Speed that night
 

Well I suspect you are correct but I'd rather not assume and let BL speak for himself (herself ?). Moreover I don't think (aargh, making an assumption) that BL's point is that the speed is estimated but rather that 28 is/was too high. But again I'd rather get my info straight from the "bear's" mouth. ;)

ps - IMO This whole discussion is on the verge of going into soap opera land. There's far too much of they did this/them did that and not enough of what facts are pro or con HB-162. I do understand how emotional the topic is and how easy it is to "retaliate" when you think you've been "attacked". Certainly there is a wider aspect to HB-162 than mere speed and danger. Still I do hope that both pro and anti people can at least try to keep things more about what the ostensible purpose of HB-162 is. I for one am not interested in personalites or hidden motivations even though I'm well aware they exist.

I believe the vast majority of proponents do not like performance boats (fast , slow , noisey , or quiet). They perceive them as evil and want them out of their lake.
Uninvolved bystanders are easiey swayed after hearing horrors storys of how the race around and terrorize other boaters on the lake...so of course like obedient sheep the go along with the crowd for safety sake. That is a very easy point to get acrossed

Just so we are clear, the "Uninvolved bystanders" and "obedient sheep" you refer to are the 66% of NH voters that want a speed limit?

Don't forget that the citizens of NH own the lake.

Bear Lover is Correct.......Again
 

Of course the majority of the people get it. Slower is safer. Period. There is not logical argument to counter that. The majority get it. The special interests that care only for their “right” to do whatever they want are not concerned about anybody getting in the way of their fun even when it impacts everyone else’s ability to enjoy the lake.

And can you folks who keep on using the state motto of “Live Free of Die” give it a rest.

I do not think Stark intended it to be use in the defense of GFBL crowd.

The words "Live Free or Die", written by General John Stark, July 31, 1809, shall be the official motto of the state of New Hampshire. It was the 1945 Legislature that gave New Hampshire its official motto and emblem, as World War II approached a successful end. The motto became "Live Free Or Die," as once voiced by General John Stark, the state's most distinguished hero of the Revolutionary War, and the world famous Old Man of the Mountain was voted the official state emblem. The motto was part of a volunteer toast which General Stark sent to his wartime comrades, in which he declined an invitation to head up a 32nd anniversary reunion of the 1777 Battle of Bennington in Vermont, because of poor health. The toast said in full: "Live Free Or Die; Death Is Not The Worst of Evils." The following year, a similar invitation (also declined) said: "The toast, sir, which you sent us in 1809 will continue to vibrate with unceasing pleasure in our ears, "Live Free Or Die; Death Is Not The Worst Of Evils."
-The New Hampshire Almanac

Just a few simple questions:

How many people were involved with that survey?
Where was the survey done?
Who paid for the survey?
Were they boaters?
Were they from the lakes region?
Did the survey specify the arbitrary limits or just a speed?
How come anybody who opposes HB162 never seem to have remembered being part of this survey?

Let's not forget all these NH citizens that oppose it:
http://www.opposehb162.com/opposehb162/testimonials.htm

real people, real names, real passion to do what's right!

To follow your logic, it's safest to sit perfectly still and do nothing. That seems pretty illogical. Why 45 and 25? Why not 53.2 and 24? or 0 and 0? The numbers seem rather arbitrary.

I routinely exceed 500 MPH, have covered more than a million miles at that speed over the years, and am still very much alive. If slower is so obviously safer, why not have a speed limit in the air?

I've wondered a number of times who the expert was that came up with the 45/25 deal. Why not 60/25 or 30/10:confused:. 30/10 certainly would be safer , right?
What would you bet it's somebody who's boat will do...........oh lets say.......... ahh.......mmmmmmm........43mph. Wanna bet?:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

And they figure that's as fast as anyone has to go;)

As a licensed pilot I can tell you that there are speed limits in the air!

The speed limits for aircraft are dependent on altitude, distance from an airport and if you are in a terminal control area. You must also comply with any speed given you by air traffic control.

There is also an FAA overall speed limit of 758 MPH over land. The military can exceed this if necessary.

These speeds limits are higher than with boats. But remember that at 45 MPH most planes will drop out of the air like a toolbox.

45/25 and not ?
 

The above is my main problem with HB-162. I know of no analysis that says these #s are really what's needed and not excessively restrictive. When you look at auto accident data you generally find that up to a certain speed the accident rate is a constant. Accidents happen at all speeds in a more or less random fashion (because speed isn't the prime causitive factor, other things are). Beyond that speed the rate rises rapidly and in a non-linear fashion. You have gone beyond a limit of some sort (perhaps the road curves sharply or you can't see far enough ahead to avoid a fixed hazard or ??). I believe that speed on the lake follows the same pattern. While JDeere wants to claim slower is safer, and that may be true in some theoretical sense, I claim that the additional safety factor difference between 35 - 45 - 55 - XX is so small as to be meaningless in the practical world where we operate our boats. Below the critical speed, speed ceases to be a factor in whether there's an accident or not. As can be seen from Rep Pilliod's comments the above thinking wasn't part of the decision process. It was simply an arbitrary limit that he thought was "fast enough".

There were many people, myself included, that believed 45 was to low and wanted something higher. But the opposition was into a "no limits" and "live free or die" thing and wouldn't even talk about it.

I remember somebody asking about 70 MPH and they were told NO!! Not 70 not 100 not 200.

A large number of HB162 supporters would have been just as happy or even happier with 60. Now HB162 is a shoe in that might not even be voted on. So now people want to talk about a higher more reasonable limit. I am honestly sorry about that, but I think it's to late.

WOW , like Snoopy and the Red Baron you must have mellowed for the Holiday season:D
I could even go for 60 mph , even though mid 80s are attainable. Over 55/60 mph GPH start climbing drastically , not to mention down time and the cost replacement parts:( .
My present engines have about 90 hours on them and probably less than 2 hours over 60 and less than 1/2 hour at WOT. I'm not one who drives it like I stole it;)
In any case , lets have a truce for tomorrow (Christmas) and give it He!! again on Monday:)


Merry Christmas mein friend

I support HB162 but think 45 is not the right number. I would like a higher limit, but it never got off the ground.

None of the supporters thought 45 was to high. Some though it was OK, others wanted it a little higher. 6 months ago a compromise could have happened.

The big surprise is where are the PWC crowd. This thing became about high performance boaters. Seems to me more PWCs will be effected than GFBLs. And the limit will also effect PWC rentals, yet some marinas that rent them, like y landing, support the limit. Surprising.

I feel that if hb162 passes the lake will probably become a more dangerous place to boat. With a mostly seasonal staff of marine patrol officers, and a limited one at that, it seems to me that the focus should be on very high traffic areas of the lake where speed is usually not an issue anyway. Dont you think that having more marine patrol boats say aroung Eagle/ Governors Islands or Bear Island would make the lake safer instead of having them chase down go fast boats in the broads? The costs associated with enforcing a new law such as this would be better spent adding to the staffing level and enforcing the most common causes of accidents. What are proponents of the law going to say when there are no MP boats in those areas because they are chasing me across the broads to write me a ticket for doing sixty and then again when the officers are in court with me because I decide to fight the ticket?How is this going to make the lake safer? If safety is really the answer then address the real cause and put your efforts to greatly expanding the Marine Patrol so that we can all have a safer lake. Perhaps if both sides of this issue met and came up with proposals to increase the MP budget we might all benefit from increased safety on the lake. Think what a joint venture between both sides might accomplish. Or is safety not the real issue here?

Is safety the issue here?
 

Is safety the issue here? ya right!! politics is the issue here

Nude Beaches may help with Speed problems
 

Instead of legislating speed limits maybe we should legalize public nude or clothing optional areas and beaches around the lake.

If there were a few of those around the area I would expect that Go Fast Be Loud boaters would be slowing down all on their own. Probably down to headway due to the volume of boats in the area.

Legislate freedoms not restrictions. Say yes to relaxing nude and no to speed limits.