|
Are you kidding!
Quote:
|
Quote:
If the study is accurate, and no boats are speeding, then enforcement will not be a problem. Perhaps you should explain that to Woodsy in the other thread. He thinks enforcement will be a huge problem, and cost lots of money. The opposition can't have it both ways. Is there a speeding problem on Winni or not? If there is no speeding problem now, if almost nobody is going over 45, then a speed limit will not inconvenience anyone. If there is a speeding problem now, then I submit we need a speed limit. Anyway the real question about the study is its accuracy. Not who it favors. I think most people on both sides realize the way the data was collected was idiotic. Clearly Woodsy believes enforcement will be extremely difficult, expensive and disruptive to the power boating community. If the study were accurate, how could that be so? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The study proves that you could not have possibly had as many "close calls" with speeding boats as you allude. Especially when you consider how few times you have been on the lake. What more could you possibly need to know about the population of the study that would be relevant? In any study, capturing 2% is a pretty good sample, if we accept the premise that hours of daylight is important, which it isn't......... As far as the accuracy of the study, even though I don't think it is true, let's suppose they missed 50% of the boats that were above 45, that would bump the total from 0.9% to 1.8%, still a very small number, so what????? You keep bombarding us with inaccurate info. only 2 out of 9 areas were published, so you are wrong again. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Common sense, a speed limt isn't going to help you. The only thing that will make you feel safe is a power boat ban, and that isn't going to happen. The world doesn't revolve around you. You should have learned this by now. Show me some data that supports a speed limit, you have none. Just a group of people using scare tactics. Tactics that have been exposed and pretty much admitted or shown as being untrue. When you see some actual data, you try to torpedo that, but you are foiled again.... |
Quote:
However the question is about the constitutionality of setting speed limits, not the practical considerations. |
Quote:
1.) Boats that are traveling at over 15 times as fast as the maximum speed of other boats. 2.) Personally having powerboats come well within my 150 foot zone, because they don't see me in time and are traveling too fast to stay further away. 3.) Knowing that I have less than one second to live, unless a speeding boat is able to avoid hitting me in that last second. 4.) Having friends who won't paddle with me on Winni, because "powerboats goes so fast there." 5.) The fact that Winni isn't even listed in kayak and canoe guidebooks as a lake to paddle on. When people like me have posted of the problems that we have personally experienced on the lake - which are a direct result of high speeds, we are made fun of, called liars, told that we are exagerating, and told that we have unreasonable fears. Apparently you'll only consider speed to be a problem when someone like me is killed by a speeding boat. The problem exists, and everyone knows it. Some people are just too selfish to admit it. |
Quote:
Woodsy's problem with enforcement is the cost. Who will pay to purchase the new gear? The training? Added manpower? If we are going to take the time to put this law into place then it should be enforced. Laws written with the intent of never being enforced are not worth the paper they are written on. Whether or not there is truly a problem is up to you. The fact remains that it will cost $$$ to patrol and enforce it regardless of if they catch anyone. So, if they patrol for 90 days and do not catch anyone should they simply stop? What will happen then if there was an incident after those 90 days and someone got hurt? Who takes the heat then? MP for not enforcing would be the first target after the parties involved. Maybe then the crosshairs should point to Bear Island for not caring about protecting anyone because they did not care about enforcement and simply wanted a revenge law passed. How can you honestly want this law so bad yet care less that any enforcement takes place??? What is the real motive? I think we already know... |
Alton Bay hi-speed zone aka 'The Zone'
Reading thru the LaDaSun article gets me thinking about Reps Gene Chandler and Mike Whalley. Chandler used to be the speaker of the house, and Whalley was probably surprised last election when his time as speaker never happened as the house went Democratic majority.
Anyway, Mike Whalley is from Alton, so after HB847 becomes law maybe he could be persuaded to sponsor a new bill that would designate Alton Bay as the designated 'no speed limits area' so's all the go-fasts can cruise over there for a Sunday morning get-together. That's one of the only areas that offers good visibility from the roads, plus the shape of the Bay could act like a megaphone.. Just imagine sitting at Shibley's Bayside for Sunday breakfast, enjoying a bowl of granola with grapefruit juice, and listening to the resounding echo of a triple 600 MerCruiser engines thunder past.....kaboomba...ba...booomba...booomba....boom ! ALTON BAY....way-to-go! Let's all go to Alton Bay for Sunday speed action easily watched from the roadside embankment.....tell Myrtle to pack the picnic basket....and zoom off to Alton Bay by car or by boat. Seriously, after HB847 gets passed, Alton Bay just may be interested in this idea? It's a speedy type of a neighborhood! |
Quote:
I'd be ok with either of those speed limits on the lake: speed of sound over the continental US (+/- 600 mph) or 200 knots in certain airspace near airports. That would be fine for the lake. 200 knots, within sight of Bear Island, and the speed of sound for the rest of the lake.;) Any speed limit more restrictive than that is just not necessary..... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Maybe the towns could rally the legislation or...
This may be a tad “over the top” but why not encourage technology and the powers that be gather the full extent of information necessary to make a decision on speed limits?
Now I see a major change here, but maybe it is time to change the way we approach situations where peoples’ Rights and citizens’ Wants clash so severely that nary a thing gets accomplished to anyone’s liking:emb:. This may be a large expense, but sometimes it is worth the investment instead of continuing to bandaid the way we think and act. There may even be quite a few jobs created from management to technician. :rolleye2: <O:p</O:p The concept is that the lake is a beautiful public playground for all ages:). There will be a few playground monitors (Marine Patrol craft:cool:) wandering the play area with radio contact to Principal’s office. The Principal will notify a monitor, with all water craft information, when controlling action is required and the monitor will police the situation. <O:p</O:p Picture this: <O:p</O:p 1). EVERY craft on the lake is required to have some sort of RFID (radio freq ID chip) with GPS capabilities. These will be issued via registration through the NH Dept of Safety. – Not impossible. Currently all new automobiles have the technology added to the computer, just not all are purchased “active”. Technology is also used on pet collars. <O:p</O:p 2). Various locations on mainland and islands to host a receiver station and a line of sight transmitter to a collection station. Collection station operator (manned by the Marine Patrol?) will oversee lake usage of crafts through some sort of Air Traffic Controller program and display (Tom Cruise in Minority Report comes to mind). <O:p</O:p 3). Lake</ST1:p areas (150 ft off shore) will be designated, on maps (Bizer will be busy) and through transmitters on top of buoys, as areas for “gentle activities” and “rough sports activities”. The open waters of the Broads comes to mind as a sandlot football/rugby field, maybe even the stretch from Rattlesnake Island towards Govenor’s Island (backing off for traffic leaving Gilford Town Dock). The RFID on each craft will read the transmitter from the buoy to further notify the navigator. <O:p</O:p Now the information collected will be in entirety not just random gatherings in random locations at random times. This will tell everyone just how many craft there are and what speeds they travel, and where the speeds increase and decrease based on operators thought process. And, for those needing to know, it will tell everyone how many kayaks and canoes, large and small are using what kinds of play areas and when they are in use. It will not be able to identify clothing or lack thereof. <O:p</O:p With all this information collected, now the politicians can agree to mandate what a trained expert may suggest IF a law appears to be required. <O:p</O:p This is a raw idea and could use tweaking. I see this type of thinking may already be in the near future for cars as California is trying some sort of computer self driving idea with a few cars on a section of highway. Connecticut</ST1:p has wired I-95 and I-91 with fiber optics for their cameras and is capable of, but not doing, monitoring individual car speeds, and like toll booths, mail tickets home to registered offender with picture attached.:eek: <O:p</O:p |
Problem-Boaters with Problem-Boats—II
Quote:
Quote:
and... Quote:
and... Quote:
Quote:
and... Quote:
Quote:
and... Quote:
Quote:
and... Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Speed data collected by a clearly marked patrol boat in plain view will be lower than normal. Anybody care to disagree with that statement? How about Skip, he must have some incite into this. |
Quote:
I don't know what sane political motivation would exist for a public safety official to lie about whether the lake has a speed issue or not. It just doesn't make sense and in fact, if I didn't know better, I'd say it sounds a little paranoid. I see no gain for the guy to lie or manipulate one way or the other. That's what this whole SL campaign has been about, scare tactics, paranoia and exclusion. Time to stop this madness......... |
No way, no way, no way! Whenever I see a green & bronze state trooper perched behind a snowbank, or the black & white Meredith PD set up on Pleasant St, what I do is to put the pedal to the metal. It's all about reverse psychcology, whatever that means, and doing just the opposite of what is assumed, or something,,,,big words.....sounds impressive! Works for me! Hey, New Hampshire is probably unique from here all the way to Wyoming as being an ' automobile insurance optional' type of a state. What-Me-Worry....I can always pedal a bicycle!:coolsm:
|
Quote:
It is quite common for public officials to take high paying jobs in the industry they once regulated. |
Quote:
and, yes, some people are just to selfish to admit that a speed limit is not necessary. Why? Because the 150' rule and making yourself visible to others while paddling will cure the [strike]reasons[/strike] excuses for your fears. |
Insightful inciting....inciting insight????
Quote:
|
New Avatar
Skip,
Greart new avatar! I believe that was an under 45 MPH accident, but with a clearly marked patrol car. :) R2B |
Quote:
Let's see, the pro-speedlimit group argues that a speedlimit will make the lake safer for everyone. And the anti-speedlimit group argues that they have a right to go really fast - even when their actions have a negative impact on many other boaters. Which group is more like a spoiled 2-year-old? There is nothing funny about NH residents feeling that their largest lake has become too dangerous to use - because of the high speeds of some powerboats. My kayaking friends are not timid people. If the lake is so safe, why isn't it listed in a single paddling guide? Squam is listed - and so isn't lake Champlain (which is considerably larger than Winni). I have posted (many times) that one of the main reasons that we need a speed limit is that, when they 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, which will make the lake safer for everyone. As far as making myself more visible: My 16 foot sea kayak has a bright red upper hull, a white lower hull, my paddle blades are bright orange, my PFD is red, and my dry top is bright orange. My best friend's kayak is just like mine, only it's upper hull is bright yellow. Yet some high-speed boat operators still break the 150 foot rule before they notice us in time. Speed is the issue here. In good weather, I can usually spot other kayaks when they are a mile away. It's amazing how much more you can see (or notice) when you just slow down. High-speed boaters have even hit islands on Winni - I guess we need to make islands more visible as well. |
Quote:
As far as your question...it could be turned around to ask if so few boats are speeding then why the need to ask the government to get involved in our lives for something that is only a problem for some. The fast boats are not asking to restrict where the slow boats can go so why do we need to restrict where they can go. If they can't maintain the 150 foot rule from shore and other vessels than we already have laws for that. I would much rather have the MP stopping captain bone head going 15mph at full wake and 75 feet from your kayak with 15 people on board. We see them all day on the island. We call them "Wakus Maximus". We have a law that they are violating 50 foot from my dock and 25 feet from my kids swimming, but the MP is behind the island trying to find the one fast boat in an hour. He is far from shore and making hardly any wake and paying keen attention. I remember the book, what color is your parachute. In this case, what color is your kayak? |
Quote:
ieSpell can't offer me any insite about my spelling deficiencies. |
Quote:
Honestly, what high paying jobs are available in the area that would he could obtain from lobbying for the speed limit bill to be tossed out? If you'd really like me to ask, I will see his daughter and grand daughter tomorrow night :look: |
Quote:
It is you that is attributing my answer to a specific person. I am not sure which official you are referring to but assume it to be someone high up in the Marine Patrol or Dept. of Safety. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I think 5 shots from your same IP address speaks loudly enough. |
Problem Boats with Problem Boaters III
Quote:
Quote:
and... Quote:
Quote:
and... Quote:
http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/2002/oi0211161.jpg :confused: If you can't see a kayak, can you at least see a kayaker? http://www.treknologies.com/images/molokiniL2.jpg :rolleye1: :confused: :look: :confused: :look: Quote:
and... Quote:
and... Quote:
Quote:
and... Quote:
Scream And Fly Extreme Boats Boat Freaks Hot Boat Offshore Only Winnilakers Speed Wake Baja Marine Echoshores Boating ABC Donzi Registry Weekend Pundit NHBassFederation BassResource Sharkey Marine |
Quote:
There’s nothing funny about NH residents feeling that their largest lake has become too dangerous to boat on. How is supporting a lake speed limit bill being selfish? This bill only requires the fastest boats to slow down to what I and many others consider to be a reasonable speed. It doesn’t ban any type of boat from any part of the lake. Making the lake(s) safer is the reason that most NH residents are in favor of the lake speed limit bill. The “right” to go faster than 45 mph is the main reason against it. I testified at last year’s transportation committee hearing and heard all the testimonies. It was obvious that most those in opposition felt that their “right” to go fast was more important than the safety concerns of others – because it is “fun to go fast”. So which side is acting more like a spoiled two-year-old? My 16-foot sea kayak’s upper hull is bright red, it’s lower hull is white, the blades of my paddle are bright orange, my drytop is bright orange, and my PFD is red. My friend’s kayak has a bright yellow upper hull. I really don’t know how anyone can not see us! Yet some high-speed boaters have not noticed us in time to stay out of our 150 foot zone. The 150 foot rule isn’t protecting us if others are traveling so fast that they don’t notice us in time. Speed is the problem here, not visibility. I don’t have trouble seeing other kayaks – but I’m traveling around 5 mph, not at 60 or 70mph. Here's a video of what 70MPH looks like: http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/8695 Would this guy be able to see a kayak in time? It is extremely dangerous to continue to allow speeds of 70mph (and faster) on lakes that are used by much smaller, and much slower boats. |
OK... I get it. This is the old "if you can't discredit the message, discredit the messenger" routine we have seen so many times before. I have made several posts recently that have hit home and made sense, so now it's time to throw mud on me.
And as I have not done anything worthy of a mudbath, you blame me for what someone else has posted. I have no idea of the internal workings of the Dept. of Safety. Who thought up the study? Who approved it? You are the one that insists on posting a name. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Will you please just try to be even a little right when you write. The "anti-speed limit" crowd has pointed out that the speed limit crowd cannot support their erroneous, scare tactic, trumped up, proven untrue assertions. This is an effort to eliminate a class of boats off the lake. While being trumpeted as a safety issue, data, tests and common sense have shown that a speed limit will not help safety. In fact common sense dictates that a speed limit will divert limited resources away from programs that truly do enhance safety rendering the lake LESS SAFE. |
And more hyperbole
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
As ITD said, own up to it. It is clear what you meant to everyone else here. Why else would you just pull a comment out of thin air like that? No mud was thrown at you, if anything you were the one slinging it towards elected state officials without proof. My post regarding the IP address was merely indicating the exact sentiments from your area of the island. Friend? Neighbor? Family? |
Survey conditions
Quote:
Where is former director Barrett working these days ? |
I was answering the question as I was asked. However if the shoe fits...
It's my opinion that the only reason for the study was to delay or derail speed limit legislation. And that those responsible are thereby endangering the lives of the public they are paid to protect. I would like to give those responsible the benefit of the doubt, but it's not easy. It is hard to believe that boating safety professionals could truly think the lake is safer without speed limits. In fact it's almost impossible for me to accept that. |
Rights and what's right
Quote:
So let's come to speed laws, be they on the lake on on land. What "we" want is reasonable limits should they be needed. It's not a question of rights perse but rather on how much Govt limitation we're willing to accept. That the Govt has the power to impose all manner of restriction doesn't make it "right", it's just that it's the best way we humans have of trying to decide what to do. In talking about reasonable restrictions I have to bring up the old NMSL of 55 mph. Did you ... or pretty much anyone ... agree with that ? I'll guess 'no' given how ignored that law was. Why was that ? I ask this question because the answer goes to the heart of the whole debate. What's a reasonable restriction ? What makes it so ? I maintain that a blanket restriction of 45 mph across all of Winni and at all times is too restrictive and better could be done. |
Survey conditions
Quote:
So you don't know the conditions the survey was done under ... other than what was published at the NH govt site. |
Quote:
It would have been better if the opposition had come up with a viable compromise or alternative instead of the "No Limits!" stance that is doomed to lose in the long run. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:03 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.