Winnipesaukee Forum
Page 11 of 19 « First 910 11 1213 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Winnipesaukee Forum (https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/index.php)
-   Speed Limits (https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=19)
-   -   Lt. Dunleavy, NHMP, responds.... (https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5567)

Bear Islander 04-09-2008 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman671 (Post 67183)
Put words in your mouth? It was YOUR quote that I provided back to you! You clearly stated that you had never claimed any infractions by performance boats. If there are no infractions, what are you complaining about??? If there are no infractions, then why do you claim of issues of 75mph boats traveling through crowded bays???

Frostbite? Lack of sunshine? Need to get back to the island??? Not sure what your issue is but you need to take it easy.
Airwaves posted that I was claiming performance boats were committing violations at summer camps. I corrected him by saying I had never made that claim. What are you finding so confusing?

Please tell me the post number where you think I made that claim so I can go back and review it.

Islander 04-09-2008 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman671 (Post 67183)
Put words in your mouth? It was YOUR quote that I provided back to you! You clearly stated that you had never claimed any infractions by performance boats. If there are no infractions, what are you complaining about??? If there are no infractions, then why do you claim of issues of 75mph boats traveling through crowded bays???

Frostbite? Lack of sunshine? Need to get back to the island??? Not sure what your issue is but you need to take it easy.
BI didn't say there were no violations.

Mashugana 04-09-2008 04:15 PM
BI, please do not dismiss the question
 
I asked:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mashugana
Assume that everyone followed the boating laws as they stand right now. If everyone followed the 150 foot rule would that lead to a safe feeling for those few who are afraid of the lake or worry about errosion from fast boat wake?

Base your answer on the improbable theory that every boater will heed all current rules and laws including the 150 feet safe passage laws and No Wake Zones. No accidental or intentional rule violations. Now, of what benefit is a 45/25mph speed limit?
Your reply did not answer my hypothetical question. Noise is addressed in the rules as well as the 150 foot rule. You want speed limits to limit noise rather than the noise laws?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 67052)
First thing is you are stuck on the safety aspect of the question. There are many good reasons for a speed limit that have NOTHING to do with safety.

A speed limit will lower pollution, erosion, congestion etc. It will allow a more reasonable distribution of a limited resource.

With respect to safety any solution that requires absolute and total compliance with a given law is silly. It just is not going to happen, this is the real world. Back in the 60's there was a saying "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?" A lovely idea, but it doesn't help us with what to do about Iraq.

If nobody illegally used drugs, then all the laws against the production, transportation and sale of drugs would be unnecessary.
Errosion? Look at the picture of that big boat throwing that huge wake at well below 45 mph. Speed limits won't help there. It is not a safety issue relating to speed.
Congestion? Fast boats will be out of the way quicker than slow boats. Some claim that speed limits will attrack more small boats leading to more errosion, polution and congestion but that is not my point.

Assume that everyone followed all the rules as they are today. Would a speed limit make the lake safer? How can it make the lake quieter? slow boats have blaring stereos and some have loud engines too. Will there be less errosion from those plowing boats? Will campers be able to use the lake more often on weekedays?
Please do not dismiss the question. Just saying that it is a "SILLY" assumption is not an answer.

Thank you.

Bear Islander 04-09-2008 05:13 PM
Why assume the impossible? All the people will never obey all the boating laws.

What if there where a hundred fatal accidents a year on the lake all involving high speeds. Would you be in favor of a speed limit then? Don't bother answering, it doesn't matter. It will never happen either.

I make you the argument that a speed limit will help erosion. You respond that big slow boats cause erosion as well. Yes, that is true, but it has NOTHING to do with the question. Pointing the finger in another direction does not solve any problems.

A boat going fast uses up a greater area of the lake then when going slow. Your get out of the way theory is quite frankly mashugana. It takes a lot of open water for a boat to be able to travel at 90 mph. Boats going headway speed use up very little space, you can have quite a few of them in a very small area. Naturally I am giving you the extreme examples, however the theory holds true for all speeds.

A speed limit will make the lake quieter because fast boats make more noise then slow boats.

Evenstar 04-09-2008 05:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut (Post 67170)
This is the attitude I speak of. I mean why should YOU have to give up something YOU like to do? Hey YOU don't own a fast boat so YOU shouldn't have to deal with them. So anyone on this lake that enjoys using their speed boat in the broads at a speed above 45MPH has to cease to do so because YOU don't want them to? Guess what, those boaters enjoy their speed boats just as much as you enjoy kayaking. Someone is losing their right here and it isn't you so why should you care.
Paddlers have and are losing their rights to use Winni. I have a number of friends who will no longer paddle on Winni, because they do not feel that it is safe to paddle on a lake where power boats are traveling at such high speeds. There are many fishermen who will no longer take their small power boats out on Winni for the same reason. My best friend, who is the person I kayak with the most, also feels that Winni is too dangerous to kayak on – because of the close calls we have had on the lake. So I either have to kayak on Winni alone, or I have to find someone else who is brave enough to go with me. Bear Islander has posted repeatedly about the fear of camp directors to put their small boats on the lake.

Fear should not be this much of an issue on any lake!

You really don’t get it do you. Other boaters already have lost their right to use the lake. Yet you just side-step all this, by stating that we are just a bunch of timid boaters, or that we are all exaggerating, or that we are all making up having close calls with high speed boats. I was at the Transportation Committee hearing – I heard all the testimonies. My friend and I are not the only one’s who have had close calls from high-speed powerboats on Winni.

What have high-speed power boat owners given up so far? So far those with the most horsepower have had their own way – even though they are effectively pushing other boaters off the lake by their own selfish actions. Well, guess what? Some of us are really getting sick of being pushed around. Our only means of fighting back is a lake speed limit law.

All we are asking is for boats to slow down, so that we can enjoy the lake as well. You’re telling me that I should be willing to give up kayaking on the main lake, so that the high-speed powerboats can continue to be free to go as fast as they want – that having more horsepower somehow entitles you to more rights. Personally I’m really sick of this selfish “get out of my way attitude.”

Quote:
If you think that an 8 mile long lake and a 27 mile long lake have anything whatsoever in common then you are 100% in fantasy land. . . .If I had a performance boat Speed Limit or No Speed Limit I would NEVER put it on Squam. IT'S ONLY 8 MILES LONG! Winni has 72 Square Miles of water. Squam isn't even half that size. Are you serious on this one? Of course Squam attracts more kayakers just like Mirror, Kanasatka, Wentworth, etc. They are small lakes with less traffic an less chance of getting stuck in a major windswept storm etc. I can think of tons of reasons why kayakers prefer squam. Fast Boats are only one of hundreds of reasons why winni might not be as attractive to kayakers.
Go back and read my post - I wrote that Winni IS ONLY 20 MILES LONG. I can paddle 20 miles in 4 hours. At 45 mph it only takes 27 minutes. Lake Champlain is 110 miles long – which is 5.5 times longer than Winni. Squam is much closer in size to Winni, than Winni is to Champlain. If Squam is a small lake, compared to Winni; than Winni must be a small lake, campared to Champlain. Yet sea kayaks are very popular on Champlain.

So why do kayakers prefer Champlain and Squam over Winni?

Winni and Squam are about the only two NH lakes that I can paddle on all afternoon without going around in circles. So they are both apples to me. (I guess my ocean = orange went right over your head.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman671 (Post 67177)
Actually it takes a lot longer than 27 minutes to travel from end to end. Obviously you have never done it. It takes more than just a calculator to figure that. There is no straight line to go from absolute end to end.
I wrote: "At 45mph, it only takes 27 minutes to travel the length of Winni." That is a true statement. Starting at the tip of Alton Bay, and keeping at least 200 feet from shore, I get that is 20.4 miles to the end of Center Harbor.
Quote:
Comparing apples to apples, Winnipesaukee is 6+ times the size of Squam. Squam is shallow and rocky, not a great place to boat in general in my opinion with anything larger than a small bowrider or pontoon. I would dare to say this is closer to an apples to oranges comparison.
Power boat owners hit rocks all the time on Winni. Read my comments above concerning Squam, Winni, and Champlain.

Airwaves 04-09-2008 05:47 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bear Islander:
You know I get tired of your putting words in my mouth. Why do you feel the need to expand what I say into far more than it was? I never made ANY comments about summer camps being targeted by performance boats. I never claimed any infractions by performance boats whatsoever.

Pretending I said things I never did is just another way of telling lies.
Gee, let’s review in post #289 you wrote:
Quote:
When the numbers of performance boats is enough to limit summer camp activities, then that is "large numbers".
So if performance boats are not causing infractions near summer camps why have you implied that they are reason to limit summer camp activities? If there are no performance boats causing problems near summer camps why bring it up? Fear mongering again!

BTW, you still haven’t answered the specific question I put to you, neither has Evenstar and way back when APS ignored the specifics I asked him as well.

Quote:
Originally posted by Evenstar:
Airways, read your own post. I never even mentioned Florida when I quoted the Chief Warrant Officer – not because I “forgot to post it”, but because Florida has absolutely nothing to do with his article. He never even mentioned Florida, because he wasn’t writing about Florida boaters. His article was about The U.S. Coast Guard’s Navigation Rules, not just Florida’s boating rules! You were the one who brought Florida into this discussion, not me
Nope, sorry you knew you were quoting a CWO from Florida and that he was writing based on his experiences as the CO of a CG Station in Florida. BTW I believe the Coast Guard operates in the Atlantic and Gulf in Florida and leave the inland waterways and swamps to the State of Florida to patrol,

But it’s interesting that you admit comparing Florida boating to Winni is comparing Apples and Oranges in your statement directly above the one in which you deny bringing up Florida

Quote:
Originally posted by Evenstar
Winni is 20 miles long, Squam is 8 miles long. They are both large NH lakes, so they are both apples – Winni just a larger apple – the ocean (which is not a large lake) is the orange.
So which is it? Quote a Coast Guard official speaking about ocean boating (USCG Nav rules have not been adopted by NH) and say he’s really speaking about Winnipesaukee, or that the ocean and Winnipesaukee are completely different?

So, any of the three of you going to answer the specific questions I asked? APS you’ll have to go back through the threads and look for them yourself!

Lakegeezer 04-09-2008 06:55 PM
Add the attribute of time to see how faster is better
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 67211)
A boat going fast uses up a greater area of the lake then when going slow.
Not always true. Let's take the narrows called the graveyard. A series of boats trolling through clogs the passage for much longer than a boat going 50. If I'm two miles away, I can adjust my spead to sync up with the 50 MPH boat speeding through the graveyard, and have my turn while on plane. If I have to wait for the trollers, I have to come off plane and add extra exhaust to the waters to come back on plane aftewards. I am in the vicinity longer so create a more concentrated plume of exhaust. Plus, I create more wake by coming off and back on plane. In this case, the faster the better. Here's another example. If a boat crosses the lake at 60 rather than 30 mph, they are on the water half as long, so out of more people's way, meaning less congestion. Boats at headway speed take up huge space. Not only are they a blockage, but they back up others who wish to get by.

Silver Duck 04-09-2008 07:44 PM
OK, let's cut to the chase here!
 
In my opinion, the speed limit effort is not primarily about safety and never really has been (although many well-intentioned folks have climbed aboard that particular band wagon.)

During the early stages of this debate, some speed limit supporters stated quite clearly on this forum that the intent of the speed limit was to drive performance boats off the lake and that 45 was chosen as a speed limit which would do so. So far as I can tell, that original goal has not changed one iota over the intervening years.

What's truly at issue here is not whether it is safe for boats to go faster than 45 mph, but whether the tastes of one group of people will be allowed to dictate how other folks will be allowed to enjoy the lake.

I, personally, do not believe that any one group of people should be allowed to dictate how others may use the lake.

I also believe that we are at the brink of a very slippery slope, indeed. If this campaign is successful, it will not be the end of the process. (Actually, the opening guns of the effort to eliminate cruisers are already being fired on another thread.)

Silver Duck

Bear Islander 04-09-2008 08:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Duck (Post 67226)
In my opinion, the speed limit effort is not primarily about safety and never really has been (although many well-intentioned folks have climbed aboard that particular band wagon.)

During the early stages of this debate, some speed limit supporters stated quite clearly on this forum that the intent of the speed limit was to drive performance boats off the lake and that 45 was chosen as a speed limit which would do so. So far as I can tell, that original goal has not changed one iota over the intervening years.

What's truly at issue here is not whether it is safe for boats to go faster than 45 mph, but whether the tastes of one group of people will be allowed to dictate how other folks will be allowed to enjoy the lake.

I, personally, do not believe that any one group of people should be allowed to dictate how others may use the lake.

I also believe that we are at the brink of a very slippery slope, indeed. If this campaign is successful, it will not be the end of the process. (Actually, the opening guns of the effort to eliminate cruisers are already being fired on another thread.)

Silver Duck
So the problems the children's camps are having is what... A lie? Unimportant?

Mashugana 04-09-2008 08:54 PM
Evasion the Bear Islander way.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 67211)
Why assume the impossible? All the people will never obey all the boating laws.
I don't think you want to answer that question because the answer will not support the speed limit cause. You, Evenstar and other speed limit fans know that we already have the rules we need. We just need to enforce the rules and laws we already have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander
What if there where a hundred fatal accidents a year on the lake all involving high speeds. Would you be in favor of a speed limit then? Don't bother answering, it doesn't matter. It will never happen either.
What will never happen, all the speed deaths or my answer? Might it be that you think I could never change my position on the subject? I am not stuck in the groove. I have an open mind. Speed limits are not the answer here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander
I make you the argument that a speed limit will help erosion. You respond that big slow boats cause erosion as well. Yes, that is true, but it has NOTHING to do with the question. Pointing the finger in another direction does not solve any problems.
You brought up erosion as a benefit of speed limits. I simply responded that speed limits will not reduce erosion by using the big boat example. Others have presented valid arguments about erosion, speed and plowing boats. Speed Limits are not the answer to that concern

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander
A speed limit will make the lake quieter because fast boats make more noise then slow boats.
My inital question still is valid. There are rules and laws about maximum noise limits. Noise Limit laws deal with NOISE. Speed limits will NOT lower the level of loudness allowed by law. I'm not that "crazy" to believe it would. Many slow boats can make plenty of noise and have loud sound systems.

I concur that there will never be 100% rule compliance including any potential speed limit rule. My question takes away the variable. It assumes the current rules are followed and enforced 100%.

When you skirt the question it speaks volumes about your position.

Skipper of the Sea Que 04-10-2008 06:47 AM
Loudness topic from 8 years ago
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 67211)
Why assume the impossible? All the people will never obey all the boating laws.
Why not make the assumption for the sake of discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander
A speed limit will make the lake quieter because fast boats make more noise then slow boats.
. I know that some boaters like to be loud and some big fast boats are so expensive that no $$ is left for a good muffler :laugh:.

Noise is not a new issue. I remember a forum thread from 8 years ago on the subject. Someone wanted to make their boat louder to get closer to the legal limit. That whole thread from the archives makes me laugh a bit. Anyway, there was a post that addresses making any size boat sound loud. I'll reprint it below but you can read it and the thread if you wish:
The original post from 2000 Forum Archive

Re: More Sound Please - I've got your answer!!!

Posted By: Skipper of the Sea Que (CQ) <Send E-Mail>
Date: Thursday, May 18, 2000 at 5:54 p.m.

In Response To: More Sound Please!!! (Screw-Canoe)


I have an excellent cassette and CD of a LOUD boat motor at various stages of RPM. No need to modify your engine, just plop in my tape or CD and PUMP up the volume. Track 1 for idle, Track 2 for fast acceleration, and etc...

I assume you have a 5,000 watt stereo system on-board so that you can play your music loud enough for all of us within 5 miles of your boat to enjoy (whether or not we want to). SO, why modify your engine when you can buy MY tape or CD and achieve your goal of sounding like a BIG GUN on the lake?

Of course my tapes and CDs come with a "self destruct" remote mechanism I can use if/when I get annoyed at the noise.....

AL
-------------------------

Go Fast does not necessarily mean Be Loud. Going slow does not mean quiet. varoom varoom under the Weirs Bridge is not fast or quiet. It is the boaters choice to be loud or not. When I was on my honeymoon (lakeside of course) it was the loud fishing boats that woke us up, not the big fast boats you speak of. Many motor boats of all sizes and types were able to be considerably loud at idle, during warm up and out on the water.

As has been said several times. Sound level laws are already in place. To add a speed limit in an attempt to lower sound levels is not the way to insure less boat noise.

ApS 04-10-2008 07:13 AM
Giving BI a brief rest, here...
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegeezer (Post 67065)
"...A fast boat will tend to head towards lightly traveled parts of the lake, so it has plenty of room to avoid other craft..."
"Oh, would that it were true, would that it were true..." (Apologies to John F. Kerry). :rolleye1:

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut (Post 66979)
WRONG!...The guy going 75MPH ACROSS THE BROADS is most definitely NOT THE PROBLEM...Speed is a relative term...A guy going 95 on a Tuesday across the Broads isn't speeding!
You can increase the GPS speed of your performance boat by taking it to less-choppy waters; unfortunately, that's where the people are. :(

Even in The Broads, among the sailboats, drifting I/Os, inflatables, kayaks, and even cruisers out there, I'd call that "Reckless Endangerment".

That rich neighbor in his tunnel-hull going past my dock at about 110-MPH—dodging swimmers, tubers—missing a neighbor's Hobie with five pre-teen girls—should have been arrested!

Now that I think of it, I haven't seen him around these past few seasons.... :confused: :rolleye2:

And now, top speeds for tunnel-hulls are over 170-MPH!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves (Post 66299)
"...You are not serious about that statement are you? Ever get hit in the head by the boom of a sailboat? Lose your balance on your powerboat and fall overboard? I don't know too many people that can tread water when they are barely conscious or worse. No reason to wear a life jacket under 70? I'm thinking that you should go back and take safe boating course before you hurt someone, possibly yourself...!
I wrote over 70.

That observation is based on the 2005 Poker Run Smoke on the Waters, where three passengers drowned after their shoes, clothes, and mandated PFDs were ripped off at a USCG-observed 70-MPH.

"Always wear clean underwear" couldn't apply at that outrageous speed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves (Post 66299)
[Extreme Drinks: Champagne]
It's 14% alcohol: I wouldn't take a dismissive stance on Champagne as an extreme drink among extreme boaters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman671 (Post 66998)
Clearly that would be a problem, however it is not the problem on Winnipesaukee. It is the 25-45mph boats disobeying the current laws that are the problem/danger. Also, the drunks at night that do not have to speed to kill.
Yup. Every slower boater is the problem—and the drunks who do have the speed to kill?

Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman671 (Post 67001)
The largest lake in Florida has a average depth of 9 feet (20 feet at the deepest point!) You may want to do some recalculating...
Not any more: it's four feet.

But every Floridian can drive to the ocean within 1½ hours: even on ocean waters, they recorded 80 fatalities recently. :(

Quote:
Originally Posted by KonaChick (Post 67072)
Are there large numbers of high speed performance boats in Winni? I certainly see some but IMHO not large numbers. Maybe one is too many for BI, it certainly seems so.
I know of one: at 4½ tons, it was too much boat for The Big Lake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake Geezer (Post 67222)
"...Not always true. Let's take the narrows called the graveyard. A series of boats trolling through clogs the passage for much longer than a boat going 50...If I have to wait for the trollers..."
Why am I reminded of tailgating by this?

Geesh—leave earlier. :rolleye1:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Duck (Post 67226)
"...Actually, the opening guns of the effort to eliminate cruisers are already being fired on another thread..."
Ae you saying that Mashugana's question wasn't totally motivated to improve the safety of bow-riding passengers—and that it wasn't an altruistic gesture to Winnipesaukee's boating public? :rolleye2: :rolleye1:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mashugana (Post 67205)
"...Assume that everyone followed all the rules as they are today...Just saying that it is a "SILLY" assumption is not an answer..."
We know how to pronounce "assume".

Pronounce after me: ass-u-me.

:laugh:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ITD (Post 67078)
"...Your speed limit crusade will do nothing to lower the growing numbers of high performance boats..."
There's no question that high performance boats are increasing in numbers—so are the headlines of tragedy. :(

Nobody answered my speed limit question before—so here it is again:
Quote:
What headline would cause you to change your mind?

Bear Islander 04-10-2008 07:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que (Post 67249)
Why not make the assumption for the sake of discussion?
I have answered the question several times. Here is a longer version, I hope it makes you happy.

Even if all boating laws are obeyed all the time by all the boats we still need a speed limit. I have made it plain that safety is not the only reason, or even my principal reason, for wanting speed limits.

As to safety it is possible to flip a boat at high speed and kill the passengers. I don't mention the operator because that is his own responsibility. The State certainly has a duty to protect the children on board. Please remember you are arguing for NO LIMITS, that means 130 mph, 200 mph, 300 mph whatever. The fact that there are are no boats on the lake capable of certain speeds does not change the reality that you want NO LIMITS! If you argued for a 100 mph limit you would have some kind of credibility. But to think that a boat traveling at ANY speed on a small congested lake is not a safety issue is JUST PLAIN NUTS!

Consider also that a similar argument can be made about highways. If we all obeyed all the other laws why would we need speed limits on our highways? If we all obeyed all the other laws why do we need DWI laws? It's not easy for a drunk driver to kill someone, even himself, without violating some other law. It may be possible, but its hard to think of a scenario.

Skipper of the Sea Que 04-10-2008 10:27 AM
Bear Islander wants me to be happy - Thanks BI
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 67256)
I have answered the question several times. Here is a longer version, I hope it makes you happy. No, your answer is not the reason I am happy.

Even if all boating laws are obeyed all the time by all the boats we still need a speed limit. (but WHY) I have made it plain that safety is not the only reason, or even my principal reason, for wanting speed limits. Kayaks and campers are not as important as WHAT? Answer the question {snip}
Please remember you are arguing for NO LIMITS, (No I'm not) that means 130 mph, 200 mph, 300 mph whatever. The fact that there are are no boats on the lake capable of certain speeds does not change the reality that you want NO LIMITS! (in reality I don't favor ADDITIONAL limits like 45/25mp) If you argued for a 100 mph limit you would have some kind of credibility. I have no credibility? really? But to think that a boat traveling at ANY speed on a small congested lake is not a safety issue is JUST PLAIN NUTS!
remarks in blue were added by Skipper of the Sea Que

I don't believe anti-speed limit advocates are arguing for absolutely "NO LIMITS". What I hear is, No additional speed limits". For me it means this speed limit bill is not an answer. Some have suggested higher speed limits but we are dealing with a 45/25mph issue here. Those are the limits I don't think will solve problems. There are speed limits already: 6 mph, headway speed, speed limits for passing within 150' of boats, land and people. We have a law (Skip may need to quote it) about reasonable speed. Don't put words in my mouth please. 300 mph is way too fast to be a reasonable speed on the lake IMO.

You (or any speed limit proponents) are not answering the question posed by mashugana and your weak reasons for not answering are that we still need speed limits so why answer the question. You claim the need for more speed limits are to address noise, congestion and erosion. I believe that at least 2 of those 3 are all covered by existing laws. Congestion is another topic. There are more people everywhere. Slowing them down means more people in the same area for a longer time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mashugana
Assume that everyone followed the boating laws as they stand right now. If everyone followed the 150 foot rule would that lead to a safe feeling for those few who are afraid of the lake or worry about erosion from fast boat wake?

Base your answer on the improbable theory that every boater will heed all current rules and laws including the 150 feet safe passage laws and No Wake Zones. No accidental or intentional rule violations. Now, of what benefit is a 45/25mph speed limit?
I think his question raises a very good point which has yet to be properly answered. Carry on guys and gals.

winnilaker 04-10-2008 11:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar (Post 67103)
Winni is 20 miles long, Squam is 8 miles long. They are both large NH lakes, so they are both apples – Winni just a larger apple – the ocean (which is not a large lake) is the orange. At 45mph, it only takes 27 minutes to travel the length of Winni. Why does anyone “need” to “shrink” Winni to less than that?
Maybe I can enlighten to some other reasons people don't want speeds limits on Winni and to BE LIKE Squam.

1. Squam Lake Shore owners make every attempt to limit public access to THEIR LAKE.
2. Squam Lake owners have prohibited Jetskis.
I don't need to get into all the other Squam restrictions do I?

Tell me again about Give and Take. Please tell me and everyone here more about how you want Winni to be more like Squam. The more the merrier please!

According to the MP site on restrictions on public waters, how many restrict Kayak use? ......... Waiting..........
How many public waters have restrictions on motorized craft?........ Waiting.......

Tell me again about Give and Take.

Sounds more like Take and more Take, me and me. Regardless of any speed limit, period!!!

If you could get cabin cruisers off the lake, because kayakers could capsize, you would. This is not about a speed limit and you know it, its about who wants to win this battle and the ego that goes along with winning, from both sides. This, "I'm scared to kayak in the broads", may win your necessary votes, but its not the reason nor will it really solve your concerns. But its a battle and history shows life wouldn't interesting without them.

I'm not going to ask you to stop, it's entertaining. But in this case the truths are hidden.

Bear Islander 04-10-2008 12:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que (Post 67264)
... We have a law (Skip may need to quote it) about reasonable speed. Don't put words in my mouth please. 300 mph is way too fast to be a reasonable speed on the lake IMO.
...
Please give me more detail on the "reasonable speed" law.

DoTheMath 04-10-2008 02:20 PM
I posted this to another thread, but it seems to apply here as well...

So, for Acres Per Second - just out of curiosity, do you have any (real) experience with "high-performance" boats!? How about anyone on this thread that is in favor of a speed limit!? Real experience - not from watching them on TV, maybe - have you ever piloted a boat above, say... 60 mph? How about 80mph? And how about that magic number of 100mph everyone keeps referring to? Do you know anything about how they work, how they operate - what it takes to make them run... in a safe manner? Most people (99%) I have spoken with about this topic - that are in favor of a speed limit - have NO clue what a boat that will run at higher speeds is all about, aside from what they may have seen on TV one Saturday. They have never even been in a boat that will run anywhere near 80mph, let-alone 100mph. But they think they know what it's all about, "ohh - that boat looks really fast, it must be dangerous!". How about people discuss the FACTS from first-hand experience only! There are car accidents every day, there was a 16 yr old kid killed down here in Lexington the other night - he was in a MINI VAN that struck a tree! It was driven by another teenager - it was a result of operator error! Do we need to outlaw mini-vans from being on the road now 'cuz they get into accidents and kill people!? I know several people with Porsche's, Ferrari's and Lamborghini's with no accidents OR speeding tickets in them... Hmmm, dumb-luck or just responsible operators!?

Like Sgt. Friday used to say - "just the facts ma'am". I don't see how one groups speculation and desires should over-shadow another's, ESPECIALLY when there are no FACTS to support them! This is the Live Free or Die state, it is a free country last I checked and our freedoms should be held in the highest regard. We have laws on the lake today that aren't (or can't be due to lack of coverage) even enforced - 150' safe passage always comes to mind - how about we work on those first!? We can't teach common sense - I agree 100% - but we can teach people to be better and more safety-conscious boaters.

hazelnut 04-10-2008 05:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar (Post 67213)
Paddlers have and are losing their rights to use Winni. I have a number of friends who will no longer paddle on Winni, because they do not feel that it is safe to paddle on a lake where power boats are traveling at such high speeds. There are many fishermen who will no longer take their small power boats out on Winni for the same reason. My best friend, who is the person I kayak with the most, also feels that Winni is too dangerous to kayak on – because of the close calls we have had on the lake. So I either have to kayak on Winni alone, or I have to find someone else who is brave enough to go with me. Bear Islander has posted repeatedly about the fear of camp directors to put their small boats on the lake.

Fear should not be this much of an issue on any lake!

You really don’t get it do you. Other boaters already have lost their right to use the lake. Yet you just side-step all this, by stating that we are just a bunch of timid boaters, or that we are all exaggerating, or that we are all making up having close calls with high speed boats. I was at the Transportation Committee hearing – I heard all the testimonies. My friend and I are not the only one’s who have had close calls from high-speed powerboats on Winni.
Yeah I really don't get it and everyone else who doesn't agree with you just doesn't get it and isn't open minded and so enlightened as you. Lets just legislate on fear. Great way to govern. Just so YOU get it I'll explain further. I do not and never intend to own a performance boat. I actually enjoy kayaking. I am just someone who has a real big problem letting fear dictate how laws pass. Also, contrary to your post no kayakers rights have been ever taken from them. They still have every right to kayak on the lake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar (Post 67213)
What have high-speed power boat owners given up so far? So far those with the most horsepower have had their own way – even though they are effectively pushing other boaters off the lake by their own selfish actions. Well, guess what? Some of us are really getting sick of being pushed around. Our only means of fighting back is a lake speed limit law.
All we are asking is for boats to slow down, so that we can enjoy the lake as well. You’re telling me that I should be willing to give up kayaking on the main lake, so that the high-speed powerboats can continue to be free to go as fast as they want – that having more horsepower somehow entitles you to more rights. Personally I’m really sick of this selfish “get out of my way attitude.”
Where did I tell you to give up anything. I maintain that regardless of a 45 MPH speed limit you'll still be a sitting duck in the broads. Careless and inattentive boaters will still be out in full force. The get out of my way attitude is not the sole possession of the high performance boat.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Evenstar (Post 67213)
Go back and read my post - I wrote that Winni IS ONLY 20 MILES LONG. I can paddle 20 miles in 4 hours. At 45 mph it only takes 27 minutes. Lake Champlain is 110 miles long – which is 5.5 times longer than Winni. Squam is much closer in size to Winni, than Winni is to Champlain. If Squam is a small lake, compared to Winni; than Winni must be a small lake, campared to Champlain. Yet sea kayaks are very popular on Champlain.
So why do kayakers prefer Champlain and Squam over Winni?
Winni and Squam are about the only two NH lakes that I can paddle on all afternoon without going around in circles. So they are both apples to me. (I guess my ocean = orange went right over your head.)
No I read it and I still can not believe you are trying to compare the two lakes. Keep doing it though it further undermines your argument. Squam would never ever ever draw the same types of boats even if it did NOT have a speed limit and winni did squam would not attract high performance boats. Why is that hard for you to understand?


I never expect to change your mind but I just love how you can sling comments calling everyone narrow minded and how we "just don't get it" and thngs "go over our head." God forbid anyone else makes the same claim about you. :rolleye2:

Finally, because I'm all done with you, here is some food for thought. You support a law that is based on legislating against could have and might haves. A law that targets a problem that doesn't exist. A law that targets a certain type of recreation, even though these people haven't done anything wrong. Your law is based on fear mongering and whether you like it or not is discriminatory. Whether or not you "take great offense to that" or not is really not my problem it is unfortunately the truth. Just because you do not like how someone else gets their kicks doesn't give you the right to stop them because it scares you. Stop acting as if every performance boater that gets behind the wheel of his or her boat is this uncaring demonic presence hell bent on ruining your good time.

Bear Islander 04-10-2008 05:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que (Post 67264)
... We have a law (Skip may need to quote it) about reasonable speed. Don't put words in my mouth please. 300 mph is way too fast to be a reasonable speed on the lake IMO.

...
I will save you some time. There is no such law. I have been told many times that such a law exists, it doesn't. When people look and can't find it they come up with this instead...

270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

If you are really desperate for an answer I suppose "careless and negligent" can look like "reasonable speed" but of course it isn't.

Silver Duck 04-10-2008 07:37 PM
BI

You asked "So the problems the children's camps are having is what... A lie? Unimportant?"

My response is H**L No!!!

So far as I'm concerned, any operator of any type of boat that recklessly endangers a child, in whatever way, deserves no mercy. :( At a minimum, confiscate his boat and take away his privilege to operate a boat in NH forever. Tar and feathers might be good, too.:rolleye2: You knock 'em down and I'll stomp on 'em! My suggestions for dealing with someone that actually harms a child can't be printed in a family-oriented forum.:eek:

But, as I've said all along, to get my buy-in you need to go after the specific bone heads that are doing the endangering rather than punishing the many for the sins of the few.:(

I also feel that Camp Directors need to exercise due dilligence in protecting their campers, though. For instance, on swims that go outside marked areas there need to be plenty of highly visible safety boats, and I wouldn't let a kid get more than a few feet from shore in a canoe - period. (IMHO, the darned things are death traps. :eek: Stock up on decent kayaks for paddle sports, and tradition be danged.:D)

I'll let you in on a well kept secret. I personally do not oppose the idea of a speed limit per se. But I vehemently oppose implementing one that is specifically designed to drive a particular type of boat off the lake because some folks disapprove of that type of boat.

Silver Duck

Airwaves 04-10-2008 10:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by APS:
Quote:
The Coast Guard Commandant withdrew his "PFDs for every moving boater" requirement in 2005. However, beyond a certain speed—about 70—there's no reason to wear an off-the-shelf PFD anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves
"...You are not serious about that statement are you? Ever get hit in the head by the boom of a sailboat? Lose your balance on your powerboat and fall overboard? I don't know too many people that can tread water when they are barely conscious or worse. No reason to wear a life jacket under 70? I'm thinking that you should go back and take safe boating course before you hurt someone, possibly yourself...!
I wrote over 70.
That observation is based on the 2005 Poker Run Smoke on the Waters, where three passengers drowned after their shoes, clothes, and mandated PFDs were ripped off at a USCG-observed 70-MPH.

"Always wear clean underwear" couldn't apply at that outrageous speed.
I guess I wasn’t clear in my post. Yes I know that you wrote there is no reason to wear an off the shelf PFD above a certain speed, which I took to mean you saying there is no reason to wear one at all, apologies if I misinterpreted your point.

Since I am not privy to the details I don’t know what type PFDs the crew was wearing or whether the PFDs were off the shelf or not.

BTW, where was the Smoke on the Waters 2005 Poker Run held?

If either the Poker Run itself or the accident were observed by the Coast Guard it's a safe bet it wasn't held in New Hampshire! Now I direct your attention, and that of BI and Evenstar to post #409. Please respond.

Bear Islander 04-10-2008 10:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Duck (Post 67332)
...

But I vehemently oppose implementing one that is specifically designed to drive a particular type of boat off the lake because some folks disapprove of that type of boat.

Silver Duck
I hope one day you finally find out how wrong you are about that. I'm not sure how you people got that idea in your heads, but it seems there is no way to get it out.

A local camp has to limit access to the lake because at times it is to dangerous to send out small boats. An ex camp director with a child in that camp decides to support a speed limit he thinks may help. So obviously his REAL reason is because he hates one particular type of boat.

It doesn't pass the laugh test, but you will not let go of your misconceptions.

Airwaves 04-11-2008 12:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bear Islander:
A local camp has to limit access to the lake because at times it is to dangerous to send out small boats. An ex camp director with a child in that camp decides to support a speed limit he thinks may help. So obviously his REAL reason is because he hates one particular type of boat.
Bear Islander...I am confused. You wrote to me;
Quote:
Originally posted by Bear Islander:
You know I get tired of your putting words in my mouth. Why do you feel the need to expand what I say into far more than it was? I never made ANY comments about summer camps being targeted by performance boats. I never claimed any infractions by performance boats whatsoever.

Pretending I said things I never did is just another way of telling lies.
Yet now you again imply that summer camps (at least one) belives it's too dangerous because of speeding boats? It is a camp director's JOB to be protective of his/her children. I would prosecute any camp director that did not, however their concern in this case is not valid even according to you.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bear Islander:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que
... We have a law (Skip may need to quote it) about reasonable speed. Don't put words in my mouth please. 300 mph is way too fast to be a reasonable speed on the lake IMO.
...

I will save you some time. There is no such law. I have been told many times that such a law exists, it doesn't. When people look and can't find it they come up with this instead...

270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

If you are really desperate for an answer I suppose "careless and negligent" can look like "reasonable speed" but of course it isn't.
While NH has not adopted the USGC Navigation Rules, something I think should be done then improved upon as the state sees fit, 270:29-a and Rule 6 are similar enough that 270:29-a can, and should, be used by the Marine Patrol in instances where the officer believes the operator of a boat was traveling at a speed in excess of conditions that would endanger the lives and safety of the public.

Quote:
RULE 6
SAFE SPEED
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.

In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:

(a) By all vessels:

The state of visibility;
The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels;
The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions;
At night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights;
The state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards;
The draft in relation to the available depth of water.
(b)Additionally, by vessels with operational radar:

The characteristics, efficiency and limitations of the radar equipment;
Any constraints imposed by the radar range scale in use;
The effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather and other sources of interference;
The possibility that small vessels, ice and other floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range;
The number, location and movement of vessels detected by radar;
The more exact assessment of the visibility that may be possible when radar is used to determine the range of vessels or other objects in the vicinity.
Now I have to credit you that you have admitted, unlike most of your speed limit advocates, that safety is not the issue. You are trying to eliminate a certain type of boat from Lake Winnipesaukee.

You wrote something I liked. "A butterfly is a beautiful thing, but it does not belong in my soup".
The only problem with that analogy is that Lake Winnipesaukee is not YOUR soup, it's OUR soup.

Bear Islander 04-11-2008 12:45 PM
I don't know why you are confused. Posting that camps are having to keep in their boats and posting that high performance boats are committing violations are two totally different things.

Please remember that I never said high performance boats were NOT committing violations near children's camps. I have only said I never made that claim. I dislike having words put in my mouth. If I want to make that claim, and can back it up, I will. Until I do so, then I have not done so.

Perhaps you need to read my posts more closely and not infer more than I am saying.

My soup is made with lake water.

Lakegeezer 04-11-2008 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves (Post 67348)
RULE 6
SAFE SPEED
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.
That should about do it! Solves the kayak and camp problems by defining safe, rather than having it based on fear. Maybe our law-makers should take a new look at this, rather than the mess they are creating.

Airwaves 04-11-2008 11:10 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Bear Islander"
I don't know why you are confused. Posting that camps are having to keep in their boats and posting that high performance boats are committing violations are two totally different things.

Please remember that I never said high performance boats were NOT committing violations near children's camps. I have only said I never made that claim. I dislike having words put in my mouth. If I want to make that claim, and can back it up, I will. Until I do so, then I have not done so.

Perhaps you need to read my posts more closely and not infer more than I am saying.

My soup is made with lake water.
Yet you keep bringing it up in an obvious attempt to link the two and are now trying to distance yourself from your statements. So if you don't know something to be true why bring it up? In a continued attempt to twist the facts and fear monger!

And here is a little contradiction for you.
First there is your statement:
Quote:
I never claimed any infractions by performance boats whatsoever
Now there is this:
Quote:
I never said high performance boats were NOT committing violations near children's camps.
So, they are or they are NOT?

My soup is also made of the same lake water!

Evenstar 04-12-2008 09:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves (Post 67214)
BTW, you still haven’t answered the specific question I put to you, neither has Evenstar.
What question havent' I answered?

Quote:
Nope, sorry you knew you were quoting a CWO from Florida and that he was writing based on his experiences as the CO of a CG Station in Florida. . . . But it’s interesting that you admit comparing Florida boating to Winni is comparing Apples and Oranges in your statement directly above the one in which you deny bringing up Florida
Quoting a Coast Guard commander who was stationed in Florida is not "bringing up Florida." No where is his entire article is Florida even mentioned. The article is not about Forida - so get off my case. You brought Florida into this conversation not me.

Quote:
So which is it? Quote a Coast Guard official speaking about ocean boating (USCG Nav rules have not been adopted by NH) and say he’s really speaking about Winnipesaukee, or that the ocean and Winnipesaukee are completely different?
The Commander's article is about boater safety, on ALL bodies of water - and about the rules of navigation. All states' (including NH) boating rules are based on the USCG's Rules of Navigation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut (Post 67320)
Yeah I really don't get it and everyone else who doesn't agree with you just doesn't get it and isn't open minded and so enlightened as you. Lets just legislate on fear. Great way to govern. Just so YOU get it I'll explain further. I do not and never intend to own a performance boat. I actually enjoy kayaking. I am just someone who has a real big problem letting fear dictate how laws pass. Also, contrary to your post no kayakers rights have been ever taken from them. They still have every right to kayak on the lake.
I wrote “You really don’t get do you,” not as an insult or anything, but because I believe that you really aren’t seeing the problem that I and others are seeing and have experienced. This is not about “enlightenment”, but many speed limit opponents on this forum have been very narrow-minded in the way that they have treated anyone who has had different experiences from them. Just because you have not had a negative encounter with a high-speed boat does not mean that this hasn’t happen to others.

There are all sorts of legislation that is based on fear. Most of the USA Patriot Act is legislation that is based on fear. There are 27 NH RSAs that include the word “fear” and 219 with the word “danger.” There are hundreds of NH laws that were passed to protect the public from unsafe conditions. Many speed limit supporters feel that it is very unsafe to allow power boats to travel at unlimited speeds on NH lakes. It has been my experience that the 150 foot rule doesn’t work very well at protecting paddlers when power boats are traveling at high speeds.

Paddlers and other small boat owners’ rights have been taken away from them. When you give up the use of a NH lake, due to the fear of being run over by high speed boats, that is losing your rights. You may claim that their fear is irrational, but all the people that I know who will no longer paddle on Winni seem like very rational people who have had to choose between their own safety and being able to use a NH lake. That is just not right, no matter how you try to spin it.

Quote:
I maintain that regardless of a 45 MPH speed limit you'll still be a sitting duck in the broads. Careless and inattentive boaters will still be out in full force.
I’ve explained this numerous times, yet “you still don’t get it” (sorry, but apparently that’s true). Faster boats have less time to see me, and I have less time to get out of their way. That’s why it is the faster boats that have been the one’s that have unintentionally violated my 150 foot zone. “Careless and inattentive boaters” become a much greater danger at higher speeds.

Quote:
No I read it and I still can not believe you are trying to compare the two lakes. Keep doing it though it further undermines your argument. Squam would never ever ever draw the same types of boats even if it did NOT have a speed limit and winni did squam would not attract high performance boats. Why is that hard for you to understand?

If Squam did not have a 40mph speed limit, many boats would be going way faster than 40mph on Squam, and I've seen plenty of boats on Squam that are capable of exceeding 45mph. Why is it that you completely ignored what I posted about Lake Champlain</ST1:place? So why do kayakers prefer Champlain and Squam over Winni?

parrothead 04-12-2008 10:07 AM
I worked there driving the boats
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 67346)
I hope one day you finally find out how wrong you are about that. I'm not sure how you people got that idea in your heads, but it seems there is no way to get it out.

A local camp has to limit access to the lake because at times it is to dangerous to send out small boats. An ex camp director with a child in that camp decides to support a speed limit he thinks may help. So obviously his REAL reason is because he hates one particular type of boat.

It doesn't pass the laugh test, but you will not let go of your misconceptions.
Hi Bear Islander, just want to clarify something here. I worked for both the camps that are on your island. While employed there for eight years, I drove the boats and assisted in the boating programs (waterskiing,sailing, etc...) I was working there when the decision was made to not run boating programs on weekends. The speed limit will not change the issues that caused this decision to be made. This decision was made because of the congestion around Bear Island on weekends. Watersking was canceled because it was not fun for the kids. It is very hard to instruct a novice skier in choppy conditions, and the experienced ones didn't want to go because you can't do anything except hold on and try not to fall. Plus the ski boat was a Ski Tique by Correct Craft that would take water over the bow at the drop of a hat. It was not safe to send the campers out in canoes and sail boats because it was so rough the boats would capsize. Then the instructors spent more time righting boats than instructing. So other programming is provided for the weekends, and the boating is reserved for the weekdays, when there is less traffic. I was on the water almost everyday from just after ice out until I had to go back to college. I drove a boat more than a car, and went all over the lake in the process. In my experience the the speed of the boats around me were never an issue. I did have boaters cut me off, come to close to kids while skiing, driving under the influence (actually hit the island by the dining hall), anchoring off the end of camp drinking and swearing in front of kids, and coming to close to marked swim areas. These issues are all intelligence related not speed related. Can only remember one incident in the 8 years I was there with a go fast. It was 1 or 2 in the morning and my cabin was right by the main dock at Lawrence. The guy went by up on plane and woke me up. Coulda strangled him.

Bear Islander 04-12-2008 04:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves (Post 67432)
Yet you keep bringing it up in an obvious attempt to link the two and are now trying to distance yourself from your statements. So if you don't know something to be true why bring it up? In a continued attempt to twist the facts and fear monger!

And here is a little contradiction for you.
First there is your statement:

Now there is this:


So, they are or they are NOT?

My soup is also made of the same lake water!
Are you deliberately not understanding something that is so simple?

I HAVE NOT POSTED ABOUT THE SUBJECT EITHER WAY. I HAVE NOT POSTED THEY ARE COMMITTING VIOLATIONS. I HAVE NO POSTED THEY ARE NOT COMMITTING VIOLATIONS. I HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED TO LINK THE TWO.

STOP PRETENDING THAT I HAVE!!!!!!!

Can you really not understand that these are two totally different things? I think you understand perfectly but can't let it go.

DROP IT!!!!!!!

Airwaves 04-12-2008 04:47 PM
Bear Islander I bring your attention to YOUR post #389
Quote:
When the numbers of performance boats is enough to limit summer camp activities, then that is "large numbers".
Then Bear Islander, there is this little ditty, YOUR post #409
Quote:
So the problems the children's camps are having is what... A lie? Unimportant?
And now Bear Islander you make this claim in YOUR post #429
Quote:
I HAVE NOT POSTED ABOUT THE SUBJECT EITHER WAY. I HAVE NOT POSTED THEY ARE COMMITTING VIOLATIONS. I HAVE NO POSTED THEY ARE NOT COMMITTING VIOLATIONS. I HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED TO LINK THE TWO.
Yes you have repeatedly attempted to link the two by blaming the decision to limit summer camp activities on performance boats!!!

And as we know from Parrothead, someone who was actually there at the time of the decision, the reduction of weekend on-the-water boating activities at the summer camps had nothing to do with performance boats or the lack of a speed limit.

So it is you that I ask to give it a rest, stop fear mongering and deal with the facts!

Bear Islander 04-12-2008 10:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves (Post 67467)
Bear Islander I bring your attention to YOUR post #389

Then Bear Islander, there is this little ditty, YOUR post #409


And now Bear Islander you make this claim in YOUR post #429

Yes you have repeatedly attempted to link the two by blaming the decision to limit summer camp activities on performance boats!!!

And as we know from Parrothead, someone who was actually there at the time of the decision, the reduction of weekend on-the-water boating activities at the summer camps had nothing to do with performance boats or the lack of a speed limit.

So it is you that I ask to give it a rest, stop fear mongering and deal with the facts!
You are taking quotes out of context and attempting to link things that are NOT LINKED.

One of the things you can't seem to get strait is the word "Violations". Boat congestion and speed can be a problem even though there are no violations. As we have discussed many times some people are intimidated by conditions on the lake. This can be true even without any "violations".

I do not believe you are interested in fair discussion, you are only looking for what you think may be an inconsistency so you can use it to attack me. I will no longer respond to these types of posts by you.

Bear Islander 04-12-2008 10:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by parrothead (Post 67453)
Hi Bear Islander, just want to clarify something here. I worked for both the camps that are on your island. While employed there for eight years, I drove the boats and assisted in the boating programs (waterskiing,sailing, etc...) I was working there when the decision was made to not run boating programs on weekends. The speed limit will not change the issues that caused this decision to be made. This decision was made because of the congestion around Bear Island on weekends. Watersking was canceled because it was not fun for the kids. It is very hard to instruct a novice skier in choppy conditions, and the experienced ones didn't want to go because you can't do anything except hold on and try not to fall. Plus the ski boat was a Ski Tique by Correct Craft that would take water over the bow at the drop of a hat. It was not safe to send the campers out in canoes and sail boats because it was so rough the boats would capsize. Then the instructors spent more time righting boats than instructing. So other programming is provided for the weekends, and the boating is reserved for the weekdays, when there is less traffic. I was on the water almost everyday from just after ice out until I had to go back to college. I drove a boat more than a car, and went all over the lake in the process. In my experience the the speed of the boats around me were never an issue. I did have boaters cut me off, come to close to kids while skiing, driving under the influence (actually hit the island by the dining hall), anchoring off the end of camp drinking and swearing in front of kids, and coming to close to marked swim areas. These issues are all intelligence related not speed related. Can only remember one incident in the 8 years I was there with a go fast. It was 1 or 2 in the morning and my cabin was right by the main dock at Lawrence. The guy went by up on plane and woke me up. Coulda strangled him.
We certainly agree that the congestion and lack of boater "intelligence" is a problem particularly on weekends. The speed limit is not targeted against go fast boats. That is a misconception many people on this forum have. I personally think they have no place on the lake for several reasons, but that is in many ways a separate argument from speed.

The congestion and lack of intelligence is growing. Already there are days, other than weekends, when camp boating must be limited. My biggest concern is where the lake is headed. If things get worse camp activities may have to be limited even more.

One thing we can do is enact a speed limit. It will not solve the lakes problems but will improve things. A speed limit is a tool the MP can use to limit some of the worst situations.

Continuing to NOT have a speed limit will attract even more idiots to this lake. Especially when other lakes continue to enact speed limits.

Other lakes that have passed speed limits claim they have worked to slow the pace and reduce congestion.

The New Hampshire Camp Directors Association supports speed limits. With all do respect, as they say, I think that group has a better handle than you on current conditions and what is needed to improve them.

Resident 2B 04-13-2008 01:28 AM
BI,

You continue to put your personal "spin" of almost every factual post that is counter to your position here. Quite frankly, I have gotten to the point where I have to react to your behavior.

You continuously refuse to listen to any facts and you continuously refuse to listen to very well-supported opinions of those that do not support your position, even when they seem to have more experince on the lake than you have. As I stated in a prior post, and this was not disputed by you, you are still a "young pup", regardless of your huge, implied financial means. "Young pups" should consider the experience of us "old dogs".

You can continue to attempt to “spin” things however you want. Again, it is a free country. I, for one, have fought for our government on foreign lands for this freedom. However, your complete lack of dealing with the facts and your continuous efforts to "spin it your way" totally and completely discredits your position.

You are acting like a spoiled little rich kid. Your lack of maturity and your "power through material holdings" clearly comes through loud and clear in almost all of your posts.

Trying to control the lives of those who are not as financially well off as you imply you are is not the way to live. I see way too much of this in your behavior and posts, negatively impacting and discrediting those with meeker means. You and the other "rich folks" with lake front property do not own the lake. You only own your property. Attempting to limit the use of the lake by others who desire different usage than you feel is appropriate, is clearly wrong and clearly un-American, and you should know this. I have no idea how you sleep at night given the way you act.

I hope that in the future you will continue to argue your points, but begin to be truthful and honest in your arguments. This will be a very refreshing change and might even show some form of maturity on your part. It might even convince some people who are “on the fence” with this issue that you are actually right. Otherwise, your unsubstantiated rants are driving people to the other side of this issue.

The internet is a gold mine for people like you. As someone who is a professional in the video production business, I am sure you not only know this, but you have been using to your complete advantage.

A very wise mentor once told me: It is nice to be important, but it more important to be nice! Great advice in my opinion!

Good luck in your trip into space. Sounds like an huge waste of money that could have been used to support NH conservation and lake resources.

I like people who put their money where their mouth is. Perhaps you will reconsider things that are important in your life and change your ways and the use of your implied large disposable income.

Going into space is not a meaningful endeavor. It is a very selfish act. This is only an ego-building, personal endeavor. You can choose to use your resources in making this world a better place, and you do not have to go into space to do it.

Thank you for listening to this well-intended advice. Remember, honesty is always the best policy!




R2B

ApS 04-13-2008 06:47 AM
"I before the Z"
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves (Post 67344)
"...I don’t know what type PFDs the crew was wearing or whether the PFDs were off the shelf or not...If either the Poker Run itself or the accident were observed by the Coast Guard it's a safe bet it wasn't held in New Hampshire!..."
Poker Run promoters are still "talking" special racing PFDs for their ocean-racers on protected inland waters.

The Poker Run was at Grand Haven, Lake Michigan. (The freshwater is very different there, donchaknow). :laugh:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves (Post 67214)
"...USCG Nav rules have not been adopted by NH..."
Yeah...too bad. A few posts back, Lakegeezer just quoted Rule 6:

Quoting...
RULE 6
SAFE SPEED
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions..

Yet in the night-time "Kayak Cut in Half" collision, it was dismissed!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Duck (Post 67332)
"...I personally do not oppose the idea of a speed limit per se. But I vehemently oppose implementing one that is specifically designed to drive a particular type of boat off the lake because some folks disapprove of that type of boat.
It would be up to the individual whether to exceed 45-MPH or not—irrespective of boat design.

(After dark: 25-MPH).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves (Post 67214)
"...APS ignored the specifics I asked him as well..."
We're even? :confused: ,,,I never got an answer to:

Quote:
"What headline would cause you to change your mind?"
(Those NH Senators in opposition? Please include the word "children" in your answer.) :look:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silver Duck (Post 67332)
"...My suggestions for dealing with someone that actually harms a child can't be printed in a family-oriented forum.:eek:..."
Civil law doesn't protect children as well as it protects retirees. :( But with all the creative penalties around, why did a judge use up a perfectly good jail cell to punish Lake Winnipesaukee's most experienced performance boater? :confused:

I'd have sentenced him to weekends sitting in a kayak, anchored off the lake's most talked-about flashing light, day and night, every June through September—for five years. A diary would be required proof of compliance to record NHMP passings, and scheduled calls to a Probation Officer. (He would be permitted only two D-cells for his light). Like you, I'd ban him from the lake forever after completing his sentence.

Oh yeah...I'd also mandate that he carry the whistle that meets NH boating laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoTheMath (Post 67293)
...So, for Acres Per Second - just out of curiosity, do you have any (real) experience with "high-performance" boats...!?"
When I should have been paying attention at Wolfeboro's Brewster Academy, I designed, built, and later operated, my third boat: a tunnel-hull racer.

I'm all grown up now. :rolleye1:

Seeker 04-13-2008 09:50 AM
Status of bill
 
Just when is the Senate expecting to vote on the speed limit bill? Is it still in committee?:confused:

Islander 04-13-2008 10:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resident 2B (Post 67484)
BI,

You continue to put your personal "spin" of almost every factual post that is counter to your position here. Quite frankly, I have gotten to the point where I have to react to your behavior.

You continuously refuse to listen to any facts and you continuously refuse to listen to very well-supported opinions of those that do not support your position, even when they seem to have more experience on the lake than you have. As I stated in a prior post, and this was not disputed by you, you are still a "young pup", regardless of your huge, implied financial means. "Young pups" should consider the experience of us "old dogs".

You can continue to attempt to “spin” things however you want. Again, it is a free country. I, for one, have fought for our government on foreign lands for this freedom. However, your complete lack of dealing with the facts and your continuous efforts to "spin it your way" totally and completely discredits your position.

You are acting like a spoiled little rich kid. Your lack of maturity and your "power through material holdings" clearly comes through loud and clear in almost all of your posts.

Trying to control the lives of those who are not as financially well off as you imply you are is not the way to live. I see way too much of this in your behavior and posts, negatively impacting and discrediting those with meeker means. You and the other "rich folks" with lake front property do not own the lake. You only own your property. Attempting to limit the use of the lake by others who desire different usage than you feel is appropriate, is clearly wrong and clearly UN-American, and you should know this. I have no idea how you sleep at night given the way you act.

I hope that in the future you will continue to argue your points, but begin to be truthful and honest in your arguments. This will be a very refreshing change and might even show some form of maturity on your part. It might even convince some people who are “on the fence” with this issue that you are actually right. Otherwise, your unsubstantiated rants are driving people to the other side of this issue.

The internet is a gold mine for people like you. As someone who is a professional in the video production business, I am sure you not only know this, but you have been using to your complete advantage.

A very wise mentor once told me: It is nice to be important, but it more important to be nice! Great advice in my opinion!

Good luck in your trip into space. Sounds like an huge waste of money that could have been used to support NH conservation and lake resources.

I like people who put their money where their mouth is. Perhaps you will reconsider things that are important in your life and change your ways and the use of your implied large disposable income.

Going into space is not a meaningful endeavor. It is a very selfish act. This is only an ego-building, personal endeavor. You can choose to use your resources in making this world a better place, and you do not have to go into space to do it.

Thank you for listening to this well-intended advice. Remember, honesty is always the best policy!




R2B

You need to learn tolerance for opinions that differ with you own. I find his posts to be accurate, consistent and honest, sometimes to honest.

Your personal comments are so far off the mark they a laughable. You obviously never met him and do not know his service to his country, the children of New Hampshire and many other causes. You clearly do not know his age. Your post is a personal bash and does not belong on this forum. It sheds the light on you and your prejudices, but misses the mark completely on him.

Cal 04-13-2008 11:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 67483)
. The speed limit is not targeted against go fast boats. That is a misconception many people on this forum have.

THAT'S IT! I am now convinced you are so full of it , your eyes must be brown:rolleye2:

So this means I won't have to obey a speed limit:laugh::laugh:

The more you talk , the more you discredit yourself but you've already been told the and continue to prove it.

You're more out of touch than Bush:emb:

Airwaves 04-13-2008 11:53 AM
Quote:
Quote: by APS:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves
"...I don’t know what type PFDs the crew was wearing or whether the PFDs were off the shelf or not...If either the Poker Run itself or the accident were observed by the Coast Guard it's a safe bet it wasn't held in New Hampshire!..."
Poker Run promoters are still "talking" special racing PFDs for their ocean-racers on protected inland waters.

The Poker Run was at Grand Haven, Lake Michigan. (The freshwater is very different there, donchaknow).
Yea, I would say a Great Lake is different. They are Federal/International waterways, patroled by the US and Canadian Coast Guard and they even have tides! There are no Ocean-racers on Lake Winnipesaukee, donchaknow :rolleye1:

Quote:
Quote by APS:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves
"...USCG Nav rules have not been adopted by NH..."

Yeah...too bad. A few posts back, Lakegeezer just quoted Rule 6:

Quoting...
RULE 6
SAFE SPEED
Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions..
Yet in the night-time "Kayak Cut in Half" collision, it was dismissed!
Actually if you look back he was quoting my post on that one.

As far as the night-time "Kayak Cut In Half" collision, that wouldn't be the kayak that was on the water in the middle of the night with no lights would it? You remember, the one that was abandonded unlighted in the path of an oncoming power boat traveling at barely headway speed because a spot light was in use and he didn't want to be seen naked? That one?

Quote:
Quote: by APS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves
"...APS ignored the specifics I asked him as well..."
We're even? ,,,I never got an answer to:


Quote:
"What headline would cause you to change your mind?"
The difference is, my question was not a hypothetical like yours is.

I came into this debate not having an opinion on speed limits one way or the other. If your side had been able to show me that speed is a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee I would help you lead the charge. You have only been able to show me that the 150' rule is routinely violated.

wehatetoquitit 04-13-2008 12:20 PM
I'm confused, as I often am ( one living brain cell,which I hope divides soon), when it comes to what everybody describes as a "go-fast boat". What is the defination of this type of craft. I have an old 20 foot Penn Yan that is capable, under the right conditions, of exceeding the proposed speed limit. I notice that probably most boats on the lake, Whalers, Grady Whites, C-Dorys, Bass boats, Sea Doos and others regardless of length and outfitted with modern engines are probably capable of exceeding the proposed limit. Are all of these go fast boats?

Islander 04-13-2008 12:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal (Post 67512)
THAT'S IT! I am now convinced you are so full of it , your eyes must be brown:rolleye2:

So this means I won't have to obey a speed limit:laugh::laugh:

The more you talk , the more you discredit yourself but you've already been told the and continue to prove it.

You're more out of touch than Bush:EM:

There is a theory that speed limit legislation was created as part of an underhanded scheme to eliminate one kind of boat. I believe this theory to be false.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:18 AM.
Page 11 of 19 « First 910 11 1213 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.