Go Back   TeamTalk > General MasterCraft Topics > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 06-21-2017, 05:04 PM
EricB EricB is offline
MC Fanatic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Boat: 77 S&S, 1983 S&& PS, and now a 98 Anniversary S&S LT1 PS
Location: St. Paul, MN & Balsam Lake, WI
Posts: 735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miatafanatic77 View Post
On_wi thanks much for pushing this out to the community I emailed my support this morning

This is not a done deal. We have to get the word out that we are for this change as there are groups out there opposing also.

I know Id probably have an extra couple hundred hours on my boat if it werent for our current law
Me also. I'd have several hundred extra hours and the cost of the extra fuel. Just think of the extra gas tax money that could be had by the State. They are missing out! If we point this out to the legislators, they'll pass it for sure!

Last edited by EricB; 06-21-2017 at 05:04 PM. Reason: spelling error
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 06-22-2017, 08:52 AM
JimN's Avatar
JimN JimN is offline
MC Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 13,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksdaoski View Post
There will always be idiots on the lake.
Just like there will always be idiots on the road.
But mirror or no mirror, spotter or spotter, law passed or not passed, would have no impact on the story you gave.
It's an example of emotions clouding facts.
Emotions? BS! It's an example of an idiot who SHOULD HAVE been looking forward and he had four others who could act as spotters- five, if you count the skier and he ended up being exactly that.

Are you saying that there's a good reason for the driver to look back at the skier when they have a spotter?

Don't read anything into that other post.
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 06-22-2017, 10:20 AM
ksdaoski ksdaoski is offline
TT Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Boat: x1
Location: midwest
Posts: 348
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimN View Post
Emotions? BS! It's an example of an idiot who SHOULD HAVE been looking forward and he had four others who could act as spotters- five, if you count the skier and he ended up being exactly that.

Are you saying that there's a good reason for the driver to look back at the skier when they have a spotter?

Don't read anything into that other post.
No, I agree 100%, that was a horrible experience, and the little $hit should never be driving a boat again.

My point was, that story has no bearing on the spotter law.

The current spotter law had no impact on the driver's inattention, poor decision making, and poor etiquette, that risked the lives of others.

The new spotter law would also have no impact on the driver's inattention, poor decision making, and poor etiquette, that risked the lives of others.

However, its stories like this, which are impairing the judgement of those that feel the lakes are already too unsafe, and the new spotter law will make the lakes even less safe. "Emotional" stories like this are impacting and changing the the original intent of the law.

That story happened because of a poor driver. And that will not change with new law or old law.

A "good" driver or even a "decent" driver, should be able to handle looking forward and utilize a mirror to understand what's happening behind them (another boating coming, skier still up, etc). Its not binary. Just like driving a car, you're looking forward, but utilizing mirrors to understand if another vehicle is moving into your blindspot, about to rear-end you, trying to pass you, etc.

Do you really think Wauksha County boaters are any better/worse than Dane county boaters? That's what the new law is saying.

Last edited by ksdaoski; 06-22-2017 at 10:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 06-22-2017, 10:24 AM
JimN's Avatar
JimN JimN is offline
MC Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 13,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksdaoski View Post
No, I agree 100%, that was a horrible experience, and the little $hit should never be driving a boat again.

My point was, that story has no bearing on the spotter law.

The current spotter law had no impact on the driver's inattention, poor decision making, and poor etiquette, that risked the lives of others.

The new spotter law would also have no impact on the driver's inattention, poor decision making, and poor etiquette, that risked the lives of others.

However, its stories like this, which are impairing the judgement of those that feel the lakes are already too unsafe, and the new spotter law will make the lakes even less safe.

When that story happened because of a poor driver. And that will not change with new law or old law.
The lakes are fine- it's the idiots on them that are screwing it up.

I don't want boats to be padded like the Michelin Man, but I also don't want the lakes and rivers to resemble the start of a Formula One race, either.

I thought WI had allowed a driver using a mirror- did this change between 1997 and now?


Inattentive boaters remind me of a Steven Wright line- "My mechanic said "I couldn't fix your brakes, so I made your horn louder".
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 06-22-2017, 10:25 AM
hunter991 hunter991 is offline
TT Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Boat: 2006 X2, Pontoon, Nitro 882
Location: wisconsin
Posts: 452
Wisc law requires a spotter.
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 06-26-2017, 11:02 PM
skiviskaves skiviskaves is offline
TT Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Boat: 1993 Stars and Stripes 190
Location: Midwest
Posts: 38
Changing this law would change my life in the most awesome way. What can I do to help?
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 06-27-2017, 10:35 AM
on_wi on_wi is offline
TT Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Boat: Non-MC
Location: Midwest
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by skiviskaves View Post
Changing this law would change my life in the most awesome way. What can I do to help?
Where are you in Wisconsin?
First step would be to contact your Assembly rep. Bill is passed in the Senate already. Let your Assembly rep know you support the bill and find out if they plan on voting yes on the open vote.
If you are in Waukesha or Walworth County, let them know that you support mirror use, and not an amendment to require spotters only in these counties. If they don't support the bill ask them why. Provide them with the stats and information on why this is a safe practice that will make the state for friendly to the water sports community from within and outside of Wisconsin.

Edit - I see Pewaukee on your profile. If Cindi Duchow is your assembly rep then you can call her. She will disagree with you, but the more people we run by her in support of the bill, the better our chances of the bill actually applying to Waukesha County.
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 06-27-2017, 11:36 AM
mustangtexas's Avatar
mustangtexas mustangtexas is offline
MC Fanatic
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Boat: 2005 MasterCraft Prostar 197 & 1989 190
Location: North Texas/St. Germain, WI
Posts: 698
My experience in Wisconsin is you have to tie the mirror law bill with the thought process that it will conserve wetlands, wildlife, clean water, etc.

Also, the southern 2/3 of the state can by far out vote the northern 1/3 and the northern 1/3 is where a good 80% of the water is.
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 07-07-2017, 09:43 PM
ksdaoski ksdaoski is offline
TT Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Boat: x1
Location: midwest
Posts: 348
response from my rep...
Dear Kyle,

Thank you for following up with me regarding AB 100. I appreciate the time you took to contact me.

While we may disagree on this issue, please know that I appreciate hearing from you. I continue to have concerns regarding safety on lakes, such as Pewaukee Lake, that have high boater traffic on the weekends. As an individual who lives on this lake, I have seen first-hand how busy the lake can get, which is my reason for pause regarding AB 100. I also consulted with the Waukesha County Sherriff’s Department on their thoughts and they too felt it raised some safety concerns.

After speaking with the author of the bill, we are currently working on an amendment that generally makes the option to utilize a mirror in lieu of a spotter inapplicable in two counties- Walworth and Waukesha. However, the amendment would authorize a town, village or city located in either of those counties to enact an ordinance to allow the use of a mirror in lieu of a spotter. This would allow the local municipality to determine what would be best for their lake. Ultimately, I believe it should be the choice of the local municipality. Please also know that Minnesota excludes two of their largest lakes from their legislation.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to reach out with any further questions or concerns by replying to this email or by calling my office at (608) 266-3007.

Sincerely,


Representative Cindi Duchow
Wisconsin State Assembly
District 99
Reply With Quote
  #210  
Old 07-07-2017, 09:44 PM
ksdaoski ksdaoski is offline
TT Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Boat: x1
Location: midwest
Posts: 348
and mine back today...

Good Afternoon Cindi, thanks for getting back to me.

I agree, ultimately, it should be the choice of the local municipality.

Today, we allow local municipalities to determine what is best for their lakes, above and beyond State boating laws.

For example, Golden Lake has a "no wake Noon-4pm" on weekends and holidays, as determined by the Town of Summit.

However, it did not originate with a State-wide Law, Banning wakes from Noon-4pm, that had to be amended by the local municipalities to allow Noon-4pm wakes. The municipalities around Pewaukee Lake, Nagawicka Lake, and Lake La Belle, etc, weren't forced to amendment a Noon-4pm State Law Ban on wakes.

It started with a State wide "no wake dusk to dawn" concept, that was applied universally across all Counties, and then local municipalities added, as they determined what was best for their lakes.

Similarly, I believe we should be starting with an open, State-wide acceptance of the mirror law. Then, local ordinances could pass a spotter requirement, as they deemed required.

This is much more in the spirit of allowing local municipalities to determine their needs, and much more empowering to the local taxpayers and users of the lakes.

In addition, I can't think of examples today, where State Laws place County by County limitations. It seems odd and troubling, that 70 out 72 counties would be able to support the mirror law, while 2 entire counties could not.

Why should a WI resident (or vacationer) in Waukesha County have State law Limitations placed upon them, that are different from State laws on a WI resident (or vacationer) in Fund du Lac County?

By placing limitations on 2 out of 72 counties, it seems to be counter to the belief that less government is good government.

To make it even more local, while I do not currently live on Beaver Lake, I have been looking at a house for sale on this lake. Because this lake does not have local access, the lake traffic is very light. It will now require more government action, to amend the law. What maybe deemed required for Pewaukee Lake, is driving the Waukesha county exception, and will be imposed on Beaver Lake, despite having different usage needs.

Lastly, as a reminder, the comparable MN/WI boating accidents, does not indicate spotters are safer than mirrors only; its actually the opposite. And nationally, the 17 states that allow mirror usage reported 3.8 towed accidents per 100,000 registered boats. Spotter states reported 6.3. This is a 40% increase of accidents in the "safer" states.

Thanks and regards-
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:53 PM.


2018