I have no problem when people disagree with me – that’s called debating. The problem is that too many members here - like you, can’t seem to debate anything without resorting to personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with them – and THAT I do have a problem with.

You falsely accused me of lying, again. You completely misunderstood what I posted – even though I made the distinction very clear. And even after I had pointed out what I actually wrote. That is very much a personal attack. Before accusing someone of lying, you really should make sure that they actually posted what you think they posted.

You have repeatedly called me a liar, even though I provided clear evidence that proved that I didn’t lie. Your act was intentional, it was done with malice, and you did it on a public forum – which makes it libel (I mistakenly used the definition for slander earlier – I make mistakes when I get upset).

What you did is take my words out of context to use them against me. I NEVER stated that no one on Squam ever infringed on my 150 foot zone. I clearly stated that no one on Squam has UNINTENTIONALLY ever violated my 150 foot zone – BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T SEE ME. That is not the same thing as what you have now repeatedly accused me of posting! Read my post – and read my entire post this time.

If you and others think that I’m coming across as “smug and or arrogant,” perhaps that is due to that fact that I have to provide credentials for every single ability, for every bit of experience, and for every statement that I make on this forum. I am not a smug or arrogant person. I can not even make a helpful post or make a joke without someone here criticizing me.

You blatantly attacked me by calling me a liar again and demanding that I be moderated for my actions – and then you tell me to “give it a rest!!!” If you would just back off and quit attacking my posts and falsely accusing me, I wouldn’t have to spend nearly as much time defending myself here. I am “the victim” because people like you have made me “the victim.” I am not playing anything – but have merely tried to defend myself from some really hostile attacks, that I don’t feel like I deserved. You seem to wait around for me to post just to rip my posts apart – and whenever anyone else criticizes me, you are one of the first ones to chime in and add to the feeding frenzy. You claim that you don’t hate me, but your actions say otherwise.


Ryan, I’m been through this many, many, many times on this forum. You and others should really go back and read my posts, rather than just keep asking me the very same questions over and over again.

I’ve stated more than once that my sea kayak is nearly 16 feet long, so when a powerboat gets within 3 or 4 of my kayak lengths from me, they are much closer than 150 feet. Being less than a second away from a likely fatal collision is what I consider to be a close call.

Close calls can be reported – but, as far as I know, no one actually keeps track of them. Have you ever seen a published report that gives the number of close calls on NH lakes?

How do you enforce a violation that wasn’t intentional? Sure, the MP can cite they operator, but how does that prevent an unintentional violation from happening again. And that’s not going to do the paddler any good, after a powerboat collides with them.

Again, I’ve stated this over and over – so, either you guys are not getting this, or you’re just choosing to ignore what I post. It is my belief that unintentional violations happen because the operator is traveling beyond his abilities to see smaller boats in time, so if he is forced to slow down, he will be traveling at speeds that are now closer to his abilities. Plus when you are going slower, you have more time to react. That is a fact. Therefore the speed limit should greatly reduce the number of unintentional 150 foot violations.

I’ve already explained over and over why this is not a helpful suggestion. Go HERE and read for yourself, if you somehow missed my numerous posts of this.

I’ve been 100% truthful in my accounts of close calls on the lake. The main reason that I’m supporting enacting a speed limit on the lake is based of my own personal experiences on the lake. And I’m not the only person who has recounted numerous close calls from high-speed powerboats while paddling.

So go ahead and sue me then. :laugh::laugh:

I've seen several people here try to help you in your posting to no avail. I stand by my post regarding the Squam incident. I'm sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to bury that incident and pretend it did not happen fine. It happened, the circumstances surrounding it are not what I am debating. My point was and is that careless boating is the problem regardless of speed limit. Your incident proves that. You can not understand that, too bad I guess. Jerks boat everywhere.

I guess "the victim" act will continue, oh well everyone here has tried. It is what it is.

Can I get the cliffs notes version of all these long posts please :D:D

I want you to know, I respect your opinions. I did not join this forum to just "Debate Evanstar". The forum is a means for debate and when I see a flaw in one's logic, I feel the need to debate.

Honestly, I've read all of the posts surrounding this debate.
It was only recently that I felt the need to sign up and voice my concerns.


I've also read your extreme opposition to the kayak flag, which IMHO is a pretty poor decision for somebody who is concerned about visibility with power boats travelling at Ludicrous Speed. (the way you describe captains travelling at 46mph reminds me of the "Spaceballs" scene where they are going "Ludicrous speed". [/Sarcasm]At least that's how my vision gets when I hit 46mph.[Sarcasm]

At 50MPH (~1% of the boats on any given day) one is travelling at roughly 73.333333333ft/second.
At 40MPH one is travelling at approx 58.66666666667 ft/second.

The faster boat hits you in 2.04 seconds, the slower in 2.56.

How are you possibly going to feel any safer?

No further questions.....today.

Chris Craft. I am with you. I just can't read all the long posts. I skim them. I was taught that people lose you when you are not concise. Somehow that always stuck in my mind. But I have to admit, I admire those who take the time to read and write that much.

All you need to know is this.

Some people have drowned while boating, even falling off the Mount.

Some people have hit docks, rocks, even islands (they might be a bit drunk)

Some boaters are lax in their attention span, and don't pay attention to their proximity to others on the lake

PWC's, well the buzz around like little sea lice, many times coming way too close to boats to get a bigger wake. Many fall off them and get boo boos

There are several No Wake Zones on the lake. They are there for a reason, but some just ignore them.

While all of this is going on, the marine patrol apparently doesn't see any of it. BI sees the people going 90 in a NWZ and says we need speed limits.

What we need all over is enforcement, it really does work.

Misleading spin from the pro speed limit side
 

You are giving the public the wrong impression about the information posted by Skip. You expect MP to selectively ignore laws. Only you are suggesting that you can "get away" with going over the proposed new limit because of the wording of the law. Skip is saying that you can defend yourself in court a different way than a car speeder can.

Boaters often "get away" with breaking the law now. Violating the 150 foot law is one we all know. That does not mean they can "get away" with it if they get a ticket and go to court. You know that MP can't enforce every rule 100% of the time. It will be the same when a speed limit rule is in effect. Do not diminish the potential of that speed limit law.

What you are suggesting is that you can violate the new law. You can speed and get away with it. If you get a boating speeding ticket you will not get away with it. You will be allowed to present a defense different than what you could say if it was a car speeding ticket. You still have to face a judge or plead nolo or guilty.

Bear Islander has said that boaters behave when the MP are around. I believe we all agree on that point. They will be around more if they do not have to have 2 officers in one boat with a radar gun. Those 2 officers could be in 2 separate patrol boats potentially causing twice as many boaters to behave. No new law required for twice the safety.

As has been said many times. More enforcement of the current laws works. You can't spin that.

Weird logic repeated over and over.
 

My response to another very long, but edited, post by Evenstar.

What I believe is that, unfortunately, you believe everything you say and you keep saying it over and over again.


Comments in red by The Commodore.

I found one on my computer. The down arrow on the lower right corner gets me right past the manifesto in no time.:laugh: I have found that the shorter a post is the more it draws my attention to read it. Somebody has a point and they make it quickly. Maybe it's me but the post with 15 quotes in them are seldom worth the time it took to write or read them. IMHO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan (Post 71163) I've also read your extreme opposition to the kayak flag, which IMHO is a pretty poor decision for somebody who is concerned about visibility with power boats travelling at Ludicrous Speed.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
My decision is based on what is actually safest for me – which is based on hundreds of hours of experience on large lakes in my sea kayak. Have you ever even been in a sea kayak? Because if you had, you would understand the importance of balance and the effect of wind on a boat like mine. These are little tiny flags, on a short pole, with a surface area that is much less than one of my paddle blades – so they would not increase my visibility appreciatively from a distance. A flag that would be large enough and high enough out of the water to actually increase my kayak’s visibility would make my kayak totally unstable and would make self-rescues extremely difficult if not impossible.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Most of the members of this forum could not even get into my kayak without tipping it over. You need to fit though a 19 inch wide cockpit hole (that’s the widest end), just to get into the seat – and then you need to figure out how to get your legs in there with you.<o:p></o:p>


[quote=Commodore;71244]My response to another very long, but edited, post by Evenstar. What I believe is that, unfortunately, you believe everything you say and you keep saying it over and over again.
quote]
And your post isn’t any shorter than mine. As I explained, I am limited to the number of post I can make per day and I often have 6 of 8 posts that are directed at me – so this is that only way that I can respond to everyone. If you don’t like long post, don’t read mine. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Look, I’m the one who was there and I know what I saw. And my best friend was with me, so I do have a witness for all the above events. It’s really annoying that guys like you complain about me repeating myself, while you and others keep questioning everything that I post. I wouldn’t have to keep repeating myself if you guys didn’t keep ripping my posts apart.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
You guys refuse to believe me because doing so would be an admission that perhaps we do need a speed limit. So you continue to attack my ability to tell that a boat is traveling at high speed, claim that I can’t tell when a boat is within my 150 foot zone, or now you’re claiming that I can’t read anyone’s expression. Again, I was there and you were not. And my best friend, who was paddling just a few feet from me, saw the same thing as I did and came to the exact same conclusions.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Power boats HAVE entered our 150 foot zone at high speeds – sometimes getting within 50 or 60 feet of us before they gave any indication that they saw us. And then their reaction made it very obvious that they finally did notice us. This is not like we were using our intuition, or the force, or anything else. It was extremely obvious to both of us!<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
The other thing (and yes, I’m repeating myself again, because you’re ignoring this part again) is that we are not the only ones who have experienced this type of dangerous close encounter with high-speed boats. At the House Transportation Committee hearing last March, a number of other paddlers recounted nearly identical experiences. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
Speed is a factor. How can you state that it isn’t? Where is your proof that what I and many others state is not true?<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
I never posted that you have traveled faster than your ability to see small boats in time to not violate their 150 foot zone, so I’m not attacking you in any way. But there are people who do operate powerboats beyond their abilities, and these people have made the lake very dangerous for smaller boats. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
I am not trying to start an argument with you or with anyone – I am merely giving my opinion why I feel that a speed limit is needed on all NH lakes. That is not trolling.

No,here's why we don't believe you.You make statements like this:
How arrogant is this statement?I know you think your extremely smart because you've told us many times but now you are going to tell us that you know the ability of everyone on this forum.You are your own worst enemy.

So you're an experienced sea kayaker?
 

No, my worst enemies are people who don't understand what I am posting, because they are in too much of a hurry to find fault with what I post.

Look, the only reason that I defended my intelligence, is because some members suggested that I was less than intelligent and that I'm a poor student. Neither is true. I'm a strawberry blonde, but that doesn't mean that I'm a dumb blonde. But I don't consider myself to be "extremely smart" either.

And there is nothing arrogant about my statment - it's just a very logical statement for two reasons:

1.) Most members of this forum are not experienced sea kayakers - and getting into a sea kayak without tipping it over takes some skill and practice. Sea kayaks are very narrow boats - it is nothing like sitting in a much wider recreational kayak.

2.) Purchasing a sea kayak is like buying jeans - and I'm a size 8. So I'm guessing that there many members here who could not fit into a pair of my jeans any better than they could fit into my sea kayak.

I have to agree with Evenstar (oh boy did I just say that!! LOL) I think that the flag is not going to help and I can see how it can make it more dificult for a recovery. That is however just the products that I have seen posted on this site. That is not to say that there is not a better product out there that may work better then the stuff that has been posted. Maybe this is an oportunaty for some one to come up with a better mouse trap and then patition concord for yet another new law that requires what you have made and you are RICH!!! :laugh:

My problem with the law is that quite honestly it does not solve any issues. I have driven boats fast, very fast. I have ridden in boats over 100 MPH. Not once have I come close to another boat at speed (except in poker runs). I can easily see anything and everything around me. The problem with people breaking the 150 foot rule is not speed it is either lack of knowledge of the rule OR innatention behind the wheel OR they just do not care. No speedlimit is going to solve either of those problems.

Evenstar's invitation is so inviting - NOT
 

You have enemies here? Questioning and debating is not a battle. I'm in no hurry to find the faults in your posts. I understand the words you use but don't always agree with you or follow the logic of your posts. Some of us may be in a hurry to point out inaccuracies for clarity not unjustified fault finding.

We do agree on some things. I'm too big, I could not get into your jeans or your kayak (even if I wanted to).

You've mentioned how sensitive your kind of kayak is and how much physical prowess and skill is needed to stay afloat and keep up with you on a paddling outing. Balance is very important to enjoy the sport as you do.

And you wonder why no one (other than Mee-n-Mac) has come forward to take you up on your offer to go kayak with you. You make it sound so un-inviting to the average person and I'm not referring to fear of fast boats.

Kayakers love water --- Boaters love love

I just wanted to repost this for ES:

At 50MPH one is travelling at roughly 73.333333333ft/second.
At 40MPH one is travelling at approx 58.66666666667 ft/second.
The faster boat hits you in 2.04 seconds, the slower in 2.56.

I sat on the beach this weekend watching all of the reckless, speeding watercraft zipping across Saunders Bay. I even saw a few GFBL's polluting the environment and eroding the shorelines as they (expensively) got on plane.

With the above sarcasm aside, I also saw kayakers enjoying the lake simultaneously with all of these big "wild west" style bullies. I noticed, that from my chaise lounge I could easily spot kayakers off the shoreline. I could also spot kayakers probably close to 3/4 mile off the shore. Granted, I was not operating a vessel at speeds where my vision becomes all blurry and my better judgement compromised, but I think the point stands.

What I did not see all weekend was a single MP. Very surprising for a busy holiday weekend...It has been mentioned that MP presense makes boaters behave. (this was even listed as a reason to invalidate the speed study) It's possible they were doubled up at a post in the broads testing their radar equipment for 2009.

I was just responding to SIKSUKR’s accusation that I’m supposedly “my own worst enemy.”

Yet, on this forum I have been treated with so much hostility, that I often feel like others here see me as the enemy. Personal attacks are not allowed in debates – yet that hasn’t stopped many here from resorting to them, when they can’t out debate someone. For instance, I have repeatedly asked you to not use a distorted version of my signature, yet you continue to do so, even though you know that it upsets me – which is a direct violation of forum rules – but no one is enforcing those rules. So this is not a debate – it is more of a free-for-all, where some members are permitted to attack anyone who doesn’t agree with them.

What I stated was that sea kayaks can easily tip over if you are not skilled in how to balance them properly. My offer was to rent or borrow a kayak and I’ll take you out on the main lake – I never said that you had to borrow a narrow sea kayak like mine and I never said that I wouldn’t wait for you. I just told Mee-n-Mac that I wouldn’t be staying near the shoreline and that he should expect a real workout. And I did state that we should wait until the water warms up, as I don't expect him or anyone else to own the cold water clothing that I use.

And I need to repeat my question, because my last reply on this never made it past the moderator: “Why are you using 50 mph, when boats on winni travel much faster than that?” Even the MP speed study recorded boats traveling faster than 50 mph.

And, even the difference between 40 mph and 50 mph is nearly a second – which could easily be the difference between a close call and a fatality. On Squam a 40 mph speed limit has never resulted in my 150 foot zone being violated unintentionally by a powerboat – that has only happened on large lakes that do not have a speed limit.

And I have been out in my kayak the past two weekends (not on winni) and didn’t have any close calls with a single powerboats. But that doesn't prove anything and it doesn’t mean that I won’t have any close calls this summer, nor does your observation prove that there won’t be close calls on winni between kayakers and high-speed powerboats.

I never stated that all powerboat operators were a dangerous threat to paddlers – but some are. And there will likely be more close calls this summer, because some powerboat operators will be traveling faster than they should be.

I will have to join Skipper in agreeing with ES. I am quite sure that even if I could fit in your Kayak the center of gravity would be about a foot above the water line. Three seconds later the laws of physics would equalize the situation.

ES, is the flag issue with the interference the the device imposes to a righting event? I am not suggesting that you should ever use one but if the pole pivoted in a way so that if the boat tipped over it would point straight back so it was both out of the way and rotationally neutral, would that open the option for more users?

I used 50 as a speed that is above the 2009 speed limit. I used 40 as a speed that is below the 2009 speed limit.
To utilize real life examples, I'll use 62MPH which was the maximum speed recorded on (only) 3 separate boats in the speed survey.

At 62 MPH the powered vessel collides w your kayak in 1.64 seconds.
At 40 MPH the powered vessel collides w your kayak in 2.55 seconds.

Actually, it's nearly 1/2 second.
The difference between 62mph and 40mph is nearly 1 second.
IMHO I'm not sure 1/2 second or even 1 second is enough time to perform an evasive maneuver to avoid a 16 foot kayak while travelling faster than one's 'ability to see'.
You have no idea what that operator's intentions were when you were swamped on Squam. Please stop trying to convince me otherwise.

My observations had more to do with the fact that I could spot small vessels nearly 1 mile away. So even at 'unlimited speeds' it is not one's ability to spot smaller vessels, it's not speed, it's either ignorance of the rules or alcohol, which make up 'nearly' 100% of the causes of accidents on lakes in NH.

Evenstar,

Are you aware that the Speed Limit forum would be silent without your defense of sea kayaks?

The issue isn't sea kayaks. You could give it a rest.

There's probably plenty people who choose to read this forum without making any comments. Knowing that making a pro-speed limit comment will be micro-anaylzed, dissected, inspected, wrung-out, and rebutted with the usual high speed rap of spin-spin-spin, many have other things to do. Then again, some just like to argue endessly.

Question of the day: What's the latest on HB 847 as it oh so very slowly seems to be travelling at a snail's pace from the May 15 NH Senate vote of 14-10 to the Governor's desk.

Apparently, while the Governor has five business days to act on a bill once it reaches his desk, there is no time limit assigned to HB 847, as it now awaits its next do or die step in the legislative process.

So, what's happen'n Captain....whut's up w/ HB 847? Behind closed doors at NH's executive office, is the pressure being turned up on this political hot potato?

Like, what do we have to do to make HB 847 just go away?:D

You need to look in the mirror.You constantly complain about members breaking the rules and nothing being done about it.But you just posted that some of your own posts are being moderated so it seems the webmaster is doing his job and finds that YOU are breaking the rules.Do you think it might be you that is out of line?Will we now hear the conspirosy theory?I think my post you refer to stands on its own now.

More debate about kayaks and speed
 

What classification do you give to the boaters driving faster than their ability to see? Why are people who don't understand your logic worse than the out of control speed freaks bearing down on you and your little kayak?

I'll join with Sea Que and RS about your number 2. I wouldn't get in your jeans or your kayak either. Besides, I would rather spend a leisure afternoon floating around a bay on my inflatable swim mat instead of watching you not get run over by boaters going too fast to see you. :)

Say, how about a head strap with a strobe light on top for you to wear?

Not to get the topic back on track or anything but does anyone know if this has passed into law yet? I thought that the Gov. had to move before Tuesday?

I know I have accepted the fact that come ice-out 2009, I'm going to have to obey the 45MPH speed limit.

It will be a drastic change from the, er, unlimited speeds, um, of 25-35mph to which I am accustomed to travelling.

This will help me to see smaller vessels to avoid violating their 150' zone and improve my 'ability to see' in general.

Here's looking forward to an unchanged 2009. ;)

Ironically, if most people interpret the Lake speed limit as they do the interstate speed limit, you will have to repower your boat to be able to do a minimum of 45 mph or risk being run over from a faster boat, any one of the 770,000 boats utilizing the Lake.

And the opponents think the speed limit will not improve the economy - engine repowers are mucho $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

45 mph speed limit
 

I have to agree with Ryan. I normally plane around 30 mph. I get the best gas mileage. Going the spped limit of 45 will increase my gas mileage. I just can't understand the kayakers who needs a speed limit. Don't they have to go 45 too?

Not being all that familiar with the New Hampshire legislative process, what's the delay? Both the Senate chamber and the Governor's office are located in the same building, the New Hampshire State House. So, what happened to HB 847? Did it somehow get lost during delivery? Has HB 847 been hijacked while enroute from the Senate to the Governor?

Talk about a delivery on a very slow boat that takes over two weeks to move across the State House. Probably the delivery boat ran out of gas, and then hit a rock.....should have been a kayak delivery....slow & steady wins the race!:D

Great question FLL.where is it?Maybe it was a kayak delivery and got hit by one of those 130 mph wild west GFBL boats we hear about.