If we took that poll here how many would agree that "Unsafe operation of boats is a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee" I think it would be 100% not just 67%.

Anyone disagree?

It's wondeful that 33% of the George residents think their lake is safe! After a few years with a speed limit I hope we can increase our percentage from 0% to 33%. That would be great.

Strange; I understood that to mean they weren't using radar. How can you enforce a speed limit without using radar?


Low?? I was thinking that was high, considering they have a speed limit which should make more people "feel" safe.

Everyone repeat after me: Unsafe operation of boats does not automatically equate to speed. Speed does not automatically equate to unsafe operation of boats.

Check out the second post on the day you posted. :cool:

I don't get it...this Post has 243 responses...What a topic!

How much
 

How much ? How much safer ? As the survey shows and is apparent to those of us who boat on the lake, the number of boats exceeding 45 is small. The majority of bonehead encounters occur at speeds under the proposed limit and therefore won't be affected by the presence or absense of a speed limt. The increase in safety (more below) is going to be minimal at best.

As for safety being increased with lower speeds, OK, but why not 35 or 25 or 10 mph ? Certainly these would all be safer than 45 mph. Why not those limits ? Why not a night-time limit of NWS ? It's done on other lakes. Why not ... because safety is not the be all and end all of considerations when it comes to using the lake ... or anything else. Speed limits on RT93 aren't set to make it as safe as possible w/o consideration for anything else otherwise we'd see them around 35 or so. I can understand your desire to feel safer but at what cost, what limitations for others ? You want what you want, "they" want what they want and frankly I don't see why I should much care about either wants.

There are times and places where you can go "fast" and times and places where you can't. It seems a lot of the debate here has been framed around what the lowest common denominator of boater could/might do. That is we're now letting the worst drivers dictate what the rest of us should be legally allowed to do. It's been stated that Winni should have a speed limit to better catch drunk boaters. It's been stated the Littlefield's* actions that night somehow support a need for a speed limit. I'd laugh at both arguments where it not that the thinking behind them (as best as I can determine it) further perpetuates the LCD disease. What ever happened to the "reasonable man" line of thinking ? If we are to limit peoples actions, let's not limit what a "reasonable man" could do safely. So what can be expected from a "reasonable man" in Evenstar's situation ?

How far away on a typical day can "we" reasonably expect to see Evenstar in her kayak ? I don't know about you all but in 30 years of boating on Winni I've yet to fail to see a canoe or kayak at distances in excess of 1/2 mile or greater. Next time anyone finds themselves driving a car down a long, flat, straight road think about how far ahead you could see someone sitting in a kayak. For the moment I'll take 1/10 of a mile as the minimum distance that a person paying attention will see Evenstar in her kayak. Winnfabs states that a boat doing 80 mph might take over 300 ft to stop. Let me use 350 ft. Use their number for reaction time (1.5 secs, a pretty standard 85% number for these types things) and guess what, you're not run over. I'm not sure of their numbers for stopping distance but then again I've left out any manuvering that would certainly be done as well in such a situation. Does that make 80 mph OK ? I'm not saying that (based on this simple analysis) but the point is that at speeds well over 45 mph, a "reasonable man" isn't going to run you down. When boaters nearly miss you it isn't because their speed is so high they don't have a chance to react (unless your contention is that these boats were doing 80), it's for other reasons. They may think their distance from you is an acceptable one. Could be they weren't paying attention. Could be they're being malicious. Could be a bunch of other things (BUI among them) as well but none of them make 45 mph as being the proper limit.

Is there an upper limit on how fast a normal human, not Superman with super vision nor the Flash with super reaction speed, can go before he/she is risking other's life and limbs on even the best of boating days ? Of course. But it ain't 45. Until the discussion starts to revolve around facts and reason vs wants, I'll just keep wondering about what kind of "free" world we'll be leaving to the next generation. :rolleye2:


*Do I have to debunk this bunk again ? :eek2:

ps - If you want to substitute "reasonable person" for "reasonable man" ... go ahead, I'm just not very PC at this moment. :devil:

Unsafe operation poll
 

Hmmm, what would the relative percentages be if I offered up this question :

Unsafe operation of boats is a

• major
• middling
• minor

problem on Winnipesaukee. {pick one}

Then also let me ask (as well) but substitute the word rude for unsafe. What would the result be I wonder. Betcha a lot would rank rude as major and unsafe not so much.

As I have posted before (in detail), the survey proved nothing, since it was not even done properly. According to what I have been taught at my university, this study is not what any experts would view as a viable study. I have kayaked on Squam a great deal. Squam has an enforced speed limit, and it is a much safer lake to paddle on than the other large lakes that I have kayaked on that don't have a speed limit.

It's called a compromise. Squam's daytime speed limit is 40mph, which I personally feel is a better limit . . . but I'm willing to compromise, and 45mph is much better than no limit. The original bill was for a speed limit on ALL NH lakes . . . I think my side has alreadly had to compromise enough.

And no one (that I know of) is asking for a 10mph speed limit on Winni. 45mph is not slow. The lake is only about 20 miles long, at 45mph you can go the entire length in about 27 minutes. So where is the supposed cost in having to slow done to 45mph? And in your own words, "the number of boats exceeding 45 is small," so the cost is minimal at best, and only affects a small number of boats.

I disagree completely, and so do many others. The 4 marine patrol officers that I spoke with told me that a speed limit would help them spot BUI offenders - they were all in favor of a lake speed limit.
Almost every "reasonable man" (and woman) whom I have talked to about the need for a lake speed limit see it as a reasonable need. What is unreasonable is allowing boats to operate at unlimited speeds (outside of no wake situations) on a lake that is populated by small boats that many powerboat operators have admitted they have trouble seeing.

Exactly what "situation" of mine are you taking about?

So, if a powerboat operator happens to sees me, then I’m in no danger.
If a powerboat operator is paying attention, then I’m in no danger.
If a powerboat operator hasn’t been drinking, then I’m in no danger.
But if just one of these things doesn’t happen 100% of the time, with 100% of the powerboat operators who I’m sharing a lake with - then I am potentially in great danger.

If the operator of a powerboat doesn’t see me because he’s not paying attention (or for any other reason), I have a much better chance of getting out of his way IF he’s traveling at a slower speed. That’s my whole reason for wanting a speed limit.

It might be much less than 45mph, but we need to start somewhere. When the freedom of some negatively impacts the freedom of others, you need to come up with a compromise. Laws are compromises that regulate behavior. If there were no laws and everyone was allowed to do whatever they wanted, it would be anarchy.

"Rude" to whom?
 

Unsafe operation of boats is a minor problem on Winnipesaukee.

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

(Kinda depends on one's perspective, though). :D

I'd vote minor in this poll.

As far as rudeness goes, I'd also have to say minor. The couteous people far outnumber the rude ones on the lake. People that see rudeness as a major problem are not giving credit to courteous people. They may also fail to understand boating laws and/or fail to comprehend how close 150 feet really is.

Keep a running count by adding 1 for people being courteous thing and subtracting 1 for people being rude. Even if you initially saw rudeness as a major problem, I bet you end up with a positive number, at the end of the day.

Mee N Mac
 

Great post Mee N Mac!!!!!

Mee n Mac
 

Outstanding Post.

If absolute safety was the "only" concern the lake would be empty and we would build a fence 100 feet from the edge to keep us all away like an electrical sub station.

As I have posted before (in detail), the survey proved nothing, since it was not even done properly. According to what I have been taught at my university, this study is not what any experts would view as a viable study. I have kayaked on Squam a great deal. Squam has an enforced speed limit, and it is a much safer lake to paddle on than the other large lakes that I have kayaked on that don't have a speed limit.

It's called a compromise. Squam's daytime speed limit is 40mph, which I personally feel is a better limit . . . but I'm willing to compromise, and 45mph is much better than no limit. The original bill was for a speed limit on ALL NH lakes . . . I think my side has already had to compromise enough.

And no one (that I know of) is asking for a 10mph speed limit on Winni. 45mph is not slow. The lake is only about 20 miles long, at 45mph you can go the entire length in about 27 minutes. So where is the supposed cost in having to slow done to 45mph? And in your own words, "the number of boats exceeding 45 is small," so the cost is minimal at best, and only affects a small number of boats.

I disagree completely, and so do many others. The 4 marine patrol officers that I spoke with told me that a speed limit would help them spot BUI offenders - they were all in favor of a lake speed limit.
Almost every "reasonable man" (and woman) whom I have talked to about the need for a lake speed limit see it as a reasonable need. What is unreasonable is allowing boats to operate at unlimited speeds (outside of no wake situations) on a lake that is populated by small boats that many powerboat operators have admitted they have trouble seeing.

Exactly what "situation" of mine are you taking about?

So, if a powerboat operator happens to sees me, then I’m in no danger.
If a powerboat operator is paying attention, then I’m in no danger.
If a powerboat operator hasn’t been drinking, then I’m in no danger.
But if just one of these things doesn’t happen 100% of the time, with 100% of the powerboat operators who I’m sharing a lake with - then I am potentially in great danger.

If the operator of a powerboat doesn’t see me because he’s not paying attention (or for any other reason), I have a much better chance of getting out of his way IF he’s traveling at a slower speed. That’s my whole reason for wanting a speed limit.

It might be much less than 45mph, but we need to start somewhere. When the freedom of some negatively impacts the freedom of others, you need to come up with a compromise. Laws are compromises that regulate behavior. If there were no laws and everyone was allowed to do whatever they wanted, it would be anarchy.

March 16, 2006, was the day when the NH Senate voted no to HB-162, the last time around. So, what day, probably coming soon, will the NH Senate make a decision on HB-847?

Hey, if you don't like your senator's vote on HB-847, you can always vote them out, next November. New Hampshire is one of only two states, Vermont and New Hampshire, where the senators, representatives and governor serve for just two years as opposed to four years::argue:

LCD disease again
 

While the study may not have been a rigorous as a good university study, I don't think it so flawed that nothing can be learned of it. Basically it says what people boating on the lake know, there aren't that many boats out there going over 45, let alone way over. The problem is blown out of proportion.

You've missed my point. Let me try to be clearer. What's the proper method to set a speed limit ? Do we toss up a bunch of numbers and see which has the most appeal ? Do we pick the one that the absolute "safest" w/o regard for any other consideration ? There was a time when engineers did the analysis to set speed limits. To some extent this is still partially true in this country. It's certainly not true for the proposed law. Where's the analysis that says 45 mph is the proper limit ?

I'll address your idea of "compromise" further below.

It would affect only a minimal number of boats. So what ? How about if I, having a run of the mill boat speed-wise, ganged up with all the others like me and tried outlaw both high speed boating and kayaking because they both were a PITA to our (majority) boating pleasure. We would be the majority, would that then make it right ?

So what if the 4 or 400 MP officers you spoke said it would help them catch BUIs. Try that justification on driving your car and see how well it plays. Set the speed limit on RT93 to 45 mph with the intent that it'll catch the DUI's because they'll probably be unable to contain themselves at such a slow speed. That such a limit would unfairly impact people who, not being drunk, can safely drive at > 45 mph doesn't/wouldn't bother you ?

Again you're now letting the worst of "us" dictate what the rest of us may legally do even if it's the case that when we do it (vs the impaired), it doesn't actually harm anyone.

Regarding see you in your kayak, I do believe it sets a limiting case. Prove to me that 45 mph is that limit. Your evidence so far is more anecdotal than the study you call flawed above. How hard to see is your boat ? Harder to see than the Mt Washington that's for sure, but also not invisible. How do we get from anecdotal evidence to something more concrete ?

I can understand your reasons, I just don't "buy" them. Consider the plight of a pedestrian walking down the road. Should a drunk or inattentive or malicious driver pass them by as they are walking, they too are in potential danger. Should we limit the speed on that road to such a rate so as to give them time to jump out of the way ? What if that person is my mother who can't react all that quickly ? Should the speed limit be set even lower then ? I'd say the speed limit should be set such that the normal driver, unimpaired and paying attention, will be able to see the pedestrian and avoid hitting him/her at that speed. (The pedestrian has his role to play as well) And that at much (we can debate about how much more) more above that speed, this would no longer be true. Then we go after those who drive unsafely due to alcohol or whatever. You attack the problem w/o unduly restricting the normal guy.

I'm not one who believes compromise is a bad word. But the present proposed bill isn't based on compromise. The thinking isn't that more often than not that boats at 55 mph pose a clear and present danger to the public at large and therefore should be restricted. It's the same you posted above, the lake is so big and 27 mins is short enough and 45 if "fast enough" ... all opinions which have has much validity as someone saying 25 or 65 is "fast enough". Let's say that kayaking and true high speed boating are incompatible. Certainly at some high enough speed this is true. The "compromise" you seem to favor is the one where you get to practice your recreation where and when you want, unrestricted and they "can take it to the ocean". Compromise to me might have been you get part of the lake and they get part of the lake. Perhaps it would have been "you" get days XYZ and they get days QST. Perhaps something different. Had I said "You can kayak on Squam and many other NH lakes, they're only minutes away" and called it compromise would you have bought that line ?

I'm not against laws, just bad ones.

Relevance
 

Finally we agree. Glad you're bad on your meds. :D

A bad day for the boat owner really isn't my concern in this debate, and not yours either I suspect. But hey if I posted a couple of pics to plane crashes in the Lake and made the inference that unsafe general aviation was a problem on/over Winnipesaukee what would that say ? How about if I started a campaign to ban floatplanes from the lake at all times because it's too crowded and the planes might land and hit someone.

Surely this pic must be proof of that .... :rolleye2:

Well, it could be this week, or the next week, or the next week, before the Senate addresses HB-847....it is difficult to say...I read in today's Union Leader that the legislature has way too many bills to process, and then the UL did a typical UL slam against the Democratic nanny-staters.

Hopefully. come November's election, New Hampshire will see a flip-flop that returns the Granite State back to its' long time Republican majority, and any HB-847 speed limits law will be rescinded and all motor boat incurred, automobile insurance points accrued, will be totally annulled retroactively, and then shredded into 10,000 pieces.

For the next hundred years, people will wonder how the heck New Hampshire happened to stray off its' comfy Republican plantation for those horrible two years of November, 2006 to November, 2008? Like, WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED HERE?


In just four years, the Union Leader will be referring to the 11/06-11/08 years as 'the lean years', and all will be right with NH, once again!


Hey gee-whiz, maybe HB-847 will get yes'ed on April 1st! .........april fool...ah-ha.........ha-ha-ha......ha-ha!!

www.floridaboathaulers.com:D:laugh::D

Lt. Dunleavy may break a record for the most replies on one thread

Not Even Close
 

The most replies was on the Ice-In 2006 thread.... over 29,000 replies!!!!

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...earchid=490716

We take our ice-in and ice-out very seriously!!

IG

May want to rethink the situation...

Ice-in Watch 2006 ( 1 2 3)
Island Girl 03-06-2006 06:43 AM
by Diamond Isle 221 28,791

Boat Sinking????? ( 1 2 3 ... Last Page)
sa meredith 01-07-2008 11:15 AM
by Senter Cove Guy 306 35,894

The 2006 ice-in was 29k views, not replies. It was only 221 replies, less than the 259 on this thread. Certainly not as much outside traffic coming in to watch this thread, but more posters involved.

Bear Islander wins so far with the highest number of posts on this thread. I think the Winni thong should be his prize although there is an argument on another thread about what size. :D

User Name Posts
Bear Islander 55
hazelnut 26
fatlazyless 13
ITD 11
codeman671 11
WeirsBeachBoater 10
Evenstar 10
Wolfeboro_Baja 9
Dick 9
Acres per Second 8
KonaChick 5
Mee-n-Mac 5
GWC... 5
Lakegeezer 5
parrothead 5
Dave R 5
chipj29 4
Islander 4
Skip 4
Skipper of the Sea Que 4
Rose 4
jrc 4
Resident 2B 3
Hottrucks 3
EricP 3
JayDV 3
Alton Bay 3
kjbathe 2
SIKSUKR 2
brk-lnt 2
trfour 2
BroadHopper 2
Island Girl 1
Rattlesnake Guy 1
daveg 1
Mark 1
Mashugana 1
Steveo 1
Island Lover 1
Neanderthal Thunder 1
rickstr66 1
winnilaker 1
phoenix 1
Seaplane Pilot 1
winnidiver 1
overlook 1
Cal 1
Woodsy 1
nightrider 1
michael c 1
Sunset Bob 1
Show Thread & Close Window

I should learn to read
 

mea culpa!!! I stand corrected!

IG

I'll see that and raise you one
 

Ice-In Watch 2007 270 replies 25,361 views


lol
IG

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...earchid=491420

Not so fast, gotcha!

Here is the top one I found for both replies and views:

306 replies 35,914 views
Boat sinking thread

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ighlight=forum


More replies, less views:

368 replies 11,928 views
Speed limit test zones

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ighlight=forum

The kayak cut in half was a close third.

Don has the unfair advantage, I am sure he could find one to trump us both... Can't you tell I am suffering from serious cabin (need to be there) fever???

Close but no cigar.
 

Well this thread may have some rank but it ain't #1.

Kayak cut in half - 292 replies and locked
Boat sinking (that Cobalt) - 306 replies and has potential
Speed limit test zones dead - 368 replies and locked

Cabin Cruiser Operators - ran a good race but - 251 replies
Forum Fest III was also in the running - 244 replies

EDIT : Dang, I shoulda hit that post button 2 mins ago .... ;)

Not enough to do....
 

Those reading these posts might think we have too much time on our hands!!!!!

IG

2nd Place
 

:(

I have my work cut out for me... Bear Islander has me by a 2-1 margin.

No thong for me this time.

The study is so flawed that, for all intents, the data collected is totally meaningless. Basically, according to research methodology standards, they did nearly everything wrong.

I haven’t missed the point at all. Squam, which is the second largest lake in NH, has had a 40mph daytime speed limit for years. From my experience it is fairly well enforced and seems to work well. This is called precedence – having a speed limit on a NH lake is not something new (which is why I never did understand the “need” for a pilot program on Winni).

You would never be able to ban kayaks from the lake. Kayaking is one of the fastest growing recreational sports in America and NH’s economy depends on recreation. According to the 2005 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium study (http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_squa...warnick341.pdf), from 1993 to 2003 kayaking experienced (by far) the fastest growth of any water-based recreation activity in the Northeast. Over this 10-year period, kayak use grew by 16.0% (power boating only grew by 2.3%). And our numbers are still growing. If you actually tried to ban kayaks on Winni, it would just unite us against powerboaters. I really don’t think that you want that.

Now you’re missing the point. The Interstate is designed for high speed and has a minimum speed limit. It was designed for high-speed transportation. Winni is not part of a high-speed transportation network.

Powerboaters have stated that they often have trouble seeing kayaks. I have had way too many close calls from powerboats, because the operator didn’t notice me until they were way too close. Many other paddlers have experienced the same type of close calls.That’s “concrete” enough for me.

My point was that a 45 mph speed limit is not an actual “hindrance” to anyone, and that the lake is not a big as many try to make it out to be. I could easily paddle the entire length in an afternoon. There’s less than 2 square miles of the entire lake that is over a mile from a shore.

The difference is that recreation does not pose a threat to anyone’s safety. I kayak and sail on the ocean, so I know that there’s a way more room there than there is on NH’s largest lake. The compromise is that this bill was originally written to include all NH lakes. Now it has been watered down to just cover Winni – and it has a 2-year sunset clause. My side has compromised enough already.

we do...............

But remember ...
 

... it's quality not quantity that matters ! :laugh:


FWIW : I really don't want to see the thong on either you or B.I. (and don't even mention FLL) :eek: ;)

Wow,I'm actually amazed that my big mouth only chimed in twice in this thread.That's worth a thong!XXL please

I know what you mean. I was only listed as one time but could say a whole lot more but have better thing to do with my fingers:rolleye2:

speed limit
 

I never understood how this could even get as far as it did. Its simple. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO FACTS OR EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE NEED FOR A SPEED LIMIT! The only thing the supporters can supply is their alleged opinion. I say alleged because its obvious to me that the supporters reasons having nothing to do with safety or speed. Laws should never be based on opinions or false fear, they should be based on facts.

I have been boating on Winni for almost 30 years and mostly weekends when its busiest and I never experienced or witnessed a close call with a high performance boat, only recreational bow riders that were traveling much slower than the proposed speed limit.

The accidents that have occurred and the people that have died is not EVIDENCE enough?

How about the FACT that the quality of the water is dropping. Or the EVIDENCE, testified to by local businesses, that tourism is being effected by peoples fear of going out on the lake.

How about the FACT that Winnipesaukee Camp directors have had to limit boating activity on the lake.

You may disagree that speed limits will correct these problems. Or you may question the evidence. But to say that it does not exist is a falsehood.

You still have no facts or evidence that any of these issues are caused by boats exceeding 45MPH.

Are there issues on the lake? Yes, just like most inland lakes that are densely populated.

I don't think most reasonable people will argue that there have been tragic accidents, or unsafe practices on the lake. But most reasonable people also see there are no connections to these incidents and speed, at least not where a speed limit will have any measurable effect.

There are MORE accidents that support banning waterskiing, tubing, wake boarding type sports. Why aren't you pushing for that?

Since when does the proposed speed limit relate to water quality. Why don't you support all eliminating motorized craft? Now that's improving water quality!

How about all the businesses that oppose the speed limit? Last count there are more businesses that oppose the speed limit than support, hmmmm.

Has a SINGLE camp director ever gone to Marine Patrol or the State to ask for assistance in protecting the kids. Hmmm, very odd if no, could this be them jumping on YOUR band wagon.

There's plently of evidence that the elderly cause more accidents on our roadways, try banning them!
http://ezinearticles.com/?Elderly-Ca...ents&id=302159

There is more evidence supporting tractor trailers are dangerous to our roadways, try banning them!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1239138.shtml

There's evidence for anything, walking across the street is dangerous, so. But it's still safer to boat on Winni and clearly speeds over the proposed limits are not the problem.

I understand fear, I ride a motorcycle, I ride with fear all the time. Doesn't mean I won't do it. Doesn't mean I want existing laws changed to curve my fear. What it means, is that I understand the resources available to me and I compromise by enjoying ones that make me feel the safest.

Boats versus Snowmobiles
 

Of course accidents exist and people die in some accidents. In the speed threads boating accidents are reported and are important to help justify a perceived need for boat speed limits. So, are there similar statistics about snowmobiling accidents?

Snowmobilers: are there many sled collisions (unreported) or accidents?

There's a very large percent of boating hours on the Lake compared to Snowmobile hours on the Lake IMO. Overwhelmingly more people on boats for more hours a year than there are people on snowmobiles. Fewer targets (excuse the term) for snowmobiles than there are for boats but look at the death and accident rates.

I read about far more accidents and deaths that involve SNOWMOBILES rather than boats around the Lake. I conclude that boating is much safer than snowmobiling. Are there advocates and/or pending legislation to regulate snowmobiles to protect the public from them and them from each other?

I'll address the camps and kayaks in another post when I have more time. I hear the deaths excuse as a need for boat speeds and look at boating deaths compared to snowmobile deaths and it makes me think and wonder ...

Sorry, you must be misinformed. The have been accidents on this lake and others at speeds over, and sometimes far over, the proposed limits. Some of these accidents have been fatal including a double fatality at very high speed just last summer. The opposition likes to argue these FACTS away by setting time and distance limits, or by saying the accident must be a certain number of mph over the limit before they count. However the accidents are real, the statistics are undeniable and the victims are still dead.

Many NH Camp Directors, INCLUDING MYSELF, have been complaining for decades about excessive speed on our lakes. One again you are misinformed.

The fact that people die on snowmobiles, or anything else about any other kind of vehicle except a boat, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this argument. let's stay on topic.

A speed limit will tend to lower speeds and thus erosion that pollutes the water. Speed limits will also tend to lower the number of boats on the lake and the water pollution they cause. Why do you think most municipal water supplies have speed or horsepower limits? Or ban all power boats?

Testimony that speed limits will decrease business is evidence against a speed limit. I was pointing out the opposite kind of evidence. Obviously there is evidence on both sides. But to say the pro speed limit side has NO EVIDENCE is false. Conflicting evidence does not equal not evidence.

I must be misinformed.There have been far more deaths that occurred with speeds far UNDER your magic 45 mph.Where is your passion for those dead people?
I can say the same thing.The opposition likes to argue away the fact that by far the most boating deaths occur under the proposed 45 mph.However the accidents ARE real,the statistics ARE undeniable and the victims ARE still dead.

If a high speed accident happened somewhere else in the country it really does not have anything to do with here. We are talking about NH and what happens in NH. With this kind of mentality it is easy to say that millions and millions of boaters across the states each year boat accident free. Compare those odds and let me know what you come up with. A death or two somewhere in the USA, although tragic, does not indicate the need for limits here. We have gone over the accidents that have happened in NH time and time again, Meredith would not have been stopped by the limit.

Do you have any proof to show in the news or other online references that show that complaints have been made?

Why not? Why does accidents that happen elsewhere matter then? Deaths are deaths.

The faster the speed, the less the wake. How does this equate to erosion? The slower the speeds the more the wake. You are clearly an intelligent person and I think that if you take 30 seconds you can agree to that. It is simple physics. Will speed limits reduce the number of boats? No. It may take a few performance boats off the lake, but with the theories that have already been mentioned by the supporters the families that have been scared away will return, bringing their boats. There could potentially be more boats/traffic bringing more pollution.