Winnipesaukee Forum
Page 6 of 6 « First 45 6
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Winnipesaukee Forum (https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/index.php)
-   Speed Limits (https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=19)
-   -   Hb 847 Meeting In Concord. (https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5902)

codeman671 05-08-2008 02:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 69954)
Thurston's is not the only one, there are more on this supporters list.
Funny to see Y-Landing on both lists... Even more funny being that since they sell higher octane gas they are the preferred fillup spot for many performance boaters.

I have heard of Glendale not being a supporter as well, especially being that they are pushing high performance pontoons. When I see Gary this weekend I will ask what their true stance is.

chmeeee 05-08-2008 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman671 (Post 69956)
Funny to see Y-Landing on both lists... Even more funny being that since they sell higher octane gas they are the preferred fillup spot for many performance boaters.

I have heard of Glendale not being a supporter as well, especially being that they are pushing high performance pontoons. When I see Gary this weekend I will ask what their true stance is.
Glendale is on both lists as well. Something funny going on there.

Dave R 05-08-2008 03:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by chmeeee (Post 69962)
Glendale is on both lists as well. Something funny going on there.
Probably has to do with the age of the lists. I think the one BI posted is HB162 vintage, it looks like the list of "businesses to avoid" that I printed a couple of years ago. The other may be newer. Anyone know which is newer?

Wolfeboro_Baja 05-08-2008 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by brk-lnt (Post 69950)
How exactly do you extrapolate 1 quote to be "so many marina owners"?
I was wondering the exact same thing!! :)



Quote:
Originally Posted by brk-lnt (Post 69950)
It appears that there are far more marinas opposed to the bill than for it. The only marine-related stores that would seem to logically support the bill would be the paddle-boat sellers.
8 marinas in support of HB 847 hardly compares to 80+ against it!

brk-lnt 05-08-2008 04:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander (Post 69954)
Thurston's is not the only one, there are more on this supporters list.

The Common Man
The Lake House Grille
Lago
Camp
Town Docks Restaurant
The Common Man Inn
Why not pad that list some more... I'm sure the Tilt'N Diner is a supporter as well. How about the Airport Deli or whatever it is in Manchester that's a CMan property as well..


:emb:

Islander 05-08-2008 06:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja (Post 69967)
I was wondering the exact same thing!! :)




8 marinas in support of HB 847 hardly compares to 80+ against it!
Where is the list of 80+ marinas against?

I count 8 in support and 7 against.

Winnipesaukee doesn't have 80 marinas.

Neanderthal Thunder 05-08-2008 07:26 PM
How a speed limit could stop the next Littlefield
 
jrc wrote:
Quote:
You think we should have a law in place that's sole purpose is to provide the police an opportunity to violate the 4th amendent?
Weren't you surprised to see in the transcript that Skip provided, that a police officer saw Littlefield's condition on land? Nothing happened.

Even roadblocks were found legal under the 4th Amendment by the US Supreme Court. A Winni stop could be intended for a written warning, while allowing the officer to observe the boater's ability to function.

To a layperson, this thread's defense of a drunk boater by overserving, not on plane, 3 mph, etc., makes the speed limit appear to be more urgently needed, not less. Few drunk arrests are recorded on NH waters statewide, much less Winni. Even the most famous Winni drunk doesn't have a BWI on his rap sheet. A night speed limit gives law enforcement the only tool in the drawer against overserved, or just plain drunk, Winni boaters.

It was a drunk who decided that 28 mph was the speed that served his needs that night. Now we've decided that the boating drunks who think their going slow shouldn't be in charge of making those decisions. Drivers who aren't thinking at all, in the case of Long Lake, definately won't be trailering to a lake with a night speed limit.

Islander 05-08-2008 07:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by brk-lnt (Post 69969)
Why not pad that list some more... I'm sure the Tilt'N Diner is a supporter as well. How about the Airport Deli or whatever it is in Manchester that's a CMan property as well..


:emb:
Check the opposition list for padding as well. There are many a long way off. And a toy store in Epping.

codeman671 05-08-2008 08:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Islander (Post 69977)
Check the opposition list for padding as well. There are many a long way off. And a toy store in Epping.
You actually think that is a toy store??? :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Epping Motors Inc. "The One Stop Toy Shop"
253 Route 125
Epping, NH03042
603-679-9800

It is a car dealer that sells boats, snowmobiles, and whatever "toys" they get in. They recently had a 22' Scarab on their lot. Not one in a wrapper or made by Mattel.

The list was actually a lot longer, I posted one section of it. The list of opponents is clearly much larger. So is the results of the online poll found here...

codeman671 05-08-2008 08:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neanderthal Thunder (Post 69975)

Even the most famous Winni drunk doesn't have a BWI on his rap sheet. A night speed limit gives law enforcement the only tool in the drawer against overserved, or just plain drunk, Winni boaters.

It was a drunk who decided that 28 mph was the speed that served his needs that night. Now we've decided that the boating drunks who think their going slow shouldn't be in charge of making those decisions. Drivers who aren't thinking at all, in the case of Long Lake, definately won't be trailering to a lake with a night speed limit.
Do you understand what happened that night? How could he be charged for BWI? No solid witnesses, a restaurant that probably disposed of the real proof that they overserved him (to save their own a** from a lawsuit and loss of liquor license), and since he fled the scene there was no stop to be made. It is hard to convict someone of a crime without proof that they did it, in this case BWI. Nobody had any doubt that he was drunk and not paying attention, but proving it is a different story.

In this case, a speed limit clearly would not have saved anyone. My boat will do 55mph, does that mean I do it wherever/whenever I go out? No. is it big enough to squash a 21' boat? Yes it is. Speed limit or not, am I deterred from the lake? No I am not. Why is this going to deter drunks that are not using their heads???

Quote:
Originally Posted by islander

Where is the list of 80+ marinas against?

I count 8 in support and 7 against.

Winnipesaukee doesn't have 80 marinas.
No, there certainly is not 80 marinas on Winnipesaukee, but out of the 8 supporters highlighted on BI's list, 1 is on Squam not Winnipesaukee, and 2 are on both lists. Adding in marinas on other lakes/bodies of water only tips it even further way, probably 2x if not more. Try again.

I can post the entire list of opponents if you like, it is considerably larger.

Islander 05-08-2008 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater (Post 68194)
I was there. Went very well, there was a majority by my count Opposed to HB 847, with many new faces. There was the usual faces from Winnfabs, they are still using the same canned speeches. Towards the end, as I stayed for the whole thing, it became clear that the proponents were disturbed, as Sandy Helve spoke out of turn, that she felt that the balance of speakers was not fair, the chairman then pointed out that the list as he was presented showed more opponents of the bill signed up to speak! In a great display of professionalism the Chair let one last member of Winnfabs speak, although as a point of order he didn't have to let that happen. Still after the gentleman spoke there were 2 more opponents left. I think the Senators on the committee have all the info, and will make the right decision and finally put this special interest bill to pasture. Two things I took away from the hearing, 1. Polls mean nothing. 2. This bill has finally been outed for what it is, a special interest groups crusade. Nothing more. It's not about safety, it's about ridding "their" lake of boats they don't like. This became most evident to me when the last amendment came up! All they have done is start as a winni only, then when that didn't appear to be working, they switched it to all lakes, that way they thought they could get more votes, an momentum. Then when that was flopping, what did they do, went back to winni only with a sunset clause as a disguise.... Guess what, Still not working. Facts are facts. NH lakes, and Winnipesaukee accident rates are among the best in the US. As a matter of fact they have improved over the past 4yrs! Don't believe the hype!
You were sooooo Right!

jrc 05-08-2008 08:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neanderthal Thunder (Post 69975)

Weren't you surprised to see in the transcript that Skip provided, that a police officer saw Littlefield's condition on land? Nothing happened....
There's no law about walking around drunk (within reason). Did the police see him get in and drive the boat drunk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neanderthal Thunder (Post 69975)

Even roadblocks were found legal under the 4th Amendment by the US Supreme Court. A Winni stop could be intended for a written warning, while allowing the officer to observe the boater's ability to function...
Well if you can have roadblocks, you don't need to trump up a 3 mph speed limit violation to pull the guy over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neanderthal Thunder (Post 69975)

To a layperson, this thread's defense of a drunk boater by overserving, not on plane, 3 mph, etc., makes the speed limit appear to be more urgently needed, not less. Few drunk arrests are recorded on NH waters statewide, much less Winni. Even the most famous Winni drunk doesn't have a BWI on his rap sheet. A night speed limit gives law enforcement the only tool in the drawer against overserved, or just plain drunk, Winni boaters.

It was a drunk who decided that 28 mph was the speed that served his needs that night. Now we've decided that the boating drunks who think their going slow shouldn't be in charge of making those decisions. Drivers who aren't thinking at all, in the case of Long Lake, definately won't be trailering to a lake with a night speed limit.
No one on this board, pro or con on speed limits, has defended a drunk boater. I'm sure that if I took a poll, every one would vote for strict enforcement of drunk boating laws.

Having a speed limit makes drunk boaters more likely. Every MP looking at a radar gun, is distracted from his real job, keeping the lake safe from drunks and reckless operators.

A boat operator too drunk to know he is dangerous and he should not operate, is too drunk to obey a speed limit.

You can't enforce BWI laws by accidently catching drunks while looking for speeders. Wouldn't you rather look for drunks?

Islander 05-08-2008 09:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja (Post 69967)

8 marinas in support of HB 847 hardly compares to 80+ against it!
Please explain the 80+

tis 05-09-2008 07:38 AM
I think we all need to remember which businesses are for the speed limits and boycott them.

Islander 05-09-2008 08:03 AM
What do you mean WE?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tis (Post 69998)
I think we all need to remember which businesses are for the speed limits and boycott them.
With only 9% of the general population opposed to speed limits, how effective can that boycott be? You can't even get a majority of the Marinas.

Woodsy 05-09-2008 08:21 AM
I know that Thurstons missed out on a couple of Cobalt Sales because of thier position on HB-847.... too bad for them!


Woodsy

hazelnut 05-09-2008 08:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy (Post 70006)
I know that Thurstons missed out on a couple of Cobalt Sales because of thier position on HB-847.... too bad for them!


Woodsy
Woodsy you and I both know that is not just opinion but FACT. Thurstons position directly affected recent purchasers that we both know of to take their business elsewhere.

Shep's will be getting my gas money this summer, that is for sure.

Woodsy 05-09-2008 08:57 AM
I think Thurston's is or will be for sale shortly. They condo'ed the boat houses and a bunch of slips. Thats usually the first sign of trouble.... maybe East Coast Flightcraft will take it over!


I have it on pretty good authority that Y Landing is another Marina that was listed that doesn't support HB-847...

Woodsy

codeman671 05-09-2008 08:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut (Post 70007)
Woodsy you and I both know that is not just opinion but FACT. Thurstons position directly affected recent purchasers that we both know of to take their business elsewhere.

Shep's will be getting my gas money this summer, that is for sure.
I hope the buyers make it a point to let Thurston's know that! All of the marinas that I use do not support HB847, with the exception of Fay's gas dock. I will make it a point to plan ahead and go elsewhere. I won't do other business with them anyhow. If the walls in that place could talk many would be amazed...

hazelnut 05-09-2008 09:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by codeman671 (Post 70009)
I hope the buyers make it a point to let Thurston's know that! All of the marinas that I use do not support HB847, with the exception of Fay's gas dock. I will make it a point to plan ahead and go elsewhere. I won't do other business with them anyhow. If the walls in that place could talk many would be amazed...
By the way I used to get gas at Trexler's. Thank you BI for posting that list I have printed it out.

VtSteve 05-09-2008 10:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neanderthal Thunder (Post 69975)
jrc wrote:

Weren't you surprised to see in the transcript that Skip provided, that a police officer saw Littlefield's condition on land? Nothing happened.

Even roadblocks were found legal under the 4th Amendment by the US Supreme Court. A Winni stop could be intended for a written warning, while allowing the officer to observe the boater's ability to function.

To a layperson, this thread's defense of a drunk boater by overserving, not on plane, 3 mph, etc., makes the speed limit appear to be more urgently needed, not less. Few drunk arrests are recorded on NH waters statewide, much less Winni. Even the most famous Winni drunk doesn't have a BWI on his rap sheet. A night speed limit gives law enforcement the only tool in the drawer against overserved, or just plain drunk, Winni boaters.

It was a drunk who decided that 28 mph was the speed that served his needs that night. Now we've decided that the boating drunks who think their going slow shouldn't be in charge of making those decisions. Drivers who aren't thinking at all, in the case of Long Lake, definately won't be trailering to a lake with a night speed limit.

Drunks don't obey laws, otherwise they'd not be operating while drunk.

Nobody, but nobody, has ever defended the drunk.

The Drunk hit a boat while going 28 mph. What if he had been going 20 mph, or even the hallowed 25 mph? Would that make you feel better? How would enforcement, given the facts stated in this case, been able to prevent this?

The real culprits in that case were on land. A police officer of all folks, and all of the witnesses that testified to his condition.

I think we should have laws on the water to prohibit operating while drunk, and to prohibit hitting another boat.

Oh, wait, it's already illegal to operate while drunk, and the 150' distance limit should eliminate all accidents above headway speed. Why is it they don't? Why didn't the marine patrol issue a ticket for the guy being so close to the boat he hit?

Why don't all the proponents of the bill go back to the truth, which has been mentioned maybe twice on here.

1) You want to discourage the GFBL boats from being on the lake.

2) You "think" the lake would be better, safer, quieter, less congested.

3) You have no idea how to get additional enforcement dollars, and hope like heck the boaters obeying the speed limit don't break every other rule in the book, like many do now.

4) Most everything else you stated is pure rubbish.

Dave R 05-09-2008 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Islander (Post 70003)
With only 9% of the general population opposed to speed limits, how effective can that boycott be? You can't even get a majority of the Marinas.
The majority of the general population does not patronize lake side restaurants and boating facilities. That would be boaters. Since most boaters are against the speed limit, the economic impact of a boycott could be substantial. Voting with the majority of the population but against the majority of your customers is not too smart... I think the decision to advocate a speed limit by a lake-based restaurant owner, or a motor boating business owner, will prove regrettable.

Maybe the flood of kayakers will make up the difference though, you always see so many tied up to gas docks, and public docks near restaurants.

fatlazyless 05-09-2008 10:43 AM
Helloooo out there Winnipesaukee boaters...need to access your brain trust...got to know....as this local business was not on either list. What about the McDonald's restaurant? Is MickyDee's pro or con on HB 847?

If McDonald's is against the Winnipesaukee speed limits, then I will regretfully find it necessary to discontinue my $3.24, three-course, less than a gallon of gas, Meredith McMeal!

Please, please, please, tell me that McDonald's is pro HB-847.

Some things are just more important than lunch! :D:D:laugh::D:D

EricP 05-09-2008 11:22 AM
I agree
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tis (Post 69998)
I think we all need to remember which businesses are for the speed limits and boycott them.

I would be very interested in a list of places that support the bill, and I will boycott them as well. I haven't been in a Richdale convenient store in 25 years (for non-speed limit reasons ;) ) so i know how to boycott. I realize it may be impossible to not go into a business that supports the bill, but it would be my last choice. I am interested in where I'll be buying a boat, and the list will be very helpful.

Wolfeboro_Baja 05-09-2008 12:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Islander (Post 69974)
Where is the list of 80+ marinas against?

I count 8 in support and 7 against.

Winnipesaukee doesn't have 80 marinas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Islander (Post 69985)
Please explain the 80+
My apologies; when I looked at the list in codeman's post, I looked at it quickly and, at a glance, they all LOOKED to be marinas. SINCE you are asking, I have gone back and actually counted the entries that use either the word "marine" or "marina" in their business name; I counted 43 MARINAS or MARINE-type businesses opposed to HB 847 and that's not including the other businesses on the list posted by codeman that may be carrying on a marine or marina-type operation and DON'T use either of those words in their business name! Granted, it's not the 80+ I originally thought it was but it's STILL significantly more than the 8 marinas in support of the bill mentioned in the list posted by BI!! :laugh:

Now, are they all located on Winnipesaukee? No, but if the list posted by BI can contain a marina not located on Winnipesaukee, so can the list posted by codeman! :)

Neanderthal Thunder 05-12-2008 06:54 PM
Codeman wrote:

Quote:
How could he be charged for BWI? No solid witnesses, a restaurant that probably disposed of the real proof that they overserved him (to save their own a** from a lawsuit and loss of liquor license), and since he fled the scene there was no stop to be made. Why is this going to deter drunks that are not using their heads???
The best solid witness that night is the NHMP. The stop and arrest could have been prior made before anything worse happened.

Drunks "not using their heads" will be stopped by the NHMP, before a night crash over 25.

jrc wrote:

Quote:
Did the police see him get in and drive the boat drunk?
*A MP stop of the boat would still be necessary.

*Without a 25 mph speed limit, there is no way to identify a drunk with the power and speed to kill other boaters at night. A speed over 25 is not trumped up if the results are a warning, a field sobrity test, or the arrest of a drunk boater.

*Woodsy defended him, saying that he was overserved, not up on a plane, and leaving a NWZ. That's "Victimhood". Llttlefield is not the victim.

*Except for a collision with an island or another boat, enforcing speeds would result in the most dangerous drunk boaters being arrested. I don't know how to catch drunk boaters any other way. What police officer would say "I saw the defendent weaving", when no boat takes a straight path on the lake?

*A close up view of the driver's condition would require a police stop. At night, there are just no other means to determine a driver's condition.

*At night, there is no way a drunk can see that the NHMP is monitoring his speed by radar.

*Any poll you post supporting enforcement of drunk driving laws is just handwringing and will continue do nothing to halt 2008's drunk boaters.

*If he's too drunk to obey a speed limit, ONLY a speed limit offers the NHMP any opportunity to stop the nighttime drunk.

jrc 05-12-2008 08:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neanderthal Thunder (Post 70258)
Codeman wrote:


The best solid witness that night is the NHMP. The stop and arrest could have been prior made before anything worse happened.

Drunks "not using their heads" will be stopped by the NHMP, before a night crash over 25.

jrc wrote:


*A MP stop of the boat would still be necessary.

Why. MP can stop a suspected drunk today, they just have to be there.


*Without a 25 mph speed limit, there is no way to identify a drunk with the power and speed to kill other boaters at night. A speed over 25 is not trumped up if the results are a warning, a field sobrity test, or the arrest of a drunk boater.

Any power boat has the power and speed to kill other boaters at night and an MP can easily stop a suspected drunk for a field sobriety test, no speed limit violation is needed, just articulatable suspiscion.

*Woodsy defended him, saying that he was overserved, not up on a plane, and leaving a NWZ. That's "Victimhood". Llttlefield is not the victim.

Reread Woodsy's post you are misunderstnding it. People are responsible for their drunk behaviour even if another is also responsible for overserving them.

*Except for a collision with an island or another boat, enforcing speeds would result in the most dangerous drunk boaters being arrested. I don't know how to catch drunk boaters any other way. What police officer would say "I saw the defendent weaving", when no boat takes a straight path on the lake?

All a MP needs is articulatable suspicion, ask our favorite LEO, Skip. Yes weaving would do, so would trying to leave the dock before he unties his lines. If an MP was there he would have stopped him.

*A close up view of the driver's condition would require a police stop. At night, there are just no other means to determine a driver's condition.

You keep making the same mistake

*At night, there is no way a drunk can see that the NHMP is monitoring his speed by radar.

Why not a radar detector?

*Any poll you post supporting enforcement of drunk driving laws is just handwringing and will continue do nothing to halt 2008's drunk boaters.

You are right polls don't stop drunk drivers. Neither do speed limits. Look at the roads, speed limits existed for a long time before MADD forced people to pay attention to the drunk drivers.

*If he's too drunk to obey a speed limit, ONLY a speed limit offers the NHMP any opportunity to stop the nighttime drunk.
You keep making the same mistake


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:34 PM.
Page 6 of 6 « First 45 6
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.