You are pointing a study that specifically states that a decrease in boater visits will decrease revenue for NH.

Then you argue that a decrease in boater visits will be an economic windfall.

I understand your opinion about why businesses support a speed limit (and have made it a point not to support those businesses since HB162 days), but the study mentions nothing about speed limits or businesses that support them.

Ironically, I'm precisely the sort of person Winnfabs is supposedly looking out for. I don't own a fast or loud boat, I obey the laws, I'm quiet, I'm courteous, and well-behaved, I spend a lot of money in the lakes region, my boat is clean and well maintained, and I have a choice of places to boat because I trailer. I still keep coming despite the unwelcome atmosphere created by speed limit proponents though, I'm just careful where my money goes.

You keep dodging the question regarding speed limits in those other states where accident rates drop. Did those lakes institute better enforcement policies or what? They don't have speed limits as far as I've seen. Kinda shoots very large holes in your theory BI.

I looked into it. Some have speed limits, most do not. There's no correlation between states where the accident rate dropped and speed limits. There aren't that many states with them.

What I'm arguing is, in agreement with the many businesses that support speed limits for Winni, that the loss of 1% of boats that so many find loud
and offensive could well be offset by a return of other boaters/vacationers.

A win win for Winni....

You replace those that spend a thousand without a second thought for those that squeal like a pig when asked to depart with $10. - another example of kayak math.

Interestingly, you seem to omit the fact that business-wise, more opposed than supported the speed limit legislation.

The good news from Concord - the Dems pushed through legislation allowing 85 million in bonds without public input, so they will be able to adequately fund MP this year, no excuses. Now if they will only pass legislation to require all boaters to register their boat(s), regardless of style or size.

Please define "speed".
The coast guard calls it "excessive speed". But what exactly is excessive speed?
A. Any speed over the limits in HB847
B. Any speed that people are afraid of
C. Any speed deemed excessive for the conditions. This would include a NWZ violation.

The speed limit supporters always point to these stats that discuss "excessive speed". However when asked for the definition of that, they never answer.

It will be quicker if I define denial.

from Webster Online Dictionary

Denial de·ni·al
Pronunciation: \di-ˈnī(-ə)l, dē-\
Function: noun

refusal to admit the truth or reality

My personal definition is "refusal to admit the relevance of US Coast Guard speed statistics to HB847".

Thanks Hazelnut!

Thanks for clarifying my point by listed some of the more important issues.

Most bills that are at all controversial stir up the emotions of people on both sides. At the House Transportation Committee Hearing there were just as many people that testified for the bill as against it - so no matter how a Senator votes, their decision is going to upset a large number of people. Emotional bills are pretty much a no win for them.

There was no "targeted group" - as a lake speed limit affects all boats. That's like saying that highway speed limits targets high-performance cars.

Did you listen to the Senate discussion? Those that spoke in support of the bill, spoke mostly about safety. I've spoken to a number of the Senators who voted in favor of the speed limit - and they believe that it will improve safety on the lake. Going slower is safer - that's a fact, on land and on water. You might not agree with a particular speed limit - but, with everything else being equal, slower is safer.

BTW: One of the Republican Senators who voted against the speed limit actually thinks that Winni is so large that you can't even see land when you're in the middle of it. Talk about being uninformed about something that you are voting against!

The Senator who I worked for always voted his conscience and most of the Senators I know also vote their conscience. Two Republican Senators voted for this bill and two democrats voted against it - so this was not a party-line vote.

I am not a member of WINNFABS.

You obviously know nothing about this senator to make those comments.

The most important bills are the ones that will have the most effect on the most people - not the ones that upset a relatively small, but very vocal, percentage of the population. These are what I call Political Bills - since they generate the most media coverage. Last year's Civil Union bill (HB 437) is a good example of an emotionally charged Political Bill.

Yes, and 1 through 3 all become more dangerous as speed increases. Which is why slower speed are safer.

As far as #4 goes, I do not remember hearing any Senator who voted in favor of the speed limit (or any other supporter) stating that a lake speed limit would eliminate all accidents. Most supporters feel that unlimited speeds on a recreational lake puts some boaters at unnecessarily high risks, which a speed limit will help reduce.

misdirection
mis·di·rec·tion Pronunciation [mis-di-rek-shuhn]

the act of distracting; drawing someone's attention away from something; "conjurers are experts at misdirection" [syn: distraction]

Fear Mongering = The art of citing a ridiculously small percentage of incidents when argueing a point such that the rules of "A reasonable and prudent man" are thrown out the proverbial window and these small percentage incidents are percieved by the mongerors to be the norm when in fact it isn't. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

What Theory? I don't know why accident rates are dropping in other states. I said so very plainly.

I do know that we are going in the wrong direction, while other states seem to be going in the right direction. That tells me something must be done. A speed limit is something we can try quickly and cheaply.

It seems like the opposition wants to try NOTHING! They talk about increased enforcement and improved boater education. However it's just talk, no legislation is being written. No funding is being found.

And that's the big problem with those ideas. They cost a lot of money, and there isn't any. And there isn't going to be any, anytime soon.

So you tell me. How do we turn around the trend? Because your "NO LIMITS" policy is not getting the job done.

Great way to legislate BI, throw enough excrement against the wall and see what sticks? Hey what the heck lets give it a try. :laugh:

Seriously:confused:

As a society I really thought we had advanced beyond the ole hey we have a problem lets use no scientific evidence and treat a bullet wound with chewing gum approach cuz its cheap and easy method. Guess I was wrong?:(

That doesn't sound to crazy to me. The chewing gum might stop the bleeding long enough to get them to a trauma center. I guess the opposition method is to chew the gum while watching them bleed to death.

Expecting a speed limit to reduce accidents is not exactly voodoo science. I think its main stream logic.

Expecting a speed limit to reduce the number of over 45 mph accidents that aren't happening is a pipe dream

WOW did FLL get a hold of BI's computer and screen name????:laugh::laugh:

It's heat stroke :laugh:

For the one hundredth time...define excessive speed as the USCG gas defined it for the sake of their statistics.

You don't want to define it, as it does not fit your agenda, and you know it.

Don't hold your breath waiting for the answer you will turn blue and die first. :laugh:

We all know the Coast Guard definitions. There is no point in going over them again. Post them if you like. You are able to convince yourself that they do not pertain to speed limits. Which only shows how far people can go to rationalize their behavior.

Certainly there is , because excessive speed AKA Coast Guard definition , doesn't necessarily means high speed.
You could have 200 accidents in Weirs channel all at "excessive" speed and all be less than 10 mph:rolleye1:
So to campaign for a speed limit lets just lump them into one catagory to scare people.

Its no use BI there heads are firmly buried in the sand. In their world there in no connection at all between "excessive speed" and "speed limits".:laugh:

There is no connection. They are 2 completely different things and this is exactly what was used to pass HB847, lumping them together along with inciting fear.

I’ve explained all this numerous times before, but you guys still refuse to accept that speed and accidents are connected, so I'll repost this part yet again:

Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski, <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/ /><st1:City w:st=</st1:City>Commanding Officer, <st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> Coast Guard Station <ST1:p<st1:City w:st="on">Fort Pierce</st1:City></ST1:place happens to agrees with me: “Avoiding collisions on the water differs in many ways from avoiding collisions while driving in your car. The one contributing factor which is similar between boats as compared to automobiles is SPEED. It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced.” http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/122098tip.htm

The New Opposition Logo!

actually...

The poll had 64 votes opposed to speed limits, but less than a handful want to replace their Senator?

Some like to tout the USCG statements, but absolutely hate the definition. Rule 6 was another favorite.

From the advocate's responses, you'd think Winni was overcome with tremendous accidents due to speed. But like most other bodies of water, they aren't.

It's been admitted here many times that the primary problems are inattention and drunks. Some say since we can't enforce that, the speed limits are good.

Just how stupid is that?

Islander I know you are just BI's parrot but do you even get it? :confused:

The reality is that you supporters keep posting the coast guard stats on accidents that involve "excessive speed" and sighting the need for a speed limit to cure the "problem, yet "excessive speed" could be 20MPH when a boat is 25 feet away from another vessel or even 10mph in a NWZ or even 6mph when hitting a dock. Is this such a difficult concept to grasp???:confused::confused:

We do? OK what are the Coast Guard definitions? How does the CG define excessive speed?
You are correct. In my world, there really IS NO connection between excessive speed and speed limits.

I will ask yet again...is excessive speed as defined by the CG a speed over the limits defined in HB847?
A yes or no answer will suffice.

Excessive speed can be any speed depending on the situation.

In some situations excessive speed will be less than HB847 limits, and in some instances it will be more.

In situations where the speed of the boat is excessive but less than 45/25, a speed limit is unlikely to make much difference. Excepting that the boat may not even be on the lake if the operator has moved to a lake without speed limits. Boats that have left the lake, can NOT be in accidents on the lake.

In situations where the speed of the boat excessive AND more than 45/25 a speed limit is VERY effective and could save lives.

You guys keep coming up with examples of the first situation. Now why don't you try responding to the second situation. Is a speed limit effective in those situations when the speed is over 45/25?

Tell me some scenarios of excessive speed OVER 45/25 where HB847 doesn't change anything.

Simple: If some one is traveling over the speed limit and they hit some one the law does not help anyone. The person will have already his some one, the damage is already done. Do you really think that the guy that was in voilation is at that time going to care about the speeding ticket? They will be more worried about the damage of the accident.

The problem is how many accidents have occored on lake Winni over your speed limit? How many have happened under your speed limit? The answer is FAR MORE under the speed limit. So have you made the lake safer? NO

Your first point about says it all, remove the boats you do not like from the lake and make them go to another. That is what this is all about.

"Overall, boating remains a safe, enjoyable way for Americans to recreate," adds Rear Admiral Watson

Ooops late for work try and finish later

My point to you is this:
You are interjecting the limits in HB847 in the Coast Guard statistics regarding excessive speed. Yes, there may be some accidents above the HB847 limits. But the point it that HB847 does not eliminate the excessive speed accidents that you are referring to.

Your point is only valid if EVERYBODY IGNORES THE LAW!!!!!!! I will concede that some people will break the law and speed. However most people will obey the law and stay under 45/25, thereby preventing most of the accidents that would otherwise have taken place at excessive speeds over the limit. This is so basic I wonder that you can't see it.

Most people will obey the law. Most boats will stay under 45/25. Most high speed accidents will be prevented.

WOW! Are you wrong about this one!

If your boat is going say 70 mph and you are in a fatal accident do you think the ticket is going to be your only problem?

Even if you did nothing else wrong the speeding violation can make it Criminaly Negligent Homicide!

If nobody dies you will still have a lot more hot water to deal with than a speeding ticket. You are being naive.

I completely agree with the bolded statement.
However...of the statistics given by the USCG, how many of the excessive speed accidents were above the limits in HB847?

This is such a basic question, I wonder why you can't answer it?

I'm glad you admit at last that HB847 will prevent accidents.



Your question does not specify a year or years. Coast Guard statistics are quite extensive.

Is there any reason you can't look this up yourself? Why is it my job to do research for you?

It is your agenda and your burden to prove...

Apparently, a burden you are unable to alleviate, without equivocating...

Because you and BI keep implying that excessive speed means >45/25.

Pick a year, any year.

I never implied that. The Coast Guard definition is not tied to a specific speed. It's based on the circumstances. It can mean higher or lower than the 45/25 limit.

Maybe a down home analogy would get the point across. Let's imagine there was a septic leak from a four bedroom island property that caused a fish kill. We could pass a law to restrict island properties to 3 bedrooms or less. The argument would be made that this would reduce the toxic spill from island properties - and it might. Would it solve the problem? Not really...