I'm scared of sunlight. I wear sunblock. People who tan nicely make me look more pasty than I am. There obviously needs to be a law against tanning so that my feelings are not hurt. :D

Wouldn't it be every item you excluded? I'll take a stab or two though, King Tut? A baby's arm holding an apple?

:laugh: Kickstand?

For what it's worth
 

Now that I've digested the different views in HB 847, I thought I'd offer my opinion -- not that I think anyone will change their mind. I've been boating since I was a child. We've always had sailboats, canoes and powerboats on lakes, big and small. I've been boating here since we bought a home on the lake in 1991. I have to say that in all those years I have never had a close or frightening or even particularly annoying encounter with a so-called GFBL or "ocean racer" or anyone traveling 60, 70, 90 mph or more. I've seen them, I've even been in them on occasion, but I've never been in a position where I felt threatened by one.

Having said that, I don't have any visceral or passionate objection to speed limits, either. A speed limit will not directly affect my boating, for good or for bad. It is seldom enjoyable traveling more than 35-40 mph in my 23 footer and most of my boating is at even slower speeds.

If I had to rank the factors that affect my enjoyment of the lake, I'm not certain that 60 mph boats, or whatever your definition of speeding is, even make the list. Let's face it, the most important factor affecting our ability to enjoy the lake is the weather, at least in some years. If I thought that the NH Legislature could command ideal boating weather all season, I'd be in Concord lobbying right now, but I doubt even they think that they have that much power. And of course there would be multiple threads on this forum arguing about what "ideal weather" is -- warm, hot, windy, calm, etc.

Other than the weather, the two most important factors, in my experience, are the volume of boats and rude, obnoxious, clueless boaters. The volume of boats is a difficult issue for me to address. After all, there were fewer boats on the lake before I arrived, and one more after I did. Who am I to deny someone else the pleasure I have enjoyed just because I got here first?

But we can do something about the rude, obnoxious and clueless boaters. The most frightening experience I have ever had while boating occurred on this lake two years ago. My kids were tubing in the area among Long Island, Little Bear and Dow. Another family in a boat much like mine was towing a child on a tube and there was more than enough room for us to stay out of each other's way, which we did for 30 minutes or so. Then my son fell off of the tube and as I circled around to go back for him I suddenly saw the other boat headed directly for him, on a course approximately 90 degrees from mine. More frightening was the fact that it was obvious that the "driver" (he was hardly a captain at that point) had one hand on the wheel but was facing the stern watching his tuber. Of course that's what spotters are for. Fortunately he was still several hundred feet away and I accelerated and sounded my horn while slightly changing my course to put my boat between him and my son (some might argue with my response, but in the split second I had to decide it's what I came up with). He came within 50 feet before seeing us, veered away and gave me the one-finger salute. He was not traveling more than 15 or 20 mph.

I try to be tolerant, but that's the guy I want off of the lake! Well, okay, we can try to educate him first (with a 2x4?), but people like him are far more frightening to me, and far more numerous in my experience, than the boaters who will leave because of a 45 mph speed limit.

I'm not going to pick up my toys and go home if the speed limit bill passes. I won't even yell loudly or race through the Bear Island NWZ in protest. But I don't expect to feel any safer, either – I don’t feel unsafe now. In my opinion, any serious and sincere effort to improve safety on the lake begins with education and enforcement. The thing I fear more than any speeding boater is that the outcome of this campaign will be followed by…. nothing… while the "winners" rest on their laurels and the "losers" sulk.

However, that doesn't jive with New Hampshire figures.

In 2006, the last year that NH Marine Patrol statistics are available to my knowledge;
33% of the BOATING FATALTIES IN NEW HAMPSHIRE INVOVLED KAYAKS!
The other fatalties were drownings, not boating accidents.

Of the 84 boating accidents in the entire state, .04% involved boats going more than 45mph, and of those THREE only ONE was on Winnipesuakee!

Don't you hate numbers? :laugh:

Airwaves, when quoting statistics, you really should provide a link. How do I know that you are not just making up these numbers, or that you interpreting the data correctly? I won't discuss something that I can't view for myself.

What if we adopted Evenstar policy?
 

Expanding your policy not to discuss something you can't or haven't viewed for yourself (not just data but claimed boat violators too) would eliminate most of the current debate. How many of those opposed to adding more speed laws have seen boats going so fast that they can not see you until panic time? There is no study or report to show any lapse of proper lookout or safe boating and attribute it to speed over 45 mph?

well said Alsadad
 

Alsadad,

I couldn't agree more. A speed limit has no affect on me at all. My boat will barely go that fast and I rarely do. I also have not been affected by those fast scary boats.

I do worry that our understaffed, underfunded, underequipped Marine Patrol will be burdened with yet another job that will make them less responsive in emergency situations. All of their boats are not fully equipped with GPS and other equipment now and forcing them to have RADAR on board will make it even harder for them to afford the other essentials.

Pretty much my experience as well. We were tubing over here last summer, parallel with the shoreline. The very same type of moron did much the same thing, forgetting what he was doing, where his course was, where we were. Same one finger salute.

Most of the real idiots on the lake here are going slower, usually with tubers. There are the real idiots that take their poor car driving experience out on the lake. They never learn what's the proper way to boat, no common sense or courtesy involved whatsoever. The laws all apply to these infractions Now. But alas, they are rarely enforced due to lots of reasons.

Those seeking more rules and regulations rarely mention enforcement. The speed limit crowd doesn't ant to discuss anything not favorable for their agenda, nor do they want to discuss the actual problems on the lakes.

You'll still have 150' violations, idiots in rentals, obnoxious drunks, and naked kayakers with no lights :D

I am happy to provide a link;
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=4283
The information was posted by Woodsy in February 2007 and as a matter of fact you were the third person to write a response.

Funny you don't remember the things that don't back your claims that every time you're on Winnipesaukee you experience a close call with speeding boats!

Who is forcing the Marine Patrol to put RADAR on their boats? The MP have been enforcing speed limits on dozens of New Hampshire lakes for decades without RADAR! There are several ways to enforce a speed limit that do not use RADAR.

Plus they have at least two hand held units that were used for a recent survey. I don't believe enforcement will be much of a problem. The speed limit is mostly self enforcing. If a problem develops they can send out an officer with a hand held to set up a speed trap during a few peek hours.

A speed limit sets a standard of behavior for the community. Most people are law abiding. And according the the opponents, almost nobody goes over 45 anyway. So how can enforcement be such a problem?

So your asking for a law that will stop something that seldom happens from happening, and we won't have to enforce it because it seldom happens.

Why not stop trying to make your arguements sound logical, it's waste of time.

Just keep saying what you really mean and occasionally admit: You don't want fast boats on your lake and this law will send a message to them and drive them off. You don't want large boats on your lake and this law will provide a stepping stone to that end. Why pretend?

We have laws against lots of things that seldom happen. And it will happen less often when the law is passed. Plus there will be consequences for the few violators. That is why we enact laws!

Who is pretending? I have never "admitted" I want high horsepower boats off the lake. I state it openly and often. Do I have to say it in every post?

How many times have you driven down Pleasant Street over 25 MPH? I actually find it difficult to keep it under 30, I try to stay between 25-30 MPH and consider that obeying the law. Today I was followed up Pleasant Street by a cruiser and I was doing my normal 25-30 MPH thing. I wasn't pulled over. So I submit that law abiding citizens speed. I consider myself a law abiding citizen and I do speed. I drive 93 south every Monday morning from here to rt 128. average speed for me is 72 and people fly by me all the time. I've even had cops fly by me while I was traveling at 72. Point is we'll still have boats traveling over 45 and we'll still have idiots violating the 150' safe passage law. I am less concerned about the boats going over 45 MPH than I am about the idiots not paying attention. Your entire premise is that passing the speed limit will keep certain people away, I believe it won't. You also think the lake will be safer, I believe it won't. I actually think if the law passes absolutely nothing will change. The problems we face are not speed related they are safety related. Paying attention, 150' safe passage, BUI, driving fast through NWZs, etc.. A speed limit addresses none of those problems.

Self enforcing speed limits?
 

The people I see pulled over regularly on I93 must be getting parking tickets. :D

I can't agree with that. I predict Bear Island will see a significant increase in boat traffic.

How can there be consequences if there is no enforcement? You say there is no need for enforcement yet you say there will be consequences, this is logically flawed. Without enforcement, the only consequence is a guilty conscience.

Sometimes you openly say you just want high horsepower boats off the lake, sometimes you pretend there is a logical reason to have a speed limit. All I'm saying is stop the pretense.

Just say that you want the high horsepower boats off the lake, because that's what you want. And the speed limit law is just a handy tool.

Cars go a little over the limit, boats will go a little over the limit. So What? Who cares? How often do cars go 70 mph on Pleasant St. or 140 mph on route 93?

Suppose a GFBL makes it a habit of going 90 mph around the lake. How many times per day will this be reported to the Marine Patrol? How long will it be before the Marine Patrol start looking for this boat?

Again, this happens so infrequently it's not an issue. Let's compare how many times idiots violate the 150' safe passage law compared to how many boats go over 50. I have no hard facts for that but my personal observations from years of riding around on my SeaDoos leads me to conclude that the violators of the 150' safe passage law far outnumber boats going over 50 recklessly, and they (the 150' violators) are the ones making people feal unsafe. This is unscientific data, wholly my opinion and observations but I would wager a vast majority of people using this forum would agree with me.

I think you are right. I know that Bear Island is the shortest distance between any two points on Winni. Keep it slow and watch out for kayakers. If I owned Y Landing, I know I'd be offering the cheapest gas on the lake this summer. There is a captive audience just looking for a reason to say hello to everyone on Bear Island this summer.:laugh:

If you stop at Y-Landing check out the convenience store while they are gassing you. Tuffy is stocking up on sour grapes just for the GFBL crowd.




Good to know you have forgiven them for supporting speed limits.

Apparently, the Senators are not the only ones enjoying old timer's...

Vhf 16, 9-1-1
 

That’s a very good question, as a matter of fact your good friend Bear Islander can probably answer it since he posted;
Then I posted the following as a suggestion since if that happened to me I would certainly be ticked off!
Then Bear Islander posted a response via VtSteve (BI doesn’t post responding directly to me any longer since I was so bold as to bring his credibility into question after he claimed time and again not to have posted something that he wrote and he denied it so BI took his bat and ball and went home :laugh::laugh:

So Islander, that’s a long way to say that you folks that say you have problems with speeding boats don’t have a track record of reporting them!!!!!

Call the Marine Patrol and even if they don't show up you will have a record! In BIs case he knows where one of the offenders docks...yet he certainly didn't say he did anything about it!

I’ll betcha the only thing that gets reported if this bill becomes law is the continued 150 foot violation…but gee, isn’t that already law? BTW, they are NOT going to put a radar post at the NWZ near Bear Island :eek:

As many boaters know, the Bear Island Post Office dock has been a Marine Patrol stake-out spot for no wake zone, plus six mph speeders, for years and years.

Today's www.citizen.com has an article on boating and the Marine Patrol and mentions that the MP may be required to enforce a speed limit this summer, depending on what the legislature does. Could the Senate change HB 847 so it becomes effective immediately? Like, why wait till January 1, 2009?

Three cheers to Tuffy and the Y-Landing for operating their little grocery, beer, milk, newspaper, hi-test gasoline, diesel fuel, boat accessories like air horns, bilge pumps, bow eyes, lines, and Suzuki outboards biz.

Do 250hp Merc two-strokes run better hole shots on high-octaine gas? :D

Some Senators have an amendment for immediate enactment. It would have to go back to the House for approval.

Did the amendment include the restrictions for Kayaks? They really should be lit and have flags. It's just not safe having a floating log out there, colored or not

the latest update:

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dl...1029/OPINION03

Wouldn't it be a hoot if because of the need for boats and crews to set up radar posts that they decide the Bear Island Post Office stake out spot would be one of the areas boats and crews are diverted away from? :eek::laugh::laugh:

More single-minded crap there than you can shake a stick at.

I might add, don't forget the big, big wakes.

I wouldn't call that an update.That's one person's opinion in a letter to the editor.Does the Monitor publish opposing views?

I wouldn't call it sound reasoning either. One-half the speed of a bullet? A .223 round leaves the muzzle at 3000 fps or 180,000 fpm or 10,800,000 fph which equals over 2000 mph. half of that is 90mph? Maybe in Laconia.
Another Scary Mary.

Miles per second, miles per minute, miles per hour, facts don't matter to these speed limit proponents, only getting their way by any means. Apparently math isn't a strong point either, no wonder they are so wrong in their statements.

Pretty sad, but a classic example of how a representative government can be manipulated by the whims of a few. The Senators are supposed to be above this, we'll see........

SO TRUE! The absolute BEST example was this convoluted post by Evanstar:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...5&postcount=48

So many variables involved yet she concludes that, and I quote:
2156 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph on the entire lake over those 11 weeks.

Talk about a leap. I suggest you submit that to your professor Evanstar. You are making assumptions that you can not apply mathematics to. It's called human nature. So you get a study that actually TELLS you that in fact a tiny percentage of boats exceed 50mph and you EXTRAPOLATE the data to suit your claim. It would be wonderful if you could just live in a laboratory and assume that there were exactly that many boats on the lake exceeding 50mph in a given time period but even the staunchest scholar would concede that it would merely be speculative based on hundreds of variables. I pray to god that the Senators are reading every shred of debate on this forum. I firmly believe that they would see through the ridiculous claims made by proponents.

FYI: I submitted this "equation" to a fellow colleague, Math Teacher, who commented "in theory yes this math is acceptable, however we don't live in white rooms with lab coats. This is great on paper but in the real world there are far too many variables for this to hold any water in a scientific discussion." End quote.

Does that colleague of yours have a PHD in Political Science or in Public Relations? Because those are the qualifications of the professors who taught me to do statistical analysis. Where do you think people learn this stuff - I'm attending one of the best private universities in New England - I really think my professors know about this than you or your colleague. Has your colleague ever taken a course in Research Methodology? Because I have,and this is the correct way to do statistical analysis. BTW: My professor laughed at all the mistakes that were made in doing the Speed Study - he's the one who told me that it wasn't even a viable study.

You guys try to use the speed study as proof that we don't need a speed limit, without plugging the raw data back into the environment - which actually needs to happen for it to have any meaning. Then you don't like the result - so you attack me, because you don't know how to attack my analysis.

So far you have criticized my statical analysis without backing up your criticism at all - again, show me what is wrong with my analysis, rather than just being critical because you don't like the results.

My best friend's father is a civil engineer who does traffic studies and uses the exact same kind of statistical analysis as I did. There is nothing wrong with my analysis. They way that I did is is correct - this is how you do statistical analysis.

No, it's not a lab - but when you do research studies on the public, it has to be treated just like a lab to be a viable study.

The only part of my analysis that isn't based on data from the study was that I credited the study area as being equal to 25% of the lake - since no data was given in the report on what percentage of the lake was covered. I used a very generous percentage - which is way larger than what the actual percentage likely was. Do you contend that the study area covered more than 25% of the lake? The other thing that I don't have is the margin of error - because that want never published in the study (yet all viable statistical studies include a margin of error, to show how accurate the results were). I didn't plug in the margin of error because it is unknown.

Need Help....
 

The Senate Transportation committee voted on HB847. The vote was 3-2
"Ought to Pass", which mean a recommendation
to pass the bill. The full senate will mostly likely vote on HB847 next
week. So continue to keep up the pressure. Your help is needed.

Thank you,


John Gallus
292 Prospect Street
Berlin, NH 03570-2137
(H) (603)752-1066
(O) (603)271-3077

Deborah Reynolds
5 Chaddarin Lane
Plymouth, NH 03264
(O) (603)271-3569

Joseph Kenney
PO Box 201
Union, NH 03887-0201
(H) (603)473-2569
(O) (603)271-3073

Kathleen Sgambati
25 Pine Street
Tilton, NH 03276
(H) (603)286-8931
(O) (603)271-3074

Peter Burling
20 Lang Road
Cornish, NH 03745-4209
(O) (603)271-2642

Jacalyn Cilley
2 Oak Hill Road
Barrington, NH 03825
(H) (603)664-5597
(O) (603)271-3045

Harold Janeway
225 Tyler Road
Webster, NH 03303
(O) (603)271-3041

Bob Odell
PO Box 23
Lempster, NH 03605-0023
(O) (603)271-6733

Sheila Roberge
83 Olde Lantern Road
Bedford, NH 03110-4816
(H) (603)472-8391
(O) None Specified

Molly Kelly
89 Colonial Drive
Keene, NH 03431
(H) (603)352-5605
(O) (603)271-7803

Peter Bragdon
P.O. Box 307
Milford, NH 03055 (H)
(603)673-7135
(O) (603)271-2675

David Gottesman
18 Indian Rock Road
Nashua, NH 03063-1308
(H) (603)889-4442
(O) (603)271-4152

Joseph Foster
9 Keats Street
Nashua, NH 03062-2509
(H) (603)891-0307
(O) (603)271-2111

Robert Clegg
39 Trigate Road
Hudson, NH 03051-5120
(O) (603)271-8630

Sylvia Larsen
23 Kensington Road
Concord, NH 03301
(H) (603)225-6130
(O) (603)271-2111

Theodore Gatsas
20 Market St
PO Box 6655
Manchester, NH 03104-6052
(H) (603)623-0220
(O) (603)271-8567

John Barnes
PO Box 362
Raymond, NH 03077-3062
(H) (603)895-9352
(O) (603)271-6931

Betsi DeVries
14 Old Orchard Way
Manchester, NH 03103
(H) (603)647-0117
(O) (603)271-2104

Robert Letourneau
30 South Avenue
Derry, NH 03038
(O) (603)271-8631

Lou D'Allesandro
332 St. James Avenue
Manchester, NH 03102-4950
(H) (603)669-3494
(O) (603)271-2600

Iris Estabrook
8 Burnham Avenue
Durham, NH 03824-3011
(H) (603)868-5524
(O) (603)271-3042

Michael Downing
7 Darryl Lane
Salem, NH 03079
(H) (603)893-5442
(O) (603)271-2674

Margaret Hassan
48 Court Street
Exeter, NH 03833-2728
(H) (603)772-4187
(O) (603)271-4153

Martha Fuller Clark
152 Middle Street
Portsmouth, NH 03801-4306
(O) (603)271-6933


http://www.opposehb847.com

Again, pass this on to everyone you know who can help us protect our
rights. The more letters and phones the the bigger the impact.

No, NOT NEXT WEEK...This Thursday!
 

Actually they are scheduled to vote on the bill the day after tomorrow the 15th. Not next week. Next week will be too late.

So, you took numbers from a study that you state was not viable, and you want us to tell you want is wrong with your analysis?

*SIGH* Here we go, Evanstar lashing out again with personal attacks, but we all have to sit here and take it, whatever.:rolleye2:

For the record, my friend has a Ph.D in Mathematics. If I actually have to explain this out to you even though you make all these claims about your education I am beginning to have doubts about all your claims, but here goes.

You are taking a RECREATIONAL activity and trying to extrapolate data based on individual results. I will show you how and why you can not apply the same methodology used in traffic studies to a RECREATIONAL activity. In the interest of time I will try to hold it to just a few examples. Let me first start by simplifying your claim. You claim that over roughly a 10 week period if one boat was traveling 50+MPH then there were other boats at the same time traveling over 50MPH. You also state that we need to multiply that over a set of weeks, lets say 10 weeks. Therefore according to you there were roughly 50 boats elsewhere on the lake doing 50+MPH. That is a loose interpretation of your argument. Your numbers ended up claiming over 2,000 boats in roughly a 10 week period were exceeding 50MPH. Here are just a few reasons why you can not treat this like a typical traffic study.

#1 Unlike a highway people do not boat in the same pattern every day.
This is not I-93 during rush hour where you can make the assumption that the same people are traveling the same route every day. In highway analysis one can reasonably assume within a small margin that the traffic pattern would be similar on any given day within a set number of days, I.E. Monday through Friday. Therefore you could measure speeds in a set test area and then you could extrapolate that data to infer that the same numbers (Speed, Car Counts etc.) would apply to another zone taking into account variables such as road topography and such.

#2 Boating is a leisure activity
Applying finite math to a leisure activity to determine how many boats are in a set area traveling at a set speed is impossible. Boat A never left the dock because they decided to go swimming. Boat B left the dock but decided to slow cruise because they wanted to look at the McMansions. Boat C is setting up to waterski. Boat D is actually prepping for a high speed run across the broads but Boats E,F,G,H,I are waiting in line for a dock space. That is just day one. Day two, it is windy out and Boat A is cruising at 25MPH because Aunt Ann has a bad back and hates the waves. Boat B thinks it is too windy to boat today. Boat C is not about to waterski in this mess. Boat D is not at the lake because he is working. etc. etc. Day 3 is a rainy Monday and the only boats on the water are the Mount, Marine Patrol, the lone fisherman and a few hearty Islanders trying to get the kids off of the island.

Those are two examples for you to chew on as to why it is impossible to apply traffic study methodology to a LEISURE activity. You are also leaving out the human nature aspect of the equation. Commuting by car is an entirely different subject matter with an entirely different set of variables that are much more predictable. You are trying to apply logic to leisure and the best scientists in the world can't come up with a formula for that. Over a 10 week period people will boat thousands of different ways. To try and make a math equation that states One Boat traveling 50MPH in Meredith equates to 4 boats traveling 50MPH one in Alton one in Wolfeboro one in Center Harbor and one in the broads is ludicrous and down right laughable.

For the record I am not debating the validity of the study, I am debating your interpretation or should I say statistical analysis of the data. Which is completely and utterly rubbish.

Recreational Boating Study
 

This discussion of statistical value of this study is academic for the reasons Hazelnut pointed out. Most people who say the study was not valid point out the fact that the marine patrol used marked boats and announced the areas to gather data. I would suggest that a large majority of the boaters were unaware of the study and could not tell you what a marine patrol boat looked like from a half mile away. Those of us that are on the lake a lot were very aware of both, but we are the minority of boaters. The 2 areas where a limit was announced showed no difference in stats from the areas that were sampled unannounced. This could support the idea that most boaters were unaware and going about their business as usual. The study is what was found at those places, at that time, for those boats. That is not and can not be disputed (unless we get into a discussion of the effectiveness of radar operated from a moving and rocking boat. If we go there then I'm afraid those for a speed limit would have to make a good case for not being able to enforce this law) This is the only data we have. It can be twisted and spun anyway you want when you talk about the whole lake on any given day at any given time.
I for one think that the State is writing a bad law. I believe that for 2 reasons. First, having the law at all is being based on emotion and individual observation not fact, scientific or other. Second, recording speed on water with accuracy from a small floating platform is at best effective only a small part of the time. There are simply too many variables that are effecting the readings. I would like to see the Senate back off and do a meaningful study of both speed and enforcement issues. Then if a law is needed pass one.

Yes, I believe that the speed study was flawed in how it was done, so I don’t believe that the data produced is at all accurate. But that is a separate issue, from the methodology of doing statistical analysis. Many of the speed limit opponents use the data from the speed study like it is gospel – so they obviously believe that it is viable.

So you have two choices (and only 2):

1.) The study was not done correctly – so the data is meaningless, or
2.) The study was done correctly, in which case the raw data needs to be statistically analyzed by inserting back into the environment - this is done by multiplying the data by a time factor and by the percentage factor of how much of the lake was covered by the study.

You can’t argue that the study was done correctly and then say that my statistical analysis is incorrect merely because it used the data from that study.


I did not “lash out.” Please explain how asking for you colleague’s qualifications is a personal attack on you or on anyone.

But having a PHD in mathematics does not make you colleague more qualified than my professors who happen to be very qualified in their knowledge of statistical analysis.

I don’t lie. My GPA was published in both the Concord Monitor and in the Manchester Union leader when my speech at my graduation from NHTI was covered last May. Goggle Arwen RWU and you’ll see that I really and a student there and really am a member of the sailing team.

The fact that the study was done on a recreational activity does not change the way that the data is analyzed. The purpose of the speed study was to the record speeds of boats on a lake over 11 weeks of summer boating. If the speed study was done correctly, the study areas should have been selected to accurately represent boat traffic on the lake (that is the goal of study areas), and the time periods in which they took the readings should have been selected to accurately represent the average activity that is going on during the day.

If you accept that the study is valid – you have to accept that the data collected represents the average conditions on the lake on the average day. If this is not true, then the data and the study are invalid. You can’t have it both ways, not matter how much you try to spin this.

There is nothing complicated about what I did. And it is as accurate as the data collected (other than the fact that I had to guess at how much of the lake that study areas represent – which makes the number of speeding boats actually lower than it should be.)