DOES ANYONE ELSE KNOW IT'S AGAINT THE LAW TO DRIVE YOUR BOAT IF YOU HAVE BEEN DRINKIN

[Devious_Chris]

Your legal fees to process that claim would far exceed the cost of repair.

I was stopped for a safety check in my 19' Daytona. The sheriff grabbed the rear splash guard and broke it...... Then gave me his card and told me to fix it and send them the bill. He apologized and they paid the bill without issue

 

[Heylam]

scared of what?

LEO, rules, and laws. It's too easy to comply, yet so many feel there are alterior motives.

 

[SRice]

I'm fairly certain Boatcop did confirm that there is no law against drinking and driving in a boat. I have personally asked a Monterey County Sheriff out here on Naci and he did confirm there is no low against it here.

The law is against "being impaired to the slightest degree", it does not universally prohibit having an open container or consuming alcohol while driving or operating a boat. BC VIC and 2Forceful are arguing that any amount of alcohol in your system will result in impairment and I have spent this thread arguing that zero tolerance is a good personal policy but not the legal standard. For me to make a legal case against you for OUI I would need to demonstrate that you are impaired and not just that you have a trace of alcohol in your system. I do not know of any field test that is sensitive enough to show impairment at the .02 BAC level- roughly where you'd be if one shot of vodka passed straight through your empty stomach and into your blood stream. For a number of years I have been aware of research suggesting that at .05 BAC there is scientific evidence that you are impaired. This is the reason that hard drinking countries like Ireland and Australia have lowered their OUI/DUI level to .05. And so in my personal life, I have always felt like it was okay to have a single drink and nurse it all through dinner or an afternoon out. If I was gonna be more than two hours, I knew that my body was busily at work metabolizing that first drink and after a few hours I might have one more (NEVER more than two if I was going to drive). I cannot feel the effects of alcohol whatsoever when drinking as described and I am confident that I will not violate any law as it is currently enforced in this manner.

However, this morning I went looking for a little more scientific answer and I found this-

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/impaired_driving/BAC/technicalsum.html

To summarize, researchers in laboratory settings found clear evidence of impairment at the .04 level but they also found somewhat less clear evidence of impairment at the .02 level. What does that mean? It means that even if field testing and the courts have not caught up, that 2Forceful and Vic are correct. If you have a single drink you are impaired at some level and if you drive before it is 100% metabolized you are driving while impaired to the slightest degree- which is what the law defines as OUI.

More importantly, it means that I as a husband and father am putting my family at unnecessary risk. I have already said that I can't feel the effects of alcohol in myself at this level, so why am I doing it and risking even the tiniest danger to my family- especially when I'm just holding that bottle in my hand as a prop.

Vic/Forceful, you've won me over. I'm not going to endanger my family or yours whatsoever by drinking and driving. Going forward I will not drink at all, not a drop, if I'm going to be the one responsible for getting the people I love home safe.

 

[2FORCEFULL]

like I post' earlier.... I came across the law and it didn't leave must room... :slightest...to me means none... not say'n it's good fair or just... it's just what I read...

the water ways are the place the working people go to relax....But personaly... I think that the verbiage" "slightess was slipped in there , not as law ... but as a stepping stone to make it law..... and I think it will be used against those that get in a situation...I know that if you were to harm a person.. or take their life.... the "slightest" will be used to further prosecute you....

again... never read that before....and always thought that you be .06 or 07 and be legal...just like they started say'n you should wear a seatbelt... then they say theat you have to wear a seat belt..... then they said ti was law that you have to wear a seat belt, but that you couldn't be pulled over for not wearing one... then it changed that you could be pulled over...

I hate the fact that the few cause the rest to be governed by stupid laws that are just basic common sense...the few that jump right past the "what if" to it's ok If I don't get caught

people disregard the situation and go right to doing what ever they want..some never get caught... some never harm anyone..

 

[2FORCEFULL]

again, I will post,...how I personaly operate my boat, doesn't mean every body should...I just read the boat law and found it not to be what everyone seems to believe..

I've always heard different..I don't wanna get pulled over and have to blow any thing to get to be able to leave and go on my way...that's just my choice:thumbsup

 

[2Driver]

..I don't wanna get pulled over and have to blow any thing to get to be able to leave and go on my way....

Noted

 

[2FORCEFULL]

beings in like to know what I know.... where in the az law book does it say it's ok for the driver to be drinking a beer or?? when they get pulled over....

 

[Bobby V]

beings in like to know what I know.... where in the az law book does it say it's ok for the driver to be drinking a beer or?? when they get pulled over....

How many tickets have been given out to a boater that has admitted he has had a beer and is under the BAC limit. ?

 

[RiverDave]

You can't legislate life guys.. Some of the comments in this thread are beyond ridiculous..

 

[rvrrun]

You can't legislate life guys.. Some of the comments in this thread are beyond ridiculous..

Valiant attempts are made to do just that.

 

[2FORCEFULL]

You can't legislate life guys.. Some of the comments in this thread are beyond ridiculous..

I was looking for an answer with proof.....pretty ridiculous right... but you seem to know ... lets say... your're pulling out of Windsor.... pop open a cold beer... first one... or second


one you drank while waiting for who ever went to park your trailer,,, you take off...beer in hand and get lit up....do you hide the beer... or hold it in your hand and take a swig or two while you are answering questions???? do you tell the ranger.. it's not illegal to drink and drive????

I had a ranger tell me, you can't drink while driving.... but I think that was at mead.... but he went on to tell me he watched a guy down a beer,,... then another...

then takes off in his boat pulling a skier...and drinking the 3rd...skier goes down...up up he pulls...says... have you been drinking...yes sir... but only one beer...
shows it to him and takes a swig...ranger said he had reason to belive he was OUI... ask him to take a test.... driver agree's.... and he barely passes....

he keeps talking to him, checking out the boat safety stuff....then asks him if he would take the test again....bamm he's nailed....ranger said..."I knew if I let him pickle for a bit he wouldn't pass"...

but still the question...can you drink and drive a boat legal,,, and where does it say so????

 

[RiverDave]

I was looking for an answer with proof.....pretty ridiculous right... but you seem to know ... lets say... your're pulling out of Windsor.... pop open a cold beer... first one... or second


one you drank while waiting for who ever went to park your trailer,,, you take off...beer in hand and get lit up....do you hide the beer... or hold it in your hand and take a swig or two while you are answering questions???? do you tell the ranger.. it's not illegal to drink and drive????

I had a ranger tell me, you can't drink while driving.... but I think that was at mead.... but he went on to tell me he watched a guy down a beer,,... then another...

then takes off in his boat pulling a skier...and drinking the 3rd...skier goes down...up up he pulls...says... have you been drinking...yes sir... but only one beer...
shows it to him and takes a swig...ranger said he had reason to belive he was OUI... ask him to take a test.... driver agree's.... and he barely passes....

he keeps talking to him, checking out the boat safety stuff....then asks him if he would take the test again....bamm he's nailed....ranger said..."I knew if I let him pickle for a bit he wouldn't pass"...

but still the question...can you drink and drive a boat legal,,, and where does it say so????

The answer to your question Steve is yes you can legally drink while driving a boat. you just can't be drunk doing it. all of this is common knowledge Steve.

 

[2FORCEFULL]

The answer to your question Steve is yes you can legally drink while driving a boat. you just can't be drunk doing it. all of this is common knowledge Steve.

I don't think there is a law that say's that.... maybe it use to...so far.... know one can quote that from the law book...

 

[2FORCEFULL]

The answer to your question Steve is yes you can legally drink while driving a boat. you just can't be drunk doing it. all of this is common knowledge Steve.

and that's not a direct answer to the question... more of a political popular response

 

[Flying_Lavey]

I don't think there is a law that say's that.... maybe it use to...so far.... know one can quote that from the law book...

You're looking at this the incorrect way. There is NO law saying it ISN'T legal. So therefore is is legal.

There is no law saying you CAN pick your nose, yet it is legal cause there is nothing outlawing it.

 

[2FORCEFULL]

this whole deal is starting to remind me of the carpenter union...:grumble:

 

[2FORCEFULL]

You're looking at this the incorrect way. There is NO law saying it ISN'T legal. So therefore is is legal.

There is no law saying you CAN pick your nose, yet it is legal cause there is nothing outlawing it.

there use to be a law,,,, but it's gone...

so heres one ffor you.... who's moving the bouys?

 

[2FORCEFULL]

and another.... who said they could put them there???

 

[DRYHEAT]

This whole thread is going to drive me to drinking [emoji849]

 

[2FORCEFULL]

I see whats going on....:thumbsdown

 

[grumpy88]

this whole deal is starting to remind me of the carpenter union...:grumble:

I feel your pain . The elevator union is the same . Interpretation is a bitch . Only the members get fucked !

 

[2FORCEFULL]

This whole thread is going to drive me to drinking [emoji849]

and you have the right to do so.... I think... unless "THEY" changed the law...:grumble:

 

[2FORCEFULL]

I feel your pain . The elevator union is the same . Interpretation is a bitch . Only the members get fucked !

that's what gets me.... who the fuc is "they".... when I was in the union... "THEY" raised the dues... "THEY" made us go on strike... "THEY put all the raises on bennies

who the fuc is they....

who said they could put bouy's in the open water that weren't directional.... but restricions..

 

[2FORCEFULL]

between the sheep and the porch dogs here... no one see's the point of the thread...

 

[2FORCEFULL]

Why don't we start where more people break the law and die - on the roads - before we add more legislation on the water where a handful of people die a year due to impairment.

If we were giving special endorsements for fast boats based on posts on RDP, we would have a hard time believing that Steve was not impaired most of the time.

lol...really???

 

[BHC Vic]

that's what gets me.... who the fuc is "they".... when I was in the union... "THEY" raised the dues... "THEY" made us go on strike... "THEY put all the raises on bennies

who the fuc is they....

who said they could put bouy's in the open water that weren't directional.... but restricions..

Weird they are still putting wages on bennies. Just put ours to our vacation fund

 

[2FORCEFULL]

Weird they are still putting wages on bennies. Just put ours to our vacation fund

so what was the point of this thread?

 

[BHC Vic]

so what was the point of this thread?

Find out what the "actual" law is regarding drinking and driving a boat. [emoji4] I think I know what it is but even if I drank I don't think I would do it in plain view of a ranger while driving.

 

[BHC Vic]

Here officer hold my beer while I look for my extinguisher [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]

 

[DRYHEAT]

so what was the point of this thread?

To increase your post count???
[emoji1][emoji1][emoji1][emoji1]

 

[t&y]

SRice: While the literal verbage of impairment might include "One Drink"... if a person shows no signs of impairment and you have nothing else to go on, are you going to arrest him and go on to the next step? Does your agency enforce based on the "Spirit" or the "Letter" of the law?

 

[2FORCEFULL]

To increase your post count???
[emoji1][emoji1][emoji1][emoji1]

best reasonable answer so far....:thumbsup:boobeyes::boobeyes:

 

[2FORCEFULL]

if a tree falls in the forest, and you are the only one to see it... did it fall???and will anyone believe it.... or does the forest have to disappear:drink:drink:drink:grumble::drink:drink:drink

I think I need a drink.....................

 

[Heylam]

To increase your post count???
[emoji1][emoji1][emoji1][emoji1]

In all seriousness, why would anyone care about post count? In my experience, the ones with highest post count have the least credibility. Just a bigger pile of horse shit.....
I highly doubt 2FF is concerned with his numbers.

 

[HBCraig]

this whole deal is starting to remind me of the carpenter union...:grumble:

How so?

 

[2FORCEFULL]

How so?

cause "THEY" is invloved

 

[2FORCEFULL]

In all seriousness, why would anyone care about post count? In my experience, the ones with highest post count have the least credibility. Just a bigger pile of horse shit.....
I highly doubt 2FF is concerned with his numbers.

true, I don't even know what it is...

 

[HBCraig]

cause "THEY" is invloved

Still dont get it. I am still confused if you insulting carpenters or not. I dont think it really matters at this point.

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

Find out what the "actual" law is regarding drinking and driving a boat. [emoji4] I think I know what it is but even if I drank I don't think I would do it in plain view of a ranger while driving.

You can't be driving your boat and drinking at the same time. There can be open containers and others can be drinking, but not the driver. So yea, dont do that.

 

[RiverDave]

I don't think there is a law that say's that.... maybe it use to...so far.... know one can quote that from the law book...

and that's not a direct answer to the question... more of a political popular response

You're looking at this the incorrect way. There is NO law saying it ISN'T legal. So therefore is is legal.

There is no law saying you CAN pick your nose, yet it is legal cause there is nothing outlawing it.

that basically would have been my response..

Steve if you have a point to the thread why not just make the point instead of making us go around in circles five times and then saying "you missed the point."

and your right the no wake zone at Topock is much larger now, and I think the one at Devils elbow is larger too! someone is expanding those areas and I don't know why.

 

[SRice]

SRice: While the literal verbage of impairment might include "One Drink"... if a person shows no signs of impairment and you have nothing else to go on, are you going to arrest him and go on to the next step? Does your agency enforce based on the "Spirit" or the "Letter" of the law?

Of course not. I am going to arrest when failure on FSTs and the totality of other circumstances give me probable cause to believe that the person is intoxicated at a level greater than .08 BAC. I will charge with reckless if the person has done something stupid and has a BAC greater than .05. I will strongly encourage them to stop drinking and be a responsible designated driver if they have been drinking but have not reached the point where any of my tests can measure impairment. I will also, personally, stop taking even one drink because it does have a slight impact on my ability to safely operate a boat and I don't care to subject my family to any unnecessary risk.

 

[SRice]

that basically would have been my response..

Steve if you have a point to the thread why not just make the point instead of making us go around in circles five times and then saying "you missed the point."

and your right the no wake zone at Topock is much larger now, and I think the one at Devils elbow is larger too! someone is expanding those areas and I don't know why.

If they are, and I have no knowledge that they are- it is because the buoys are anchored with 18' diameter sand discs. They pull lose, drift, and snag. Our maintenance guy has GPS coordinates for them and puts them back several times each summer. That is what he was doing at the mouth of the river when everybody lost it back in July. And so now we apparently will be running that routine maintenance through Regional managers and, last I heard, issuing a framing press release the next time the buoy lines need tending. Incidently I think it may be early this week, so don't go crazy- nothing new is happening on the river- people are just tired of the buoy lines looking like spaghetti. Personally I think fixed pilings like those marking the Intercoastal Waterway in the southeast are the way to go, but I was outvoted by people who believe people running downriver in the dark would hit them. They are probably correct, but why is that a problem here and not the many other places which use fixed regulatory and navigational markers?

 

[Heylam]

If they are, and I have no knowledge that they are- it is because the buoys are anchored with 18' diameter sand discs. They pull lose, drift, and snag. Our maintenance guy has GPS coordinates for them and puts them back several times each summer. That is what he was doing at the mouth of the river when everybody lost it back in July. And so now we apparently will be running that routine maintenance through Regional managers and, last I heard, issuing a framing press release the next time the buoy lines need tending. Incidently I think it may be early this week, so don't go crazy- nothing new is happening on the river- people are just tired of the buoy lines looking like spaghetti. Personally I think fixed pilings like those marking the Intercoastal Waterway in the southeast are the way to go, but I was outvoted by people who believe people running downriver in the dark would hit them. They are probably correct, but why is that a problem here and not the many other places which use fixed regulatory and navigational markers?

Oh sure, that reeks more of controversy then an Oliver Stone movie. Lol.
Thanks for your candid responses.

 

[DRYHEAT]

In all seriousness, why would anyone care about post count? In my experience, the ones with highest post count have the least credibility. Just a bigger pile of horse shit.....
I highly doubt 2FF is concerned with his numbers.

Just having a little fun with Steve, he has seemed a little wound up as of late. For the most part I enjoy his rants.[emoji1417][emoji1]

 

[t&y]

Of course not. I am going to arrest when failure on FSTs and the totality of other circumstances give me probable cause to believe that the person is intoxicated at a level greater than .08 BAC.

Great. So regardless of whether they are actually "imparied" by the literal version (one sip or breath of a intoxicating substance), you and your agency are still using a common sense approach to the equation... in other words Spirit of the Law:thumbsup. There are people in here who still don't understand what that means which is why I asked the question.

I will charge with reckless if the person has done something stupid and has a BAC greater than .05. I will strongly encourage them to stop drinking and be a responsible designated driver if they have been drinking but have not reached the point where any of my tests can measure impairment. I will also, personally, stop taking even one drink because it does have a slight impact on my ability to safely operate a boat and I don't care to subject my family to any unnecessary risk.

Great company man response. I too would never ever partake in such egregious actions like enjoying a beer then driving my boat.

 

[nowski]

I had one of these this summer out on the water, and boy was it refreshing. Legal or against the law?

 

[t&y]

I had one of these this summer out on the water, and boy was it refreshing. Legal or against the law?

SHU program for you.

 

[nowski]

SHU program for you.

With so many laws out there I'm sure there working on banning N/A beer, cool aid will probably be next...

 

[grumpy88]

If they are, and I have no knowledge that they are- it is because the buoys are anchored with 18' diameter sand discs. They pull lose, drift, and snag. Our maintenance guy has GPS coordinates for them and puts them back several times each summer. That is what he was doing at the mouth of the river when everybody lost it back in July. And so now we apparently will be running that routine maintenance through Regional managers and, last I heard, issuing a framing press release the next time the buoy lines need tending. Incidently I think it may be early this week, so don't go crazy- nothing new is happening on the river- people are just tired of the buoy lines looking like spaghetti. Personally I think fixed pilings like those marking the Intercoastal Waterway in the southeast are the way to go, but I was outvoted by people who believe people running downriver in the dark would hit them. They are probably correct, but why is that a problem here and not the many other places which use fixed regulatory and navigational markers?

Does this same group only monitor no wake zones or do they also Mark and monitor shallow / dangerous under water areas ?

 

[2FORCEFULL]

If they are, and I have no knowledge that they are- it is because the buoys are anchored with 18' diameter sand discs. They pull lose, drift, and snag. Our maintenance guy has GPS coordinates for them and puts them back several times each summer. That is what he was doing at the mouth of the river when everybody lost it back in July. And so now we apparently will be running that routine maintenance through Regional managers and, last I heard, issuing a framing press release the next time the buoy lines need tending. Incidently I think it may be early this week, so don't go crazy- nothing new is happening on the river- people are just tired of the buoy lines looking like spaghetti. Personally I think fixed pilings like those marking the Intercoastal Waterway in the southeast are the way to go, but I was outvoted by people who believe people running downriver in the dark would hit them. They are probably correct, but why is that a problem here and not the many other places which use fixed regulatory and navigational markers?

two questions...who said they could put the bouys at devils elbow and second... who said they could put the buoys at topoc....the river has run through there for a billion years according to scientist ....