safe boating? actually this bill has nothing to do with safe boating. there hasn't been any accidents during the day linked to speed. and all the ones where people we.re going fast were alcohol related. Lynch signed it because senate passed it. Lynch doesn't experience this lake, all he knows is what the media says, and we all know how inaccurate they can be. and when people complain about stupid issues like this speed limit he assumes maybe there is a problem. I'll be supporting lynch's opponent the best i can. its funny how he claims to be cutting government spending and now hes going to invest into this nonsense

As will I in November

Except that isn't true is it.

There was a daytime fatal accident on Winni last summer that did not involve alcohol. You people keep repeating these lies over and over til you believe them yourself.

So 1 accident requires a law? Ridiculous....You people will never get it. There is no problem on the lake with speed. There are zillions of problems with safe passage violations. And accusing people of lying is insulting.

The Govenor needs to go, he probably hasn't been on the lake much and if he took the time to do that he'd know there's no speeding problem. I can't be represented by lazy people. He was either too lazy to see for himself or to lazy to check facts. Plus he's easily swayed by fear mongerers, not a quality I want in a leader.

You may think the Governor needs to go because he signed the speed limit bill. But are you aware that your only alternative is Joe Kenney, one of the co-sponsors of the speed limit bill? This legislation had wide support, except on this forum.

Perhaps you are the one that will never get it. Yesterday the boys and girls camps on the island had their sail boats out. We don't see that very often because it can only happen mid-week when the lake is less congested.

Read from a recent article what the Boston Globe thinks Winnipesaukee's reputation is...
"Long known for thrill-seeking boaters, arcades, and nighttime firework displays that drown out the calls of the loons, Lake Winnipesaukee in the last decade has become an increasingly favored spot of corporate high-flyers and self-made entrepreneurs."

Perhaps one day you will realize the speed limit is not primarily about safety and it never was. Its about replacing "thrill-seeking" with "family" in future articles.

Ya,we wouldn't want any thrill-seeking would we?Like thrillseeking on a rocket ride perhaps?

"Thrill Seeking Boaters" have the same rights to enjoy the lake as do family boaters, kayaks, canoes, swimmers, and sailboats. Unless, of course, your agenda is to get them off the lake....

There is a time and a place for thrill-seeking. When the thrill-seeking of a minority causes children's camps to cancel activities, or when familes are afraid to go out on the water, then its time for a new law. And now we have one.

Here is where we disagree completely. In my opinion thrill-seekers do NOT have the same rights to enjoy the lake. When their trill-seeking negatively effects other people using the lake, then it is time for them to go. Or at least have their activities limited.

Yes, it is my agenda to get them off the lake and I have never hidden that agenda.

HB847 was a good step in that direction.

If that's how it is, about 75% of all posts on speed limits would have vanished. The debate could have been focused on the real problems, congestion and the ability of the MP to enforce the real laws. I seriously doubt the new law will eliminate many of the boats. Sure, some percentage of the GF boats will dissapear. But the majority of the reckless tubers, PWC's, and whatever other boats that routinely ignore the 150' rule will still be there. Generally speaking, the law doesn't impact them most of the time. You really should hope that gas prices remain high, which will have the single biggest impact on lake congestion.

If only people could have been honest in this entire debate. Common ground is in abundance over most of the major problems with safety. You yourself mention many, the NWZ violations being just one aspect. Lake congestion is, and always has been, a major problem on weekends. What makes it a safety issue has been obvious to most people in this debate. But as always, it hard to come up with solutions if the debate itself is disingenuous. I feel it has been, and many of your own comments post-passage have only proven it.

Your fear mongering isn't going to sway my opinion. The laws that are currently in place cover all of the above concerns. There is no reason why any boater cannot travel through the Broads on a Tuesday Morning in May at 55mph.
It's also very strange that any time somebody has opposing views with BI, you find the need to toss your opinion grenades in support. I'm pretty sure BI can interject without a puppet chiming in...

I already started the campain

High speeds and "thrill seeking" have no place on a recreational lake that is shared by small, slow-moving boats. In my opinion, it is insane to allow unlimited speeds on any NH lake.

The Broads are not as open and large as many here seem to suggest. One of the Republican Senators who voted against the speed limit actually stated at the Senate Session that the lake was so large that you can't see land from out in the middle of it. Talk about being totally uninformed!

In reality there's only about 2 square miles of the entire lake that is more than a mile from a shore.

Lazy? Go to his web site and check out his bio...hospital boards, youth sports, president of a company, active in UNH alumni. This seemed like a good time for a repost of a story by tupelo from a few weeks ago.

A Brief and Irreverent History of Early Motoring and Speed Limits on NH Highways

Interesting up to this part.
 

"after 2 years when it was seen that the whole NH economy did indeed not collapse as had been warned, and people still found great enjoyment using their cars, the "no limits" crowd slowly faded away.
THE END"

This part is all wrong.

Small slow-moving boats have no place on a recreational lake that is shared by powerboats.

How many times do you want to go around with this dance? Every one of your illogical points can be met with a similarly illogical counter-point.

And that's a wonderful opinion. Of course "unlimited" speeds are not allowed on the lake to begin with. The fact that some boats may be capable of going faster than you are comfortable with (and may at various times actually EXERCISE this capability) means little.

And powerboats are not traveling at "unlimited speeds" and endangering kayakers, as many here seem to suggest.

You've become a pull-string doll, Evenstar. You have about 5 key phrases that just spill out constantly. And all of these phrases revolve around your ill-conceived and limited view of the lake.

I imagine this post will trigger the "WAH! He's attacking me" phrase now.

Unfortunately the staff at the "Glob" seem to think the world ends at the last T stop. I would consider their opinions entertaining, but not necessarily steeped in fact. For example what are the "arcades" they seem to think number in such great quantities that they should be used as one of the core descriptions of the area? You've got Funspot and what else?

In my visits to the lake before buying a place in Laconia, and time spent thereafter, never once did I hear Winnipesauke primarily described as a place for thrill-seeking boaters, arcades, or fireworks.

Using that sentence as support for a position is no better than "I read it on the Internet, so it must be true".

Why not? We can't share? 'Winni Cowboys' travelling at ludicrous speed have the same rights to enjoy their form of boating as you...no?

A recreational lake is Squam. Nothing bad ever happens on Squam. Safety and Squam are synonymous.

Our state law happens to supports my "illogical point":

New Hampshire RSA 270:1:II states: “In the interest of maintaining the residential, recreational and scenic values which New Hampshire public waters provide to residents of the state and to the promotion of our tourist industry, and in light of the fact that competing uses for the enjoyment of these waters, if not regulated for the benefit of all users, may diminish the value to be derived from them, it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances.”

No speed limit = unlimited speeds (which is apparently another one of my "illogical points".)

Yes they are. I've testified about being endangered and so have many others (and my best friend was a witness to us being endangered several times on winni). Try taking a kayak out on the main lake sometime and see how safe you feel from the high speed boaters.

We've posted this ad naseum, this bill has nothing to do with safety, it's not even funded.
The way I look at his signature on this bill is purely political. His opponent was a co-sponsor of the bill, Lynch may have been persuaded to veto it right up until the Diamond Island accident. At that point he was politically bound to sign it in order to take a campaign issue away from Joe Kenney who would have undoubtedly fear mongered in exactly the same way as the bulk of supporters did, and portray Lynch as responsible! Lynch's comments to the contrary are polictical bull crap.
Could you refresh my memory on that one?
Yesterday was a Tuesday? You only consider Wednesday mid-week? So what is changing?
That would be the article on how the super rich are buying up the summer cottages and building mansions along the lakefront and how the economic downturn isn't impacting the buyer that can afford it? Don't think they are going to be bringing boats with them for their 8,000 to 22,000 sq ft cottages?
That was, is, and shall remain the problem and it won't change at all because of this FEEL GOOD LAW! You're also correct that the biggest immediate impact on lake congestion will be gasoline prices, not this new law.
I know that when I stand at the end of my dock, looking out of Saunders Bay I can't see the other side of the lake. That is probably what your Republican Senator friend was actually trying to say.
You mean because I read it on the internet it isn't necessarily true? :eek:

I think Islander is talking about the fatal jet ski accident, where an underage kid that should not have been on the machine in the first place died. An accident that has nothing to do with the speed limit. The machine in the accident was not capable of excessive speeds. I don't believe that they ever came up with an official cause, the machine was still intact. I think it was drowning in the end.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/...040308/-1/news

Bad parenting was the cause, not speed. The kid should not have been out on it alone, ultimately the parents fault for making the machine accessible.

I am sure someone will flame away, but that is my synopsis.

A recreational lake is Squam. Nothing bad ever happens on Squam. Safety and Squam are synonymous.

:laugh:

Substitute elitism for safety, and you'd be right.

Yup, the only bad thing that ever happens on Squam is one of us manages the Where's Waldo search for a parking spot at the elusive and much fought over public boat launch and makes it onto their lake. Unless we have the right boat, the right clothes, and no one is silly enough to hop off the boat, take a swim and *gasp* have fun, you have to deal with the Preppy Handbook matrons looking down their sunglasses and their noses to let you know "We put a beach on High Haith for YOU people!" Makes me glad to be one of you people.

I'm all for safety, and think everyone should use the lake courteously be they on a boat, PWC, or on a beach somewhere. I just hope the cries of safety don't continue to shroud that Squammy elitism oozing out of some of 'those people' on Winni.

I'm aware that you and your friend have testified about your own perception of endangerment.

I once overheard a story in a forum about a Kayaker that was swamped on Squam by a POWERBOAT<GASP> :eek:

I think the supporters of the bill have tunnel vision. Each and every accident that has occured on Lake Winni was about speed in their minds. What will they blame it on when accidents still happen with the speed limit? On another note Bear Islander are you suggesting in your comment about the BI camp having sail boats out yesterday that the reason was becasue of the passage of the speed limit bill? I don't want to read into anything you're not saying so I'm simply asking if that's what you meant. Thank you! :)

The only thing I realize is you have an agenda, you are entitiled to have an agenda and I am glad you only get 1 vote. I to only get 1 vote, I have no agenda, I don't like stupid , needless laws. Nothing you say or do will ever convince me that a speed limit law will do anything to change the lake, it won't even help your agenda of returning the lake to the days of yesteryear, it just won't happen. Nothing I say will change your agenda, stalemate. However, as the population grows so will the number of people on the lake and my bets are that enforcing the laws already on the books will produce more safety results than this new law that isn't on the books till 1/1/09.

As for the kids camps, if I were responsible for the lives and safety of those kids I would find things to do on the weekends that don't involve venturing out onto the lake and save those events for Monday-Thursday or even Friday AM. Don't most camp cycles run Sunday - Saturday anyway? So basically between kids coming and going on those 2 weekend days it makes sense to keep them close at hand anyway. It's not rocket surgery, and the kids will never feel like they are missing anything if the events are scheduled consistently on weekedays. There's more to camping than just the lake, and they should have events to keep them occupied as such.

The Boston Globe article? I could care less, the media can't be trusted anyway so citing articles in rags I could care less about mean nothing to me.

I'll Miss the Show
 

I have no personal stake in this debate as i do not own a fast boat. My only comment is that I will miss seeing the ocassional really really GF boats make its way from near the Center Harbor Docks to One Mile in less than a minute. It was usually early morning or early evening, no traffic, calm water. I wouldn't want to have it going on all the time, nor when there were other boats in the harbor. But hey, I guess that's why the guys or gals that drove these GFB picked the times they did to open them up, it was safe. ;)

EricP..that's a very good point about the camps. My son is currently at flight camp and they take the campers up at the beginning of the week rather than later on in the week because air traffic is typically lighter then. I'm very pleased that the camp director has my child's best interest at heart.

The situation with camps is not a "stalemate" as you suggest. The speed limit bill is law. That is more link "checkmate".

As a former camp director I can tell you it doesn't work the way you assume. The camps on our island have two week terms, however many children stay for multiple terms or the entire summer. There are already many days in which small sailboats can't go out. Days that are calm or very windy or raining are already out. Plus days when thunderstorms are in the area. Now you want to add three or fours days a week because the lake is out of control on weekends? I don't think so!

However none of this is to the point. If a lake is so crowded with "thrill-seeker" that it is not safe for children in a small boat then something has to change. And that change is the thrill-seekers have to go. If you think lake camps with a total of thousands of children should keep those children on shore because you want to go faster than 45 mph, then you are correct, we will never agree on speed limits.

Just for perspective I was curious about the statement that there are only a couple of square miles that are more than a mile from the shore. I was a bit surprised to see that this is actually a true statement.

Out of curiosity I ran the calculation with only 17 boat spacings from shore. 17 boats could pass in a half mile and I wanted to see how much this would change the two square mile statistic.

The attached drawing shows that it has a rather large impact if you count the square miles that are a half mile from shore. I estimate about 12+/- square miles. I have also included the length of two 5 minute rides at 60 miles per hour to show how big the lake can be.

It is fortunate that we are blessed to have a lake with so many areas that are not ideal to fast boats and still have such open areas where fast boats can roam. Both sharing the lake.

Yeah, right...

So, the next time you're in the middle of the Broads off RG's place on Rattlesnake Island, wave to Canus on Black Cat Island and see if you can see him return your wave.

Yeah, right...

It can work just fine, you just don't like it. [edit]And excuse me but when did Saturday and Sunday turn into 3 or 4 days? Talk about spin! I suggested keeping them close to the camps on the weekend plus maybe Friday afternoon, that's 2.5 days at best 3 if you strecth it to all day Friday as well, but never 4 days. You know for a fact that the lake is not busy during the week, even at your NWZ, so there's no rerason they can't find enough to do for 5 days when it's not busy.[/edit] There's no checkmate as I was referring to our differing opinions, not a chess match of who got their way. There are plenty of nice boating days during the week that would work for the camps. There are also plenty of activities that don't involve boating they could do as well. The lake is not crowded with "thrill-seekers", it's crowded with boats.

There are more boats on the lake now than there was 10 years ago and in 10 years there will be more than there is now. Speed limits won't change that, enforcing safe passage laws will do more for safety 10 years from now than a speed limit law. You want to live on the lake as it existed in the past, it can't happen and never will.

Can you imagine 100 or so years ago someone was out on the lake in a canoe and saw their first motor boat go screeming by at 15 MPH, I'm sure that caused quite a stir as well back then. Times change, we can't stop that and making the wrong decisions today will just make it worse later. If we enacted a law every time someone complained about something they didn't like nothing would ever be better. It already happens to much as it is but that's a different thread altogether.

I am not the "thrill-seeker" you envision. I enjoy everthing the lake offers. I get a thrill riding my jetskis and get the same thrill kayaking around and seeing all the wildlife that frequents our lake, or just sitting on shore relaxing looking out over the lake and taking in all that beauty. I am just against people imposing their will on me when it doesn't make sense or is just plain wrong. I do the same thing at work, I force policies to be reviewed because things change and so should policies, etc..

Anyway, point being the speed limit law, In my Opinion, is dumb.

I thought this wasn't about safety or speed limits but congestion? Color me confused again.

Exactly how many "thrill seeking" boats are on the lake causing this 'congestion' you speak of?

From what I've observed, they are the minority of the population on the lake, somewhere behind bowriders, cabin cruisers, bass boats, sailboats, jet skis, kayaks, canoes and floating trampolines.

Going back to my observations from my earlier post, with little or no MP presence during the busiest of boating weekends (last weekend), HB 847 is going to be extremely difficult to enforce and not the solution the SL crowd is looking for.

Bear Island Camps
 

A no wake zone near the camps will alleviate some issues, but not all. And I'm not 100% sure that it would make the directors anymore likely to send kids out on weekends. As I stated before one of the reasons that the boating programs were stopped on weekends, was because the kids didn't enjoy the activities due to congestion (ie too many wakes). Both camps are in a pretty busy part of the lake, and there is a lot of wave activity around both boating beaches (Lawrence and Noko). The Lawrence boating beach is actually pretty protected as it stands right now. Most boats go out around Dollar Island instead of in between. And if a NWZ was put in place that area would be the most logical. But the boats going out around Dollar still provide enough waves to make it pretty rough near the boating beach. Water skiing either in front of Noko or on the Mark Island side of Lawrence was not fun for the campers. They would stand up and then hold on for dear life as they bounce over waves. Where Lawrence skis is even somewhat protected because not many boats curl back towards Bear after they clear the markers in front of Mark. They instead continue on to go around the end of Bear. Those boats as well as the boats passing between Meredith Neck and Bear, heading by Cattle landing, make enough wakes to make it rough for skiing. The way I see it the only way to make it possible for kids to use the Lake 100% of the time is to limit Lake access. On weekends we only allow X number of boats to be moving on the lake at one time. Maybe there could be a deli number system? There is a VHF channel with someone calling numbers and everyone within a certain range of numbers can move and everyone else has to stop. :-) Just an idea

So basically a speed limit won't help either camp on the weekends. There will still be plenty of boats and wakes. Fear was created using the camps for affect to pass a law that offers no hope of removing the "fear" they created. Lovely.

Yep, that pretty much sums it up. Bear Islander's observation that camp children were enjoying the lake for the first time on a Tuesday versus Mid-Week?

I'm still waiting for the outline of the 47 speed related accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee in 2006 as well.

BI? IG? Anyone?

You should read more carefully

"Yesterday (Tuesday) the boys and girls camps on the island had their sail boats out. We don't see that very often because it can only happen mid-week when the lake is less congested."

Clearly I am talking about Tuesday as being "mid-week".

And I checked the accident list. I found 44 accidents involving speed. I might have missed three. Perhaps you can go back and read them again. This time use a dictionary definition of speed, rather than your personal definition.

Who is IG? Island Girl?

Of those 44 accidents involving speed. How many were at or above 45 MPH? It's one thing to say "speed was a factor" but that may not mean the new law would have applied. Again 10 MPH within 150' of anything and causing an accident would mean "speed was a factor" but that would not mean HB847 would apply. I would like to see this list, maybe there's been a link and I've missed it, but I think there would be a botatload (pun intended) of activity here if in fact there were that many accidents over 45 MPH! I am thrwoing a flag on your citing of 44 accidents and tying them into HB847 unless you can show me they were all over HB847 limits.

Who said anything about HB847 limits?

Airwaves has some point to make about the 2006 statistics. He asks how many involved speed. The problem, like I said, is that he is using his own definition of speed. If he wants to know how many involved speeds over 25/45, then that is a different answer.

He knows all this very well, he is trying to make some kind of point that escapes me. However I have answered his question as asked.

He also has claimed that ALL accidents have a speed listed by number which they clearly do not. I don't think there is a link to this data. Only a synopsis put together by Woodsy.