[QUOTE=Bear Islander;63119]... I did not experience half the spin I get on this forum..It starts when an opponent posts there are "no statistics" or "no accidents" then they are shown the statistics and reminded of the accidents. Next comes the long list of excuses why those stats do not apply. A short period of silence, the it starts again with "no statistics" "no accidents".


Bear Islander: Seriously? Again you baffle the forum. Please site the statistics that directly apply to lake Winnipesaukee. After all this Bill directly applies to Lake Winnipesaukee so you should easily be able to cite and provide the statistics and accidents that occurred on Lake Winnipesaukee that were a direct result of speed. Go for it. I wait with baited breath. If you do not reply to this direct request I will refer to this as a "short period of silence" while you research and find NOTHING!

You have officially lost all credibility in my eyes. I know that means nothing to you but it is a shame because you had so much promise for your "side" of the argument. Now.... your ball my friend, provide those "accidents" and "statistics" on LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE that were a direct result of speed. HA HA HA HA HA HA YOU CAN'T!!!!!!

The spin starts already, they have to be on Winnipesaukee. Why? Do you think there is some magic that protects people on this lake? And what speed does it have to be in excess of? Does it have to be boat to boat? Day? Night? Can alcohol be involved? How long ago still applies? What if the speed can not be EXACTLY determined beyond any doubt?

Give me all the parameters now so I can save time.

Gee
 

Gee I guess you're right Bear Islander.

Can you please state which lake the HB in question refers to? Yeah I'm spinnin it allllright. The HB in question sets a speed limit on ONE LAKE and ONE LAKE ONLY. Which one you ask.... Well I'lls tells yas... LAKE WINNI.. What's that you say? Yup Lake Winneeeepesaukeeeeee. Well sir should we only discuss stats and incidents on the body of water in question. GOOD QUESTION meeee friend???? Well sir, accordin to one side of the argument we should throw in every incident on theeee continental US of A. But why's that pa? Well sir, it bolsters that there argument to slap a good ole speed limit on that there lake. But pa, that don' make no sense? Well junior it ought to make no sense, it only has to make sense to those folk who wanna make it make sense. Huh? Ya see Junior, Them folk who wanna speed limit wanna figur out a way to make the stats fith their agenda.......

I could go on but.. Nah. Bear Isle??? You are reachin and grabbin. Good luck to ya.

Btw
 

Your last post is in the category of "short period of silence" because you never cited specific incidents on LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE that directly reflect the need for a speed limit on LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE. Because the bill only applies to LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE. So start there.... Any and all speed related incidents regardless of day, night, alcohol, moon phase, sunlight, boat to boat, magic, etc. etc. etc. Here it is.... seriously all you need to do is site ANY incident from the beginning of time until now that involved speed on Lake Winnipesaukee and a death, injury, whatever... seriously anything that involves speed on this lake and this lake only. That's the only parameter, I swear. So go for it. I wait again with baited breath.............

Are those 2 speed limit test zones still speed zones?
 

I thought the speed limit test zones by Rattlesnake Island and Bear Island were temporary. I believed they were speed limits there for several weeks, not for the entire season. Was there really an expiration date, as I believe, on those speed limit zones? I thought they were finished before the end of the summer 2007 season and just for a pilot test program.

I ask because an alleged authoritative source indicates that those two locations are still active speed limit zones.

Thanks

Speed Spin
 

OK BI, here is some spin, per your request. Excessive speed does not mean exceeding 45. The last time I dinged my prop, excessive speed was the cause. I was going 6 when I should have been going 2. Then I could have stopped in time when my look-out saw the rock.

What is your motivation for pushing for a speed-limit rather than against excessive speed? Safe boating demands that speed be related to conditions of the weather, water and traffic. When you use the term "excessive speed" to justify a speed limit, that is spinning the report in an unjustified way. Speed is already regulated in the careless/reckless rules, and that is no spin. Defining 45+ as careless/reckless is what the fight is about. 45 can be too fast - but so can 6.

Fear and Lies...
 

Check Photopost for a 130-MPH Nor-tech in Alton Bay.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopo...IM001018_2.jpg

Can you see the "driver"?

Nor can he see you. :(

Yup. But the above "Opponents List" can be filled with unknown persons scattered from Portsmouth to Berlin. :rolleye1:

Gilford had one run up a hill and into a house. (The Marine Patrol's first call for three body bags at Lake Winnipesaukee).

That said, there was no proof of excessive speed. :rolleye1:

You're both right. It is quite a large quantity—at Snopes.com click here.

Who is attacking whom?
 

I know what spatial awareness is, and I also looked it up. "Spatial awareness is an organised knowledge of objects including oneself, in a given space. Spatial awareness also involves understanding the relationships of these objects when there is a change of position."

Nowhere in the definitions of Spatial Awareness does it mention the "ability to judge distance and speed". The human brain cannot accurately judge distance or speed without some type of tool. We can estimate, but our estimates generally are not very good. That's why we have rulers, tape measures and speedometers. You are, once again, mistaken if you think you can accurately judge distance and speed. Especially speed, while sitting in your kayak. In fact, that is probably the problem with your perceptions of the lake.

Pointing out inconsistencies in your posts, which are plentiful, does not make me a liar. You feel as though you should be able to post whatever you like and not be challenged as to your information's veracity. Well, when the information you post will result in restrictions imposed on me, you better have your act together. If I see a problem with your post, I am going to point it out. You can cry all you want about it, but that is the way it is.

As far as personal attacks go, reread what you write about me. You call me: a liar, underhanded, wrong and other things. Who's comments are bordering on personal attacks? Why yours are. It's ok though, I'm a grown up, I can take it.

The only thing I want to discredit is your message, that the lake is a dangerous place for kayaks because of boats travelling above 45 mph. It's simply not true. It's not supported by the statistics, the speed survey or many people's extensive experience on the lake.

Lighten up, stick to the facts, quit crying about personal attacks when you lose in the arena of ideas.........

BTW, I'm aware of your initial posts, they were used to point out that you didn't have extensive experience on the lake when your later posts gave the impression that you did.

How will they enforce?
 

Stupid questions...Maybe someone here can answer them for me.
If your boat is old and has no speedometer, how do you know you now what speed you are traveling?
Also, has anyone ever considered the folks who will take up the job of policing the lake and calling in folks they consider are speeding. #1 How will MP deal with it with the small squad they have on Winni and #2 How can anyone determine, without a radar gun, what 46+ mph is? How many MP folks are normally out on a Sunday in July?

I am pushing for HB847 because it is better than the nothing we have now. Just saying excessive speed leaves things to open to interpretation. Every ticket would have to be a huge argument. Why not use excessive speed as the limit on route 93? Because it will not work, that's why.


Hazelnut -

Limiting it to one lake creates to small a statistical universe. Why does the double fatality on Long Lake last summer not apply? If you want to exclude that accident you should tell me why it could not have happened on Winni.

Why stop at limiting it to Winni. Someone in Winter Harbor might argue that there has never been a serious accident in Winter Harbor, therefore it should have no speed limit. But WH is not a good example I guess since there was a fatal boating accident there last summer.

BTW HB847 applies to all the lakes in NH. The attached amendment the opposition wanted fixes it to Winni only. The Senate can pass HB847 and NOT the amendment if they choose.

Back to my limitations. There are still two questions open. You can't just say "involve speed", I didn't just fall off a turnip truck! What speed? 45/25? And how do we know what the speed of the boats actually were. Otherwise you will wiggle out with the "please prove the boat was going 90 mph exactly" crap. If a report, newspaper article etc says about XX mph, is that good enough?

On Winnipesaukee, the MP has those three 27' military style, combo aluminum-rib interceptors, powered by twin Merc 150 two-strokes, two marked & one unmarked. Mostly, they just slowly cruise around at about 1/4 power, just being present, visible, and available in case something happens. They like to set up and wait in some likely spot, behind a little island or around a bend, and anticipate for something to happen. It's called law enforcement.

Bingo, you're it.....got you! Out on the water, you can always run, but you can't hide. Where you gonna run to? :D


Let's see...in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, or New Jersey....first speed violation=loss of your good driver's discount which stays on your record for three years...and costs maybe $500./year in higher insurance. How much is 3 x 500, plus the $88 NH fine?

They do next time it's snow drive by a State trouper going 65 and see what it gets you..............

First off IF they hunt you down there is no way for them to prove who was driving ......thank you have a nice day....

second the new laws keep things on your record for 7 years......

It's on you
 

Bear Islander,

The burden of proof lies squarely on your and the supporters shoulders. It's not up to me to provide hypothetical situations in which speed might be a factor.

You go ahead and list all the fatal accidents or accidents that involved injury in the state of New Hampshire that involved a boat traveling in excess of the arbitrary magic number of 45MPH. That is your burden not mine. I'm not the one trying to pass a law. I just want the MP to enforce the existing laws that are designed with safety in mind. Not some random 45MPH limit that is based on nothing.

Snowmobiles have a New Hampshire land speed limit of 45mph, and snowmos even have brakes, & groomed trails, which boats do not have. After HB847 is law, snowmos will continue to not have a speed limit on Winnipesaukee, so's at least you'll still be able to run that snowmo up to 125mph, if you want. Got to be an optimist, here!

236-111.....14-10......hut-hut-hut....hike!!!:banana:

Spin, Spin, Spin... now they must be fatal or involve injury... see what I mean. And why not over 25 mph at night? that is what HB847 is.

However the real problem is proving the speed. The Marine Patrol does not list specific speeds in boating accidents. Even if they did the argument is that those speeds are "only estimates". I have been down this road before.

I don't need to prove anything. 236 to 111

The truth is there have been many serious or fatal accidents, on Winni and off. Real people are really dead. But the opposition closes its eyes to every one.

Ha Ha Ha
 

SPIN???

You are a riot!! Ok name ANY!!!! ANY ANY ANY ACCIDENT that involved over 45 during the day and over 25 at night.... HA HA HA SPIN?!?!?!? HA HA HA HA. You lose credibility with every post BI. I'm really at a loss for words to describe your inability to debate a subject based on facts.


FLL,

GREAT POINT. I bet we could find far more speed related fatalities on Snow Mobiles. However no cry for a speed limit because Bear Islander and other special interest groups aren't ascared or bothered by snowmobiles.

And why does the fatal Meredith Bay accident from 2002 not count?

28 mph at night.




awaiting spin cycle...

Why?
 

Why is it Spin when you don't agree with something? It's like debating a child. Why should I even respond to you any more? Whatever I say right now will be written off by you as spin. I'm not going down that road. Anyway is that the best you have? That accident from almost six years ago. Lets say I accept that accident, I won't bring up any debate over that one. I'll give you that one. I'm laughing as I type that last sentence..... Anyway, you can have it. So that's it? That's the reason for a Speed Limit on Lake Winnipesaukee?

Bravo Bear Islander you've proven the case, well done. I concur based on an accident from 2002 that involved a boat traveling 3MPH over the proposed speed limit we should emphatically accept HB847.

Thank you for showing me the light :rolleye2:

How many children in canoes were run over?

Is that supposed to be funny?

I'm sure the Senators are amused.

estimated 28mph, there was radar gun there so there is no way to accurately state the speed of that idiot's boat. Alcohol was the problem, not speed. Even if there was a speed limit 28mph is not really such a huge infraction that we need a law passed. ALCOHOL was the problem.

Point being is there was no accident so talking about a fast boat that didn't have an accident is no defense of the need for a speed limit.

Wow! That boat is FLYING! He must be going what, about 5 or 6 knots? Man, look at the wake he is putting down! OMG Look out everybody, it is a big bad GFBL!! :rolleye2:

I could take him If I could get over his wake

I signed up for NHRBA emails regarding HB162 (and now HB847). At one point, I emailed back and suggested that NHRBA organize a day to invite ALL the legislators for a ride on a performance boat (preferably boats of different lengths), to show them first-hand what 45mph looks and feels like and what 25mph looks like to the driver. Later on, during this past summer, when I ran into an NHRBA officer (from Alton Bay, I believe) and mentioned my suggestion, I was informed that they had attempted to organize something like that but the offer was turned down because the legislators were afraid of the appearance of accepting a "gift" from the performance boat owners. To me, it sounds more like they weren't interested in getting any factual evidence about something they had probably already made up their collective minds about.


Acres Per Second originally posted the photo below and it illustrates a point I haven't seen discussed here as of yet. As you can see from the picture, this boat is not moving very fast, probably headway speed or slightly above (he's certainly not on plane and he's creating very little wake). APS stated in his original post, "Can you see the "driver"? Nor can he see you. :( " Notice the "bow up" attitude of the boat; at slightly more than headway speed, it's difficult to see over the bow of a 30ft boat. At 25mph, the bow is even higher in the air, making it even more difficult to see what might be ahead of you!! I don't know the specifics of everyone's boat, but I know my own 25ft Baja won't get up on plane at 25mph and even if I pushed to 35mph to get on plane, it won't stay there if I throttle back to 25mph. I spoke with the owner of a 42ft Fountain once and he told me he can barely keep it on plane at 40mph! So if HB847 passes, you've now exchanged one safety hazard for another; you've slowed us down to a "safe" speed but now we can't see where we're going!!! Thanks for blinding me in the pursuit of safety!



If noise is such a problem on the lake, ask your state reps why the state bans switchable exhausts on boats?? When I bought my boat, I inquired about a switchable exhaust but I was told they were outlawed by the state however no reason was offered. Personally, I'd LOVE to have a switchable exhaust so I could quiet the exhaust down when I'm in a crowded environment (docking, etc.) or if I'm out at night and returning to my dock and don't want to bother the neighbors. But, the state bans them, probably only because they're banned for automobiles and trucks!! After all, if they're bad on land, they MUST be bad on the water (just like speed limits are good on land so they MUST be good on the water, no?)!! :rolleye1: Perhaps it's time this one small section of law is reviewed and maybe, CHANGED!! If anyone knows WHY switchable exhausts are banned on boats, please let me know because I honestly don't see the logic in that.

I don't know anything about your boat, but if you can't operate at legal speeds AND be able to see where you are going, then it should not be on a crowded lake.

I have heard the switchable exhaust story before. There might be a few responsible people that would use it in a crowded environment. However I'm sure the reason it is illegal is because it would mostly be used to quiet down when the Marine Patrol was around.... I was born at night, but I wasn't born LAST night.

Only a matter of time
 

Unfortunately, once the boat speed limit is passed, it will only be a matter of time before the "take-your-freedom-away" crowd go after the sleds on the lake. It's like they can't help themselves. If there's not an active issue they can work on to restrict others' activities, then they're not happy.

I'd like to see switchable exhaust become legal, but only if the boat passed the noise requirements on both settings. The reason they are illegal is because they typically fail the noise test when set to "open".

Oddly, I have to agree with BI about boats that ride dangerously bow high (meaning the view forward is blocked) at speeds above 25 MPH. Sounds like a design issue that should be addressed. Sustained operation in that mode is reckless, IMO, and ought to earn the operator a ticket. If it's not possible to maintain planing speed, the operator should reduce speed to bring the bow down far enough to see. That's just common sense.

That said, I've never, ever, seen a GFBL operated in this manner. Riding bow-up and making a huge wake is much more common on cabin cruisers, bass boats, and bow riders, from what I have witnessed. Unless it's really choppy, I have never been able to figure out why anyone would do that. It's the least efficient speed possible on any boat.

Honestly, at both settings on the exhaust (thru-hull and diverted down) as long as the decibel level meets state law why ban it??? Hmm, I can go from legal to even quieter and back again with a switch. Maybe mandate that if equipped it needs to be on the quieter setting at night?

As far as the picture posted by APS, from the distance that the picture was taken it is hard to see the driver anyhow. It has nothing to do with the nose of the boat...That is misleading. Go figure? :rolleye2: I don't see boats typically driving around with their noses so high in the air that they can't see where they are going. That is not the problem on the lake.

To heck with the 130mph Cat, below is a speedo pic from my boat, 194mph. Bet the Cat can't do that! (actually it was a bad ground that whacked out the speedo but the picture was priceless)

Speedy Boating is the Life for Meeee-eee
 

For Winni, always drive GFBLs so you can drive anywhere—in any weather—in comfort. :rolleye2:

OK, let me try this again.

BI, where did I say anything about lifting the existing decibel limits? I didn’t!! So, as codeman671 put it, I could either be legally loud or courteous and quiet. What a novel idea!!! God forbid I should ever try to be courteous because we all know performance boaters are not courteous!! Yeah, right; what a bunch of BS!!


Nice, twist my words. BI, I CAN operate my boat at legal speeds because for now, at least, “legal” is “reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions” which means I’m allowed to throttle up, at night, to get my boat up on plane so I can SEE where I’m going without having the bow of my boat blocking my forward visibility. I can also see in front of my boat if I’m moving at no-wake speed. 25mph is where the problem arises; it's simply too slow to get my, and I'm guessing alot of other boats, up on plane. If the 25mph night-time speed limit is imposed, the only way I would be able to keep the bow down so I could see in front of my boat, would be to break the speed limit to get up on plane and stay there (GASP!) or motor at no-wake speed and, to borrow from Dave_R, no-wake speed is not the most efficient speed possible on a boat. My wife and I work hard to afford our boat; we're not rich. Since we're not rich, I’m not going to waste money and fuel! You pro-limit people think all the GFBL people are “rich” but I, for one, am NOT! Oh, I almost forgot, there is one other option, stay home and not go out at all. But this isn’t about keeping a certain type of boat off the lake, is it?!?!?


Dave_R, as far as I know, it’s not a “design issue” that needs to be addressed but then again, I’m not a designer. From my own personal experience and what little bit I’ve read about boat design, any boat that has a “planing” type of hull will encounter a bow high condition until it reaches planing speed. Obviously, the lighter and/or shorter the boat, the lower the planing speed will be. You’ve “never, ever, seen a GFBL operated in this manner” because we (the performance boat owner/driver) KNOW it’s unsafe and our intent is to get up on plane as soon as we are clear of traffic (this is where the 150’ rule comes into play!) so that we CAN see in front of us! Apparently, the intent IS to keep a certain type of boat off the lake, because the longer and heavier a boat is, the higher the minimum planing speed of said boat. So if the 25mph limit is imposed, a lot of performance boat owners won’t be able to safely use their boat at night.

Dave_R, in one paragraph you say “If it's not possible to maintain planing speed, the operator should reduce speed to bring the bow down far enough to see. That's just common sense” and in the next paragraph “It's the least efficient speed possible on any boat.”, referring to bow high operation. We can’t have it both ways. Most, maybe not all, performance boats can’t “reduce speed to bring the bow down far enough to see” (to meet the proposed 25mph night-time limit) and still operate efficiently. I don’t want to waste the fuel (and money) by being on the lake at night and only go “no-wake” speed and besides, we’ve already heard from the people claiming we pollute more than any other type of boat (including the two-cycle outboards?) so it’s really not advisable for that reason also.

This is why the current standard, “reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions”, is STILL the best alternative. It’s not the performance boaters making the lake unsafe, it’s the boneheads that either don’t know or ignore the existing laws that are unsafe. Fund the MP so they can enforce the existing laws and ticket THEM to death until they either get it straight or stop coming here altogether but don’t legislate us to death for their ignorance and/or arrogance.

OK, rip me apart; I know someone out there wants to do it.

Boat for uncrowded days
 

This kind of boat might encourage agressive driving. If a captain has to fall below 25 to avoid traffic, it probably takes a gallon or so of extra gas to regain a plane. In congested times, what is a captain to do?

I am very much against speed limits. I don't want to rip anyone apart. I like to see boats like your on the lake even though I have no desire to own one or hear one if it's loud. Does yours have those cool purple graphics Baja seems to sell a lot of?

I disagree about fuel efficiency, hulls are most efficient at displacement speeds. They are least efficient when running bow high and making a big wake. Planing hulls are also pretty efficient (some nearly as efficient as displacement speed) when cleanly up on plane, but no faster. I can see how some GFBL boats would be propped such that even at idle speed, they are above displacement speed and perhaps getting a little less MPG than they would cleanly up on plane, but the difference would be negligible and the MPG would be vastly superior to plowing speed.

Say the speed limit passes:

If you operate your boat at idle, in gear, the bow will be down enough to see properly and you'll be well below the proposed speed limit and operating safely, efficiently and legally.

If you operate at 24 MPH with the bow blocking your forward vision, you'll be legally staying below the speed limit, but not very safe, and you'll be wasting a bunch of fuel.

If you operate at 26 MPH with the bow down, and light conditions allow you to do this safely, you'll be doing the smartest thing, but breaking the law.

If you have a boat that can't plane below 25 MPH, you still can operate at night safely and legally, it's just not much fun.

I hope it does not pass.

That depends on the captain. IMO, this type of boat requires cautious driving. In congested times, common sense dictates slowing down to headway speed. In my opinion, congested implies an inability to maintain 150ft from all other boats/craft in the vicinity which means we should ALL be moving at no-wake speed in that vicinity. I slow down whenever I'm near (meaning within 200ft of) other boats to wait and see because I never know what they're going to do!

In the situation you suggested, I'm not concerned with the amount of fuel needed to get back on plane once I'm clear of congested traffic, but I don't like the implication that, if the 25mph limit is imposed, if I want to travel back from Weirs Beach to Wolfeboro at night, I'll have to do it at headway speed (and waste MORE fuel than in the scenario you suggested) even if there were no other craft within 500ft of my boat the entire way!!

Think of the no-wake zone between Eagle and Governor's Islands. No way is that 450 feet across but most boaters wouldn't slow down to no-wake speed if they were going through there at the same time another boat was. MP (or whoever makes these decisions) had to mark it as a no-wake zone because people did not use common sense and slow down when they were going through. And even with that no-wake zone marked, people STILL don't slow down when going through there!! I'm constantly cursing to myself about the boneheads that ignore the 150ft rule in this particular area (Eagle/Governor Isl.).

Dave, I wasn't referring to you when I said "ok, rip me apart", I just knew somebody will eventually. I think your posts on this issue have been very sane. To be honest, when I was writing that post, I couldn't remember where you stood on the issue but I felt I had to address the comments you made.

To answer your other question, no, my wife hates purple!! We have bright yellow, lime green and dark blue graphics; actually, they look very nice together!

Regarding displacement hulls, I don't know how efficient or inefficient they are compared to planing hulls But I did find this at About.com:Powerboating:
Regarding planing hulls, the same website had this to say (but they made no comment as to fuel efficiency):


Now, to answer your questions about if the speed limit passes:
Not going to happen because of the high cost of fuel and I can't afford to waste it.

Also not going to happen because of the safety issue and the cost of fuel that I cannot afford to waste.

If my memory serves me correctly, my boat must be moving approx. 32mph to stay on plane and that's with my trim tabs ALL THE WAY DOWN. I'm not sure I'd even do this because I can't afford the speeding ticket on my license. But let me ask you this; how many people do you think actually ALWAYS travel at the posted speed limits on land (30, 35, 45, 65, etc.)? Most of the time, I'm travelling at 5mph above the posted limit and I've done it either in front of or behind the police travelling in the same direction with me or passing by in the opposite direction with no hand gesture to slow down.

Correct and the pro-limit people will have won and taken away my freedom of enjoying my leisure time the way I want to.

They can't see me!
 

This quote from the Radar Thread
Evenstar, you have consistently claimed that your 150' space is violated by boaters who CAN NOT SEE you due to their excessive speed. I have no doubt that you honestly feel that way. One fallacy is that many of these boaters may actually see you and just not care. Another is that it's primarily boaters going over 45 mph that can not see you soon enough to avoid your 150' zone.

Boaters have violated my 150' space going much slower than 45 mph and some are Go Fast boats that aren't going over 45mph. My 24' cruiser is not low in the water and it's easy to see. I conclude that these violators don't know or care about the 150' rule. I'm up high enough so I can often see that they see me. This is an education and enforcement issue, not a speed problem.

Why do you not address the main theme of your fear - Boaters INABILITY TO SEE WELL. Where is it required that boaters have good vision? Why are you seemingly unconcerned about that?

As an extreme example of my point: What prevents a legally BLIND person from taking the helm of ANY recreational boat on Winnie? At 30 or 50 mph it really won't make much difference if they can't see well in the first place. Even if they see well enough to have a driver's license it may not be good enough in my opinion.

I won't use this un-retouched picture to bolster my point but I can tell you that the Captain of this cat did not see the boy or his OCEAN KAYAK less than 20' away!! Plus now I know what an Ocean Kayak looks like. :)

The speed limit will not prevent all unsafe behavior on the lake - and I've never sugested that it would.

But I do know that some power boat operators travel faster then their ability to see smaller boats in time to remain outside of the 150 foot zone. I am basing this on their surprised reaction, when they do finally spot me. Slower boats always seem to see me in plenty of time - it's the faster boats that are the problem in this situation - and a speed limit will in my opinion make this less likely to result in a serious accident.

People do intentionally violate the 150 foot rule all the time, but the violation of one law does not negate the need for a different law. Perhaps we do need a vision test as well. There's a great deal that can be done to make boating safer - in my opinion the speed limit is one of the needed steps in making the lake(s) safer for everyone.

Oh say can you see
 

Interesting thoughts Skipper. How would a vision check be put in place? Eyesight testing does not seem practical.

You can put speed limits in place but you won't see vision tests as you have for driver's licenses. Speed limit proponents feel that their method is the most practical for that feel good feeling.

Sails can block vision but at sailing speed the kayaker could blow the whistle or yell to the catamaran to alert people to his position. That sail catamaran is lucky to get 10 mph so speed limits would not make any difference here.

How could you deal with any vision requirement for boaters?

Since there are special licenses and testing for motorcycles, commercial trucks (different classes of licenses for different classes of trucks), etc., perhaps it's time for a real license for operation of a boat. A vision test could be administered at the time the license is issued or renewed. All fees generated from a boat license could be directed solely to the Marine Patrol to increase their staff. Mandate that if the boat owner lives out-of-state but registers their boat in NH, they MUST have the NH boat license. Then, find a way to mandate those visiting from out-of-state have something similar showing that they KNOW the boating laws of NH and know how to operate a boat safely. That last one would probably be the toughest one to implement.

At the very least, in lieu of an actual license, maybe all boaters should be required to take a refresher of the boater safety course every 5 years or so.

We all know ignorance of the law is no excuse but if anyone wants to be ignorant, just don't let them operate a boat!