...
 

i love going up to the lake and sitting on the boat letting the waves slap against the hull. But i also love sitting down on the boat as i watch the boats fly by. a speed limit on a lake this size is just stupid. People that own lanch ramps think of how much money they would lose over the summer. nobody would come up to a lake of this great size to drive around at 45mph. Putting a speed limit on this lake would make so many people not want to come up to this wonderful place. The boats are loud, sure they are a little loud but you can't hear them inside your house. when you are sitting on your boat don't you look up when you hear the exciting noice. vvvrrrrm.. i don't know what i would ever do if they put a speed limit on this lake!!!! :eek:

Time to clean the cupboards!
 

Wow,

Around & around & around we row,
Back to the speed limit,
We just can't let go!

Folks, its time to move on. Think of all the other things we have coming up to be jointly miserable about:

Bass boats
Bass tournaments!
Bass lures on our docks
Bass fishermen fishing Bass Beds

Jet Skis
Jet Ski rental agents
Jet Ski operators
Jets Skis too close to your docks
Jet Skis on Bass Beds

Rafters
Rafters "waste products"
Rafters near our dock/in our cove
Rafters on Bass Beds

Marine Patrol
Marine Patrol not obeying the rules
Marine Patrol operating near Bass Beds

Partying (see rafting above)
Partiers
Partiers rafting
Partiers rafting on Bass Beds

Boaters from Massachussetts
Boaters from Massachussetts not obeying rules
Boaters from Massachussetts rafting/partying
Boaters from Massachussetts doing all this on Bass Beds!

The Lake level Dam operators
The Lake level Dam operators not following our rules
The Lake level Dam operators flooding Bass Beds

And everything/anything in regards to Motorcycle Weekend! ;)

Yeah, I know. I've only scratched the surface.....but at least this partial list of ingredients is a start!

Salute! :liplick:

restauranteer
 

L M A O :emb: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Legislation
 

I know some are tired of the discussion about HB162 but I think this is important so I want to look at this from a different angle.

I don't know about everyone else but I do not want my legislators voting for or against bills based on peoples opinion, emotion, what they hear through the grapevine or what they read in the newspaper. I vote for my legislators to pass laws based on documented evidence to prove there is an issue that needs to be adressed. Isn't that what we want our legislators to do no matter what the issue?

Collisions are not occurring on Winnipesaukee above or below the proposed speed limits of HB162(except 1 in Meredith). Maybe some boats are bumping others tied up at the public docks but thats irrelevant with respect to HB162 for obvious reasons.

If the legislators who represent me in Concord are making decisions based on peoples opinion, what their friends told them, what they read in the newspaper then I will not be voting for them in the next election.

Propeller

There is more than enough documented evidence to support a speed limit. Common sense and good judgment also argue for a limit.

People that have a predisposition against any limit are discounting or explaining away the evidence.

The Coast Guard list speed as the #4 contributor to boating accidents. The lake has had accidents and death involving high performance boats and speed. But as the saying goes "there are none so blind as those that will not see".

Besides the collision in Meredith, provide the statistics of all these other alleged collisions.

Speed was #4, not #1, #2 or #3. The top 3 were inattention, careless/reckless operation & operator inexperience which just goes to show that education, education, education should be the top priority. The accidents reported due to speed could have been at much lower speeds than the proposed speed limit in areas where it may not have been reasonable to travel say 10, 15 or 20 mph like the Weirs Channel or between Eagle & Govenors & that could be why they were coded as speed related. It does not mean any of those accidents were due to speeds over 45 mph. They could have been collisions around docks or in no wake areas. Thats where your more likely to have collisions not out in the open water.

446 collisions due to speed(which may have not been at speeds even approaching the proposed speed limit, many could have been around docks or congested areas where you need to go slow) across the whole country is barely a blip on the radar screen when you consider how many registered boats there are in the US. California & Michigan alone have 2 million or more registered boats. In 2003 there were nearly 13 million registered boats across the US. How many of those collisions due to speed occurred in NH & how many on Winnipesaukee?

I did read the Coast Guard report & found it very interesting. Accidents between 93 & 03 have gone down even though the number of registered boats has increased & injuries & fatalities have stayed relatively constant.

So you see, I do see, its just that I can read between the lines & Don't accept everything at face value. Can you?

I love statistics
 

according to the coast gaurd 2003 report
acidents by state florida 752
michigan 218
new york 224
texas 198
a bunch in between
new hampshire 49
speed of vesels involved in accidents
under 10 mph 1173
10 to 20 mph 1147
20 to 40 mph 1082
over 40 mph 180 yes 180
deaths by length of vessel
under 16' 88
16' to 26' 101
26' or over 14 yes 14

Now we can all see the dangers of boating , it is in other states withsmall boats going well under you proposed speed limit. I did mention i love statistics right! :D

Propeller

Why are we ignoring the Meredith accident other than it is very very bad for your argument?

Jarhead

Obviously there are less fatalities in boats over 26'. These boats are a very small percentage of all boats.

The Coast Guard stats are based on the boat you are IN. So if a GFBL runs over 2 people in a 12' skiff, it is recorded as 2 deaths in a vessels under 16'.

Canoes have a very high fatality rate. However only the occupants of the canoe are at risk. I don't think my family or I are in any danger from irresponsible or drunken canoe operators.

No Brainer for Me
 

Funny, I come across this thread after arriving home and finding the WinnFABS mailer in my mailbox. Just read it and visited the Web site. Compelling stuff.

Here's a simple observation on the matter (guaranteed to raise ire, provoke flames, and induce name-calling):

A speed limit is not a bad thing. Heck, I think if I opened up the throttle on our boat, it might hit 45 MPH. And it's a pretty thrilling ride at that speed. And, when you think about it, 25 MPH at night is probably as fast anyone really needs to go.

(Now here's the part that'll tee off some folks)... Now, if HB 162 passes, perhaps those who own the giant, meant-for-ocean boats that typically are the fastest on the Lake will take their "business" elsewhere. The result: A bit less congestion, a lot less noise, fewer eyesores, fewer speed-related incidents, less pollution... Sounds like a no-brainer, quality-of-life upgrade to me!

Okay, flame away.

In the Meredith accident a 32' Formula ran over a 21' bow rider. So the Coast Guard calls that 1 fatality in a vessel 16' to 26'.

Its not the people in the big boats that are in danger, its the people that get in their way. Then the CG records it as a death in a small boat.

Then somebody tries to use it as a justification for unlimited speed. Unreal!

Your figures are pretty meaningless. You need to have the speed statistics for only the accidents that involved a collision, rather than for every type of boating accident.

35% of boating accidents in 2003 involved the following:

Capsizing 514
Falls Within Boat 233
Falls Overboard 509
Sinking 128
Departed Vessel (swimming) 34
Departed Vessel (other) 11
Flooding/Swamping 274
Fire/Explosion (fuel) 142
Fire/Explosion (other than fuel) 68
Carbon Monoxide Poisoning 20
Falls on PWC 15

Most of these probably happened in small, slow moving boats.

This reteric about not feeling safe on Winni because of the speeds of the big boats versus other smallboats is almost laughable with a few exceptions.My boat is only 10 feet long has no sidewalls (yes, I operate the often hated PWC)yet I am perfectly comfortable sitting in the broads watching all the marine activity go by.Where I am nervous is an area like between Eagle Island and the Weirs on a busy summer weekend.That place is downright scary.But that has NOTHING to do with high speeds.I don't think I have seen a boat going more than 45 MPH in that area when it's busy.It certainly wouldn't make me feel any safer there if we had a speed limit.Quite the contrary to some posts here,I find the Broads about the safest place to be on a busy weekend.I spend lots of time floating around with my motor off,taking it all in.I think the most reasonable solution to this debate is to have speed limits in areas and/or days where and when there is congestion.I see no problem with a speed limit in the area I just refered to.There is no reason to go 60 MPH there.At the same time there is no reason to limit speed to 45 MPH in the open water of the Broads.Even though I lean toward the no speed limit side,there are legitimate concerns voiced here for reduced speed areas.Arguments have been made here for a speed limit refering to speed limits on our highways.Well,we have higher speeds on highways than we do on sideroads or busy/congested areas don't we?Why not focus on where the problem really is and not paint such a broad brush.This goes for both sides of this issue.OK let me have it! SS

Evenstar, you've finally got it!
 

You are absolutely right....

The most dangerous craft to be in, statistically speaking, is a small, slow moving boat!

Using your logic and facts presented, we need to pass a minimum speed and minimum length boating law. No boats allowed on Winnipesaukee under 20 feet and all boats must be operated at a speed greater than 25 MPH.

Thank you so much for helping us discover what we really need here!

Bon apetit! :liplick:

Such emotional involvement.. I can see why. Personally, I don't want to see a fixed speed limit. I'm nervous enough watching my heavy foot on the highway. On the lake, I have plenty of other things to look at (scenery, other boaters, etc.) to be checking over my shoulder for our local LEOs. I would be in favor of increasing the minimum distance before supporting a speed limit. If Joe Schmo wants to take his Fountain or I want to take my Sea Doo 60mph through the Broads, far away from shore or other boaters, I don't think that's the law's business.

As for the viability, I don't have the facts or numbers, but I would rather that the Marine Patrol hire more officers than incur the expense of all of the equipment + training + calibration + court costs. I would guess that the total expenses would be able to cover quite a few salaries for seasonal officers. If anyone wants to support or challenge that with numbers, please do so.

The issue of enforcement with regards to catching the violator also came up. My two cents on this is that it will be difficult considering that boats, unlike cars, don't have rearview mirrors with which to see the flashing patrol boat. If I'm railing down the Broads on my jetski, there's little chance I'll see a patrol boat behind me and little chance he'll catch up. Then there are people who would be able to run and willingly do so. There are plenty of PWCs on the lake that can top out around 70mph... just trying to take a realistic standpoint. Ask any state trooper about pulling over people on sportbikes.

Anyhow, watch out for me in my canoe and I'll watch out for you on my PWC :cool:

More No Wake Zones
 

I have long believed that the lake needs more NWZ's to address the combination of reckless boating (all vessel classes) and congestion in key choke points in the lake in the hot summer months. Between Eagle and Governor's is a nightmare on a busy weekend. Likewise between Cattle Landing and Bear Island. I get scared in my Montauk there on a busy Saturday. Expand the NWZ in Wolfboro bay and Center Harbor as was done in Meredith. The favorable impact in Meredith proves that helps. I'm sure there are plenty of other places. You don't need a radar gun to enforce a no wake zone and you don't impact one boating group more than another either. Doesn't fully address the "speed" topic, but gets at probably the greatest single true "safety issue". I know, I know, existing laws regarding the 150 ft rule just need to be enforced better. Sorry, I don't buy it. NWZs work better. My two cents.

Extending (and widening) the NWZ at the end of the Channel is probably long overdue.

Agreed. Please let common sense prevail. We already have to deal with reckless/ignorant boaters, we don't need to add overzealous lawmakers to the trouble-list.

pathetic
 

You folks love to point to these rediculous statistics ,but when it get's turned on you watch out .You twist them your way and i'll twist them mine. :coolsm:

Speed Kills.....
 

If you think that speed is not a factor regarding fatal accidents and the potential for them occurring then think again..... check out the statistics regarding our highways and speed is a major factor in deaths. Come on people..... please. The funny thing about all this is that the off shore boating community laughs at these big go fasts on Winni. One friend who owns a very large go fast and races in Florida compared it to using an INDY car on a dirt track. Come on! If you like big go fast boats then go to the track suited for them.... OFF SHORE. I owned a go fast on Winni and soon saw the ridiculousness of it as I had to plane up, plane down constantly traveling the lake. They are too just too big. I had it for a few years , realized my error in judgement and sold it to someone for use in the ocean. Before you all go off and start the "ohh he doesn't know how to handle it etc" ... I use these type of boats often in the ocean were they belong. I love them more than most however they need to be used elsewhere. Can the broads handle a big go fast? Maybe yes but is it really that exciting tearing up and down the broads ???? Go out and do some real off shore running and then tell me it is. People please ..... the real issue isnt really that you want to go fast perhaps ? Show more than go??? If you really like speed then take your performance craft to the big boy track and use it were it was intended. Lets be reasonalbe for once before we get the headline regarding the tragic death of innocent people due to excessive speed on Winni. Its not if but when...... I have been on the lake regularly since the mid 80's and I see more close calls every year. Often the offending go fast's don't even see the little craft bobbing in the waves just feet from them. I would love to have all my cake and eat it too however I know better. Winni is just too small for high speeds and large performance boats. Time to grow up. Will a speed limit solve all the problems? No way , but being responsible and letting people know that 45 or 50 is a reasonable top speed in Winni is a step in the right direction. Don't worry local economy doom and gloomers.... there will be PLENTY of other boaters to take their place.

Winnfabs- You wasted a stamp on me...
 

I got the WinnCRAB's mailer today, sorry but you can probably guess where it ended up. In the trash...When Winnfabs realizes that boating education is key and that speed is not the root of all evil I will sign on. Until then my letters to the state will look a bit different than they suggest.

I honestly could see having a night time speed limit due to lack of visibility even though traffic is decreased at night but 45mph during the day is not the answer. Enforce the 150' rule, I see it broken probably on average 40-50 times each day I spend on the lake. Its mostly small family boats, bowriders, pontoon boats, etc. I see the big boats staying clear. Do random BWI checks coming out of the bars in the Weirs Channel. I am sure that would generate a considerable # of citations/arrests.

Throttles do not push themselves, not do boats steer too close to other objects by themselves. Educate and enforce what is already in place. As much as people complain about the speed I am sure the hike in tax dollars on property owners to pay for more boats, more equipment and more officers to inforce HB162 will cause a whole new complaint.

Just my 2 Cents
 

OK, Like Grant here I go and throw my 2 cents into the already flaming :fire: waters.

I have read most, if not all, of the posts in this thread. So here goes:

A.
A NWZ in those areas with heavy boat congestion is needed to make everyone feel safer. I will not go to the Eagle Island, Weirs or Weirs Channel areas very often and it has to be for a good reason that I would. Wolfeboro needs an expanded NWZ area. There are other areas too.

I believe we need increased NWZ's.

B.
A day time speed limit of 45 MPH does not seem to be the answer but maybe with some real study and not the rhetoric here or in other forums but by qualified people maybe another speed limit would be appropriate. The qualified study people should then report to the Legislative Committe that is looking at HB 162. This issue is so hot on either side of the aisle that the Legislative Committee needs more input but from qualified sources more than just we plain folk. Our intentions are good but do we have the real facts or rumors about what we perceive to be fact.

I do not think this is the year for a day time speed limit.

C.
Now a night time speed limit does seem appropriate. The Meredith accicent and some others even from years back support that view.
Such as:
1. Lack of observation by the driver of the boat that struck another. Could that be called Reckless Operation?
2. Higher Speed contributed to the accidents.

Unfortunately the Coast Guard and NH Marine Patrol do not report the accident data related to speed. Doesn't Reckless Operation seems to fit when speed is involved? I think it might come from the law enforcement point of view.

In the late 60's in Alton Bay there were 2 night time accidents in the same week no less and speed was a factor. Both were rear end accidents and all boats destroyed. Luckily no one was seriously injured or killed. I saw the damaged boats and the one who did the hitting in both cases was not going very slow for the damage observed.

So the danger at night has been there all along and is not a new issue. It is just more crowded and with more boats comes more accidents or at least close calls that do not get reported. They become rumors and tales of night time scares.

To me a 25 MPH speed limit at night is right.

D.
Congratulations on the boaters organizations that have come to our area. Both have a place for those with a similar view. I have not subscribed to either at this time. I am leaning to a more open discusion membership but I have concerns that neither group mentioned here in this Thread is heading that way at this time.

So I will wait on joining any.

Just my Humble Observations and Opinion - Others are welcome to continue this but I am finished.

Islander, I am not ignoring the Meredith accident. It obviously was a collision. But I do not find it relevant to the speed limit debate because my recollection of the Marine Patrol investigation was that operator inattention & BWI were the contributing factors not speed.

I really didn't start this thread with the intention of it turning into another speed limit debate. I should have known better than to try to reason using scientific logic, statistical data and cost vs emotional rhetoric.

I posted some basic scientific data on radar, how it works, and some of the reasons why it really isn't feasible to use on the lake without spending some serious money. I was backed up on the scientific side with much better explanations by some others who are more qualified than I am to state how exactly the radar proposed on the Winnfabs site works.

It seems the rallying cry for the pro-speed limit side brings up the night time accident that occured in August 2002 in Meredith Bay. The driver of the boat involved in the collision was charged with and convicted by a jury of negligent homicide by failing to keep a proper lookout. The Marine Patrol's Accident Reconstruction Team put the Baja's speed at 27-28mph. I ask what would a speed limit have accomplished in this instance? It was approximately 3mph over your proposed night time limit? I doubt very seriously a 25mph limit would have changed anything that night. The accident wasn't due to excessive speed, but operator negligence. How many times to we really have to beat that horse? Especially when the operator has been tried and convicted in a court of law. If the speed was excessive for the conditions that night I am sure it would have found its way into the trial as such. If it was a large Crownline or Bayliner would there be such finger pointing?

I am not for a speed limit, and my reasons are as follows...

1. I don't like having my persoanl freedoms infringed upon with no good reason (see below) other than people in small boats not liking people in bigger faster boats.

2. Lake Winnipesaukee is really only busy about 14 WEEKENDS a year, from Bike Week 18-June to the weekend after Labor Day 10-September. The only places its congested with lots of boat traffic is the destination towns, Weirs, Meredith, Wolfeboro, and Alton. If you go out during the week, between Sunday afternoon about 3ish to friday early afternoon, the lake is pretty much deserted. I have gone out on many a beautiful summer day midweek and encountered less than 10-15 boats. We need to impose a speed limit because the Lake is busy 28 days out of a possible 167 days? (Ice out to end of September) I boat well into November, but then again, thats just me.

3. Nobody has produced any cold hard factual data on why we need one. There are no accident stats from Winnipesaukee that show excessive speed was a factor in ANY accidents. You don't need a speed limit law to cite speed as a factor in an accident report.

4. COST! Nobody has proposed how this is going to be paid for? Who is going to pay for all of the equipment, training, new officers and court time to handle the appeals? This is certainly not an inexpensive proposal.

5. Extended NWZ in the congested areas is a far better and cheaper solution to 90% of the problems. Maybe hire a few more MP officers, but again that comes down to cost and funding.

Do we want to become like Lake George and have all boaters pay some sort of access fee to use Winni? Not to sure about the legalities of that one as Lake George is a state park and Winni is not!

You need to take the emotional rhetoric out of the equation, (from both sides)! What you need to make an informed decision is facts. I have yet to see any facts that say we need to pass a Speed Limit Law, any and then spend all sorts of money to enforce it. When the pro-speed limit faction presents facts from Winnipesaukee, not some lake that belongs to NY, and these facts are presented in a clear, cohesive, non-emotional argument, then I will reconsider my position.


Woodsy

The report lists excessive speed as the #4 contributing factor.... Please refer to the glossary were you will find speeding is defined - operating at a speed, possibly below the posted limit, above that which a reasonable and prudent person would operate under the circumstances.
Excessive speed is not directly linked to high performance boats and a particular speed value. This report shows that in 2003 fewer accidents happened at speeds over 40 than any other reported category including, not moving.

Open your eyes.

You can not legislate responsibility.

Reconciling the Power vs. Paddle dispute
 

Speed is thrilling – especially on water where there is great flexibility of movement – and in one's own flashy, high-powered showpiece. It's no wonder that boat owners twist their thinking and abandon objectivity to justify their indulgence in fast boats on small lakes like Winnipesaukee. The rationalizations have become familiar:
There are not enough deaths yet to restrict speed. I've earned the right to go over 145. If some people are scared, they should mount a yellow flag. Why shouldn't slow boats be the ones to be restricted? People's opinions don't matter – just the facts, even though there are no records kept. If boats aren't allowed to speed, the whole lakes region economy will collapse. There's no real justification for speed limits – just some elitists don't like us.
Woody (4-26-05) has the real answer to the power-vs.-paddle dispute; we need full-time MP staffing. JeffK has the reason: "There are examples of reckless boating all over the lake." And speeding is only one of many boating problems.
Speed limits won't stop all speeders anymore than they do on our highways, but at least they set a reasonable guideline. If the State ever takes responsibility for enforcing safe boating practices, speed limits will be a useful tool. Maybe limits will even help some high-speed addicts to realize, as stated by Great Idea, that "Go fast boats on Winni are ridiculous."

Woodsy point # 1 and #2
 

While I completely agree with point #1, point # 2 say,s it all. I have been on the water since 89. The 1st 4yrs on Cow and the rest on the mainland. During the week days there isn,t a problem. It would be a shame to add more rules to try to help a problem that occurs on such a few day,s.

AND, next time there is an accident and one boat was going 70 mph, they will have a law to cite him with so that there we can start to gather some of those STATISTICS about speeding that are so clearly being ignored these days.


Frank,

How can it be possible to ignore statistics that according to your statement have not been collected???? FYI operators can be cited for excessive speed and accident reports currently include speed data.

Winnfabs has a link to Coast Guard statistics which show no reason for the proposed speed limit.

High-Speed Boat Sales
 

I'd be curious to know how this issue is effecting the sales of GFBL boats these days. This is usually about the time when they should be getting busy with sales. The marina's that profit most from cigarette boats (Channel, Lakeport Landing, Silver Sands, Shep Brown, etc) simply have to know that a speed limit is coming, whether its this time or next. Their potential customers have to be asking them about it. I'm sure the salesmen would like to answer that "it will never happen", but their lawyers are telling them to temper that with some disclaimers like the stockbrokers are all giving these days about "doing your own diligence". This has to make the buyers wary (unless they are a bit thick). If I relied on the seller's assertion that there was no such threat and threw down a couple hundred K for a boat simply so I could fly around Winnipesaukee at over 90MPH, then the 45MPH speed limit came along, I know what I would do. And if I can forsee that, so can the marina owners and their lawyers. So they must be speaking very carefully and losing a lot of sales as a result. I'd imagine that they must already be feeling this issue in a big way, yet I have not heard anything to indicate that our local economy is in the predicted free fall as a result.
Can anyone WHO HAS REAL KNOWLEDGE of the issue comment on how the go-fast marinas are doing so far this spring? Please no flaming...just answer if you know anything.

What?
 

Come again? You initiated this thread with a string entitled "Speed Limit : why it will ot work", threw out a bunch of opinions, and you did not intend for it to turn into a speed limit debate? I find that as hard to believe as the rest of your statements on this forum. You sound like an intelligent guy, so please try to give the rest of us some credit.

To answer your question,the proposed speedlimit is not slowing down the sale of performance boats.Most people feel the law will not pass.So,sales go on.

Fat Jack....

Actually I posted "Speed Limit Enforcement (Why it will not work) In my original post, I stated why (in very clear, easy to understand terms) radar would not work as the Winnfab folks are proposing. This was not an opinion, merely scientific fact. I even went so far as to draw a diagram so it would be clearer to understand! I also offered an alternative in the form of a military style naval radar with target designation and tracking capabilities. I was backed up on my radar post by a few others with a bit more knowledge on how it works. Do some research on how radar actually works!

I do have an opinion on a speed limit, I personally do not see the NEED for one. You can read the post I have above that lists the reasons. I understand some people FEEL there should be a speed limit. I have posted and asked for data that would be a good argument for changing my mind. I have yet to see anything but emotional flaming rhetoric! The reason Winnfabs haven't posted any facts to bolster your argument for a speed limit is because there isn't any compelling data whatsoever that indicates speed is an issue on Lake Winnipesaukee! I challenge you to stop the emotional rhetoric and actually post FACTS!

All I am reading from the Winnfab crowd is "I don't feel safe" (even though with 108,000 registered boats in NH there were only 49 accidents in 2003) It would be great if cars had such a good track record!

How "GFBL" boats don't belong on Winni (what exactly does belong on Winni and who decides that? I thought this was America and we could make our own decisions on how we choose recreate?) But maybe I am mistaken? When was freedom of choice removed?

Boats over 26' are by Islander's own admission a very small percentage. The Go-Fast boats are an even smaller percentage of that! Yet they are the target du'Jour. After them, its on to the big cruisers! I wonder of Ole Merrill Faye will stop selling the big 35' Chapparal cruisers then? Or what about the Chapparal SSi line of boats that top out well above his 45mph limit. Is he going to stop selling those? He hasn't yet, even though he is the one who allegedly asked Rep. Pilliod to propose HB-162!

There are no accident statistics that point to a problem with speed. The Marine Patrol would be the first ones to be screaming if speed were an issue anywhere in NH.

Woodsy

I just want to know if Woody has a go fast boat? :D

Ok, just try paddling a kayak across the main lake on any weekend this summer. I bet you would see the need for a speed limit pretty fast.

Freedom of choice happenes to belong to all boaters, not just the fast powerboaters.


A speed limit isn't a hp limit! It's not targeting any type of boat.

How many lakes in NH have a daytime speed limit? This has been pointed out many times: without a speed limit law, speed is rarely going to be sited as the reason for an accident.

No, it was OPINION. In FACT, Winnfabs just proposes that it will work here as good as it does on other lakes, like Lake George, where it works well enough that their Director Barrett says "convictions are the norm". That's a FACT. It might be less accurate on water than on land, but that is not a problem for us. We are not expecting the MP to catch people going 46. If the marine radar being used on all the other lakes has an inaccuracy of even +/- 10, that would be fine for our purposes. Let someone tagged for going 90 tell the judge that he is innocent because the radar inaccuracy was +/- 10MPH.



You were backed up by other speed limit opponents. I've seen no unbiased expert testimony that says marine radar is ineffective, and much that says it is effective enough for the intended purpose. Again, it is working "well enough" on every other Winnipesaukee-type lake in the country. That's the best evidence.



I thought we were through playing the "statistics" game? For the final time (And I mean final this time), I agree, there are no statistics that say any accident on Winnipesaukee has ever been caused by a boat going too fast....because there is currently no such thing as "too fast" on Winnipesaukee.



Who said that? I never heard that position offered by Winnfabs. Again (and this is also the final time). This is about speed, not certain boats or the people who drive them. It is only about SPEED. Why do you feel the need to keep trying to paint this as something it is not?



I said above was my final time playing the "statistics" game, and I meant it. But what do statistics have to do with it anyway? This is not about statistics, facts, or the need to prove a problem exists. This is about public opinion. NH's citizens will say what they want, and it will be. This is their lake, and they want it back. If they decide they want a speed limit, they will get one. If the majority of NH citizens decides they want to change the name of the lake to Lake Bob, then they do not need to prove that it is needed, or to show statistics and facts that prove a real problem exists. So long as their mandate is not unconstitutional or illegal, the legislature will follow it. The go-fast crowd has always been well-organized and has managed to stop earlier attempts before word got out. But his time, the people are aware and organizing and will get a chance to make their opinion known. So let us stop having this debate on this forum. Your chance to voice your opinion will come, as will mine. Let us see what the majority of NH's citizens want.
I think I have had enough of this debate with you now.

Fat Jack....

You still haven't posted how you intend to pay for this speed enforcement. I understand your passionate about having a speed limit. You don't seem to think excessive speed can be put on an accident report because their is no speed limit. Wrong again! If you are driving in at 20mph during a blizzard, and you wreck your car into a pole, a police officer most certainly can cite you for excessive speed even if the posted limit was 55 mph! Why? Becauce your speed was excessive for the conditions, resulting in you being charged with operator negiligence! Not to mention excessive speed would most certainly find its way into the accident report even if he didn't write you a ticket! Give it up!

You cite Lake George again and again, so what? Lake George is not Winni. I boat on Lake George and it costs me $7.50 per day in an ACCESS FEE! Are you saying you want FEE BASED ACCESS to Winnipesaukee as well? The money needed to support this speed limit program has to come from somewhere.

Do you boat on Lake George? Are you familiar at all with the boating character of that lake? They do not have a 150' rule, thier navigation system is different etc, etc. You state thier director says radar enforcement results in lots of convictions? Where can I find those facts? Call NY and get thier stats on speeding at Lake George and post them. Lets see how many of those convictions are for speeding in no wake zones. I have seen lots of go-fast boats on Lake George. I have never witnessed the speed limit enforcement on that lake.

You are correct in the Legislature should act in accordance with the requests and best interests of its citizens. All of its citizens, not just the ones who live on Winnipesaukee as I am lucky enough to do. The legislature also has a fiduciary duty to all NH citizens not to spend money frivoulously. In order for the legislature to SPEND MONEY, there has to be a DEMONSTRABLE NEED to do so. They also have to state how they propose to come up with the FUNDING for thier proposed bill. Winnfabs have not shown any demonstrable need other than emotional rhetoric and I wonder how many are actually NH citizens? How do you propose to fund this speed limit enforcement? Although you think that its ok to let a judge decide on the accuracy of a radar gun, I am sure the courts would be interested to know who is going to pay for thier time as well.....

Woodsy

Fat Jack,


I think we could all agree that NH property taxes are high and the general public would like to do away with them.

This round goes to Woodsy.


Chase1

You win!
 

Chase,
How smart of you! You found an exception to this rule. I wonder if there are any others? I guess you are right then that this round went to Woodsy, since there was this exception. Now, let's move on.

In Past "Speed" Debate threads......
 

In past threads regarding speed usually one or two members of the forum would step out in oposition to fast speeds/boats on Winni and immediately be "attacked" by the same group of big, go fast boating members. I have recently noticed more and more folks stepping up however to fight back against the go fast arguement. Its great to see finally. Fat Jack will ultimatley "win" because the folks of NH who use/live at Winni are fed up with the go fast boats flying around the lake. I had a guy go by me in narrow channel YESTERDAY at 60 plus within 40-50 ft of my boat near Bear and he and his buddy weren't even looking up or forward. They passed between mine and another boat while fiddling with something on or under the dash. Never even saw us or if they did they didn't much care. Everyone keeps referencing the beloved "stats"... Blah, Blah.... blah.... Marine Patrol is in place and can enforce the speed limit as the State Police do with some added equipment. If fees need to be added to do it then so be it. Its worth it if we can save even just one life . Remember its not a quetion of if but when regarding a fatal accident involving speed...... who wants to be on the speed side of the fence when that happens? Time to grow up and use our toys responsibly kids. Take your "go fast boat" out to the big track off shore were it belongs.

I'm a NH citizen. And there's ways to pay for this, other than through property taxes. Here's something to consider: Kayaking is now the fastest growing segment of the entire boating community. As a kayaker, I would certainly be willing to pay a reasonable registration fee, if the funds were used toward more lake marine patrol and towards more car top put ins (or at least some parking areas). And I think most other paddlers would also be willing to help pay to make the lakes more accessable and safer for us.

Great Idea

You have picked up on the #1 reason why the speed limit will pass. Politicians will vote for it to cover themselves. If there is a death in the next few years involving speed it will get major coverage. Nobody wants to be trying to justify why they voted against a speed limit under those conditions.

The safest thing, in more ways than one, is for them to vote in favor of the limit.

Barrett will also get the heat big time if there is a speed related death.