On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 06:13:13 -0400, HK wrote:

Why do you insist on reposting every single bit of previous drivel
instead of snipping to something half way relevant?


Reggie is a troll, nothing more.

Yes, but flying inthe face of all reason, I'd like to see him become a
more "responsible" troll...

:-)

Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 06:13:13 -0400, HK wrote:

Why do you insist on reposting every single bit of previous drivel
instead of snipping to something half way relevant?

Reggie is a troll, nothing more.

Yes, but flying inthe face of all reason, I'd like to see him become a
more "responsible" troll...

:-)




You would, eh? Fat chance he will. He's used about 50 different handles
to post his "snarks" here.

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:40:56 -0000, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 03:27:08 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...container_laws

Note that the federal guidelines apply to:

1. Motor vehicles

2. Vehicles on a public highway or the right-of-way (i.e. on the
shoulder) of a public highway

Depending on the state, the definition of "public highway" can be considerably broader, including parking
lots, and private driveways. The following is for New York:

http://www.legalsurvival.com/dwilink/nov02.html

However, the federal definition of motor vehicle seems to exclude boats.

"MOTOR VEHICLE - Includes an automobile, automobile truck, automobile wagon, motorcycle, or any
other self-propelled vehicle designed for running on land but not on rails. 18 USC"

From:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m048.htm

It's difficult to figure out how a canoe on a navigable river fits
into any of that. I'd love to argue that one in court, starting with
jurisdiction and working your way up.

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:09:03 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

I'm sure the cops would much rather be out doing other things than
bsting some poor stiff who had a Bud while paddling down the river.

And that is most likely part of the issue in this case. Cops are
ordered out on a holiday to enforce what is no doubt questionable law.
Cops resent assignment, and decide to go over the top in an attempt to
discourage further similar efforts.

Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 06:13:13 -0400, HK wrote:

Why do you insist on reposting every single bit of previous drivel
instead of snipping to something half way relevant?

Reggie is a troll, nothing more.

Yes, but flying inthe face of all reason, I'd like to see him become a
more "responsible" troll...

:-)



Wayne,
Considering the fact that 98% of the posts in rec.boats, including all
the ones from Harry previous to my response, are not trimmed, what made
you realize that trimming posts should be a priority?

I understand I don't use profanity in my posts, but I didn't know that
was a requirement.

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:20:48 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:34:22 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 21:00:20 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 10:48:21 -0400, Wayne.B penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 03:38:23 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

Still, that said, busting people for having an open can of beer
anywhere aboard a boat seems extreme.

Especially on a canoe which is in no possible way a "motor vehicle".

Depends on how the local law is written of course but I'd like to see
them fight it out in court.

No point in trying to fight the tax collectors.... that is really 98%
of the intent of that sort of law.

Heh - as much as I would like to debate this with you, I would do so
from a position of extreme weakness.

I once asked a local legislator just how much time was spent on
debating the necessity of any particular piece of public safety
legislation vs considering the financial aspect of any particular
piece of public safety legislation.

He said the revenue portion (that's exactly how he put it - not
penalty/fine portion) is about 50% of any legislative debate when it
comes to public safety.

I'd lose the argument before we even got started. :)

My position comes from two recent occurrences.

(1) My boss was cited in VA for exceeding the speed limit. They were
perfectly happy to make the speeding charge go away and become a
non-movement violation, if he paid the fine and just went away. IOW,
public safety was not of paramount importance.... collecting the fine,
was.

(2) Several states already have a totally idiotic series of tax laws.
VA was the latest:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1818.asp


Just as your's is dealing with SC, mine will soon be dealing with
VA.....

I knew getting rid of the Mustang was a good idea!

On Jul 9, 4:09?am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:03:59 -0700, Chuck Gould

wrote:
I offer again my example from earlier in this thread. Joe Doaks has a
party of guests out for an afternoon cruise. Joe isn't drinking, and
in fact he's piloting the boat from the flybridge. Down below in the
salon, Mrs. Doaks is serving Margaritas to a couple guests of legal
drinking age. Is Joe Doaks a criminal? Should he be hauled into court
and made to answer for his behavior? In many states, certain boating
offenses cross reference to your vehicular driving license, so should
stone sober Joe's car insurance be cancelled or his premiums be
doubled because somebody else on his boat (well out of reach of the
skipper) had an alcoholic beverage?

How do you make the distinction between passengers and Captain? Do
the passengers have a sign on their backs that says "Passenger"?


I make the same distinction between the passengers, (who absolutely
should not drink to excess, would be better advised not to drink at
all underway, and whose behavior should *not* result in law
enforcement
action against the skipper of the boat), and the vessel operator that
a law enforecement officer would. Who is at the helm when the vessel
is first observed?

Highway example: A cop pulls a car to the side of the road in the wee
hours of a Sunday morning. Upon approching the vehicle, he or she
notes that there are six people inside the vehicle and that five of
them are behaving in a boisterous manner. There is absolutely no doubt
that nearly everybody in the car is seriously drunk. The driver is
asked to step out and demonstrate sobriety. The driver recites the
alphabet backwards, balances on one foot, touches his finger to his
nose, and blows "zero". To make it interesting, let's say the actual
owner of the car is one of the drunks ready to pass out in the back
seat. Has there been a crime committed? IMO, no. The designated driver
was acting responsibly and doing his or her job. Without the services
of the designated driver, there might have been five drunks in five
separate cars all swerving down the road after the bars closed.

Differences on the water: I don't edorse a designated driver approach
to boating. It's definitely safer and more prudent to have everybody
aboard sober enough to be of assistance if there is an emergency and/
or able to contribute to their own survival and rescue should somebody
fall overboard. The scenario where everybody aboard a boat is stinking
drunk except the skipper is an invitation for a disaster. However,
there's quite a gap between adult guests enjoying a couple of drinks
during the course of a summer afternoon and a "boatload of drunks".

And it does get complicated. Some people shouldn't drink at all, as
their ability to *stop* seems to disappear with the second or third
swallow and their behavior changes radically. Those who allow alcohol
to be served aboard a boat need to be aware of the condition of the
folks who are accepting such service and have the guts to say "I think
you've had enough until we get back to the dock" when that's
appropriate.

My solution is to target behavior that effects others. Being publicly
obnoxious is one such behavior. Operating a vessel or vehicle while
impaired is another. Stopping for a picnic lunch in the middle of a
hot afternoon and sipping a cold beer in the shade of an overhanging
tree won't harm anybody, particularly if the vessel operator has a
diet cola instead.




Look, I'm not totally convinced that the situation that originated
this discussion was reasonable - there is a point where enforcing the
law requires descretion and balance - I totally agree.

However, if there is a history of abuse in a particular area and the
users and bordering neighbors complain about same, then drastic
enforcement may be required as a warning.


Unfortunately, one neighbor complaining 100 times often gets the same
response as 50 neighbors all complaining twice.





I'm sure the cops would much rather be out doing other things than
bsting some poor stiff who had a Bud while paddling down the river.

I'm sure that we're in complete agreement on that issue. Particularly
since when several hundred people are stopped a few of them,
statistically, are likely to be off-duty cops. :-)

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:58:34 -0400, HK wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 06:13:13 -0400, HK wrote:

Why do you insist on reposting every single bit of previous drivel
instead of snipping to something half way relevant?

Reggie is a troll, nothing more.

Yes, but flying inthe face of all reason, I'd like to see him become a
more "responsible" troll...

:-)




You would, eh? Fat chance he will. He's used about 50 different handles
to post his "snarks" here.

Of course, Harry has used only one!
--
John H

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 05:27:50 GMT, "Clams Canino"
wrote:

I have no problem with little boats (and pontoons) running at "headway
speed" with a load of beer and good old boys with fishing poles aboard.
HOWEVER... I'm all for throwing the book at BUI's up on plane. All the
Marine Patroll has to do is look for "strange behavior" in order to get
the
real assholes off the water. Not some bull**** PR stunt, a "sweep" like
that
is waste or resources and money. (but it looks good in print)

Ah - I get it.

Slow drunk boaters are better than fast drunk boaters.

Unbelievable.

I'll take 50 slow drunk boats to one fast one anyday.
Unless you're suspending all the laws of physics (like mass and inertia)
then yes.. I'd say the above statement is a no brainer. Quite believable.
In fact, if they are at anchor and stopped (with the light on) they can be
passed out on the boat for all I care - they are harmless and moot. The
bigger the boat and the faster it's going - the more potential problem it
becomes. Simple math.

Small drunk boats trolling (or paddling) around (on closed lakes) are very
unlikely to cause any real trouble. IMHO the biggest risk they face is not
having the Situational Awareness (SA) to react in time to power up to get
out of the way of the *real* problem... the drunks who are driving the boats
at normal speeds or faster.

Like I said.. back "in the day" Charlie and I spent many a night on Little
Sebago in poor condition. What scared *me* was the idiots running too fast
and some without the lights on. Even hearing a boat coming caused us to get
nervous.

-W

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:20:48 -0400, Gene Kearns
wrote:

Just as your's is dealing with SC, mine will soon be dealing with
VA.....

Excellant!!! Tell him congratulations.

State, County or Local?