Tragic Death on Long Island Waters - Alcohol and Boating Do No Mix!

[MonacoMike]

This story is a tragedy and I hope the operator gets what he deserves.

There is a lot of Bla-Bla-Bla in this thread. Boating is NOT the same as driving. While no one supports operating anything under the influence, many just want 4th amendment protections while boating or driving in US jurisdictions. It has previously been documented on this site that some of our members have had multiple boardings by several different authorities on the same day. This hampers freedom of enjoyment and places an undue burden on recreational boaters. It is not unusual for there to be 5 or more different authorities in a relatively small area on a lake or bay.

I wish all the "if you are doing nothing wrong" crowd would just move to some totalitarian country without a constitution they like the laws of. After all if you are doing nothing wrong why have constitutional protections?

As for the .08 alcohol levels, most states decided years ago .10 was a reasonable level but anti-alcohol interest groups pressured the Federal government which threatened to withhold highway funds if states did not lower their levels. I think this was done politically not scientifically. If done statistically they would simply show the number of accidents and fatalities of operators above .08 and below .10 and a rational discussion could be had from there. Alas that information is not to be found. The goal of the anti-alcohol groups is to scare folks into never having a glass of wine or beer with dinner out. I guarantee .08 is not their ultimate goal but rather an increment they could sell the public at the time, they will be back for more.

I'll keep my constitutional protections and wish they extended to US waters.

MM

 

[comsnark]

Even if you are anchored out, you must have the ability to get underway at any time, which means you must have a designated driver for your boat at all times unless you are sitting on blocks. It is an irresponsible captain that would start drinking even on the hook to the point where you were not able to handle your craft.

Does the requirement to be able to get underway include times when the crew and captain take the dingy to shore?

Operating a dinghy under power is operating a vessel. Same rule applies I would expect (hope??)

I am sure there is no difference between operating a dinghy vs a larger boat in this regard. However, I was actually posing a different question.

This story is a tragedy and I hope the operator gets what he deserves.

There is a lot of Bla-Bla-Bla in this thread. Boating is NOT the same as driving. While no one supports operating anything under the influence, many just want 4th amendment protections while boating or driving in US jurisdictions. It has previously been documented on this site that some of our members have had multiple boardings by several different authorities on the same day. This hampers freedom of enjoyment and places an undue burden on recreational boaters. It is not unusual for there to be 5 or more different authorities in a relatively small area on a lake or bay.

I wish all the "if you are doing nothing wrong" crowd would just move to some totalitarian country without a constitution they like the laws of. After all if you are doing nothing wrong why have constitutional protections?

As for the .8 alcohol levels, most states decided years ago 1.0 was a reasonable level but anti-alcohol interest groups pressured the Federal government which threatened to withhold highway funds if states did not lower their levels. I think this was done politically not scientifically. If done statistically they would simply show the number of accidents and fatalities of operators above .8 and below 1.0 and a rational discussion could be had from there. Alas that information is not to be found. The goal of the anti-alcohol groups is to scare folks into never having a glass of wine or beer with dinner out. I guarantee .8 is not their ultimate goal but rather an increment they could sell the public at the time, they will be back for more.

I'll keep my constitutional protections and wish they extended to US waters.

MM

I fully agree with Mike on this point. I am often surprised how often people surrender basic American liberties as they demonstrate high virtues.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

[Lakebum431]

This story is a tragedy and I hope the operator gets what he deserves.

There is a lot of Bla-Bla-Bla in this thread. Boating is NOT the same as driving. While no one supports operating anything under the influence, many just want 4th amendment protections while boating or driving in US jurisdictions. It has previously been documented on this site that some of our members have had multiple boardings by several different authorities on the same day. This hampers freedom of enjoyment and places an undue burden on recreational boaters. It is not unusual for there to be 5 or more different authorities in a relatively small area on a lake or bay.

I wish all the "if you are doing nothing wrong" crowd would just move to some totalitarian country without a constitution they like the laws of. After all if you are doing nothing wrong why have constitutional protections?

As for the .8 alcohol levels, most states decided years ago 1.0 was a reasonable level but anti-alcohol interest groups pressured the Federal government which threatened to withhold highway funds if states did not lower their levels. I think this was done politically not scientifically. If done statistically they would simply show the number of accidents and fatalities of operators above .8 and below 1.0 and a rational discussion could be had from there. Alas that information is not to be found. The goal of the anti-alcohol groups is to scare folks into never having a glass of wine or beer with dinner out. I guarantee .8 is not their ultimate goal but rather an increment they could sell the public at the time, they will be back for more.

I'll keep my constitutional protections and wish they extended to US waters.

MM

Just to be clear, I think you mean 0.10 not 1.0

 

[Bucit]

Another jackass in a loud, obnoxious boat, drunk to boot, I hope he spends the rest of his days in prison. God be with the victim's family and loved ones.

He may be a jackass but the boat had twin outboards and not the loud obnoxiuos thru hull exhaust. Just saying. I too hope they hang him. How can you be drunk at 5 am? He started the night beofre and never quit.

 

[MonacoMike]

Just to be clear, I think you mean 0.10 not 1.0

...I shouldn't post so late. Yes, .10 and .08 are the correct numbers now corrected.

MM

 

[mvoellinger]

This story is a tragedy and I hope the operator gets what he deserves.

There is a lot of Bla-Bla-Bla in this thread. Boating is NOT the same as driving. While no one supports operating anything under the influence, many just want 4th amendment protections while boating or driving in US jurisdictions. It has previously been documented on this site that some of our members have had multiple boardings by several different authorities on the same day. This hampers freedom of enjoyment and places an undue burden on recreational boaters. It is not unusual for there to be 5 or more different authorities in a relatively small area on a lake or bay.

I wish all the "if you are doing nothing wrong" crowd would just move to some totalitarian country without a constitution they like the laws of. After all if you are doing nothing wrong why have constitutional protections?

As for the .08 alcohol levels, most states decided years ago .10 was a reasonable level but anti-alcohol interest groups pressured the Federal government which threatened to withhold highway funds if states did not lower their levels. I think this was done politically not scientifically. If done statistically they would simply show the number of accidents and fatalities of operators above .08 and below .10 and a rational discussion could be had from there. Alas that information is not to be found. The goal of the anti-alcohol groups is to scare folks into never having a glass of wine or beer with dinner out. I guarantee .08 is not their ultimate goal but rather an increment they could sell the public at the time, they will be back for more.

I'll keep my constitutional protections and wish they extended to US waters.

MM

I agree completely. A cop cant pull me over at 2AM just because that's when the bars close, I need to be DOING something to warrant pulling me over. Now, finding (making?) probable cause is fairly easy for a cop who wants to, but at least there is the illusion that Im innocent until proven guilty. There is a big difference in someone who is tooling around at 5AM plastered and someone who can control their alcohol at a reasonable level. If you don't think you can safely operate a vessel after one beer, DON'T. But if I have 2 or 3 beers in an afternoon on the boat with friends, I'm not breaking any laws and I'm still fully in control of my actions.

We can never make the world a completely safe place. Trading all of our civil rights in the process of trying isn't the answer. We should ALL do what we can to protect ourselves, and to not cause harm to others, but in the end, that's why we have laws. Because no matter how strict you make the laws, there are those who will break them. And when they do, they pay the consequences.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Ben Franklin

 

[Dsybok]

Does the requirement to be able to get underway include times when the crew and captain take the dingy to shore?

Yes, even at anchor you are responsible for your vessel. Leaving a vessel unattended you are responsible if it comes off hook and does any damage, whether you are there to prevent it or not, so yes, this requirement does include when you are on your dingy, ashore buying tourist trinkets, or what have you. You are always responsible for your vessel regardless of where you are.

 

[Dsybok]

I am sure there is no difference between operating a dinghy vs a larger boat in this regard. However, I was actually posing a different question.



I fully agree with Mike on this point. I am often surprised how often people surrender basic American liberties as they demonstrate high virtues.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

I think what he meant was, if you are not on your boat, you cannot maintain the ability to get underway at any time, which is true, however if something happens while you are ashore or in your dingy, you , or perhaps your insurance company are still responsible. In the case of , say a boat coming undone from its moorings and damaging another boat, it is going to be civil / fiscal responsibility and not BUI.

Now look at this scenario, you are aboard your vessel, and everyone in your party is so hammered you are all reduced to blubbering piles of drool.A solo captain in a boat a few hundred yards off falls overboard hits his head and is in danger of drowing, you see this but you are so intoxicated you cannot take action necessary to save this person, which would mean getting underway and performing rescue duties. The man dies. What do you think is going to happen to you?

Think you can go in front of the judge and say " sorry sir, I was too drunk to go save that guy".

Think about it this way, you are just sober enough to attempt a rescue operation, but because you had three too many, you get close and hit the wrong lever and instead of backing off to throw a PFD you run the guy down and kill him. What then? "I tried to save the guy but I messed up and ran him over instead"

You see the point. You have to maintain at least one competent person aboard a vessel with a clear head for a possible emergency. Emergencies don't take the afternoon off so you can enjoy your case of Natty Light.

 

[Dsybok]

This story is a tragedy and I hope the operator gets what he deserves.

There is a lot of Bla-Bla-Bla in this thread. Boating is NOT the same as driving. While no one supports operating anything under the influence, many just want 4th amendment protections while boating or driving in US jurisdictions. It has previously been documented on this site that some of our members have had multiple boardings by several different authorities on the same day. This hampers freedom of enjoyment and places an undue burden on recreational boaters. It is not unusual for there to be 5 or more different authorities in a relatively small area on a lake or bay.

I wish all the "if you are doing nothing wrong" crowd would just move to some totalitarian country without a constitution they like the laws of. After all if you are doing nothing wrong why have constitutional protections?

As for the .08 alcohol levels, most states decided years ago .10 was a reasonable level but anti-alcohol interest groups pressured the Federal government which threatened to withhold highway funds if states did not lower their levels. I think this was done politically not scientifically. If done statistically they would simply show the number of accidents and fatalities of operators above .08 and below .10 and a rational discussion could be had from there. Alas that information is not to be found. The goal of the anti-alcohol groups is to scare folks into never having a glass of wine or beer with dinner out. I guarantee .08 is not their ultimate goal but rather an increment they could sell the public at the time, they will be back for more.

I'll keep my constitutional protections and wish they extended to US waters.

MM

The scenario you describe of multiple authorities on the water is just as likely as getting pulled over for a DUI checkpoint five times in one day because you drove through five towns that happened to all have them set up at the same time. Don't use an extreme example to try and illustrate the picture, I could just as easily say I went a whole year without being boarded once ( which I have) to prove that the law is not stringent enough and we need more boardings. I venture to say neither of our pictures would be totally accurate.

 

[src]

Part of your "constitutional protections" includes defending you from people who would do you harm. Notice the order here: Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.

While a given individual may be able to handle "2 or 3 beers in an afternoon" and still be in control of their faculties, they are greatly outnumbered by morons who think they "can handle" whatever they happen to have already had. I guarantee you that if you asked the guy driving that speedboat, he would have insisted he was fine, too. People, in general, absolutely suck at self regulation.

If they weren't _constantly_ finding people who were breaking the law, they wouldn't _have_ 5 different law enforcement agencies out there. If everybody operated their boats in a safe and sane manner, they wouldn't need to be out there at all.

But without lanes painted on the waves, it's a bit hard to tell if a guy is weaving a bit too much. They have to stop people, board the boats and check for safety to tell if everything is ok.

Do I like it? Not really. But the fact is, they are doing that to keep YOUR ass safe from the idiots, and keep everyone else safe in case you happen to be one of the idiots. And I can live with that.

 

[MonacoMike]

The scenario you describe of multiple authorities on the water is just as likely as getting pulled over for a DUI checkpoint five times in one day because you drove through five towns that happened to all have them set up at the same time. Don't use an extreme example to try and illustrate the picture, I could just as easily say I went a whole year without being boarded once ( which I have) to prove that the law is not stringent enough and we need more boardings. I venture to say neither of our pictures would be totally accurate.

Turtle said it well in a doscussion last year:

We used to boat on the Hudson a lot, then they started stoping boats a lot. There's a billion agencies on the Hudson and it's not uncommon to be stopped multiple times a day by different agencies. We stopped cruising the hudson and let the places we visited know why we stopped going there. They are putting pressure on their local agencies to lighten up, we'll see if it works. I agree that many are trying to justify their worth as budgets are slashed.

 

[mvoellinger]

Part of your "constitutional protections" includes defending you from people who would do you harm. Notice the order here: Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.

While a given individual may be able to handle "2 or 3 beers in an afternoon" and still be in control of their faculties, they are greatly outnumbered by morons who think they "can handle" whatever they happen to have already had. I guarantee you that if you asked the guy driving that speedboat, he would have insisted he was fine, too. People, in general, absolutely suck at self regulation.

If they weren't _constantly_ finding people who were breaking the law, they wouldn't _have_ 5 different law enforcement agencies out there. If everybody operated their boats in a safe and sane manner, they wouldn't need to be out there at all.

But without lanes painted on the waves, it's a bit hard to tell if a guy is weaving a bit too much. They have to stop people, board the boats and check for safety to tell if everything is ok.

Do I like it? Not really. But the fact is, they are doing that to keep YOUR ass safe from the idiots, and keep everyone else safe in case you happen to be one of the idiots. And I can live with that.

But also by that logic, we should have ignition interlocks (for checking BAC) on EVERYONES car, and EVERYONES boat. Why take a chance? Life, then liberty. And happiness somewhere. I hold to the fact that boating is dangerous, and the MAJORITY of people who die boating, do so at their own hands. I could fall down drunk tomorrow and crack my head open. Should we ban alcohol all together? I could fall off the bar stool and take someone else out on my way down, cracking their head open. I used to bartend, Ive seen it all. Where is the line drawn? Its pouring rain right now in FL. I hydroplaned earlier going to grab some chinese food - why should we be allowed to drive in the rain? I could have killed someone. Im not defending driving drunk by any means - what I AM defending is that somewhere a line in the sand must be drawn of when do we accept the chance that by leaving our houses (or being born?) we could die in a given activity.

 

[tdschafer]

Prayers sent.


Drunk at 5:00AM !! :wow: . :wow: . I doubt the victim had a PFD on because it took so long to find him. :smt021

He may be a jackass but the boat had twin outboards and not the loud obnoxiuos thru hull exhaust. Just saying. I too hope they hang him. How can you be drunk at 5 am? He started the night beofre and never quit.

I see this fairly often. The law in NY is that you can serve until 4 am. In our places we do last call at 3:45 generally. We then give people about 30 mins to finish up. That puts them out at 4:15. A little loitering outside and they are heading home 4:30-5:00. Most of our customers get into cabs at that hour or generally have a designated driver.

 

[src]

But also by that logic, we should have ignition interlocks (for checking BAC) on EVERYONES car, and EVERYONES boat. Why take a chance? Life, then liberty. And happiness somewhere. I hold to the fact that boating is dangerous, and the MAJORITY of people who die boating, do so at their own hands. I could fall down drunk tomorrow and crack my head open. Should we ban alcohol all together? I could fall off the bar stool and take someone else out on my way down, cracking their head open. I used to bartend, Ive seen it all. Where is the line drawn? Its pouring rain right now in FL. I hydroplaned earlier going to grab some chinese food - why should we be allowed to drive in the rain? I could have killed someone. Im not defending driving drunk by any means - what I AM defending is that somewhere a line in the sand must be drawn of when do we accept the chance that by leaving our houses (or being born?) we could die in a given activity.

Way to follow that slippery slope argument all the way down. Did I say they should stop EVERYONE? No. Did I say that _any_ measure in the name of safety is reasonable? No.

But in places where there are larger than average numbers of people misbehaving, expect increased monitoring. Get out of the popular/busy areas, and there won't be so many cops.

But you seem to find it easier to blame the cops for trying to stop the ass-hats, than to blame the ass-hats for being ass-hats and getting the cops riled up.

Each of us has our own conception of how much governance is enough/too much. I don't expect you to think the same way I do about this. But really, do you actually want the cops to leave and let the ass-hats run the show? If you think the cops are inconvenient, imagine how much fun you'd be having if there were no enforcement at all.

 

[Xplicitlnck]

It will be 10 years this September 9the that I lost a good friend of mine in a boating accident. They were on the hook in little neck bay NY. They had there nav lights on and just after sunset they were struck by another vessel. There was 5 of my close friends on board. And 2 on the other. My friends boat was split in half and all 5 thrown overboard no pfds on anybody. 4 survived and 1 was found almost a week later. the captain of the other vessel had his lifeless body pulled that night and his friend was fine. All 7 were drinking and the captain had high levels of opiates in his toxicology report. Well anyway every time I think about reaching into the cooler I think of him and his mothers face at the shoe line waiting for her son to be found. I think again. Yea I will have a couple while hanging out but no I will not place myself, my crew, our anybody else on the water in danger so I stay put until I'm ready even if it means staying the night. Sorry everyone pointless story just got caught up being almost a 10 year mark and reading about this accident. Not to mention it could have been me I was only about 3 miles away from the accident when it happened. On a lighter note hope everybody has a safe and enjoyable summer. and would like to send my deepest sympathy to the family of an innocent captain just looking to have a nice day of fishing. Hope the other guy roots in jail

 

[MonacoMike]

Part of your "constitutional protections" includes defending you from people who would do you harm. Notice the order here: Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.

I have failed to put my finger on the portion of the constitution that includes the part about "defending you from people who would do you harm", national defense excepted.

Way to follow that slippery slope argument all the way down. Did I say they should stop EVERYONE? No. Did I say that _any_ measure in the name of safety is reasonable? No.

But in places where there are larger than average numbers of people misbehaving, expect increased monitoring. Get out of the popular/busy areas, and there won't be so many cops.

But you seem to find it easier to blame the cops for trying to stop the ass-hats, than to blame the ass-hats for being ass-hats and getting the cops riled up.

Each of us has our own conception of how much governance is enough/too much. I don't expect you to think the same way I do about this. But really, do you actually want the cops to leave and let the ass-hats run the show? If you think the cops are inconvenient, imagine how much fun you'd be having if there were no enforcement at all.

The constitution requires these operations be done according to the 4th Amendment, but on local lakes they want to act like it is maritime law with local authorities boarding as if protecting shipping ports, and that these probabable cause restrictions do not exist. Probable cause is what many want.

MM

 

[src]

I have failed to put my finger on the portion of the constitution that includes the part about "defending you from people who would do you harm", national defense excepted.
MM

That would be the part that makes government run police forces constitutional at all, rather than all security being provided by private contractor.

 

[MonacoMike]

I have failed to put my finger on the portion of the constitution that includes the part about "defending you from people who would do you harm", national defense excepted.



MM

That would be the part that makes government run police forces constitutional at all, rather than all security being provided by private contractor.

What part of the constitution "makes government run police forces constitutional at all"?

MM

 

[WahooUSMA]

Part of your "constitutional protections" includes defending you from people who would do you harm. Notice the order here: Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.

While a given individual may be able to handle "2 or 3 beers in an afternoon" and still be in control of their faculties, they are greatly outnumbered by morons who think they "can handle" whatever they happen to have already had. I guarantee you that if you asked the guy driving that speedboat, he would have insisted he was fine, too. People, in general, absolutely suck at self regulation.

If they weren't _constantly_ finding people who were breaking the law, they wouldn't _have_ 5 different law enforcement agencies out there. If everybody operated their boats in a safe and sane manner, they wouldn't need to be out there at all.

But without lanes painted on the waves, it's a bit hard to tell if a guy is weaving a bit too much. They have to stop people, board the boats and check for safety to tell if everything is ok.

Do I like it? Not really. But the fact is, they are doing that to keep YOUR ass safe from the idiots, and keep everyone else safe in case you happen to be one of the idiots. And I can live with that.

Well put - x-2

 

[testlab]

Where I hail from (Sydney, Australia) we have the same blood alcohol content (BAC) restrictions for boating as driving, which is 0.05% and an enforcement program that uses the catch phrase "You're the skipper, you're responsible."

We have more laws and regulations than I can count, it's almost bordering on ridiculous and we can be boarded and inspected by state police, maritime authorities officers, fisheries, customs, etc. But with all this over regulation I have never seen it enforced in an intrusive manner. Sure, we all hate being supervised by nanny, but only those who don't follow the rules are the ones who get extra attention from the authorities. The local enforcement officers know who is likely to cause problems and leave the majority to enjoy the water in peace.

When all these regulations are introduced the moral and emotional indignation is far more bothersome than the actual enforcement ever is, unless you're of the few that treats any sort of oversight with contempt, an attitude that increases the risk to all of us.