I don’t lie. I never said that every close call that I’ve had with high-speed powerboats was on Winni – many have been on other large NH lakes, which is why I’m upset that the bill has been so watered down that it currently only applies to Wini. But I have had close calls on Winni, and the boats were going way faster than 30MPH, and they came way closer than 150 feet, before they even noticed me. Since you weren’t there, what gives you the right to call me a liar?

There is a problem. Just because you haven’t had any close calls with powerboats, is not proof that others haven’t. Just because no one has been killed in recent years is not proof that paddlers like me haven’t had close calls. I know plenty of other paddlers who have had very similar close calls as I have – most of whom now refuse to even paddle on Winni, because of the bad experiences they have had. I know one NH Senator who will be voting for the speed limit bill. She told me that her husband had a very close call with a powerboat when he was kayaking. At last year’s Transportation Committee hearing, a number of paddlers told of having close calls with high-speed boats on NH lakes. I suppose that we must all be lying.

And I’ve seen plenty of boats on Winni that were going faster than 45 MPH. If all the powerboats on the lake are traveling at under 45 mph, why is there so much opposition to this bill?

Right. I post in support of the bill and 7 members immediately attack me. Most of the hot air is obviously coming from the other side. You guys have this bullying attitude, where you feel that having more HP gives you the right to put other boaters in danger. But in an intellectual debate you can’t even compete with one college girl, without ganging up on her.

I’m not super-human . . . I’m just in very good shape. I do notice high-speed power boats – but how am I supposed to avoid danger when they are traveling so much faster than me. At my maximum speed of 6 mph it takes me nearly 2 seconds just to travel the length of my 16 foot kayak. In that same 2 seconds a 70 mph powerboat covers 205 feet of lake.

First of all, I don’t pee in lakes (or even in the ocean). I doubt that I could even do so without tipping my kayak over. Kayaking requires effort, so getting dehydrated is usually more of a problem than having than having to pee. And it really is not all that difficult to return to shore and pee in the woods, should the need actually arise.

You guys crack me up. You are actually suggesting that my supposed need to pee in the lake is more harmful to the environment than a powerboat’s gas powered engine.

Miami "Я" NOT Us
 

Let's start with these:

1) The speed that doesn't cut kayaks in half, or
2) The speed that doesn't launch a Donzi dealer into a 32-foot cabin cruiser to kill a married couple, or
3) The speed that doesn't send a Dominator 130-feet up a hillside after killing two boaters.

An after-dark 25-MPH is generally regarded as reasonable, even by the few detractors of Winnipesaukee speed limits. Under several adverse conditions/alcohol, one could still be charged additionally with Failure to Keep a Proper Watch, as Littlefield was: unless they're totally wasted, drinking speedboaters become thrill-killers.

At a then-legal 45-MPH speed, Littlefield could have gotten away with leaving a debris field in his wake, keeping his killer 4½-ton boat out of sight, and leaving scant evidence of criminal activity. In leaving no witnesses, there'd be no prosecution and, subsequently, no House Bill 162 or 847. At "only" 28-MPH, two witnesses remained to trigger the hit-and-run investigation. With New Hampshire's new $2000 theshold for reporting collision damage—and slower speeds—the case wouldn't have made headlines. (Or the one new law that the Legislature has already made.)

I, for one, am delighted for the witnesses.

How about "Lake Lice"? And the paddlers they "can't see"?

Are there maybe two dozen Winnipesaukee testosterone-driven sociopaths who have driven Winnipesaukee's HB-847 to this point? :confused: It's not the family boaters who are to blame for a few dozen ocean-racers' transgressions on Lake Winnipesaukee: one Long Lake resident regarded the nearby double-fatality by observing, "This isn't Miami".

Agreed: even on the trailer, ocean-racer propellers can kill. Many have razor-sharp "Cleavers".

To avoid "cleaving" the neighborhood kids, special caution should be observed by ocean-racers. Covers, boxes, and gloves are manufactured for razor-sharp propellers with the same Kevlar that is used in bullet-proof vests.

Here's a photograph provided by a retailer of those protective devices:

I think the joke is on you if you actually took that tongue-in-cheek seriously. It was almost is ridiculous as HB847. Your comment does shed light on your intentions though, ban all powerboats since the boats themselves and not the drivers are the root of all evil. I am sure all of those 1972 evinrude outboards on the lake that spew gas and oil into the water due to lack of efficient combustion do just as much. Just ban them, just ban them all...

Without taking the time to read every one of your previous posts I can honestly say that you have without a doubt cast an illusion to all of us that your close calls were on Winni and that this is a terrifying place to be. You have also tripped over yourself insinuating that you have been on Winni countless times yet in another post it has come out that you have not truly spent much time on this place many of us call home.

So, which lakes have you had the close calls on? How many others in NH are truly big enough for high speed traffic or actually have any high speed traffic anyhow? Without looking it up, what are the 4 largest lakes in the state and what is their size comparison to Winnipesaukee? Let me get you started. The next closest lake to Winnipesaukee in size is your beloved Squam. If your close calls took place there then your speed limit is not working. Squam is considerably shallower and rockier than Winni and also only 15% of the size. Big difference. How many 38' fountains have you seen on Squam? On Ossipee? Umbagog? Newfound? the Connecticuits? Winnisquam? Massabesic? Having been on many of these lakes myself I have not seen a speed issue other than an occasional rogue bass boat going for a beer run. After Squam the next closest lake in size is 10% of the size on Winni. Please tell us where your close calls have occurred so we can hand you a shovel to dig a deeper hole.

How about your car or are you a peddler and a paddler? How many close calls have you had on the NH highways yet as previously mentioned there has been discussion of raising the speed limits???

Hey, I didn’t bring up the environment issues – you did! I never said that we should ban all powerboats.

I just found it humorous that that you needed to stoop so low as to try to make an environmental issue out of my supposed need to pee in the lake, in an attempt to poke fun at me.

My intentions here are only to support a lake speed limit because I honestly believe that one of the best ways to make the lake safer is to slow down the fastest boats. I have the right to support this bill – just as you have the right to oppose it. But you don’t have the right to make personal attacks on me.

Well, maybe you should take the time to read my past posts, rather than accuse me of writing something that I never wrote. I’m really getting sick of being accused of lying – which is a personal attack on me – which happens to be against the rules of this forum.

I have paddled over 500 miles on NH's lakes in the past two summers - many of these miles was on Winni. My best friend and I had our first close call with a high-speed powerboat the very first time that we kayaked on the lake. Since that episode I’ve had a difficult time convincing her to kayak on Winni.

I've always been comletely honest here - I’ve never once insinuated anything. In my very first post I openly stated that I had never kayaked on Winni before – which is why I originally joined this forum – to learn more about kayaking on the lake. I’ve never once implied that Winni is a terrifying place – if it was, I would not kayak on it. I merely stated that I feel is very dangerous to allow powerboats to continue to travel at unlimited speed on a lake that is also used by small human-powered boats.

I’ve had close calls on several of these lakes – I don’t feel that I need to document every encounter here – I live only 3 miles from Moore Reservoir, which is one of the lakes where I’ve had numerous close calls (since I paddle there the most). A boat doesn’t have to be a 38’ fountain to be dangerous to a kayak – and many bass boats (as well as other types of powerboats - and even jet skiis) can and do go faster than 45 mph. My best friend and I were nearly run over by a high speed powerboat on the Connecticut River two summers ago.

Hey, I never posted that I’m in favor of raising the speed limit – in fact I posted that I didn’t believe that bill would get very far, for environmental reasons.

I didn't call you a liar, I was just pointing out the problems I have with your story. You seem to get very upset whenever someone does not agree with you or points out the inconsistencies in your story.

The personal attack song is getting old too. The world doesn't revolve around you, no one is "personally" attacking you. You know this is a passionate subject, if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. I won't stand idly by and let you post all these stories of mayhem and danger when I can pretty much guarantee that over the past 10 years I have spent more time on the lake than you and I know that your portrayal is wrong.

Your chance of having all these "close encounters" with boats going over 45 mph is pretty much nil since most boats travel the lake at less than 45 mph. That means these "close encounters" you have had are with boats going less than the proposed speed limit ergo the speed limit will not help you.

I really don't care if you agree with me or not, but you accused me of lying when you posted - Since I stated that the boats were going over 30 mph, you're calling me a liar . . . again. And stating, is also calling me a liar. Those are personal attacks in my book.

I have had closed calls with powerboats going faster than 30 mph. You don't have to believe me, but since you were not there, how can you be so sure that it didn't happen? The world doesn't revolve around you either - yet you have this attitude that, if you haven't experienced it, it could not have happened to anyone else.

I don't really care how much time you have stent on Winni in the part 10 years - I'm not talking about the last 10 years. But I doubt that you have kayaked any where near as many miles on NH lakes as I have in the past 3 summers - which is when I've had the close calls with powerboats - both on Wini and on other NH lakes.

If you can't have a civil debate without resorting to personal attacks, you have no business being part of the debate.

things have changed but instead of blaming the inconsiderate people and the fact there's more people on the lake you put it all on GFBL boats

Like a MPH speed limit on the roads????

OK speed limit isn't enforceable they have no fixed platform for them to use Radar accurately according to the manufacturer....I would think that you should be more Prohibition since almost ALL accidents are alcohol related

By the way what other BIG lake in NH have you had issues with...I have been on quite a few lakes and only winnie has the GFBL boat you seem to have issue with.....could it be they where GFFB ( go fast family boats)

Come on now guys , lets give Evenstar a break here. She's already pointed out how unsinkable and indestructable and made for BIG water a sea kayak is. She can paddle like no one else and at 20 years of age or so , I'm sure she knows everything there is to know. I know when I was that age I certainly did. The only thing she seems to fear are speeding boats. I wonder exactly what she considers a close call:confused:50 feet , 20 feet or maybe even 150 feet is too close. The only thing I would ever consider having been a close call was NOT from a speeding boat but your typical 18' to 20' rented bowrider with captain bonehead at the wheel. And most of these can barely to 45 so speeding is certainly not their problem:rolleye2:

Cal, you might find this comment to an online Union Leader article of interest:

Cal, you might also find the comment from Arwen Mitton of Littleton very interesting, too.

Collateral damage
 

So, the truth comes out. Mr. Pilliod is trying to eliminate fear by punishing the bad boys with the big boats. Now, what about the bass boats, which can go just as fast, but are much lighter and generally come with courteous pilots. Maybe the rules should be rewritten that no boat over two tons can go over 45. The bass contests are won by getting from one favorite bass hole to another before the competition. The boats are expensive, and computer designed to be stable at high speeds. One could (and some do) argue that nobody needs to go that fast, but that is opinion, not a reason for a law.

Jet skis are another craft that will be impacted by trying to get the 'big guys'. Some of them go 60 with ease, and it is the pursuit of happiness to do so. This type of craft causes more anger than fear, and lowering their speeds will do nothing to reduce anger. There are more fools driving them, but they are very maneuverable. There have been deaths on jet-skis, but speeds over 45 don't seem to be the cause.

So since Mr. Pilliod says "It has to with a lack of courtesy on the part of the, I’ll call them ocean going vessels", then the law should not be so broad based against the freedom to persue happiness for those without the big boats.

Not that it's any of your business, but haven't been 20 for many, many years - so please stop trying to discredit me because of how old you think I am. Again, personal attacks have no place in a debate, and happen to be against the rules of this forum. (And, yes, making fun of someone is a personal attack.)

Some of you on this forum have referred to kayaks (and sea kayaks) as toys (or worse) - and you seem to think that a "real" boat has to have a high horse-power motor - and that only "real" boats should be allowed out on the main lake. Some of you feel that all kayakers are inexperinced boaters, and that we all get in major trouble whenever the lake gets a little rough. I've merely tried to present the other side here, as an experienced sea kayaker (there happens to be a LOT of us that paddle on NH lakes).

I've stated several times what too close is - but here it is again: A close call when a powerboat, traveling at a high speed, is way closer than 150 foot of my kayak and is still traveling straight at me. I consider having less than a second to live a close call.

Oh, This Hurts...
 

Get used to it.

"They" said the same thing to me when I started the thread "Close Call Today".

When I finally located that thread-starter just now, I found one "Go-Fast" has a problem obeying New Hampshire's boating navigation laws.

Guess who that might be? :laugh: :laugh:

HINT: Oh, I can't STAND the irony! :D :laugh: :rolleye2: :emb: :laugh: :rolleye1: :laugh:

YOU DONT GET IT,DO YOU?Those boats are already in violation!!!! Thank you very much for MAKING OUR POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!

Evenstar, I don't think people really mean to say you are lying. What they are saying is that your estimates and assumptions are wrong.

You say that you have personally witnessed speed enforcement on Squam, but we know that no one has ever been ticketed for speeding on Squam. So you must be mistaken or your definition of enforcement is different than mine.

You say you've had many close call with boats going over 45 MPH, but you have no way to accurately measure their speed. So you are estimating. Since the statistics don't support your numbers, I tend to believe your estimates are wrong. When you made these estimates, you say that you were in great fear or a second from death. This is usually not a good frame of mind for accurate analytical thought.

You say this happens to you often. Once again the statistics don't support that. So again your fear, may be coloring your memory. Or your definition of often is different than mine.

OK one place that I think you are bending the truth. Are you saying that your grandfather kayaked in Winnipesaukee in the 1930's? So he had a kayak in NH in the 1930's? From what I've read about kayaks, the plans to build them didn't leave their native areas (Greenland and Alaska) until the 1950's and commericial production didn't start until the 1960's.

Have you taken a boaters safety course? If not, you should. I think it would provide some insight as to the boating laws that are in effect and how the situation that you describe is already in clear violation of existing laws. Many issues that you have described, and other as well are covered under existing laws. The 150' safe passage law is one of the most prominently broken on Winnipesaukee on a daily basis. Look at it this way, if a boat is doing 50mph towards you but never encroaches on that 150' safe passage barrier you will never be hit...It doesn't matter if that boat is doing 10mph or 100mph, if the existing law is adhered to a speed limit is of no use.

Regardless, if a boat is doing 45mph and the driver is not paying attention you are at risk of being hit. Failure to maintain a proper lookout is the issue here. Another commonly broken law, and one of the ultimate reasons why the death in Meredith took place years back. That and a lotta booze...

My point is this, and without any personal attacks: The existing laws need to be enforced. Another law that will not be enforced is not worth the paper it is written on. Bear Islander has made comments I found startling- he did not really care about the enforcement as long as it was passed and that just having it on the books is good enough. If this is the way you feel I think you will be disappointed in the end.

Could the kayak vs powerboat "close calls" be a vision thing?...Kayaks are difficult to see most of the time, especially if the water is "choppy"...Same with the jet skis that don't have the tell-tale straight up spray...Why don't they pass a law that will make them more visible?...In some other states (California for example) They require a tall orange flag on ski boats when skiing as well as at the dunes when offroading...Put these on the kayaks and they will be seen...and avoided...I have a VERY fast boat and am an ex-offshore racer...I have been on the lake for 50 years and ALWAYS had a fast boat...(45-50 mph Centurys, 100 mph Hondo/Sanger drag boats, 70-80 mph jet boats, 22'- 32' 75-120 mph offshore V-bottoms & cat boats etc...) I have NEVER had a ticket but have been stopped for "safety checks" numerous times...I have SCARED myself MANY times but always lived to tell the tale and never involving anyone but myself...My point being, it is the "other" boneheads out there that SCARE me so I try to avoid those that look like they don't know what they are doing...(and there are too many out there that fit this description: DRUNKS-DUMMIES-DOPES+DISTRACTED "boaters")...If I want to go FAST I head out to the BROADS, choose my line and go...Even on weekends the BROADS can usually support a couple speed runs with out encroaching ANYONE...SAFELY!!!...Speed limit during the day...NO WAY...Speed limit at night..."might" be RIGHT...Enforce and obey the laws as they are written and let's move on...Thanks for letting me give my 2 cents....

I get it just fine, thank-you.
Here’s the thing: whenever a boat is traveling above no wake speed, if it runs into another boat, it has to be in violation of the 150 foot rule. After all, it’s sort of impossible for one boat to collide with another one, when it is still 150 feet away.

If you had been paying attention to my posts, you would seen where I have posted (several times) that one of the main reasons that we need a speed limit is that when boats are traveling at high speeds, some operators apparently don’t see smaller boats until they are closer than 150 feet.

It is also true that the faster a boat is traveling, the less time the operator has to avoid an object in its path, or to stay outside of the 150 foot limit.

For these reasons, I feel that a speed limit will result in a reduction in the number of 150 foot violations.

Then why don’t they just say that, rather than constantly trying to discredit everything that I post? I’ve stated before that I have language issues (the result of a severe head injury when I was very young). I am very literal, but I still think it’s pretty clear that I have been accused on lying a number of times in this one thread.

First of all, I don’t know that no one’s ever been ticketed on Squam for speeding – I’d like to see the proof of that. Secondly I’ve seen boats stopped for speeding – isn’t stopping someone who is speeding enforcement? (And I was close enough to hear what the person was being stopped for.)

I happen to be extremely visual, since the right side of my brain is overdeveloped – I test “off the charts” in special awareness. Because of this I tend to be pretty accurate in being able to estimate things like speed and distance. That’s because I can only think in images. Plus I have spent a great deal of time on Squam, where the fastest boats consistently push the 40mph limit – so I have a pretty good idea of what 45 mph looks like.

I don’t believe that I ever said that I’ve had “many” close calls or that I’ve been in “great fear” – what I posted was that I have had close calls, and that speeding boats have come way too close for comfort. In defining “close call”, when I stated that a boat was less than a second from hitting me, I realized that I should have added “if they continued their course” (but I can’t edit my posts). I happen to have an extremely good visual memory, even in tense situations.

My grandfather was a carpenter and he purchased his kayak as a kit – from Sears and Roebuck Company. Based on my uncle’s age at the time, this was sometime in the late 1930’s. So, I’m not “bending the truth” – I based the date on what my uncle stated.

I’ve already explained how high-speed contributes to violation of the 150 foot rule, which is in my opinion, a pretty good reason to enact a speed limit.

I’ve haven’t take that course, but I have read the rules numerous times, and I do own the latest copy. I kayak and sail so my studies are a bit broader and more specialized. I took kayak lessons, from a certified sea kayak instructor when I bought my first kayak. I’ve also attended advanced paddling workshops, and I also took a coastal navigation workshop. Now I’m learning the rules of competitive sailing (the book is over an inch thick, to give you an idea of the number of rules involved here). I’m also employed by my university to instruct and supervise other students on the use of kayaks, and have had Red Cross CPR and first-aid training.

I do care about enforcement, but I also believe that most boaters will obey a speed limit on Winni, if the bill passes - so I believe that the estimated costs for enforcement are way higher than what the actual costs will end up being.

VERY well said codeman. :cheers:

You know what, I really don't care that you think I called you a liar. It's funny that when you lose in the realm of ideas and reality you pull the oh the world is against me routine, claim the "other side" isn't playing fair and start crying about personal attacks.

I don't believe your story, even though it sounds like you do. Statistically, what you believe is happening to you, just isn't possible, unless the Department of Safety is lying.

Refer to this report: http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/s...rveyreport.pdf

From the actual results, eleven (11) boats out of 3800+ were clocked at a speed above 50 mph, eleven. This is over 135 hours of checking. Now they don't specify if those eleven came by in one group or if they occurred randomly throughout the case. I will assume that they occurred randomly throughout the test, because that's the best case for your stories. So if they occurred randomly we could spread out the occurances and say that once for every 10 hours of testing, a boat went by at greater than 50 mph. Not very good for your stories. I want to be fair here, so in the report it states that 36 boats were clocked at greater than 45 mph, less than 1% of the total, but still better for your stories (many "close calls" on the lake). Again we'll assume they randomly occur throughout the test (better for your stories) so over 135 hours, you might see 1 boat over 45mph in about 3 hours.

So now lets talk about a close call. A close call, as you describe them to bolster your pro SL view, would have to be a boat, travelling greater than 45 mph, coming closer than 150 ft to your kayak, just like you say in one of your posts.

So I've laid out the case, for your "close call", in the hours that you are out there, if 100 boats go by you (unlikely), the one that is going over 45 mph comes within 150 feet of your kayak (which is extremely unlikely). Now to claim this has happened many times, well I'm calling BS.

I think you were legitimately scared per one of your posts, ON THE CONNETICUT RIVER, years ago. This has messed up your perception of power boats to the point that you think they are all travelling above 45mph and within 150 feet of you. It just can't be true.

Enacting a law, on faulty perceptions, totally ignoring a study that determines there isn't a problem is nuts. I'm telling you now, a 45 mph speed limit isn't going to help you.

FYIs...
 

FYI, your quoted "Ramsey Tidwell" did a cut-and-paste of Woodsy's winni.com post from three years ago!

Tidwell, (an alias of old) is presently spamming out-of-state boating websites to overthrow deliberations by New Hampshire's Legislature.

http://www.wmi.org/bassfish/bassboar...ics/T61402.htm
http://www.ridepwc.com/blog/single/n...e_coming_soon/

http://www.bulletinboards.com/v1.cfm...eb357&expand=y

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/lake...TI7IFJRDF0H251

http://bbcboards.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=243110

http://bbcboards.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=243113

(One of the above links proposes a new law on Long Lake against 500-HP boats.)

FYI, commercial production and retail sales began 100 years ago with Klepper (often seen on Winnipesaukee), and 75 years ago with Folbot. One of my Folbot brochures shows an early Folbot kayak cartopped on a 30's car having wooden spokes!

I keep two vintage Folbots on Winnipesaukee, but don't use them for a reason that could change by this summer. ;)

This kayak is ¼-mile away, and bears the worst possible combination of colors for visibility to over-powered boats.

Is there a danger to him (or her) that I can't see? :confused:

If you are correct in the kayak being 1/4 mile away which I will take your word for, it does prove a point. The distance between the kayak and the powerboat in my perception would still be well over the 150' and therefore not in any violation.

I agree that the color choice is not the greatest for visibility, that much is true. Your spin on the visibility being bad for over-powered boats is crap, it is poor for all boats.

While i sit here and read the fireworks on each side of the speed limit issue. It sounds like Hilliary and Obama. Can someone out there just say simply that they love the lake for what it is. Beautiful water in a high place.
The best time on the lake is drinking that first cup of coffe on the dock before anyone is out on the water, be it a 4 ton ocean vessel or the guy doing 60 in his bass boat. If you have to go fast to enjoy the lake i feel sorry for those people. If you need a huge show off boat to have fun i feel sorry for those people. I have said before the lake is not what it used to be.
As big as the lake is, it gets real small at 70 plus mph. If you can't go fast
then maybe you will see that Winnipesaukee is ''Beatiful water in a high place" Maybe we should keep it that way. Is it possible?

Evenstar, you ask not to be personally attacked yet maybe you should take the time to think about your posts from a different point of view. So far you have claimed to be basically super-human in strength due to your incredible power in a kayak, you have incredible vision, you are very literal, extremely visual, you test off the charts in special awareness, you have an extremely good visual memory, pretty accurate in estimation skills, and are basically perfect at every thing you do.

Who are you trying to impress? Touting yourself up like this makes you look rather pathetic in my opinion. Very egotistical. It is simply not necessary and does not bolster your opinion.

I am sorry that you had a head injury when young, I truly am. I fractured my skull when I was in 2nd grade. Regardless, what does it matter here? We don't hear you talking so nobody is giving you a hard time about your language skills and you have no problem in your writing skills.

The facts are the facts in this case. Studies have been done to prove that the law is not necessary and now the proponents do not really care about enforcement? It is absurd, the whole thing is absurd.

I don’t feel that the world is against me – what is clear is that you guys feel that you are losing this debate with me, since a number of you have stooped to personal attacks, hoping to force me off this forum.

I've read the report – but it is very misleading because it only presents what was covered - without clearly stating what was left out of the study. To do statistical analysis, you need to know what percentage of a target area was part of a study. The report gives no percentages at all. It never gives what percentage of the lake was included in the study, or even what percentage of the total boating hours were included in the recording of boat speeds. Here’s a more accurate analysis:

Based on a 10-hour boating day, the 11 weeks in this study add up to 770 hours (10 hours x 11 weeks x 7 days/week), yet speeds were only recording over 135 hours. And that’s a total of 135 MAN HOURS – for all the sample areas combined. If all 9 sample areas were covered equally, speeds were recorded in each area for a total of only 15 hours over the entire summer – which is less than 2% of the daytime boating hours for this 11 week period.

98% of the time, at each of the study sites, speeds of boats were not being recorded at all. And this is assuming that only one officer was present at the time (But the report leads me to believe that two officers were likely present: “In high traffic areas it would be prudent for safety purposes if radar is employed, to have two officers in the vessel, one concentrating on the radar and the other focused on the patrol boat operation and it’s relationship to other vessels.”) If two officers were present all the time, this further reduces the total recorded time to less than 1% of the daylight boating time.

So, at best, speeds were recorded during only 2% of the total daylight boating hours. And yet 11 boats were still recorded at speeds of over 50mph. If we assume that this is a fair sampling (as you seem to be suggesting), these 11 boats actually translate into an estimated 539 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph (over the entire 770 total daylight boating hours during the 11 weeks of the study). And that’s just in the sample areas of the lake! What about the rest of the lake?

So, based on the study, approximately 539 boats were traveling at speeds over 50 mph last summer – just within just the study area. Isn’t it possible that some of these boats may have not seen a certain sea kayak until they were closer than 150 feet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671 (Post 61840) Evenstar, you ask not to be personally attacked yet maybe you should take the time to think about your posts from a different point of view. So far you have claimed to be basically super-human in strength due to your incredible power in a kayak, you have incredible vision, you are very literal, extremely visual, you test off the charts in special awareness, you have an extremely good visual memory, pretty accurate in estimation skills, and are basically perfect at every thing you do.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
I never claimed to be super-human. But I am in great shape (Believe me, you have to be in pretty great shape to compete as a varsity athlete – and I do the exact same workouts and have to pass the exact same fitness tests as the much younger athletes on my team.) Plus I was taught how to paddle correctly, so I use more than just my arms. And I’m 6 feet tall, so I have a pretty long reach. If you don’t believe my paddling abilities, borrow a kayak and come with me some time.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
That was supposed to read “spatial” awareness – not “special” awareness (I told you that I have language issues. And I'm not allowed to edit my posts, so I can't even correct my error.) I have been tested by experts – more than once. Doctors (and my professors) tell me that my thinking process is very unique. When I tried to explain my differences, you just see it as being egotistical. All I’m trying to do is explain myself here. Believe me, I don’t think that I'm better than other people – but I do know that I’m very different in some basic ways. Most of my life I've just wanted to be normal.
<o:p></o:p>

Quote:

Who are you trying to impress? Touting yourself up like this makes you look rather pathetic in my opinion. Very egotistical. It is simply not necessary and does not bolster your opinion.

<o:p></o:p>
You guys are constantly questioning my abilities – all I’ve done is try to defend myself. And I’ve been completely honest in what I’ve written concerning my abilities (and in my inabilities).<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>

Quote:

I am sorry that you had a head injury when young, I truly am. I fractured my skull when I was in 2nd grade. Regardless, what does it matter here? We don't hear you talking so nobody is giving you a hard time about your language skills and you have no problem in your writing skills.

<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
It matters because my ability to judge distance, speed, or to remember the details of something visual was questioned here. How is admitting that I have language skills “touting myself up”???? When I wrote that I’m very literal – that was not bragging – it was admitting one of my many shortcomings. It was also an attempt to explain my understanding of what others write in their posts. And you’re very wrong, because I do have major problems writing. Writing is extremely difficult for me. I cannot even think in words, but only in images. At college it takes me more than 3 times as long as the average student to write a paper. Does that sound like I think that I’m perfect? Believe me; I’m not even close to perfect. But I do know that I am very good at some things, and I will continue to stand up for myself when my abilities are questioned.
<o:p></o:p>

Quote:

The facts are the facts in this case. Studies have been done to prove that the law is not necessary and now the proponents do not really care about enforcement? It is absurd, the whole thing is absurd.

<o:p></o:p>
I just tried to explain some of the problems with that report. The thing about facts is that you need to also look at the facts that are left out – in order to know the truth. [/quote]
<o:p> </o:p>
I happen to care very much about the enforcement of lake speed limits. So please stop making sweeping generalities about what “the proponents” want.

Lets just GO HOME
 

The boating accident in 2002 was just that, an accident. I cause two families a lot of hard ship. The first family lost a loved one, the 2nd lost a father of two and a husband for a long time. Either of which will ever be returned. Why do you have to use it to make your point over something as stupid as this speed limit. You should be a shamed of yourself having to use that reference to make your point. Let the dead lie, and never open old wounds when they have a chance to heal. Over what, a stupid speed limit! What is the big deal with a speed limit, it will be the same as any other speed limit we have for cars, planes, snowmobiles, etc.. There are going to be those that will choose to obey them and those that don't. Have you traveled 93 South lately? Did you know the speed limit is 65 and not 80, everyone does 80. How about on the trials snowmobiling? Its the posted speed or 45 max, I have seen sleds all the time going 60 - 70 on most. Do you really think a speed limit is going to change anything? Think about it. It is a waist of time and effort to be for or against it. It is like anything else there will all ways be something else. If the speed limit passes and the next death related accident is a result of swimming, of which there were two last year. Are you going to call for a ban on swimming? I know lets ban the use of the lake all together, no boating, swimming, rowing, sailing, no nothing GO HOME!

I think your analysis is a stretch at best. First, you are criticizing them for spending 135 hours of radar testing in the 11 weeks that the test was run? That is quite a bit, especially with no extra funding or manpower allotted to help. If you are not happy with this then how are you going to fee l if it passes and the manpower or funding is not allotted to enforce it? The people pushing for this clearly have stated in another topic that they don't care about funding it and think it will take care of itself. The joke is on you.

The solid fact remains that out of 3852 boats less than 1% were speeding. That is hard to argue. I can spit out hypothesis all afternoon (although I bet MeenMac is already working on it:D )as to different calculations and formulas that apply but the main fact still remains. Speed was not an issue.

The study was done during the busy end of the summer, and clearly was concentrated on busier days of the week and daylight hours. If you have spent as much time on the lake as many of us do this may be easier to comprehend. Show up on a Monday afternoon and what do you get? An empty lake. Rainy days? No traffic at all. You did not add any factor in for bad weather days into your calculations. Chances are the concentration of studies was done during busier times in order to achieve catching 3852 boats on radar.

Do you think they zapped every boat that went by? Probably not. Multiple boats going by at the same time cannot all be clocked effectively. My house is right around the corner from Area A so I was able to witness first hand how much they were there and the traffic involved. It is a very busy zone, one of the busiest on the lake which is why it was chosen. So isn't Area B.
I am sure they clocked me a few times.

There are so many different factors that could be thrown in to this that I am not even touching on. They did their job, give them a break. The results were inconclusive of any speed issue. Feel free to analyze away though!

You're joking right??? Are you suggesting the only valid study is one that covers the whole lake for the whole summer? 3800+ boats is a pretty significant sample and should give a pretty clear indication of what is happening on the lake. You lost me on your discussion of Man hours. If there were two people on the boat for 135 hours, then that would result in 270 Man hours of labor. Not really relevant unless you want to discuss what the study cost.

All your spin, and shaky analysis still doesn't negate the fact that only 1 out of 100 boats was going over 45 mph. Certainly not the "wild west" talked about by speed limit proponents.

I'm going to give you a piece of advice that might save your life someday. Quit worrying about boats going over 45 mph, they're not the problem. Keep your eye out for captain bonehead, tooling along at 25 mph in his pontoon boat sipping a martini watching the scenery. While you're straining to see that one speedboat zipping by at 50 mph, captain bonehead might just run you over, he's a much bigger threat and a speed limit won't deter him.

But then this isn't really about safety is it.

No, I’m not suggesting that at all. What I’m saying is that the study didn’t go nearly far enough to be conclusive – and that there isn’t enough information given in the report to draw any conclusions about the overall speeds on the entire lake.

1.) The data was collected during less than 2% of the daylight boating hours from July 1 to Sept 16th. 98% of the time data was not being collected.
2.) Only a small percentage of the lake was covered in the study.
3.) The study areas were chosen for their high volume of boat traffic - these are areas where high speeds are less likely to occur.
4.) Most of the data was collected on weekends – when traffic is the heaviest.

I’ve never said that high-speed boats were the only boats I am concerned about – I’m very alert to all powerboats. But the faster boats have been the ones that have come the closest to running me over, so I see them as being the greatest threat. You can think whatever you like, but safety is MY only concern here.

If speed is not an issue here, and so few boats are actually going faster than 45mph on Winni, why are so many of you against this bill? If it won’t affect your boating speeds at all, what’s the problem?

Problem Boats...Problem Boaters
 

Here's hoping NH's Legislators are savvy-enough to grasp that.
I picked up the camera only because the oversized ocean-racer intended to (and did) "split the difference" between the kayak and the bowrider that you apparently missed.

All boats? :confused:

The far shore (Port Wedeln) is about ¾ to 1-mile away—perhaps a casual 15-minute trip by kayak. At 70-MPH, the same trip in a speeding, excessively-powered boat would take about 35-seconds! :eek:

So, which of these views most fairly represents the kayak's size to an ocean-racer speeding at a 70-MPH-clip?

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...1&d=1201095531

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i1...oat-117x77.jpg

The following day—same kayaker—I considered offering a tow to the middle-aged woman because a strong headwind was making it very difficult for her and her little boy.

A view through binoculars showed that she was singing!

If you see a driver speeding at 70+ MPH on Winnipesaukee—and singing—everybody sharing the lake with that boater has a problem. :eek:

The pursuit of happiness
 

In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Many people enjoy speed. Owners of bass boaters, jet skis and ocean going craft persue speed as a form of happiness. Take a kid on a high-speed ride and most will return with a happy smile on their face. The problem is that some people are willing to deny others of this right based on fear and anger, not statistics. What right is next to be taken away.

speed/vs rights
 

I think that everybody's rights can be looked too and safety be taken care of. As one that was in agreement with speed zones, not making no wake zones, but curtailing speed within Alton Bay, Wolfeboro, Weirs and other bays leaving the broads for speed, I think we can do away with the speeding issue if everybody that has a boat would agree to obey the 150' rule and other navigation rules. Plus remember courtesy toward your fellow man goes a long way. If those rules were obeyed by all whether it be a kayak, or a rum runner or anywhere inbetween then we would be having fun and a safer lake.

I beg to differ, the study involved a sizeable sample across a broad section of the lake, more than adequate to represent what is really happening on a typical day on the lake. If you were as well versed in statistical sampling as you hint, you would understand this. I can guarantee that if the study showed that there was a problem on the lake you would be swearing up and down that the study was right. If your group's assertion that the lake has turned into the "wild west" was true then I would have expected at least let's say maybe 2 % of the boats to have been travelling more than 45 mph. Actually, from the press and comments posted by WInnfabbs I would have expected to see 30 or 40% of the boats to be traveling faster than 45mph. The study didn't show that because there is not a speed problem.

Anyone with an ounce of integrity and actual experience on the lake would have to admit that speeding boats are just not a problem.

You might as well say the study is invalid because MP didn't stop and gather each boat operators name and address. Look up statistical sampling, read and understand.

Wrong again...........

From the Citizen:

Gallagher said there were two areas chosen for temporary regulation of speed, including the southwest side of Rattlesnake Island, ranging to the main shore, as well as the area between Bear Island and Meredith Neck. He said the reason was because they were long areas with a fair amount of traffic.

There also were several other areas surveyed, including Paugus Bay because it is a large area with boats mainly traveling past each other in opposite directions. Others were in Gilford between Governor's Island and Timber Island; Center Harbor; Moultonborough near the east side of Moultonborough Neck; between Cow and Little Bear islands; Tuftonboro Neck; and the end of Alton Bay, the part nearest to the main lake.


And again wrong. The report includes a calendar that clearly indicates that the testing was done on both weekdays and weekends. In fact weekday tests outnumber weekend day tests by almost 2 to 1. How can you mess that up?????? You really need to stop...

When it comes to Constitutional Rights, there is no difference between a speed limit on the water, and speed limits on the roads.

Does a speed limit on route 93 violate your Constitutional Rights?

[quote=ITD;61913]I beg to differ, the study involved a sizeable sample across a broad section of the lake, more than adequate to represent what is really happening on a typical day on the lake. If you were as well versed in statistical sampling as you hint, you would understand this. I can guarantee that if the study showed that there was a problem on the lake you would be swearing up and down that the study was right. If your group's assertion that the lake has turned into the "wild west" was true then I would have expected at least let's say maybe 2 % of the boats to have been travelling more than 45 mph./quote]

First of all, I’m not part of any pro-speed limit group. This is not a conspiracy – I’m simple a NH resident who believes that NH lakes need a reasonable speed limit. And I'm sick of you guys misrepresenting the facts here.

For your information, I’ve taken a number of college courses on statistics – including Research Methodology just last semester – so I do know that the accuracy of any data sampling is largely dependant on the percentages involved. In any data collection the number of individuals studied is completely meaningless without knowing the size of the overall population that makes up the study group. The same is true for the time periods involved, and for anything else that might be a factor in a study (like weather, and time of day).

The data collected is not considered viable unless it can be determined that it accurately represent the entire study group. And studies of this type are not even considered viable when members of the test population know about the study and the location of the study areas.

You and others here try to use the report as magical proof that speed is not an issude. Do you expect anyone to believe that this study accurately determined the boat speeds on the entire lake over the entire summer? There just wasn't enough data collected to make the study viable (since only portions of the lake were covered, and data was collected during less than 2% of the daytime boating season).

On top of that, the fact that radar was being used on the lake last summer was well published - along with the location of the study areas. No traffic study is ever considered viable when the public is aware that it is taking place.

The report does not even give the statistical analysis of the data collected – if it had, then the percentages would have been factored into the analysis, and the degree of accuracy of the study would have been given.

This is a quote, taken directly from the report: While emphasis was placed on weekend boating activity, data was also collected on weekdays. Just because data was collected on more weekdays, does not mean that more time was spent collecting data on weekdays. You would need the log with the hours per day that data was being collected to determine that.

How much data was collected out on the Broads?

Removed rights
 

No, I don't feel road limits violate my rights. Over the years, excessive speed has been statistically linked to automotive deaths, so as a society, we have decided to evoke speed limits. The right to life trumps the right to happiness. Roads are engineered for safe speeds, and the limit is set with the engineering in mind, not fear and anger. My grandmother hated how people went 65 on the highway, so she took the backroads. Perhaps those that fear sharing the water with fast boats should stay within 150' from shore rather than extinguish other's rights.

The most ironic part is the all the people who are calling foul on the results of the test (that was done by professionals) are the same people who would be swearing by it if the results went their way:rolleye2::rolleye2:

You are rationalizing.

You see the need for highway speed limits, so you rationalize that they don't violate you Constitutional Rights.

You don't see the need for boating speed limits so you believe they violate your rights.

The issues are EXACTLY the same. The right of the state to set speed limits.

You said "as a society, we have decided to evoke speed limits" If the legislature passes HB847 and the Governor signs it into law, then we will have decided, as a society, to invoke boating speed limits.

LaDaSun, Thursday Jan 24, 2008
 

Lawmakers expect to be bombarded with e-mails for another week as House postpones action on boat speed limit bill

By Chris Dornin
Golden Dome News
top of page 1, Laconia Daily Sun

CONCORD - House members will have to endure seven more days of e-mails from both sides of the polarized debate over a proposed 45 mph boat speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee, with 25 mph at night. If House Bill 847, sponsored by Rep. Jim Pilliod (R-Belmont) becomes law, violations would appear in the speeder's motor vehicle driving record. State reps were bracing for a long and heated floor fight yesterday that never materialized.

When House Speaker Terie Norelli (D-Portsmouth) called for discussion of the bill, Rep. Jim Ryan (D-Franklin) asked as chairman of the House Transportation Committee to hold off doing anything until Wednesday, Jan 30.

"This afternoon my good friend, the minority leader (Rep. Mike Whalley, R-Alton), asked to postpone the bill due to the unavailability of people to oppose it," Ryan explained.

Whalley later explained that Rep. Sherm Packard (R-Londonderry) was absent. Packard, the former chairman of House Transportation, wrote the opposition blurb in the House calender, warning that HB 847 would punish all boat operators for the irresponsible actions of a very few.

He also cited a Marine Patrol study this summer showing the legislation was unneeded. Officers clocked 3,852 vessels and caught 83 moving between 41 and 50 mph, eight between 51 and 60, and three between 60 and 62 mph.

"A far greater percentage of people disobey our speed limits on our roads,' Packard wrote. "Do we really believe that by passing this law that this small percentage of inconsiderate and irresponsible people will change their habits?"

Whalley said most of the citizens he's heard from live on lakefronts, and they generally want to regulate boat speeds. The marina owners have split about evenly, he said.

"I pay more attention to what individuals are saying, but I'm not convinced yet there's a problem," Whalley said.

One moment made clear how hard the stakeholders are hounding their public servants. Rep. Tony Simon (D-Manchester) went to the podium for a joke on Ryan that drew 10 seconds of laughter and applause. Several people stood up.

"Our friend from Franklin has just arranged for all of us to be inundated for another week with emails," Simon said. "I suggest we all forward them to the member from Franklin. He will do a statistical analysis for us."

More than a hundred people packed a hearing last spring on a version of the bill that capped the speed on all lakes. Strong feelings emerged on both sides. Sensing an impasse, the Transportation Committee held the bill for further study that led to a crackdown on just the largest lake. That attempt at a compromise left the committee with 7-6 endorsement and strong prospects for a floor battle.

Pilliod said he has gotten hundreds of letters and e-mails supporting his bill, and called them well informed and sophistocated. Each was different from the rest. Lawmakers are used to getting identical messages on an issue from different people.

"If we can get this to the Senate," he said before the postponement, "they're going to get thousands of e-mails on it. It's not just people who feel threatened by these boats. It's duck and loons. Merrill Faye of Faye's Boatyard (in Gilford) called me to say it's hurting his business. He was bananas about it."

Pilliod got a similar bill through the House in 2006 when Republicans controlled the legislature. It died in the Senate.

"I've been surprised and pleased to see a lot of Democrats are for it this time," Pilliod said. "It's not just good for people. It's good for the environment."

Sandy Helve of Meredith has been orchestrating some of that grassroots stir as president of the Winnipesaukee Family Alliance for Boating Safety, a nonprofit organization claiming thousands of supporters, many of them shorefront homeowners all around the lake. Their allies, she said, include business and marina owners, full-time and summer lake residents, kayakers, anglers, canoeists, sailors, rowers, and children's camp operators. Her people showed up in force to work the corridors outside Representatives Hall.

"These fast boats are driving people like us off the lake," Helve said. "I don't care what that study showed. They're going 70, 80, 90 mph when the Marine Patrol is gone, every day of the week, all day and all night. They can't stop in time. A lot of people feel scared and intimidated."

Warren Hutchins of the Weirs section of Laconia lives on the lake and serves on Helve's executive committee. He said the group has been digging deep to hold its' own with the commercially funded trade associations.

"We began pushing this four years ago," Hutchins said. " The people who can afford these big, high performance cigarette boats are all wealthy. But they're a very small part of all the boaters.

Rep. Gene Chandler (R-Bartlett) said the study of speeders weakens the case for a limit.

"It showed there's not that much of a problem," Chandler said. Reminded the bill sunsets after three years, he said, "Once something is in, it's hard to get it out."

Cosponsors of the bill include Rep. Alida Millham (R-Gilford), Rep. Betsey Patten (R-Moultonboro) and Sen. Joe Kenney (R-Union).

...................

Laconia Daily Sun
Chris Dornin. Golden Dome News
Thursday, Jan 24, 2008




...................