Safety is an issue, it's not the only issue. Even if you could do the impossible and make the lake completely safe, that does not solve all the problems. We have talked about pollution and overcrowding. That kayakers feel they are being driven from the lake.

A boat going 90 MPH uses up a lot of lake. We are talking about a crowded limited resource. There are limits, and we have reached them. How big is to big? How fast is to fast? My answer is that 90 MPH is way to fast for this lake. That the big cruisers are to big for this lake.

And again the biggest problem is the direction the lake is going in. I will bet the average boats horsepower has risen steadily for decades. I am guilty of this as well. I started power boating in the 60's with a 2.5 HP. Since then every boat I have had has been considerably more horsepower than the one before it. We need to start going in the OTHER direction.

Overcrowding, water quality, safety, fear, noise, pollution, erosion and sharing a limited public resource. That is what it's about. I say this over and over, but Airwaves et al only hear "they hate our boats"!

Do you hear what I hear?
 

Airwaves and all (and al too :laugh:) hear a lot more than you think.
Many are questioning the reasoning that more speed limits should be the next step (and a necessary step) in making things better.

Many folks are concerned about the ITEMS quoted above. Speaking for myself, I just do not think speed limits are the solution.

Overcrowding and sharing a public resource. Yep, on a nice summer weekend it is crowded. Lets say you want to take your family or group on a boat trip from Meredith to Alton Bay to get ice cream across from the public dock. Which boat will take up more lake for more time - a boat going 30 mph or a boat traveling 60 mph? I imagine the 60 mph boat will use HALF as much lake time as the slower boat. That would ease boating overcrowding but not the crowds waiting for public dock space. Then we could argue about boating use by time (a 3 hour tour) or by destination (A specific trip from point A to point B and maybe C). However, either way, speed limits will not help this overcrowding.

Noise should not be addressed by speed limits. Fishing boats at 6 AM make too much noise for me while I'm trying to sleep. The remedy was closing the near by launch ramp until 8:30 or 9 AM. Noise limits and enforcement, not speed limits will help with noise.

Kayaks are being pushed off the lake you say. Fix it with speed limits. Heck, my wife doesn't want to go out mid day on a busy summer weekend in our 24 footer because there are too many boats and to many wakes, not because of their speed. My kids (now 22 and 18) love a crowded lake ride. But, If my wife wants a boat ride we go before 10 AM. Or we will go out later in the day. Or go out during the weekdays. She loves a sunset cruise and it's not crowded. Timing our boating, not speed limits is our answer. No one kind of craft is being pushed off the lake by speeding boats. Overcrowding is not just an alleged problem for kayaks. The same with alleged fear.

Wouldn't the false sense of security brought about by speed limits bring MORE boats to the lake. Not GFBLs but more trailered boats from out of the area. Increasing crowding and decreasing safety.

How do people know about the current rules of the lake? How do they know about the 150 foot rule and other lake or NH specific rules? Is it posted at all launch ramps? Nope. On billboards? How do tourists find out about these rules? Too many don't. But they have Boater Safety Certificates - sure, but NH has made it so that it is easier to get an acceptable on-line certificate from another state with NO testing on NH specific rules, like the 150' rule. Speed limits gonna fix that too? Nope. If visitors and some regulars don't know about the 150' rule how will they learn about any new speed limits?

We are listening but do not agree with all that we hear. However, this is the USA and you have every right to be wrong :).

Well said and I do believe in your sincerity. I also agree with you on a few points. YES the lake is getting too crowded. Water Quality is a major concern. Safety, noise, fear all good points. We just totally and completely disagree on a solution that will actually work. I slide more towards the right on this issue. Making laws as a "lets throw this against the wall and see if it works" approach is a horrible way to govern.
My fear is this law will pass and the powers that be will pat themselves on the back and say "well we did our job, the people wanted a safer lake and we delivered." The reality is the lake will be no safer and none of the issues you mentioned above will be addressed. Where does that leave us? Will the lawmakers undertake real measures to address the concerns or will they be fed up with "Lake Winni" talk and table any discussion addressing real concerns. Especially when it will cost money to enact the measures such as increased patrol and enforcement. I believe you have even said yourself that they won't throw any more money into any initiatives involving policing the lake. So instead this blanket arbitrary 45MPH speed limit gets thrown in the books as a safety solution and as a solution to the problems you listed? It just will not work! It also sets us back several years in terms of addressing the real problems and that is a fact.

Skipper

Speed limits are not the best solution to ALL of these problems. That would be a horsepower limit. However speed limits will IMPROVE all those things.

Other lakes that have enacted speed limits report improved conditions. The same will happen on Winnipesaukee. Your argument that speed limits will bring more power boats, confusion and congestion is ridiculous on it's face and contrary to experience.

Speed limits will bring more "boats", but they will be of the human or wind powered kind.

By the way, you lose all credibility when you make claims like "noise will not be addressed by speed limits". It is an example of the twisted logic necessary to oppose reasonable solutions to a serious problems.



The questions still unanswered by the opposition

1. How big is to big?
2. How fast is to fast?
3. Is the average horsepower per powerboat on the rise?

Speed limits are not the answer
 

Airways, Hazelnut, Skipper of Sea Que, and a few others have excellent posts. While speed limit advocates are changing their tune and grasping at straws.

I never said stop everything. My methods are not idiotic. I am pointing out that the number of deaths by snowmobile far and away exceeds death by boat. IMO that may be more of a concern than speed limits. We do not have a snowmobile forum but we have one for speed limits. I question the lopsidedness. Safety efforts can work in parallel. Did I read where there are actually snowmobile speed limits?

I applaud you for not sitting on your fat behind and whining about snowmobile dangers. Who is continually whining about boat speed limits?

I am not on a crusade. I never said stop trying to make the Lake safer. I care about safety for all and that includes boaters and snowmobile riders and everyone. I disagree with you and Evenstar about the need for speed limits and the results that speed limits will bring about.

My methods are not idiotic. We should prioritize resources relative to danger and importance. Put more money into AIDS research than you use for finding a cure for hangnails. The method is the degree of relevance. We don't stop one in favor of another. We look at what needs to be done and adjust our effort accordingly. Research cures for cancer and AIDS and CP and other major problems at the same time. You put quite a spin on my comments.

There is a Winter Sports Forum and almost every thread is about snowmobiles. There is a speed limit for snowmobiles, but for some reason it does not apply on lake ice.

hazelnut

Using a radar gun now and then, that they already own, will not break the MP budget.

You'd be off by a small factor on most lakes.

Every boat in NH is theorically surrounded by an invisible acre of heightened observance of safety; unfortunately, it's the Lake's least-enforced—and most-violated—rule. :( On NH lakes with "Safe Passage", you'd be off by a huge factor.

How many acres-per-second is that? :D

Boating has become increasingly less safe on all inland waters. Why else is the Coast Guard pushing PFDs on all boaters while the boat is moving?

Why is the National Marine Manufacturers Association offering free DVDs to encourage boating on our waters? Powerboat numbers are down and, IMHO, it's due to increased size, weight, speed and close calls on protected inland waters.

What speeds would you like to attribute to the two crashes in 2003 and 2004? The Formula/Seadoo crash in 2005? The Bayliner into Eagle Island in 2006? The Camp Island crash? The GFBL onto Parker Island resulting in broken bones? The hundreds of boaters' "close calls"?

Nobody knows!

Regarding Winnipesaukee's most famous fatality-hit-and-run, we didn't have the speed estimate until three years ago (or the perp in jail). Sentenced to a max of seven years—now he's out after less than three? :confused:

One more MPH and, instead of striking the rear of the boat, he would have crossed the middle of the boat—very possibly eliminating all the witnesses!

Does that research pass the "sniff" test?

Who would even call it a "Beta" test? :(

For NH's unique boating rules, the certificate plan is seriously flawed: on-line testing comes to mind, as does the nationwide omission of the "Safe Passage" rule.

'Wish I could understand this question, but where locations permit year-round boating, there are an ample number of crashes that point to excess speed.

You previously asked about a compromise? :confused:

Of all the possible venues for a compromise, it appears that "self-policing" isn't going to be one of them.... :rolleye1:

Afterthought:
Just think how quiet the Speed Limits forum will become when the Senate passes the bill: their collective conscience will be clean—for two years, anyway—and law-abiding boaters will be as content as possible.

Finally, something concrete to enforce.

As for the reason why the 45mph land speed limit does not apply to snowmobiles when on a frozen lake surface? It probably has something to do with the same legislative reasons why a three seat jetski is legally a boat.

Now, if the motorboat speed limits soon gets passed, is it likely that it will be rescinded if the Republicans regain a majority in the legislature? It's an interesting question. Senator Joe Kenney is a Republican, and supports the boat speed limits, and he could well be the Republican candidate to oppose Gov Lynch in November.

One anyway.And that came from one who was never on the lake before this debate so she was not driven away.She actually came here because she heard about this debate and was called out for never having been on the lake and commenting like she had.

This has got to be the most hypicritical statement you have made so far.Do as I say and not as I do,right?Can you say AL GORE?You have the nerve to stand on your soapbox telling us we need to downsize horsepower and you have done just the opposite?Why am I not suprized?

True, and what kind of pollution will a rocket joy ride into space introduce into the atmosphere? How much pollution does a plane bring pleasure hikers to the Poles put into the air? Pretty hypocritical to claim pollution here when one does extra-curricular activities elsewhere that are just as damaging.

Go ahead, put the HP limit in place. Everyone that wants a large cruiser can just buy an older, more polluting one and continue to use the lake to get by your model year limit. The newer the technology, the cleaner the burn.

That's totally untrue!
 

That's totally untrue!

How could you possibly know my reason for joining this forum? You really should get your "facts" straight before posting criticism about me or my posts.

The truth is that I joined this forum to learn more about Winni, as I was planning to kayak on the lake. Here's my first post. My "coming here" really had nothing at all to do with the speed limit bill, although I've always been in favor of a speed limit on ALL NH lakes. The truth is that I didn't even "hear" about this debate until after I had joined this forum.

I have been totally honest here and have never once misrepresented my experience or my time on the lake. I never once implied that I had kayaked on Winni, before I actually did. In fact I posted several times that I had not yet paddled on Winni.

I've only kayaked on Winni a few years, and not nearly as much as I would have liked too - mainly because my best friend doesn't feel very safe on a lake where we have had close calls with high speed powerboats EVERY SINGLE TIME that we have paddled there. That's a fact.

If there isn’t a problem, why then does Winni have such a bad reputation among paddlers? Here are some more facts:

You see way more kayaks and canoes on Squam, and on all the other large lakes in NH. This is especially true for sea kayakers . . . who tend to be the most experienced paddlers. I have never seen more than a couple of sea kayaks on Winni on any given day - yet I have never been on Squam without seeing dozens of sea kayaks. Why is that?

I’m on several paddling forums – No one has EVER recommended Winni as a good place to kayak, in fact the opposite is true - I've been told that Winni is not a safe lake to paddle on.

Winni isn’t even in AMC’s book on places to kayak in NH. And at the Sea Kayaking in NH website, Winni was never even mentioned.

It's also a fact that many of my paddling friends will not join me on Winni, "because of the high speeds that boats go on that lake" (their words, not mine). And some of those people used to paddle there regularly. So several people I know personally have actually been driven off the lake due to the high speeds of the powerboats.

That's the honest truth, whether you believe it or not.

As opposed to the 150foot law?


Bear Islander you claim that only wind powered vessels and Kayaks will be drawn to a safer lake but NOT the thousands of runabout owners who will feel "safer." Sorry my friend you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you agree that Winni will be a draw for the wind and paddle crowd you have to allow for the possibility that Winni will become more attractive to the family trailered runabout crowd. To deny that is disingenuous at best. IMHO I'd rather have the comparatively small crowd of GFBL's than the onslaught of small runabouts trailered to the lake each day. At least most of the GFBL crowd has a stake in the lake being that they probably own real estate on or around the lake. I'd rather not attract the transient crowd who might not care what shape they leave the lake in when they leave.

P.S. I don't include the wind and paddle crowd in that comment, as they usually respect mother nature.

....mach seven!
 

When the rebuttals head for the outer limits of outer space. something tells me that one side is getting a little nervous about a soon-to-be-here vote in the senate.

And, on the brite side for all the go fast- be louds, HB847 does not take effect till January 1, 2009, as it is now written. So, that gives you one last summer to cruise at 65mph or more. And hey, if the Repubs regain their NH majority in Nov '08, probably the speed limits will get drowned again.

I can hear Republican Senior Political Advisor, Gene Chandler (R) Bartlett speaking from the house podium: "In memory of the late you-know-who, let's kill this whacky HB847 and steer NH away from the NANNY STATE." Full speed ahead & let's go back to the good old days.

As that well known English jet-skier, Lord Byron, said back in 1888, "all power corrupts, and all power corrupts," absolutely, or something, or something! :D

Not at all, I have no reason to be nervous. I have no vested interest in the outcome either way. I don't own a boat that goes over 55mph, my average top speed that I run is 45-50mph. Honestly, I could care less. What I don't want is another useless unenforced law that people are claiming to be necessary. One that was pushed through due to lies, misinterpretations, misinformation, deception, etc.

When pollution is brought up as an overall point to push for a speed limit I feel the need to point out other activities that are just as polluting. Finely tuned GFBL's are going to burn more efficiently than an older 2 stroke, a family cruiser, etc. Fire up your old aluminum boat and watch the oil slick in the water...

The Rub
 

And there it is Codeman. Plainly stated you do not even own a GFBL and neither do I. As a matter of fact I can emphatically state that I will NEVER own one. I think they are one dimensional and I have no use for them as I have children and they do not make good family boats. I stand to lose absolutely NOTHING with the passage of this law.

FLL you are missing the point big time. This is not a personal issue. Obviously it is to you as you have shown with your immature childish posts with the we win you lose happy dancing banana gimmick. If that isn't inflammatory in nature I don't know what is Don? I digress. Anyway, FLL there are some individuals in this country, like it or not, that disagree with the passage of laws based on a problem that is non existent. This law addresses Speed. The problems of the lake are not speed. They are in no particular order overcrowding, safety, pollution, ignorance to name a few. The Speed Limit does not address these concerns. With the passage of this law we are only delaying any potential we may have had to actually address the issues concerning Lake Winnipesaukee. You will se no measurable change in the areas of concern after this law passes. Sorry!

I purchased my current boat many years ago.

It's not hypocritical to admit ones past mistakes and move forward. I also believed there were WMD's in Iraq!


My share of the fuel to get me to space or Antarctica is less than a 1,800 horsepower GFBL cruising the lake for a weekend.

With the economy the way it is and appears to be heading plus the cost of gas, maybe the overcrowding issue will soon be a non-issue.

A response for the prosecution:

1) There is no single definition for "too big".
When I bought my boat at Silver Sands, I saw a 53' Carver parked there. While I personally think that 53' is too big (or, more accurately somewhat pointless) for this lake, that is only my own opinion. Others might say my 24' cuddy is too big, and still others might think that 75' is plenty comfy.

2) There is no single definition for "too fast".
The best answer is probably a variable speed limit, much like there is not 1 single speed limit that governs all blacktop. 55 MPH is too fast through the Weirs channel, but not too fast for the broads.

3) Who cares? The average everything in the US is in the rise. From drink sizes to houses. HP as applied to boats is sort of interesting. Boats have no variable transmission, the engine shaft rotation to propeller rotation ratio is fixed, as is the propeller pitch (save for some very extreme edge cases). Boats also never have to climb hills, nor do they coast down hills. So, the HP required to move a given hull at a given speed is fairly constant (winds, currents, and weight loading can affect this). Cruiser planing hulls have a maximum speed before they start to chine-walk and become very unstable, there is a very real cutoff point where more HP cannot be effectively utilized. Most operators never operate their boats anywhere near this speed. So, the fact that engine HP may be increasing on average doesn't mean much by itself. You certainly can't draw the conclusion that more HP == more speed. You might be able to draw conclusions of:
a) Boats are getting heavier/larger on average
b) People are buying engines larger than necessary and under-utilizing these engines


You keep tossing these straw-man arguments into the mix, they don't really seem to make a lot of sense. If your concern is overall lake safety and enjoyment, rallying for existing laws to be better enforced would solve your problems. While there are always cases of people with more money than brains, Winnipesauke is not generally an attractive location for overly large or fast boats. The surface area and configuration just do not support those types of vessels in a way that makes them a cost-effective purchase for most people.

The prosecution still has not produced any evidence that anything other than a rounding-error's worth of incidents on the lake can be attributed to, or resolved by, a speed limit.

Your position along the lines of "we know a speed limit won't do much, but in lieu of even more laws in others aspects of boating, we'll take whatever additional legislation we can get" really doesn't do much to lend credibility or sympathy to your position. Being that I'm an avid DIYer, the term "use the right tool for the job" comes to mind. You don't try to hammer in nails with a wrench because you don't have a hammer. You go and get a hammer, even if it's more net effort than just using the wrench to do a half-assed job of pounding nails.

You want to make the lake better, safer, more enjoyable? I'd be all for it, if the approach was logical and likely to be effective. Throwing more poorly thought out laws on top of the current stack of un-enforced laws is simply a lazy approach. Fight for a proper solution, or get out of the ring.

By "moving forward" are you downgrading your boat to something more in-line with your personal opinion of what is appropriate for the lake?

Sorry, there are no speed or horsepower limits..... yet.

You must live in Greens Basin! There are sure attracted to where I hang out!

Not True. We have produced plenty. And once again you are stuck on the safety issue.

I'm not looking for credibility or sympathy. I give my honest opinion no matter which side it favors. Truth told to reasonable people brings it's own credibility.

I don't post here to try and convince the opposition, that is a waste of time.

In theory, if the 150' rule were either enforced or followed along with no wake zones being enforced/followed, 99% of what you claim to be the "upside" to the speed limit law (safety, land erosion, etc.) would be met by currently existing laws.

I never said they didn't exist, just that this lake is not generally attractive to those kinds of boats, you can't get "full" enjoyment from them. Refer to my money/brains caveat in my original post, some people will still bring their big toys to the kiddie pool, but as a percentage of the overall boats on the lake, performance boats and large cruisers are an overall minority.

You have produced arguments and data that further convince yourselves. You haven't offered logical support of your arguments. This is of course becoming a circular issue, so it's probably not a rat-hole worth going down.

And I suppose I'm not posting here to try to convince the prosecution to see the fallacy of their arguments.

Let's take a breath
 

Let me take this opportunity to clarify a few points.
First:
Every one of those points you touched on is true and needs to be addressed, except one, I do not own or operate a boat that will exceed 45 MPH! If you look at the thread asking about gasoline tank size you would realize this.

Because the speed limit crowd has been fear mongering, not only among paddlers but among the general population and legislature. Facts do not support the 'fear' that the speed limit crowd has presented.

Actually as safe boating education expands boating has become safer everywhere. If you'd like to look at the USCG accident reports you'll see that boating has become safer, period. In 2006 according the USCG report there were 16 boating deaths caused by speed in the US, 16 in the entire country!

As for the push for the use of PFD's, as a member of the Coast Guard family I can tell you it has nothing to do with speed but everything to do with saving lives. Even as we tow a disabled boat to shore we require all POB, persons on board, to wear a life jacket during the tow, as we require all Coast Guard personel to wear life jackets at all times while underway. Nope, not speed just trying to prevent the loss of life when someone falls overboard.

Bottom line:

Your side has admitted that boating safety is not an issue on Lake Winnipesaukee when it comes to speed. 99-point-1 percent of boaters clocked by radar last summer were traveling at speeds under your limit.

Did you feel safer?

I commend you and WinnFabs for bringing the issue to a debate and causing a close look at what is happening on Lake Winnipesaukee. However you went wrong when it was shown that the problems on the lake had to do with the violation of existing rules, such as safe passage and lack of enforcement, not excessive speed.

What WinnFabs and their supporters should have done at that point, that would have had the support of nearly all of us, is to refocus the effort to lobby for more Marine Patrol personnel and enforcement of existing laws.

You (collectively) didn't do that and it sparked this unnecessary fight.

Now that New Hampshire is facing a $50,000,000 deficit over the next couple of years I hope that you will work with your opponents to look for solutions, not unfunded mandates for the Marine Patrol.

I am always willing to talk, PM me with ideas.
AW

This line of bull again ....
 

Aaah the ole foolishness of the fast boat "using up" more of the lake. To answer the above question directly, it's 60 times less than would be "used up" in a minute. Or 3600 times less than would be "used up" in an hour. Why not ApM or ApH, they're as equally meaningless as ApS and could "boast" bigger numbers to boot ! (a favorite tactic of yours)

Last I checked the lake was still there after the "fast" boat used it. When I'm waiting for the boat with the RoW to pass, I'd rather it be faster rather than slower so I wait less. When I have the RoW, the faster I'm moving the less the other guy has to wait. This is simple enough for most to grasp. The boats that are the most egregious users of space are those which are just sitting there, unmoving. I can't use their lake space at all. At least a moving boat frees up the space it uses.

I'm curious as to how you arrived at the above conclusion. The USCG stats show a declining to flat fatality rate, and accident rate, the last decade. Doesn't sound like it's getting more dangerous to me. Then again these stats include some ocean water so perhaps you're trying to indicate that the safe waters of the oceans are masking the unsafe inland waters ???

That's in your opinion of course. Mine my say it's more to do with flat or decling boat sales. And since you're retired you probably don't understand why someone who's in the working world these days might not either have the free time nor free $$s to spend on a new boat. Here's a question ... what do you think PWC sales vs those of conventional boats ?

And how many would have been changed by a speed limit ? Nobody knows ! (but I could guess, and say very little)

Wow, just think of all the extra time he would have served for violating, by 3 mph, a speed limit. The mind boggles ! :rolleye1:

Or perhaps by going 1 mph slower he might have parked his boat on top of the Hartman's and sunk it and drowned them all. Perhaps if he had been going 10 mph faster his course would have passed in front of the Hartman's and missed them entirely. But by all means please do bring up this incident as something to do with speed limits, I'd love another opportunity to show just how silly that line of reasoning is ! :coolsm:

I would. You have suspiscions, now back them up with evidence. It's what we would call science.

No disagreement on those.

No doubt you'll find crashes related to fast speeds. So what ? (see more below)

Funny, I keep hearing about it not needing enforcement .... :rolleye2: But so what, they could feel just as good and have just concrete a law with limits of 35/10 or 55/35. What makes any of these (or some other numbers) correct ?

What Overcrowding?
 

I average about 150 hours per season, mostly on weekends, visiting all areas of the lake.

I can think of only three areas that feel overcrowded, i.e., the "slot" between Bear Island and Meredith Neck :eek:, the area between Eagle Island and the Weirs :eek: :eek:, and, sometimes, portions of Winter Harbor.

Now, if WinnFabs wants to push for a speed limit there, I'm aboard big time! In fact, headway speed as a limit seems about right to me :D (though it may be a major PITA for island folks heading out of Sheps and Handy Landing.)

But, honestly, to me it's seemed that over the last two seasons, at most times most areas of the lake have born a distinct resemblance to those "Where is everybody?" :confused: Virgin Atlantic commercials. My wife and I have often remarked on that subject.

Silver Duck

How much
 

It's not Skipper's argument though. It's the one brought up by various supporters, that small and normal boats, not just human powered craft, are too scared to be on the lake. Presumably if the fear factor is removed then "they will come". I tend to doubt this but that's their argument.

And this is preferable ... why ?

FWIW : I doubt the above.


I'll answer them if you do.
1) Don't really know but I do know that the size won't be affected at all by a speed limit. Cruisers aren't fast.
2) As stated before it depends on where and when and the conditions but as an upper limit .... 100 mph.
3) Yes, who cares.

There are many facts that support a speedlimit, but most of the anti-limit crowd just dismiss them as non-facts, exagerations, or non-issues

My best friend and I have had close calls with high speed powerboats EVERY SINGLE TIME that we have paddled on Winni. So our views are based on our actual experiences on the lake, not on any "fear mongering".

The same is true with other people who I have talked with. Most of my paddling friends as sea-kayakers, which is not a timid group, but are rather had-core paddlers. Most of their views are based on their own experiences on the lake. Sea kayakers are not that easily scared.

I know a woman who owns a family camp on Winn and she decided to open up a kayak shop to sell kayaks and to provide tours and instruction. She wanted to run her business from her camp, but ended up opening her store in Lincoln. Her tours and white water instruction is on the Pemi River. She told me that Winni is just too dangerous for that type of business – because of the high speeds that some powerboats travel. This woman is a certified expert kayak instructor, with many years of experience, and she feels that class II and III rapids are safer than kayaking on Winni.

Again, from my own experience, and from what others have told me, close calls between powerboats and paddlers happen rather often. So far we have been really lucky that no one has been killed.

As I’ve point out several times the statistical chance of me being run over by a powerboat increases as the speeds of powerboats on the lake increases. When a mistake happens the consequences of that mistake increase exponentially as speed increases.

The four MP officers that I spoke with personally all want a lake speed limit law - that's also a fact. They see a speed limit as a "necessary" tool.

When compared with our neighboring states NH has the worse boating accident record:
NH has the highest number of boating accidents of all 4 states
NH has 11 times more boating accidents / square mile of inland water than the next highest state. (Source: United States Coast Guard Boating Statistics 2001 – 2005)
NH has the highest number of boating accidents / number of registered boats.

I missed this earlier but here's my reply ...
 

No, not really. The only thing they did that I'd object to is advertise some of the test zones. The data from those areas may be suspect.

You missed my point. Go back and read my 2 posts on this matter. What makes the limits (45/25) chosen for Winni, or those on Squam, the "safe" ones ? Where's your science to back up those numbers ?

Again you missed my point. Forget the practicality or legalities, would you think my proposal to be fair ? If not, why not ?

Again you missed my point. You present the opinions of some MPs that a speed limit might help catch BUIs and that, because of that, it's a good idea. Try that reasoning out in the car world. If you don't like my example of Rt 93 then try a limit of 15 mph on all other roads. Certainly it would help catch DUIs for exactly the same reasons the analog would help catch BUIs. If you don't like the reasoning in the car world, I don't see how it "works" in the boating world.

Also consider what makes Rt 93 "safe" for "high" (ha) speeds.

Tell you what, let's do our own study this summer on Winni. Let's you and I go out paddling for a day and see how many close calls we have.

It's more than a hindrance to people who want to boat faster than 45 mph. Up to some limit I don't see that danger to you and other paddlers from anyone paying attention. While there's more room on the ocean, I don't get your reasoning on this point. If you kayak on the ocean aren't you in danger there too ? Aren't you less visible in the large swells typical on the ocean ?

EDIT : As to compromising, why not have certain sections of the lake speed restricted and others not ? Why isn't this a fair compromise ?

"May" be suspect? give me a break. There are all sorts of errors in the way that the study was done and in the report itself: The report does not even give the statistical analysis of the data collected – if it had, then the percentages would have been factored into the analysis, and the degree of accuracy of the study would have been given.

On top of that, data collected is not considered viable unless it can be determined that it accurately represents the entire study group. And studies of this type are never considered to be viable when members of the test population know about the study (or when the locations of the two main study areas were well known).

Do you expect anyone to believe that this study accurately determined the boat speeds on the entire lake over the entire summer? There just wasn't enough data collected to make the study viable (since only portions of the lake were covered, and data was collected during less than 2% of the daytime boating season).

So 98% of the time, at each of the study sites, speeds of boats were not being recorded at all. And yet 11 boats were still recorded at speeds of over 50mph. If we assume that this is a fair sampling (as most here seem to be suggesting), these 11 boats actually translate into an estimated 539 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph (over the entire 770 total daylight boating hours during the 11 weeks of the study).

And that’s just in the sample areas of the lake! What about the rest of the lake?

No, I didn’t miss your point. My “science” is the logic of precedence - which is based on what has already worked elsewhere. Squam has had a 40/20 mph speed limit for many years, which has been enforced by the very same Marine Patrol. So perhaps this would be a better limit, since it has been used successful on a large NH lake for years.

Look, I didn’t miss any of your points – yet you’re totally missing (or ignoring) most of mine. The problem is that you’re trying to push my answers into your own slant – and I’m not letting you do that.

What would be your justification for banning kayaks from the lake? Especially sea kayaks, which are designed especially for large bodies of water. What harm or danger does a kayaker present to anyone? We make no damaging wakes, do not pollute the water, and are nearly silent on the water. A speed limit does not target any type of boat, anymore than a highway speed limit targets any type of vehicle.

No, I didn’t. And BUI is just one of many reasons. A lake is a body of water that we use for recreation – Interstate highways are specifically designed for high-speed transportation. Yet even Interstates have speed limits. Allowing unlimited speeds on our lakes makes no sense at all. Most people don’t even realize that our state permits boats to travel on most of our lakes at unlimited speeds, and when they do find out, most are appalled.

I’ve offered to kayak on Winni with anyone / anytime (well, once I complete my spring semester). But be prepared for a real workout, as I generally paddle 16 to 20 miles in an afternoon, and I won’t be hugging the shoreline.

But we’re talking about a lake where high speed boats have actually hit islands – which are a LOT more visible than my kayak. My point is that 40 or 45 mph may very well be that limit. No one is totally attentive 100 percent of the time, and sun, spray, and fatigue all reduce the ability to see a small boat in time. High speeds just increase the danger when there is inattention, or when visibility is at all reduced (or when someone is BUI). You can argue all you want, but that’s a fact.

As far as kayaking on the ocean goes: Swells do not really make a small boat less visible. That’s because 50% of the time I’m on top of the swell – which actually makes me more visible than on flat water – since I’m that many more feet higher. Another thing – swells and large waves tend to slow down most high-speed powerboats.

Here's my compromise: Get rid of the amendments that changed this bill from "all NH lakes" to just Lake Winnipesaukee, and added a 2-year sunset clause. Then I'll be willing to discuss your compromise. So far, my side has had to make all the concessions.

Extreme Boats...Unproven Drivers
 

Except for a view years ago from the deck of the Mount Washington, I can't speak to Meredith or Eagle Island's situations; however, I have seen what you described here to family boating in Winter Harbor.

People are staying away from Winter Harbor and it could be due to the frequent visits by ocean-racers to two Winter Harbor addresses in particular—why those two addresses, I don't know. :confused:

Wake-surfers and overpowered boats towing tubes appear to be adding to Winter Harbor's unfriendly waters as well.

That makes no sense at all.

This little boat may be in your way, but I'd rather be in front of his one acre of "Safe Passage" than the many, many, many acres a Nor-Tech has responsibility for in front of him every second at 130-MPH. (Or a Skater at 140-MPH or jet-boats at 150-MPH.)

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i1...sSoSmall-1.jpg

Jet-Skis "spiked" fatalities in the 90s.

Improvements in that particular market have, indeed, lowered the overall rates of crashes and deaths. At the same time, boat sales have been trailing off, prompting the "Discover Boating" DVD program. (Few of us seasoned boaters had to "discover" boating).

Flat or declining boat sales preceeded any economic downturn, and may be traced to the decidedly unfriendly introduction of boats more suitable to ocean racing. As I pointed out, New Hampshire (and likely other states) can't report a speed for which there are no numbers or witnesses. Sixteen (16) speed deaths may only reflect the numbers for which there was some collaborative evidence: the rest are not counted at all.

A decade ago, we never saw the magazine on the news-shelves titled Extreme Boating :eek:, with "Extreme Drinks" listed among the articles inside. :eek: :eek:

Although all who perish on our waters are rightfully missed, retirees have a right to a full life and fully-enjoyed pensions.

The view from the middle of an unpowered boat—or any boat at anchor—upon the approach of an unproven driver at the wheel of an extreme ocean-racer isn't one of those enjoyments. Giving up weekends to the cowboys is one thing: giving up night travel has become another.

What speed limit could he have observed? There was none.

Of your two extremes, only by going slower would he have certainly missed the Wellcraft.

He was approaching from their right rear quarter, and overrode the slower boat's rearmost seat. With all involved having much to lose, a speed limit could have changed everything. Sadly, my warning of Winnipesaukee's excessive-speed problem appeared in newsprint on August 9, 2001. (And wasn't taken to heart by August 11, 2001.) Seven years hasn't improved the view from my dock.

Having spent an entire career in science, I know good science.

As I previously addressed, much was left to learning-curve, guesswork, and a dismissive attitude towards collected numbers: NHMP only played at becoming scientists.

Funny you keep repeating that, high speed powerboats and close calls every time. As an anecdote let me tell you a quick story that happened to me last week. I was driving down Rt 133 on a dry sunny day, traffic was light, I drove past Avid Technology and there was a traffic cop standing there. He began to give me the signal to slow down. I looked at my speedometer, I was doing 35 MPH, I looked up and the officer was still signalling me to slow down. He was standing in front of a sign that says Speed Limit 40!
Even trained professionals sometimes can't judge speed acurately so I am going to assume that you can tell how fast a "high speed powerboat" is going? Sorry, not happening.
I'm not aware there is a lot of white water on Winnipesaukee to use to instruct students, where is it?
So you would be less dead being run over by a boat doing 44 than 46? Close calls would point to a violation of the safe passage rule, not excessive speed. As the Marine Patrol research shows, 99.1% of the boats clocked last summer were doing speeds that were less than the proposed speed limit. So you are consistantly running into the less than 1 percent of boats that exceed 45 MPH while on your Winni paddles? I doubt it.
They already have the tool, NH law requires operating a vessel in a safe manner, if the MP officers you spoke with witness a boat operating at a speed that is faster than the conditions warrant, they can be cited.

There are already two laws on the books in NH that address all the concerns that you have raised:
270-D:2 VI. (a) (the 150' rule) and
270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats.

The only thing your new law will do is to put financial stress on the already overstressed budget of the Marine Patrol. In all the debate from your side I still have not heard a suggestion about how to pay for this new law, keeping in mind that the Governor is warning of a $50,000,000 budget deficit.

The sin of omission
 

Funny how APS takes my response to his quote, but forgets to include the statement he made that I responded to, so let's review shall we? THE ORIGINAL POST BY APSThen my entire response to APS on that topic:
At that point APS dropped his assertion that the "push" by the Coast Guard for boaters to wear PFDs was either new or related to the speed of a boat.
Did I quote anything from a decade ago? No, but there was a PWC death on Lake Winnipesaukee last year but to the best of my knowledge it had nothing to do with speed or a collision.

Golly gee Mr. Wizard, if your business is falling off because of the economy or other factors I guess marketing is out of the question!
Of course, that's it! The downturn in boat sales is due to unfriendly boats, BTW as I have repeatedly pointed out, there are no ocean racers on Lake Winnipesaukee, but I guess you believe that if a boat is manufactured by a company linked to professional racing teams then all of their products are ocean racers!
Just as New Hampshire can't report a speed for the accident in Meredith, that is a bogus argument and you know it. I guess you don't believe in forensic evidence either?
And we come back to an argument that the speed limit folks ignore, but now and again throw up trying to link it to boats on Lake Winnipesaukee that don't exist (ocean racers). A magazine that includes information on "extreme" drinks! Of course! It must mean all boaters who operate a vessel capable of going over whatever speed APS deems unnecessary, are drunk! But that can't be because all drunk boating accidents are the direct result of excessive speed, right?

Now can someone please tell me what an "Extreme" drink is?

Perception, Concrete Measures, PFDs, PWCs, Extremes
 

Well...let's just take a peek inside Extreme Boats magazine....

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i1...er-200x300.jpg

The number of accidents attributable to high speed will be suppressed when collision speeds are unknown.

1) Long Lake has no speed limit—today. Similarly-sized Lake Geneva has a 15-MPH limit at night—easy for a concerned citizen to act with a single cellphone call. (And flashing blue lights can be seen for many miles).

2) NH's "hit-and-run" boating law is an example of a penalty that had never occurred to the Senate before 2001. It was clearly and obviously necessary.

The needed Winnipesaukee speed limit comes with newly-enhanced penalties for the sociopathic risk that brings drugs, alcohol, thrills, and excess speed to Lake Winnipesaukee. At some moment in time, the would-be impaired will learn of this new law and go elsewhere.

Speed-recording instruments aid enforcement because it's a "concrete" measure. No instrument exists to scientifically aid the 150-foot rule—a rule unknown to too many visiting certificate holders.

1) Trends are down primarily due to a decade's-worth of restrictive requirements on Jet-Ski operation.

Jet-Skis were targeted due to underage demographics, pollution, unique noise, unsafe operation, blunt trauma injuries, poor mechanical ergonomics leading to mishaps and too-frequent tragic headlines.

There are hundreds of thousands of US acres where Jet-Skis are not permitted to operate.

2) Ocean? I presently overlook Florida ocean waters with a multitude of overpowered and overweight boats: there's no reason for speed limits where I am because there are thousands of square miles of ocean out there!

(Or noise limitations either, 'cause there are no hills).

Lake Geneva has speed limits: 35/15. One must be careful what one wishes for.

Haven't we all been watching a progressive PFD "push" by the CG?

The Coast Guard Commandant withdrew his "PFDs for every moving boater" requirement in 2005. However, beyond a certain speed—about 70—there's no reason to wear an off-the-shelf PFD anyway. :(

"Race on Sunday...Sell on Monday"? :confused:

NASCAR? Harley Earl? Bill France? :confused:



Someone asked about an eye test: here's a question of perception for NH's boating certificate test...

thought I would pass one what Exteme is

http://www.digitalexcellent.com/kaya...e-kayaking.php

You are not serious about that statement are you? Ever get hit in the head by the boom of a sailboat? Lose your balance on your powerboat and fall overboard? I don't know too many people that can tread water when they are barely conscious or worse. No reason to wear a life jacket under 70? I'm thinking that you should go back and take safe boating course before you hurt someone, possibly yourself!
If you say so :laugh:
Of course, just like with the Marine Patrol research it doesn't back your point of view so therefor it must be wrong.
Yep, Mercedes, Porche on land, Donzi, Formula on sea. All companies that sponsor professional race teams and their professional racing equipment is not "stock" off the showroom like the beginning of "stock" car racing that morfed into NASCAR.

In case you hadn't noticed those NASCAR racers aren't off the showroom floor any longer either!

I “keep bringing” high speed powerboats and close calls because that’s what I and others have experienced and why so many paddlers see the sense of enacting a speed limit on lakes. When you’re in a small, human powered boat, and a power boat comes way too close, going way too fast, you’d perhaps understand a bit better. At last year’s House Transportation Committee hearing, this was reason that came up the most in the pro-speed limit side’s testimonies.

I’ve already posted several times why I have a pretty good idea of what 40 mph looks like on the water. No one’s 100% accurate, but I can tell when a boat is going way faster than 40 mph. Besides, a speed limit is the LIMIT – it doesn’t mean that it is always ok to drive that fast – perhaps that officer had a good reason for telling you to slow down.

I wrote that she wanted to “provide tours and instruction” on Winni – ON THE LAKE, but she felt that it was safer to do this on white water – in the Pemigewassett River.

My point was that white water kayaking is generally considered to be more dangerous than kayaking on a lake – yet she was more concerned about the liability of the high-speed powerboats on Winni, than having her clients run river rapids.

Read some of my recent posts. I’ve explained all this numerous times before.

Chief Warrant Officer Jim Krzenski, Commanding Officer, U.S. Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce happens to agrees with me: “Avoiding collisions on the water differs in many ways from avoiding collisions while driving in your car. The one contributing factor which is similar between boats as compared to automobiles is SPEED. It has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced.” http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/122098tip.htm

As I’ve pointed out in my previous post (up in #348 in this thread):
1.) data was collected during less than 2% of the daytime hours over just 11 weeks
2.) only a relatively small section of the lake was covered
3.) the two main areas were very well advertised

The Broads was not even included in the study - even though that is the section of the lake where boats generally hit the highest speeds – why was this area of the lake left out of a speed limit study?

I cover a lot more of the lake in any one of my paddles than what those pilot areas covered, and my paddles were not limited to just those 11 weeks. So why is it so difficult to accept that I have at least one close call during 6 to 8 hours of paddling?

They want the lake speed limit for the same reason that we have highway speed limits. What is a safe speed for condition is so arbitrary that it would not even stand up in court. Why don’t we just allow unlimited highway speeds and let police stop everyone who is traveling at “unsafe speeds” – whatever that is?

It’s not “my new law.” The law that I wanted would have covered all NH lakes – and it would have been permanent. I don’t see that enacting a speed limit will add a significant amount to the Marine Patrol budget.

As I’ve pointed out: Squam Lake has had a speed limit for years – which is enforced by the exact same Marine Patrol. If they can enforce it on Squam, they can enforce it on Winni.

And as statistics show those “high speed” powerboats are not traveling at ‘high speed”. What they are apparently doing is violating the 150’ law, a law that is already on the books.

And that is just an excuse. She certainly can provide safe tours and instruction on Lake Winnipesaukee unless you are also trying to say that all 72 square miles of the lake is too congested for kayaks. If she is providing white water instruction that is something she can’t do on Winni, period.

While the Former Commanding Officer of US Coast Guard Station Fort Pierce, CWO Krzenski (C.O. in 2000 not now) did write the above, he also wrote this:
Since this is the first year New Hampshire requires the operators of all powerboats to have obtained a safe boating certificate I submit to you that you and the supporters of a “solution in search of a problem” are jumping the gun! Statistics show boating is getting safer and this is the first season that safe boating certificates are required in New Hampshire.

I might also point out that Station Fort Pierce is in Florida, I believe it’s in Dade County (Miami). Florida has more than 9 times the number of registered boats than New Hampshire. Over 988,000 vs. 101,000 according to the USCG Boating statistics. So you are comparing apples and oranges when you compare Lake Winnipesaukee to Florida boating.

They have the tools now if they want to use them. Yes a charge of negligent operation of a boat for operating it at a speed determined to be unsafe for the existing conditions can be upheld in court. If you have to ask what an unsafe speed for the conditions that exist are then you don’t belong on the water.

As for your charge that the Marine Patrol research means nothing, of course not it doesn't back your position. It shows what all of us have known right along. Speed is not the problem.

Hey Bi i think I found a way around the Speed limit someone sent this to me and i thought you'd get a kick out of it........so let enjoy the summer what ever happens......hope you guys can enjoy the light heartiness of this.....

Look for me this summer!!!!!!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AApGZECbHwU

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AApGZECbHwU&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AApGZECbHwU&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Replying to you is like replying to a wall - because like many others here, you refuse to consider any facts that don't happen to agree with your narrow look on things. The truth is that most people outside of a powerboat forum happen to support lake speed limits.

Again, you're not very good at replying to what I actually posted. Read my posts, before just criticizing what you think I posted. This is a perfect example.

What I posted is that the woman owns a family camp on Winni, and that is where she wanted to run her kayak business from. She concluded that it was too dangerous to take kayak groups out on Winni from her camp. She didn't have the entire lake to pick from. And she wasn't planning on doing white water instruction on Winni!!!! She only did that because of the liability of running kayak tours on Winni.

Just because boater education is working doesn't negate the fact that "it has been statistically proven that the number of collisions between vehicles, be they of the marine or roadway type, are reduced as speed is reduced.” And the Chief Warrant Officer was not just talking about Florida boaters. According to http://www.worldatlas.com, Florida has 11,761 sq miles of inland waters, compared to NH's 382 sq miles. So FL has 84 boats/squ mile of inland water, while NH has 264 registered boats for every square mile. So which state has the more congested lakes?
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/c...s/dotclear.gif

Name me one casethat has held up in court in NH, where someone has actually been found guilty of traveling at an unsafe speed on any of our lakes.

The study was completely flawed from the very beginning. It was nothing more than a political smoke screen. If they were actually serious of recording the fastest speeds on the lake, why was the Broads left out of the speed limit study?

I would surmise that most people on a powerboat forum own or at least use a boat. So the people that don't use boats on the lake want a speed limit? Why?
I want to open a hot dog stand on I-93, which is adjacent to my property, on summer weekends to take advantage of the traffic at the Hooksett tolls. Does that mean it is a good idea?

Lots of reasons.

If they are citizens of New Hampshire then the lake is their property. They may see the need to have their property operated in a safe and fair manner. And it is their responsibility.

Or, like me, they may have children at a Winnipesaukee summer camp.