up for a year or soo. If they kill someone
    send them to jail for life. I hate see a drunk drive in a car killing
    someone and not going to jail. They all have the same story. It was my
    first time drinking and it was because of a wedding or something esle.
    please don't send me to jail I will never do it again. I have a wife
    and kids to take care of. 
    	You must of hard those sad story. But no one ever see the dead
    person. the person that had no choice in the matter. He is gone and it
    could be you next time. Lets bring but a eye of a eye. If the person is
    drinking he will know he is going to jail. This way you need not to
    take away his driver license. because he will be in jail.
    	I have seen too many case were drunks aways saying I didn't know
    what I was doing, ( they did't know what drinking whould do to them, ya
    right)
    
    
    My two cents
    Mike

RE: .15
>> Why not take away their boat registration (or the registration of the 
>> boat they were using) for some period of time.  Then put a note in the
>> boat registration computer that this person can't register a different
>> boat during that timeframe.  

If I hear this one more time, I'm gonna scream.  It is the boat DRIVER,
not the BOAT that commits the offense.  If you're serious about wanting 
to straighten out the current situation, you know that pulling someone's
registration doesn't do a thing.  There are so many ways that any moron
could get around that, it's a waste of time.

For example, assume you're making monthly payments on a big $$ boat. Are
you really going to park your boat for a year, or will you;
a) Re-register the boat in your wife's name?
b) Re-register the boat "modifying" your personal info, say using your
   first initial and middle name and a street number that's off by one
   digit?
c) Re-register the boat under a friend or relative's name and address?

Last year my entire town was re-numbered, and my street number changed from
8 Briarcliff to 26 Briarcliff.  I still get all my mail whether it is addressed
to no. 8 or 26.  You think the state would catch me if I registered my boat
as R. Matthew Wilson at 8 Briarcliff?  I'd doubt it.  There are just too many
loopholes.

If you think people should be held accountable for their actions, I see 
pulling a boating "privilege" (license) and not a boat registration as 
the only way.

R. Matthew Wilson

    Hmmmm, drive a boat drunk, lose driving license for car. Get back in
    boat and do all the boating you want, but dont drive car. That makes a 
    lot of sense. What gets me is the probable cause for getting stopped.  

    I get a kick out of reading these dreams of utopia. There is no Law
    enforcement for the most part. I have yet to see the 150' rule enforced
    with water skiers. When I see them getting the tickets for beach
    starts, drop offs and generally buzzing to close to shore I'll be
    amazed. Further regulation isn't going to do squat.

    Rich  

	Well,  enforcement  "mechanisms"  and effectiveness aside for the moment,
its gratifying to see that I'm not the only one who wants the drunks off the
water.

re  "probable cause"  I think most of us who use the smaller bodies of water a
lot could very quickly make a list of the boats and drivers that it would make
a lot of sense to wave down and check out for probable intoxication.  I don't
think lake commisioners and/or environment police would have much trouble making
their  "Yahoos lists"  either.

	Reg

    I agree with .19   Get drunk in a boat, drive a boat, get pulled over,
    lose a CAR license?   Bad boy/girl, you can't drive your car.  Your
    boat? Fine.  But not your car.  People who drink on the water are not
    necessarily the same people who drink and drive a car.   I can think of
    quite a few marina friends who are horrified by the mere idea of
    drinking and driving, but look at the boat as a 'pleasure craft' and
    therefore not the same.....
    
    It gets tougher and tougher for the Coast Guard to enforce the EXISTING
    rules due to budget cuts, personnel loss etc.  How would they enforce
    this?    They don't pull people over for disobeying No wake signs, or
    posted speed limits, what makes anyone believe they'll be there to pull
    the drunken idiot who nearly cuts someone else in half?
    
    I still think (slight sarcasm) that chaining a boat to the dock, much
    like putting a boot on a car would help.  Granted it's not the boats
    fault its driver had one too many, but....everyone who uses the boat
    suffers too -- next time they'll know to take the keys away from the
    ddrunken driver....Sort of a hard lesson, but then again one that is
    entirely preventable......
    

    re.22
    Interesting problem -- not one I had thought of.   On the Merrimack
    River, most people that I've met have one boat (and maybe a dinghy)
    so it wouldn't be quite as difficult to enforce.   As for people with
    more than one boat, I'm not sure.  Even if there were boating licenses,
    suspending it wouldn't make that person necessarily stop boating --
    statistics prove that 60% of drivers whose licenses have been suspended
    still drive; why should boating be any different?
    
    I think we've hit the problem.   Everybody wants to do something to
    alleviate the problem, but there are so many issues/problems/questions,
    no one knows where to start...