With so many Republicans now in both the NH state senate and house, it seems like SB-27 could get passed because they want to "bring freedom to the waters," or some reason like that as candidate John Stephen said last October.

So, what's the procedure for a bill like this that gets started in the senate? Does it start in a senate committee, then go over to the house for a full house vote, and then back to the senate for a full senate vote, and then go to the governor's desk?
...........................

150' of safe passage space is just the blink of an eye in time when speeding around in a 27'-1200hp-8000lb GO-FAST going 70-mph, and that's why they like to refer to kayaks as "SPEED-BUMPS." .....ka-chunk.....hey did we just hit something? .....don't know....and don't care.....see you later!

Erica was smart enough to have a quart of vodka and a 38 handgun stored away on-board, but not smart enough to slow down to a very slow speed because she was "in a black hole" at the time. ....ka-chunk! ....goodbye Nicole....see you later!

Reading this new Bill is making me sea sick.:D

Below is some of the wording in SB-27 that I don't understand:
... shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights?
... The state of wind, sea, and current?
... The draft in relation to the available depth of water?
... The characteristics, efficiency, and limitations of the radar equipment?
... The effect on radar detection of the sea state?

I know I'm not the brightest bulb in this forum but could someone who helped write this Bill explain these things to me.

This is how some of it is written:

(1) By all vessels:
(A) The state of visibility.
(B) The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels.
(C) The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions.
(D) At night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights.
(E) The state of wind, sea, and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards.
(F) The draft in relation to the available depth of water.
(2) Additionally, by vessels with operational radar:
(A) The characteristics, efficiency, and limitations of the radar equipment.
(B) Any constraints imposed by the radar range scale in use.
(C) The effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather, and other sources of interference.
(D) The possibility that small vessels, ice, and other floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range.
(E) The number, location, and movement of vessels detected by radar.
(F) The more exact assessment of the visibility that may be possible when radar is used to determine the range of vessels or other objects in the vicinity.

Les

Going after Erica is one thing.

But I think you should leave the victims alone.

Rusty...

Here are some the terms explained in an understandable format. Essentially the bill is worded the same as Coast Guard Rule #6.... Its universally accepted as the defacto rule governing all maritime activities and is taught in all Safe Boating classes across the United States.


http://powerboat.about.com/od/boatin...-SafeSpeed.htm

Woodsy

Apparently we in NH are not smart enough to follow the same rules as the rest of the universe. Instead, we must be governed like children (or idiots), and subjected to the false agendas of the elitists like WinnFabs.

Repeat after me:

Most of the additions in this Bill are not measureable (they are guidelines only) and will just add confusion to the RSA.

Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA’s) are not guidelines, they are the law!

Guidelines didn’t control the speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee before the law was put into place and they won’t if the speed limit is replaced.

The NH Marine Patrol can measure the speed of a boat but they cannot measure guidelines.

IMO absolutely no thought was put in SB-27 before it was written….it was just a cut and paste job that took about 5 minutes to do. The state of wind, sea, and current…. The draft in relation to the available depth of water….. The effect on radar detection of the sea state??? What a joke this is to put in a NH RSA. How in heck is anyone suppose to measure any of this stuff to tell a boater he is going too fast?

This Bill cannot and should not replace what is written in RSA 270-D:2.

Are the Coast Guard Navigation rules written so that they are incomprehensible? Figured they had been around and used for a lot longer.

Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she
can take proper and effective action to avoid collision and be stopped
within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and
conditions.
In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among
those taken into account:
(a) By all vessels;
(i) the state of visibility;
(ii) the traffic density including concentrations of fishing
vessels or any other vessels;
(iii) the maneuverability of the vessel with special reference to
stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions;
(iv) at night, the presence of background light such as from shore
lights or from back scatter of her own lights;
(v) the state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of
navigational hazards;
(vi) the draft in relation to the available depth of water.
(b) Additionally, by vessels with operational radar:
(i) the characteristics, efficiency and limitations of the
radar equipment;
(ii) any constraints imposed by the radar range scale in use;
(iii) the effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather
and other sources of interference;
(iv) the possibility that small vessels, ice and other
floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range;
(v) the number, location and movement of vessels detected by
radar;
(vi) the more exact assessment of the visibility that may be
possible when radar is used to determine the range of vessels or
other objects in the vicinity.

Rules are principles that tell us how we should act. Examples of rules would be: to take your hat off in school, be on time to class, don’t cheat at board games, and don’t tell a friend’s secret (unless they are in a harmful situation). Laws are a little bit different. Laws when disobeyed, result in serious consequences. Laws have been developed by a society or government, which apply to all people in that society. Failure to follow laws can result in legal consequences, such as, paying a fine, doing community service, or going to jail.

We should not be putting Rules in NH RSA's!

What does Skip think...Just wondering...:D NB

PS: If I keep talkin like this I'm gonna be moderated..Been There..Done That....YUP: Maybe I'm just kidding...:)

And what data exists to show that 45 MPH is too fast??????

Hey Rusty, I think the WinnFlabs supporters must feel like they are standing on the deck of this ship. MUUUUUWAHAHAHAHAHA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVRxv...eature=related

I'm sorry but if you can't understand those statements, then you should NOT be operating a boat and that goes for anyone else that can't understand them!! You people that are so confused by those statements, do everyone else a favor and STAY OFF THE LAKE; YOU'RE THE REASON THE LAKE IS UNSAFE!! It's not unsafe just because a boat can travel faster than 45mph. :eek:

There's more than just the literal interpretation of the word "rule" that can be considered. You've never heard of "rules of the road" when driving a car? Perhaps you shouldn't be operating a car either!! :eek:

NH RSA’s are not meant to be training manuals. If you want to know what the Boating Safty Rules are then go here: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rule...saf-c6100.html


These signs will take the variables out of my calculations when I need to know how fast I can go.


http://www.ussignsandsafety.com/imag...5mph-small.png

http://www.ussignsandsafety.com/imag...0mph-small.png

NH small businesses
 

Maybe you should throw out all the rules governing small business in NH. That will be a huge relief. How about it?

Also all the rules for NH insurance industry. Maybe we can have some competition to drive down the premiums. What do you think?

Works for me! ;)

Rusty...

Not sure what your backround is, but rest assured the Coast Guard "Rules" carry the full weight of law behind them.... You can and will be cited by the USCG for breaking any of them! Violation of any of these "rules" in the wrong circumstances can and will result in death or serious injury! Most of our existing boating RSA's take thier language DIRECTLY from USCG Rules & Regulations and the COLREGS!

International Maritime Law has been around alot longer than this country has existed! Most of the laws we have on the book in NH and the rest of the US regarding safe boating operation come directly from COLREGS!

http://www.boatingsafety.com/colregs.htm

If you notice, the COLREGS (also adopted by USCG) are broken off into numbered sections.... Rules 1-3 define the terms used. Rule 4 on defines the actual Rule of Law.

Also... last I checked there are no "signs" bobbing in the waters of Lake Winnipesaukee telling you what speeds are allowed. In fact I dont recall any signage at the boat launch either!

Woodsy

Why not just make one huge sign that says BOAT NOT PERMITTED and then all the problems go away. It would even stop the people from griping about shorefont property taxes as the house values drop, island properties would become worthless and less people would mean improved water quality, there would be no risk to humanity of getting hit by a boat, the docks would not need to be in the water and impacting fish species, no need for marine patrol expenses and maintaining all the markers, there would be no BUI, no need for the legislature to come up with endless laws to appease a small number of people who happen to own on Winni. Those are all just ideas from the 1st 1 um into my frontal lobe I'm sure there are many other ills that the banning ALL people from the lake would solve.

See, don't tell me I can't solve problems! Be careful what you wish for Rusty.

< 45/25 IS Reasonable and Prudent!
 

1) "Common sense" is the rarity we have all been striving for: "reasonable and prudent" is not.

2) "Near where we stay" is the language of a visitor to the lake: Winnipesaukee's lakefront residents aren't the only complainants. :(

Come to think of it, under 45 is a "reasonable and prudent" speed. The vast majority of PFDs aren't capable of water impact at any greater speeds: If your PFD was purchased recently, look inside yours—you'll see that disclaimer! :eek2:

Humans Aren't Endangered...
 

One of my winter visitations includes about 40 square miles of mostly woodlands and a few hundred residences. The speed limit is 25-MPH, and in a few places, 20-MPH.

With a hundred miles of dead-straight roadways, why is the speed limit set at 25?

Because these roadways pass through about 40 square miles of a Federal Wildlife Preserve set aside to save an endangered sub-species of deer!
:eek2:

So isn't 80 or 100 given the right conditions and situations

The Decline of Empathy...
 

1) "The right conditions" can't exist on a primarily residential lake with 253 islands, irregular inlets, coves, bays, harbors, with a wide assortment of recreational boaters day and night.

2) Just as BoaterEd's Les Hall writes from Concord:
3) Empathy is a vital trait—the glue that holds civilized society together. Empathy is generally conceived as the ability to put oneself in another’s shoes...what it would be like to be the other person and then experience similar reactions ourselves, and to have more of an involuntary, automatic response.

This video shows what Lake Winnnipesaukee will look like every summer if SB-27 is passed:

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mD_FQvf-5CE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Except for daytime rather than nightime, this video looks like leaving Wolfeboro after July 4th fireworks.

It wouldn't surprise me a bit Sue Doe-Nym.

Do you think any of these Go Fast Boaters were being “reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions”?

Do you think that any of these Go Fast Boaters took into consideration the following Coast Guard “RULES” which is written in SB-27

(A) The state of visibility.
(B) The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels.
(C) The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions.
(E) The state of wind, sea, and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards.
(F) The draft in relation to the available depth of water.

Rusty I ask you to be objective. Do those boats in any way look like they are threatening anybody? Is it the noise or the appearance of speed?

APS, every time someone steps on the lake bottom they cause water quality to decline as sediment that gets kicked up reduces clarity. If you were to sample the beach in front of shorefront houses during weekend play you would likely see an increase on phosphorus and N2 in the water.

Did you know that slower speeds in no-wake zones can churn up a lot of sediment than would be the case at higher speed?

The placement of docks and boathouses impacts fish species.

There is hard science to back-up what I am discussing. So since you are one of the people who promotes these kinds of things, are you willing to forgo your dock and shorefront properties from having beaches?

How about allowing faster speeds through NWZs to correspond to the average depth? Could be 8-12 MPH instead of a blanket 6 MPH.

Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is or are you they typical Winni "as long as I have mine" type of guy?

Evidently you didn't watch the video!!!

So I did a cut that is 2:28 into the video that shows one GFB amost hitting a sail boat. Go to that section of the video and tell me these guys aren't violating some Coast Guard "Rule".
Don't just jump into a conversation without atleast giving it some thought!

Take some time to watch that video and you will see that they could care less who gets in their way!!

http://localhostr.com/file/3kl0oDP/GFBS%20sailboat.JPG

I did watch the video. What I do see is what appears to be violation of the 150 ft rule (more than once).

I would also not characterize when they passed the sailboat as "almost hitting" it. Although zoom camera angles can fool us, it does however appear less than 150 ft away.

Go to Sebago. There is no 150 ft rule. The world does not end over there....

NO!!!! You go to Sebago.....I like Lake Winnipesaukee just the way it is thank you. :)

The Senate Transportation Committee will hold a hearing on SB27 on Thursday, February 24 at 9am in Room 305/307 of the Legislative Office Building, which is the building across the street behind the Statehouse in Concord.

See you there lawn psycho ;)

Unfortunately you won't. I'll be in San Jose that day for work unless they allow me to Skype in some testimony and soon thereafter I am back over the pond in Asia for a couple more weeks.

Say hi to Mr. Li (Lee) for me.

yāt louh seuhn fùng! :)

Lee is more common in Korea (as is Kim):) It's Mr. Liu in China....

Winnipesaukee with the passage of SB-27 would actually look just like Winnipesaukee without SB-27. As far as I can tell, SB-27 does not require people to operate at high speeds.

Why don't you show a video from Winnipesaukee prior to the speed limit? Wouldn't that be a more realistic depiction of Winnipesaukee without the current speed limit?

You say: "Winnipesaukee with the passage of SB-27 would actually look just like Winnipesaukee without SB-27."

I say: No it won’t, it will look just like that video with the President of SBONH leading the charge.

You say: "As far as I can tell, SB-27 does not require people to operate at high speeds."

I say: I know it doesn’t but they will and the President of the SBONH will lead the charge.

You say: "Why don't you show a video from Winnipesaukee prior to the speed limit? Wouldn't that be a more realistic depiction of Winnipesaukee without the current speed limit?"

I say: Believe me, prior to the speed limit I have seen days on Lake Winnipesaukee just like that video.

Rusty, simple yes or no question.

Prior to the speed limit bill passing would the operators of those vessels be subject to ticketing for boating offenses?

YES

This is my last post for this thread, I don’t want the webmaster to moderate me because I post too much.

See you all at the hearing on SB27 on Thursday, February 24 at 9am in Room 305/307 of the Legislative Office Building.

Rusty

I've been boating on Winnipesaukee for 36 years. I don't believe you.

Here's a video that just as unrelated as the one you posted, but more entertaining.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Nj6SO_yKMe8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The Arrogance of SB-27...
 

Sebago has adequate line-of-sight nearly everywhere. Immediately adjacent is a lake where the world ended for two peaceable boaters. :(

(That perpetrator—described as "unremorseful and perjurous" by the judge—will be out of jail just in time for this 4th of July holiday-weekend.) :eek2:

I've "had mine" for 55 years, so I can advise you that some visitors reversed Winnipesaukee's "relax-coefficient". :( Things got tense if you were a peaceable boater.

The situation got steadily worse until the Speed Limit came to the lake. :coolsm:

1) Sediment (+ Nitrogen and Phosphorus) is DES' responsibility—take it up with them. :rolleye2:

2) "Producing-more-sediment-at-slower-speeds-than-No-Wake" is a new one on me. :laugh:

3) Oversized boats produce greater damage above a genuine "no-wake" speed.

4) Ask any fisherman, fish are actually attracted to "structure". :)


1) In some ways, you are correct. :(

Rob LaPointe established a horrendous driving record before committing his double-homicide upon two peaceable boaters. The "points" gathered in the 22 convictions on his driving record meant nothing to him. Like Lake Winnipesaukee's most recent "celebrity", he retains "good" lawyers. :mad:

2) Last season, I watched as a GFBL passed a Marine Patrol at double the speed limit; at the time, the NHMP boat was towing a PWC, and unable/unwilling—to enforce noise- or speed- limits.

I've watched many summers as many other over-sized boats chose to ignore the laws they didn't like.

3) That Director Barrett is only lukewarm into enforcements, just may mean his time is up! (Just as former Commissioner Richard Flynn's backroom "monkeying" with Speed Limits led to his eventual replacement.)

I am now "out" of this discussion until Wednesday—but:

You can never beat "The Longest and Safest Season in Anyone's Memory". :cool:

1) SB-27 removes the speed limits, the points system, and any chance of ridding BWI through NHMP use of RADAR. (Especially RADAR after dark, when NHMP patrolboats are nearly indistinguishable from other night boat traffic).

2) Since these changes apply throughout the state, does Squam Lake risk losing its "kinder" reputation as well? :eek2:

3) A Tuftonboro family—who remain unknown to me—tried to hand me their video camera—right from their dock! :eek2: I had to turn down that offer, as there was great risk in being a small boater near this airborne ocean-racer, so this photo must substitute for the video. :eek:

BTW: This photo accompanied every letter I've mailed to those Representatives and Senators who were wishy-washy on Speed Limits. :confused:

'Guess I'll need to mail those again—just to make sure. :look:

The webmaster will not moderate you for posting too much, he only moderates when one posts too much garbage.

I know I said I wouldn't post again in this thread but I think Vitabene's comment should be addressed.

In the “Posting Guidelines” that are in the FAQ section it states the following: “Don't post excessive numbers of messages or comments. Posting more than a few messages or comments in a day is excessive and may get you moderated or restricted.”

I know there are a lot of members (including me) who post more than “a few” in a day but I just don’t want to be moderated if I over post.