Nice dance you did there with that one.

What about the nighttime proposed 25 mph limit. Can you make the same claim?

And your claim is incorrect anyway, there have been several fatal accidents at medium and high speeds. Just because the MP doesn't write down a speed on the report doesn't mean it aint so.

Island Lover...

There was no dance! I base my decisions on facts and statistics, not emotion. I cannot make that claim for nighttime. There has been 1 nighttime fatality in 3 years! You of course know that! They estimated Danny was traveling 28MPH a whopping 3 MPH or 4.4 FPS above the proposed limit! But you have yet to convince me that the extra 4.4 FPS would have made a difference that night. That extra 3 MPH was not enough to raise the ire of the MP for a speeding ticket. Perhaps if Danny was paying attention, everything would have been different, and Mr. Hartman would be here today! Operator Inattention and alcohol were the primary causes for that collision. It had nothing to do with speed.

I really just don't think you can legislate common sense or courtesy. Every attempt to do so thus far in the history of humanity has failed.

Woodsy

Just a Matter of Time
 

Yes, I do dislike the folks who think it is their God given right to go as fast and be as loud as the want to without regard for other folks.

Quote:

It will be just one more useless law.

Seems your side is always arguing that all we need is the enforcement of the 150 rule. Glad to see you agree that the 150 rule is not doing the job and can never do the job. The people who want to go faster than 45 MPH are the minority. Why does your side argue that someone who wants to paddle across the broads is a nut? If the boat is capable of handling the waters then that person should be safe! Hard to be safe though when you have people going so fast that they cannot respond in time. So, sure I will stand with my comment of not liking the GFBL crowd.

The GFBL will ultimately lose. Who would have thought that 20 or 30 years ago you would have to go outside to smoke? Ultimately those that impose their dangerous behavior on the majority will lose out. It just takes time to get politicians to change the laws to respond to the times.

I do agree that the lake is too congested and something should be addressed but the first place to start is slow the boats down!

Your analogy that more laws and regulations will result in a better society is frightening.
Its people like you who believe big brother should intervene in every aspect of our lives that realy scare me.
You are right about fast boats being the minority ! And thats why it isnt realy a problem , the numbers of boats going fast on the lake are few !
However enough people have spoken against HB162 (speedboaters or not) because they see it as just another chance for big brother to limit there freedoms and an overreaction to a systemic problem, overcrowding.
And then you have your #1 proponent, owner of a boat yard with 300+ wet slips and many more in the racks.. Talk about hypocrisy !

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodsy Your safety doesn't increase or decrease with HB-162, because the problem isn't speed, but congestion. But you wouldn't know that, because you haven't paddled the Broads. The fact remains that NOBODY on Lake Winnipesaukee or elsewhere in NH has been run over by a boat that was exceeding the 45MPH daylight limit proposed by HB-162... NOBODY!

How can you make such a statement when boat speeds are rarely given in USCG accident reports? How can you be so sure that hi speed wasn’t a factor in a collision? There have been boating fatalities in NH, which were the result of boat collisions, and I believe that excessive speed was a factor in some of these. Prove me wrong.

Faster speeds ALWAYS increases the chance of an accident happening.
If a lake is congested - higher speeds makes it more dangerous.
If a person is drinking – higher speeds makes it more dangerous.
If a person is not watching where they are going, higher speeds makes it more dangerous.
If a person breaks the 150 foot rule, higher speeds makes it more dangerous.
If a person has difficultly seeing another vessel, higher speeds makes it more dangerous.

Quote:

Actually you have a very narrow view. You have very little experience paddling on Lake Winnipesaukee, but somehow you seem to know whats best for everyone? Perhaps you know what you want and what is best for you? If Lake Winnipesaukee were as dangerous as you & some of the other WinnFabs claim, we would have some sort of statistics to back it up.

Woodsy – I’m very tired of your personal attacks on my paddling abilities, and on my experience in your vain attempt to discredit my posts. I’ll put my abilities in a kayak against you or anyone else on this forum any time – but be prepared to be humiliated. How many miles did you paddle last year? I paddled nearly 300 miles on NH waters in 2005, and over 100 miles in 2004. 95% of my kayaking has been on NH's large lakes, and I’ve been out in all types of conditions.

You keep ignoring the fact that HB 162 would affect all NH lakes – do you actually think that Winni is the only lake in NH where powerboats go faster than 45 mph?

You cannot use the number of registered boats in statistics, because the registration requirements vary greatly between states. As I’ve posted many times the main reason that there haven’t been more fatalities on Winni is that relatively few paddlers venture out on the main lake – for fear of being run over. Winni does not have a good reputation among paddlers. This is not just my view – this is the view of all the NH paddlers that I know.

Quote:

Just because you think there is something wrong when a recreational activity favors mechanical engines over human power, doesn't mean everybody else does. With that one blanket statement one could infer that you would be happier with a Lake Winnipesaukee with no power boats on it all.

No – that’s not what “favors” means. In this case I’m referring to “unfair partiality - favoritism.” To allow some boats to go as fast as they want, while completely disregarding the effect that action has on other boaters is favoritism.

...today's news from the Statehouse
 

Check out today's www.citizen.com article, Effort launched to save boat speed limit bill, by Colin Manning.

It says the the estimated vote in the Senate now stands at 9 in favor and 15 opposed, and that the bill is doomed. By removing the Atlantic ocean tidal water area from the speed limits, the speed limits could gain two more supporters. By removing all lakes except Winnipesaukee, it would gain some more supporters. Hey, if they removed every lake including Winnipesaukee, it would get 24 supporters, a unanymous and united decision, huzza!

A good informative article, and worth a read. I'd post a link here except my links work about as well as my 32 year old aluminum Starcraft on a good day.

If for no other reason, I support the speed limits bill, so I could scoop up a 32' Formula, on the cheap, with dual 454hp & Bravo drives with open pipes. Maybe $995. with a good trailer w/ matching paint.......in that neighborhood!

I think I can understand your problem by the way you pull out of thin air that I agree the 150' rule is not doing the job. I never said that and I don't believe that. I also never called anyone a nut, name calling belongs almost exclusively to your side. Read my post again, try to understand it. I also stated I don't think congestion is a problem.

I think you're as mistaken about the speed limit as you were about my post.

Evenstar...

Bone up on your facts before you make blanket statements. As with any type of vehicular accident, Boat speeds ARE ALWAYS GIVEN in an accident. They may be estimated as in the case of Littlefield/Hartman, or they may be known as in the video posted by APS. But they ARE ALWAYS LISTED in the official accident report!

I don't have to prove you wrong as I already have. I have already stated my position numerous times based facts & statistics from unbiased official government reports. Unlike you I don't get my information secondhand from an association that has an axe to grind against Hi-Performance boaters. If there were lots of collisions due to excessive speed, I have no doubt WinnFabs would have found them and brought them to light.

Since the inception of the BSC requirement, and the obvious exception of the Littlefield/Hartman accident, I ask you to show me one collision that was the result of speed in excess of the 45/25 as proposed by HB-162? Oh wait... you can't... Because there wasn't one! I ask you to prove your case! If you know the specifics of accidents that you infer occured due to excessive speed, post the info here so we can all research it.

By your own admission you have very little paddling time (also known as experience) on Lake Winnipesaukee. My statement was in reference to Lake Winnipesaukee only! In no way did I mean to disparage you or your paddling abilities. I have said it before that I have no doubt your a safe paddler. I also agree with you that you have as much right as anyone else to enjoy Lake Winnipesaukee. I am probably alot more moderate than you think.

That is a blatanly false statement. Although one could infer that more boaters (regardless of type of boat) in a particular area would lead to more collisions and resulting fatalities. That is simply not the case. Boating accidents are down 68% in NH since the inception of the BSC requirement, while the number of boat registrations are up!

I most certainly can use the number of registered boats in the statistics. It is the standard set by and used by the USCG and NHMP. Sorry if you don't like using official government numbers. If you understood math & statistics, you would know that not having to register your kayak works to your favor. If we added another 50,000 or so canoes & kayaks to the registration numbers the death rate per 100,000 boats in NH would be even less.

As for your statement quoted above I have to take a few exceptions.

1. Faster speed does not always increase the chance of an accident. If that were the case, most accidents would occur on interstate highways, not town streets.

2. If the lake is congested, higher speed makes it more dangerous. Only if you are traveling at high speed in a congested area. 35 MPH could be considered high speed some summer saturdays off the Weirs!

3. If a person is drinking – higher speeds makes it more dangerous. If a person is drinking, ANY SPEED, in ANY VEHICLE is dangerous. If a person is willing to disobey the existing DWI/BWI laws, then they are not going to care about a obeying a speed limit.

4. If a person is not watching where they are going, higher speeds makes it more dangerous. If a person is not paying attention, they are dangerous at ANY SPEED. Just ask the guy in the stationary pontoon boat who was t-boned by a small SeaRay last summer. That collision occured at a speed much less than 45MPH. Had serious injury resutled, the operator of the SeaRay no doubt would have been charged with reckless operation.

5. If a person breaks the 150 foot rule, higher speeds makes it more dangerous. If a person has violated the 150' safe passage law, it doesn't matter what speed he was traveling. If he passes with 50' of you at 45 or at 70 it really doesn't matter, He already violated the law. If he collides with you, then he will be charged with Reckless Operation... a much more serious offense than a speeding ticket.

6. If a person has difficultly seeing another vessel, higher speeds makes it more dangerous. How would a person have difficulty seeing another vessel? Because of the wind? Thats pretty much a crock, without protective eyewear, any on-plane speed can cause you to squint. To me this is the same as #4. If you can't see where you are going, or whats in front of you then you have no right going at ANY SPEED!

Four out of the six statements you made involve violating an already existing law.

Woodsy

Good one Woodsy!!!

From an earlier post, I believe the safe passage law is working in NH. Statiscally NH has one of the best stats. for accidents to boats registered ratio. Boater education can also be stated for increase of safety.
I agree that safe passage is the most broken law though, I am not afraid to say somthing to a operator, and I will.
Everstar: If you want to go out into the broads on a busy weekend, go ahead and do it. You should be safe, but most likly something will happen to ruin your run. It is like crossing the street at Time Square, there are better days to do it than others.
I personally paddle in coves and do not venture far from land. For me this how I get my best enjoyment on a run. Rivers have the best thrills, for me.
Speed is only a problem when the operator uses poor judgment.

Boat safe, boat smart.

Please provide data to support your claim to these medium and high speed FATAL accidents ON WINNIPESAUKEE or at least IN NH.

That's a problem I was not aware of! Are you saying the operator of the Sea-Ray WASN'T charged?

If NH Marine Patrol isn't doing it's job even when they have the ability to do so, then this brings up some serious questions.

Does this picture of a boat on the Broads cause you to feel fear? Why?

1984????????
 

Sure sounds like you are agreeing that the 150 foot rule is not enforcable.

Again although you qualify your response you are saying congestion is a problem. Winni has many problems but slower speeds are the start of solving the problems. Some folks just don’t have the capacity to understand the other side of an argument. All you folks argue is that I want to go fast because I want to and if you are afraid of it then get off the lake. Give me a break.

And why is it that when someone does not agree with you folks that you get nasty. No, your right I must be nuts to think slower is safer. I never called anyone paranoid but I do not think legislating slower speeds it quite what George Orwell was referring to when he wrote his book. Have you read it?

AP - Votes in the Senate not there
 

According to an article on the AP (copywritten so I can't copy and paste) it says HB 162 appears headed to defeat.

The article says some senators are toying with the idea of removing "tidal waters" from the bill while others are considering limiting it to Winni only, but the AP article (time stamped 1138EST 3/14/06) says the plan, as written, appears to have support of only 9 of 13 senate votes needed for passage.

Feedom!
 

I agree with Rayhunt. We don't need the state of New Hampshire legislating their way into our lives any farther. That is the Liberal agenda. They always know what's better for you than you do. Live here in Mass for a while and you'll know what I mean.


The Breeze

Wave 'cause I'll be waving back

Too Much Sense!
 

Woodsy,


Your biggest problem is you make WAY too much sense! Any time you make that much sense all at one time it makes them all EMOTIONAL and they can't process all those facts !!! lol


The Breeze
Wave 'cause I'll be waving back:D

By “USCG accident reports”, I was referring the USCG boating statistics, which don’t include any specific speeds – sorry, my mistake for using the wrong terms. But, even so, have you looked at ALL the NH boating accident reports which involved a fatality? And, if speeds are just estimated how can know that none of these boats were traveling at speeds above 45mph?

There’s nothing at all false about my statement. There would likely be more fatalities if smaller and/or slower boats weren’t afraid to go out on the main lake.

Quote:

I most certainly can use the number of registered boats in the statistics. It is the standard set by and used by the USCG and NHMP. Sorry if you don't like using official government numbers. If you understood math & statistics, you would know that not having to register your kayak works to your favor. If we added another 50,000 or so canoes & kayaks to the registration numbers the death rate per 100,000 boats in NH would be even less.

I actually know way more about math and statistics than you think. Statistics are meaningless unless the data is the same. In NH, boat registration includes sailboats and sailboards (over 12 feet long), and any vessel with a motor (even canoes with an electric motor), while some states only require that motorboats be registered.

Plus you're comparing states that have a much longer boating season than what we have in NH.

The other problem is that the USCG estimates that only about 10% of all boating accidents are actually reported. Some states do a much better job than others and report a much higher percentage of their boating accidents. So NH’s lower numbers could be nothing more than NH’s poor job of reporting accidents.

Personally I don’t see that NH’s boating accident numbers are very good.

Instead of using numbers of boats registered, try using square miles of inland water for comparison. Then you get for the years 2000 – 2004, with our neighboring states:
NH: 382 square miles and 320 accidents = 1 accident / 1.2 square miles of water
MA: 2,717 square miles and 266 accidents = 1 accident / 10.2 square miles of water
ME: 4,523 square miles and 286 accidents = 1 accident / 15.8 square miles of water
VT: 366 square miles and 28 accidents = 1 accident / 13.1 square miles of water

Quote:

As for your statement quoted above I have to take a few exceptions.

Faster speeds ALWAYS increases the chance of an accident happening - Under equal conditions of course!!! I thought that last part was a given. Apparently not.


What I wrote was “higher speeds”, not excessive speeds, and not above the proposed speed limit speeds. So all my statements are true – whether you’ll admit it or not. The USCG states that many accidents have more than one factor as to the cause. You guys just love to dismiss speed as a factor whenever there’s any other possible cause given.

First of all, read some of the previous posts, including your own, then come back and tell me who gets nasty. In fact look at your post quoted in this post, "Some folks just don't have the capacity to understand the other side of an argument", tell me who is being nasty.

I believe that the 150' rule is enforcable because I have seen MP enforce it many, many times, near the entrance of the Weirs channel.

Congestion, that is one of those nebulous terms, means different things to different people. Is the Weirs channel congested on the 4th of July, I would say the answer is yes. Will a speed limit solve that problem, if it is a problem? The answer is no. Is congestion a problem? Well I saw an overhead photograph someone had taken on the 4th of July and it didn't look congested to me. And, if you call that congested, will a speed limit "decongest" it? No.

Finally, I haven't seen anybody say "I want to go fast, if you're afraid get off the lake" except you. Another one of those inflamatory tactics used when logic and STATISTICS do not support your cause.

And unless I'm wrong , I would read your opinion as "Slow down or get off the lake".

And the difference is:confused: :confused: ??????

Makes me Smile
 

You guys (I assume) are sooooooooooooo easy to get cranked up it does make me smile! :laugh:

I knew it, you were trolling, thanks for the honesty and the obvious commitment to your cause.:rolleye2:

Well at least I found out where one of the 50,000 unemployed commedians in this country hangs out:rolleye1:

...up in post #52
 

The photo of the boat up in #52 looks a lot like one of the Marine Patrol's three 27' patrols boats w/ the twin 150 Mercury outboards.

Here's a question for you. If the Marine Patrol officer in that boat hit a kayak while out patroling in the broads beacause neither the reflective orange pfd worn by the paddler, nor the dark blue kayak, nor the reflective white paddle blades were claimed to be visible and all blended into the two foot chop and could not be seen and it caused the death of the paddler. Would that end up as determined in a court to be an accident, a manslaughter, or a homicide, and why?

Too funny...

All you folks argue is that If you want to go fast then get off the lake and do it in the ocean or we'll pass a speed limit to force you off the Lake or deteriorate your experience at the Lake to cause you to leave the Lake. Why, because you want to; not because of safety. You want to do what you want to do when you want and where you want, without any input of common sense or reason or consideration of other users of the Lake - if it goes fast, it must go from the Lake.

Spin and fear is all I read and hear from the proponents.

"Give me a break" is sounding like a broken record from the proponent side of the issue.

You people are something else... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Speed congests...
 

How many of the "little-guy" boats did you count? (Inflatable, canoe, kayak, sail, surfboard). I couldn't find one!

It's not the number of boats that congest the lake's 44,000 acres; it's the speed of the boats that remain when the "little guys" stay home.

Check out Belmont Resident's "signature":

Trolling? Not to April 1
 

No, I was not trolling I am very serious about the speed limit issue. I do not understand the objections to it. Most of the time I feel as though I can argue a point and still remain dispassionate. You guys seem to get very cranked over anyone who thinks slower is safer. I mean be real a speed limit is not about “big brother” and it is not an infringement on ones freedom anymore than any other rules of society or law.

I do agree with the comments that have been made that a lot of the issue has to do with rudeness but rudeness seems to have become the norm. Since, we cannot outlaw rudeness anymore than we can instill common sense into people. My position is slower is better for the majority of the people on the lake.

Additionally I am truly confident that the speed limit will become law it is only a matter of time.

I hope this post doesn’t get you all cranked up again but I could use a morning smile with my coffee.:look:

...the restrictive taking issue!
 

If someone has spent $20-50,000.00 or more on a speed boat, and maybe is paying off a boat loan, then they do not want to have its' speed restricted by a 45-25 speed limit.

It would be interesting to learn what each poster has for a boat and how much it cost. Speed is a matter of scale. A smaller boat gives you a feelng of being closer to the water, gets up on plane at slower speeds, and doesn't require such fast speeds for a speed rush. It's all about scale, just think about the difference between a $4500. 18' aluminum outboard boat and a $45000. 32' inboard fiberglass boat. Is it really necessary to have and use these huge and powerfull boats to enjoy boating?

I'll try to remain to calm and not call people names or tell them they don't have the ability to understand the other side of an argument or call them "least intelligent", I really will. :rolleye2: You are making progress with the rudeness admission, keep looking for the statistics and evidence to support your speed limit, maybe you'll finally come to the realization that it's not necessary. I hope I've given you something to smile about.:D

Respond to the ??????????????
 

Quote:

keep looking for the statistics and evidence to support your speed limit

There is no way to make an argument that you will listen to. How many posts have there been showing that the Coast Guard list speed as “I think” number 4 on the list of causes of accidents. How can you reasonable argue that slower is not safer??????

JDeere


You are correct, speed is the #4 contributing cause of boating accidents.

The kicker to that is that the #1, #2 and #3 causes are already addressed by New Hampshire laws!

Speed is the only major contributing factor that is ignored by our laws.

Speed can be listed as a factor at 10 mph while docking by the Coast Guard standards. What's that got to do with 45 or 65 mph?

Answer
 

If I accept the premise of your question as you obviously have I would have to argue for a speed limit of headway speed. Since I don't accept the premise of your question, but am truly trying to understand your side of the argument I look at the statistic that is continually presented. That statistic, based on an "approximation" (with a tolerance ;) ) is an accident where the boat may have been travelling 28 mph, is the only "evidence" I have seen. I listen to all the "reasons" for the speed limit and at first say, wow there must be a big problem here. Then I look at the public information on accidents on the Lake and find no problem a speed limit will solve. I have spent hundreds of hours over the last few summers on Lake Winnipesaukee on a powerboat, sailboat, row boat, canoe, paddle boat and PWC. I have never seen a speed problem.

The Coast Guard report lists "Excessive Speed" as a the forth operator controllable factor for fatal accidents nationwide. "Excessive speed" does not mean speed in excess of 45 mph. Trying to go 10 mph in the Weirs channel on a busy Saturday is considered an excessive speed. How many times does that need to be explained?

I would expect profound evidence, from the Lake where you are trying to impose this law, supporting your argument. There isn't even weak evidence, certainly there isn't enough to support this speed limit. Find another way to eliminate the class of boaters you don't like. Enjoy your coffee.

Oh, they are there, I saw them when I was out on my sailboat that day. You can't see them in the picture because they are too small. Maybe the pilot can fly lower next time.

Ah yes, "Acres per Second", no agenda here.

No mention of speed in the definition of congest......

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=congestion

con·gest http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/g...4/JPG/pron.jpg ( P ) Pronunciation Key (khttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/g.../GIF/schwa.gifn-jhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/g...GIF/ebreve.gifsthttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/g.../GIF/prime.gif)
v. con·gest·ed, con·gest·ing, con·gests
v. tr.

1. To overfill or overcrowd: Trucks congested the tunnel.
2. Pathology. To cause the accumulation of excessive blood or tissue fluid in (a vessel or organ).

v. intr.
To become congested.

[Latin congerere, congest-, to heap up, crowd together : com-, com- + gerere, to carry.]

What am I missing? That doesn't say: "I want to go fast, if you're afraid get off the lake"

Slower is safer, everyone knows that. The question is really "how slow and how safe?". If the proposed speed limit was a bit higher, I think many more people would support it. 45 is quite slow; I can hit that speed in my driveway. We have roads posted at 55 that cars must share with cyclists and pedestrians here in NH. Cars can legally pass within inches of said cyclists and pedestrians too. In some more realistic states, the same type of roads are posted at 70, imagine that! The death toll must be HUGE!!!

I cannot imagine how anyone could think that 45 is as fast as anyone should ever go with all the visibility and space the lake offers combined with 150 feet of space between boats. It's just as ridiculous as saying "slower is not safer".

Excuse me, but . . .
 

has everyone forgotten that before the GFBL boats got their nickname they were called "Offshore" boats. And that the most vocal opponents of the speed limit bill are the "Offshore" groups, many of whom neither live or boat in New Hampshire. Using their reasoning, I have a car capable of going in excess of 150mph so speed limits should be abolished because they infringe on my freedom to go fast. However, if I do wish to go fast, I can take advantage of the car club's date at NHIS or go to Lyme Rock and scare myself silly. Race tracks are designed for speed. "Offshore" boats are designed for wide open spaces like the ocean (which the speed limit does not affect).

It's not a question of restricting freedom but rather Public Safety. The Public is the majority of the people, not a handful of special interests.

Was that the approached that APS used with the CG accident video?

Will a speed limit prevent what is observed in the photo?

A bicycle type flag would afford visibility of the kayak; but that would require common sense to self-protect and the proponents of HB162 are dependent upon legislation to self-protect themselves from their own actions.

I didn't forget, I just don't really care about the origin of boat names that much. My boat is called a cuddy cabin, should the style of my boat exclude it from certain navigable waterways?

Have you forgotten how "The Broads" got it's name? It's from being wide, open, and spacious.

The fact is, "offshore" boats are excellent for a lake like Winnipesaukee because they ride well in chop and it's a choppy lake. I don't own one though and don't really like them much becuase they lack space and comfort for their price tags.

Don't be misled, there are no "offshore" boats on the market that have the fuel capacity to cross an ocean. They are really "nearshore" machines. An "offshore" boat would be more like a supertanker or container ship. Those "offshore" boats you hate really operate quite close to land (in the whole scheme of things), when in salt water. Not that much different than an area like the broads.

I don't care how fast a boat goes, I just wish they were quieter.

I totally agree with your suggestion of abolishing speed limits on roads. Roads like 93 and 95 should be speed limit free like they are in Germany. Wouldn't it be awesome to be able to travel at a reasonable speed without worry of tickets and insurance hikes? I'd love to be able to cruise at 120+ on my motorcycles. Oh well, that'll never happen.

On the contrary:
off·shore ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ôfshôr, -shr, f-)
adj.
Moving or directed away from the shore: an offshore wind.

Located at a distance from the shore: an offshore mooring; offshore oil-drilling platforms.
Located or based in a foreign country and not subject to tax laws: offshore bank accounts; offshore investments.

Where in the definition of "offshore" does it exclusively relate to the ocean? Furthermore, I'd bet a lot of money that the vast majority of people standing up against this useless legislation are taxpayers in the State of NH that are getting sick and tired (like me) of paying and paying, while at the same time watching their freedoms and rights being legislated away and eroded by the Dr. Feelgoods in Concord that claim they know what's best for us. Live Free or Die still means something to me.

The real issue: What's an acceptable level of risk?
 

I'll agree with the notion that slower is safer in the sense that if I hit another boat going 2 MPH the potential for killing someone would be less that if I hit the same boat at 50 MPH. I think the real question is what level of risk are we as citizens willing to accept to maintain our personal liberties? Are we willing to accept on average 2-3 deaths per year on our lakes?

150 fatalities on our roads last year and there isn't the same chorus of people looking to lower speed limits on the highways. 2 or 3 fatalities on the lake and all of a sudden we NEED speed limits. You know what I think? I think 2 or 3 fatalities a year is an acceptable number. Everything we do has some inherent danager - crossing the road for instance probably killed more people last year than boating accidents.

I agree this is a misguided attempt -a conspiracy by old timers and tree huggers - to get the high powered boats off the lake. If that's the case come out an say it, don't cloak your real agenda in a proposal that is misguided and limits the freedom of the responsible majority.

I hate to propose any idea that would increase safety, because I think the current level of inherent risk is low. Maybe we should focus on laws that reduce fear, since fear is what seems to be pervasive among those who canoe and kayak. I have some ideas for laws. First, make all kayaks and canoes florescent glow-in-the-dark pink, that way no sober boater will miss them. Secondly, pass stiffer penalties for irresponsible boating. If you get caught drunk behind the wheel your boat should be seized on the spot - this includes kayaks and canoes.

The issue becomes fear from stupidity, not fear from speed. There will always be a stupid minority on the lake. Some have argued that we cannot legislate stupidity and I agree, but what we can do is make the consequences to stupid behavoir so stiff that maybe stupid people will think twice.

Lastly, I must say that the points made by the canoers and kayaks are lame. First of all, you have just as much of a right to be out in the broads on the 4th of July weekend as I have to blow by you at 150 ft distance at 100 MPH, just don't complain that its dangerous. Remember what I said about stupidity? Use your head, use common sense...stick to the coves if you feel that you're in danger. There are a lot of things I refrain from doing that one could argue reduce my freedom because I don't feel comfortable doing them in the surrounding environment. Its not my right to change that environment such that the masses are penalized. If you like to canoe in peace and quiet, go to Squam. If you like the ocean experience without so many boats, go to the ocean. If you like a large lake, big waves, and lots of fast boats, come to Winni!

Ok, Dave R . . .
 

so we are splitting hairs over the real name of these boat but we all know which ones we are talking about. I never said I "hated" these boats. There is one nearby whose operator is respectful of the large number of boats in this area. He quietly goes out to the Broads to have his fun and quietly returns. No problem there.

I said "using the reasoning" of the GFBL crowd: I never said I favored abolishing speed limits on our roads. Heavens Forbid! What kind of moron (no insult meant to real morons) would scream at 90 mph around a school or through downtown Wolfeboro!?!? No, rules (including speed limits) are put in place to try and protect the public in general from the actions of the irresponsible few. And the irresponsible few should be held accountable for their actions . . . big time.