Speed Limits
 

You need to understand how police radar works, to understand why it is not useful for speed limit enforcement on Lake Winnipesaukee or any other body of water.

Radar (either Electronic or Laser) in the simplest of terms, works on the principle of shooting an electron beam in a straight line (straight line being very important) against a target and measuring the time it takes to reflect back. The time it takes the electron beam to reflect back is processed with an equation to give the police officer the target vehicle speed in MPH. It’s a pretty simple process when used on roadways against speeding automobiles traveling in fixed lanes relative to the position of the radar emitter. It becomes a lot more difficult when used on the water… let me explain.

You are traveling in your car down the highway, traveling at 65mph (or whatever speed you choose) and you happen across your friendly neighborhood State Trooper sitting on the side of the road with his handy dandy ACME Mark XXIV Radar Emitter. In this situation, as with most situations involving cars and radar, you are traveling along in the road in fixed bearing relative to the radar emitter. Fixed bearing means that your direction of travel relative to the radar emitter is known and cannot be deviated from. Think triangle. I have attached a simple diagram to explain. The direction you are traveling is known, and the distance from the radar unit to the centerline of your path of travel is also known and is extremely short relative to the range at which the radar emitter can “see” your car (usually ¼ mile or so approx 1420’ although radar emitters in the right conditions can accurately detect speeds up to 1+ mile away and are accurate at distances less than ¼ mile as well) Because two out of the three legs of the triangle are known, and one of those legs is extremely short in length relative to the other known leg, the accuracy of the radar emitter is within one or two mph of the actual vehicle speed. Assuming of course the radar emitter is properly calibrated.

Out on the water things become far more difficult to measure speed accurately with a radar emitter. There are too many variables. The primary issue with using radar as a tool to enforce a speed limit is that distance and bearing of the target vessel is not fixed relative to the radar emitter. Boats do not travel in straight lines or in fixed lanes like cars do. I have attached another diagram to help explain. Although the radar emitter will give the MP Officer a speed readout, it will not be accurate because distance and bearing (direction of travel) relative to the radar emitter are unknown. It will actually give a slower readout than the actual speed of the target vessel. If the radar readout is not accurate, you will not be able to use it in court of law. It’s a simple geometry problem and you cannot accurately solve the equation with those two unknown variables.

There are many other variables to consider as well, here are a few of the more obvious.

1. The overwhelming majority of boats on Lake Winnipesaukee are made of fiberglass and short of the engine and sterndrive contain very little metal. Fiberglass is a very poor reflector of radar energy.

2. Water has a very dense molecular structure, very similar in density to concrete. This dense molecular structure can reflect radar energy, causing false readings especially when you consider that waves are in a constant state of motion and change. This is usually called backscatter.

3. Radar cannot discern one boat from another. As the radar energy leaves the emitter it forms essentially an ever expanding cone of energy waiting to be reflected back to the emitter. Because you do not know distance and bearing of the target boat relative to the position of the radar emitter, you cannot with any degree of certainty declare that the readout on the radar emitter was from energy reflected by the target boat. Indeed the radar emitter will give a reading from the first reflection it gets, rendering it useless on a busy holiday weekend in any congested area.

The only type of radar that would be of use for enforcing speed limits on the lake would be military style naval radar with target designation and tracking capabilities. However, these radars are extremely expensive to purchase and maintain, and require a dedicated highly trained officer to operate. This is an EXTREMELY cost prohibitive system, with very little benefit in cost or enforcement.

The Marine Patrol is understaffed and under funded as it is. It is primarily a seasonal agency tasked with keeping the waters of the state safe. It would be an undue burden on the Marine Patrol and the Judicial system to enact legislation that will do nothing but clog the courts with winnable appeals, thus rendering the speed limit moot.

The biggest issue with the lake is the large amount of people who enjoy the lake on any given weekend in the summer. There are more boats of all types on the water, so there is a perception that the lake is overcrowded. The speed limit does nothing to ease this situation and essentially singles out one type of boater, the go-fast boater, who is a member of an extremely small percentage of boats using the lake.

The reality is, If you stay away from the busier parts of the lake, Meredith, Weirs, Wolferboro & Alton the lake can be extremely enjoyable and alot less crowded.


Woodsy

Woodsy

It does not require radar or any of the other things you mention to tell the difference between 45 mph and 90 mph.

The estimate of a Marine Patrol officer is good in court.

Enforcement is NOT the issue!

OK, but ....
 

Woodsy,
This is a very nice explanation and I understand and agree with it. I also believe that visual estimates of speed on water are very unreliable (I don't have a research reference for this, I remember reading something about it years ago, no fixed points of reference, etc).
So the followup question is why do we hear quotes from enforcement officers in other states that say that the speed enforcement is working? Are they using the more expensive radar? Are the courts just accepting bad radar readings because they can't get anything better and they just want to support the effort to police those lakes?
I know you probably don't have an answer for this because I'm asking you to explain the thinking of another person, however these two points, affordable radar doesn't work and officals claiming water speed limits are enforceable, are talking past each other and creating confusion (at least in my mind :confused: ).

Estamates do not convict.

Plane and simple ,The majority of people who are in favor of a speed limit do not like fast boats. It is just the there first objective to clear up the conjestion on the lake, next wakes then colorfull sails and on and on.

From all the post that I have seen there has not been one reason that could not be refuted.

The speed limit issue is redundant.

Why use Highway Radar on a lake?
 

Woodsy,
I'm curious to know why you chose to use a "highway radar" system for your example, and not one of the readily available "marine radar" systems, which are engineered for marine use to overcome all of these drawbacks and which are only marginally more expensive than highway systems? Such are the systems being used so successfully in so many locations and by so many marine law enforcement agencies around the country and in Canada. Why are these being ignored in all these arguments when they have been proven to be so effective?
Also, didn't we have speed limits before radar was invented? Didn't the courts recognize the expert testimony of an experienced officer when he said "I would estimate his speed to be over 70MPH in a 45MPH zone". Other marine police officers are telling me that conviction rates with just such testimony are "the norm".
Frank

So , judging by your diagram , the best spot for the MP to sit would be the middle of Alton Bay on a Tuesday when there's only 3 boats out ( so as not to be confused by multiple targets) and it's in a long relatively narrow area so they would have a pretty straight shot at an oncoming vessel.
But then again they also make radar detectors :rolleye2:

I understand that just over 100 citations of the 150' rule last summer were challenged in court and that ALL of them were thrown out. And that not a single one was thrown out for officer mis-estimation of speed, but ALL were thrown out for questions over the officer's estimation of distance. So if we are all relying so heavily on this 150' panacea which does not work, why not go to a law that would be easier for the MP's to enforce? Especially since the courts have shown that they will respect an officer's speed estimation.

Faster than a speeding MP boat
 

How do they enforce boating speed limits on those big lakes where it is claimed the limits work? What happens if the MP is following directly behind a target boat, can they get a good radar reading?

GPS can let the MP know how fast their patrol boat is going. If the target is pulling away from the MP then the officer must conclude that the target boat is going faster than MP boat. If said MP is going the speed limit then the target must be exceeding the limit.

Now the problem. How does the slower MP boat catch the go fast boat? They can't. They can try to radio another patrol boat and try to intercept the go fast boat but it rarely works. MP is not equipped to even chase errant jet skiers. Many of us have seen boating violators outdistancing MP boats with blue lights and sirens chasing them. There are too few MP. MP is too slow and the other boats are too fast.

I wonder if there is some speed that everyone would agree is too fast for the lake. Is 100 mph too fast or could that be a speed limit? Will we all be required to carry GPS interfaced transponders (like airplanes) so our boating direction and speed can be followed on a master screen?

Fat Jack... What Marine systems are you talking about? Who is the makes it? Model? Etc? Proven where? Where is your data? Post the websites for all to research?

A handheld radar gun has all of the drawbacks listed. Now if you want to discuss a radar that will work for speed enforcement on the water, you need to be able to cite the target vessel's actual course and speed relative to your position, course and speed. To do that you need an expensive radar that has target designation (to isolate the offending vessel and give the range to the offending vessel) as well as plot speed and course. The Sigma-6 radar from Rutter does this, but its expensive and requires a dedicated officer (RIO - Radar Intercept Officer) to operate.

A Court would recognize an expert officers estimation, especially when the vehicle was traveling in a STRAIGHT line relative to the officers position or vehicle. Police cars also have calibrated speedometers that are acceptable in a court of law. If the law enforcement officer does not know my course and bearing or distance relative to his position he cannot accurately estimate speed.... its SIMPLE geometry. Straight Line is the key to the equation.

Gilligan, the RIB's used by the Mp's on Winni can catch just about any boat on the lake.... they are pretty fast, 60+ or so

Woodsy

Good points. But these sound much like the problems that road cops had many years ago, and I don't recall them excusing themselves and giving up. They took action to strengthen laws, to get the vehicles and equipment they needed, and to hire the officers they needed. Enforcement officials probably went to the state capitols and fought for the stuff they needed to do their jobs. Can you imagine the reaction you'd get if the state police said they did not have enough troopers and that their cruisers were not fast enough, so there was no sense having speed limits on our highways?
Could this fear of not being adequately staffed and equipped be the reason MP is fighting this bill? Could they just be giving up on our safety because they don't understand what we expect? Seems that we first need to work with them to help them understand what we want this bill to accomplish. Then we need to help them convice Flynn that more patrolmen and better equipment is needed.
Of course, we do not expect them to be tagging boats going 46 mph or trying to measure speeds to within a tenth of an mph. We expect them only to give enforcement a reasonable effort and to cite the flagrant violators, and we expect the deterent effect of the law to do the rest. AND, next time there is an accident and one boat was going 70 mph, they will have a law to cite him with so that there we can start to gather some of those STATISTICS about speeding that are so clearly being ignored these days.
I think a big part of our problem has been that Dave Barrett is just not understanding what we expect from this law.

Woodsy

Here is a link to a marine radar gun.

http://www.kustomsignals.com/product...ename=handheld

There are also LASER speed guns that do not have many of the drawbacks of radar.

Here is a link to the WinnFABS website, they refute most of the points you make with links and examples.

http://www.winnfabs.com/

However the important point here is that most people with boats that can go 90 mph will choose another body of water to put their boat in.

HB162 Gains New Life!
 

This Citizen article has the speed limit gaining speed and support. Things like this are much more relevant when done "in season".

http://www.citizen.com/april_2005/04...ia_041805e.asp

And the head of the Marine Patrol now thinks a speed limit IS enforceable!

Reason for speed limit
 

I will apologize in advance for the length of this post. However, I think it is important to understand why the speed limit supporters feel it is necessary.

First, I would like to know if there are any statistics that are specific to Winnipesaukee detailing the number of accidents involving more than 1 boat in the last 1, 2, 5, 10 years etc and if there are how many involved serious injury, property damage or both & how serious the injuries or damage was. If these are available is there any information explaining how fast the boats were traveling at impact etc. I am asking about this because to me this is what should be used to support or not support a speed limit. I am also asking because in my observations while on the lake and in following the news I am only familiar with 1 tragic accident on a summer evening in Meredith that falls into this category & by all accounts the offending boat did not appear to be exceeding any of the proposed speed limits. Other than this 1 accident the only other incidents I hear about with any frequency at all are ones like a canoe capsized or I recall a couple summers ago that some one fell off a pontoon boat in the evening of off Diamond Island.

If these kind of statistics can not be produced then the speed limit supporters are in favor of HB162 for some other reason or reasons. At this point, I can only speculate. Lets take a stab at it. They do not feel safe when out on the lake because they perceive that too many boats are going well in excess of 45 mph. First, what some one thinks a boats speed is & what it really is could be 2 different speeds. Secondly, because the vast majority of boats on Winni are not capable of exceeding 50 mph, many are not capable of exceeding 40-45 mph how could it be true that too many boats are traveling well in excess of 45 mph? Lastly, even with some boats exceeding this proposed 45 mph limit, what evidence is there that this is not safe? I'm not hearing about collisions at high speeds & if they were happening believe me you would hear about it. It would be big news just like the tragedy in Meredith. I'm not hearing about collisions at low speeds either.

Next possible reason, too many boats? although I do not believe Winni is too crowded yet, in my opinion. This is a moot point since being too crowded has nothing to do with speed.

There is another reason. The speed limit supporters have alluded to the fact that high performance boats make too much noise. There is a noise ordinance or illegal db level but apparently they are not happy with this ordinance. I will speculate on this, because they are not happy with the noise ordinance they think that if they can pass a speed limit that will make high performance boat owners so unhappy that they will not frequent Winni, this will solve their noise problem. Again, this is a moot point since this is not speed related because even at 45 mph the noise is more than the speed limit supporters can bear & apparently they are not interested in supporting a different noise law that may solve this problem.

There is one other possible reason that I have stated in previous posts. Some, not all, just don't like high performance boats for no specific reason, just don't like them & would rather see them go somewhere else. Again this is not related to speed but a speed limit appears to be the only way to possibly rid the lake of these kinds of boats.

So where does this leave us? Unless there are the statistics that I referenced earlier in the post, we are left people that support a speed limit because they perceive that they are not safe(without statistics to support them), too many boats, which is not a speed related issue & is a perception or opinion not a proven fact, too much noise which is already regulated but not to their satisfaction & also not related to speed, don't like high performance boats, again not related to speed but maybe the only way to get rid of these boats.

This post is not meant to chastise speed limit supporters. I am just trying to understand where they are coming from. If these reasons I have discussed here are why they are in support of HB162, I understand them but I do not agree that they should be used by legislators as a basis for passing HB162. Statistics showing that speed in excess of 45 mph is causing too many collisions with property damage & injuries is what the legislators should be demanding before they consider passing HB162.

That link has already been posted in another thread & I fail to see Where Barrett was quoted as saying now the speed limit is enforceable.

Whats in this alphabet soup ????
 

As Propellor said, that's old news.

But it did get me contemplating. Remeber all the hub-bub in the last year about improper influence in the legislature, ehtics violations, untracked financial donations with lack of disclosure....and so on.

Well, given that at least one poster here has claimed to have made a $5000 donation to WinnFlabbs, and no evidence of this group registering with the Secretary of State's Office....could I smell a story brewing or what???

So I have e-mailed that handsome devil of a Citizen reporter and asked him to investigate the investigators, so to speak.

Lets see whats really behind that website....could it be a bunch of nasty out-o-staters masking as concerned New Hampshirites looking to kill our tourist trade? Could it be lobbyists from a radar gun manufacturer looking to make a quick killing?? Could it be a secret conclave of kayak manufacturers, looking to take the Lake back for their customers???

Enquiring cooks need to know!!!

Salute! :liplick:

Frank,

Of course, we do not expect them to be tagging boats going 46 mph or trying to measure speeds to within a tenth of an mph. We expect them only to give enforcement a reasonable effort and to cite the flagrant violators, and we expect the deterent effect of the law to do the rest. AND, next time there is an accident and one boat was going 70 mph, they will have a law to cite him with so that there we can start to gather some of those STATISTICS about speeding that are so clearly being ignored these days.

What do you mean problems the road cops had years ago? The speed laws already had plenty of teeth, the radar just enabled them to do thier job easier. Then of course the insurance guys got involved. Radar is great in straight line application, such as highways and roads. The diagram Radar #1 shows how & why it works so well in that application, its really a simple geometry problem. Radar has enabled alot less arguing in court over speed citations. The State Police ask for more manpower and better equipment every year. They do a great job with what they are given to work with. However, the Legislature has asked the State Police to provide a "Demonstrable Need" in order to receive any increase in funding. Why, because NOBODY wants to pay for it! There is a cost associated with a speed limit law, the cost of expensive naval search & tracking radar equipment, the cost of maintaining the equipment, the cost of specialized officer training, the cost of hiring additional officers, the cost and burden to the legal system for appeals, etc. etc. How do you propose to pay for all of this? Maybe enact some sort of fee for using Lake Winnipesaukee? They have one at Lake George!

I already expect or Marine Patrol to enforce our existing rules and regulations and to cite flagrant violators of ANY rule! There is already a reckless operation law on the books as well as an operator negligence law. Both of these laws are arrestable offenses and carry far heavier penalties that a speed limit citation. Just look at the trial last year, and speed was not a factor. As for speed limit violation statistics, I would like to see a breakdown of speeding citations issued for excessive speed in a no wake zone vs citations issued for speeding out in open water. I'll bet the majority of citations issued for speeding are in no wake zones! If anyone has those statistics, please post them! (and from what lake)

here is the link to the Lake George State Park Fee Structure:

http://www.lgpc.state.ny.us/boat_reg.htm

Yes, the whole Lake is a State Park!

Your average boater (24' boat, not an overnighter) would have to pay an additional $37.50 for an annual registration just to use his/her boat on lake Winnipesaukee. The day trippers would have to pay $7.50 a day! I am sure that would go over big with everyone!

Bear Islander....

Call Kustom Signals and ask them.... specifically if the handheld radar you mentioned can determine the target vessels bearing and speed relative to the operating officer? I did! It can't! If it cannot do that then it cannot give an accurate reading of the target vessels speed. It is simple geometry! The Falcon Marine Radar is essentially a hand held radar that has been marinized, and by marinized I mean it gives speed readout in knots as well as mph and has been made water resistant. It does not and cannot give the target vessels bearing (course) relative to the officer. It will give you a range, however, that is measured in a straight line from the officer. See my diagram Radar #2. It seems mostly for use in enforcement of no wake zones hence the 1/10th MPH adjustment, where boats are forced to travel slower and within a marked lane of travel. See the similarity to highway use yet?

Laser Radar suffers from the same issues as electron based radar, in that in only works in a straight line, and cannot give the target vessels bearing relative to the MP officer. Laser also suffers a drawback when used against boats in that most boat surfaces are curved plastic, so the light does not reflect back properly.

There are probably less than 10 boats on Winni capable of exceeding 90mph. That doesn't mean that these boats are operated at 90mph all the time. Why should they have to find a new place to recreate just because you don't like them? If people have a hard time judging 150', its a pretty sure bet they are just as bad at judging the speed of another boat relative to their own!

Again I challenge ANYONE to post some empirical data from Lake Winnipesaukee that shows speed was a major contributing factor in an accident! There is absolutely NO DEMONSTRABLE NEED for a speed limit. Absolutely no justification exists for the costs and burdens that a speed limit impose on the tax payers, to the MP and the legal system!

Better enforcement of existing rules & regulations is the answer. How to get better enforcement? Better full time MP staffing. Not more expensive unenforceble rules!

Woodsy

How can you explain how the speed limit supporters feel? Have you polled them? Are you one? Do they all feel the same way and have the same reasons and motivation? How can a post that starts out with you speculating in an extremely general way have much merit?



This has been answered time and time again. Why would there be a single record that cites the cause of an incident as excessive speed, when there is no such thing as "excessive speed" in this lake? ...When marine patrol currently has no means, and makes no attempt to measure speed? Should we be expecting to find a police report that says "this accident was caused because the boat was travelling 78MPH?" How would they know that when they are makign no attempt to measure or note the speed? So instead, they categorize accidents according to the nearest infraction that currently pplies; operator error, reckless operation, etc.
Of course there are no statistics. There were no statistics kept for many years to correlate tobacco smoking to cancer either. It was not until a means to prove the correlation was adopted that the statistics could be compiled and the correlation could be proven. Does this mean that tobacco did not cause cancer before statistics were compiled?
Can we please stop having to answer the "no statistics" argument now?



Although this is irrelevant, it is also untrue. This boat was going 27MPH, which is indeed OVER the proposed nightime speed limit of 25. Although we will never be able to prove the real cause of this accident unless someone finds a vial of the driver's blood from that night.



Let's not speculate, let's believe what the proponents have been saying. I do not feel that any speed is safe on this lake. I feel that some limit is reasonable and should be in place. I feel that 45MPH is a reasonable daytime limit and 25 is a reasonable nighttime limit. Now you should say how YOU feel, and let other people say how THEY feel, and stop speaking for them.



You surely did not mean that. I'll assume that you misspoke and will correct it.



Again, you speculate wrongly, at least for me. And I have heard NO supporters say that they think the noisy boats will leave. I feel that any boat capable of doinf so makes less noise at 45MPH than it does at 90MPH. I'm sure you will have to admit this is true. he motor is not reving as high,and that results in less noise. Although I have no statistics, I assume you will accept this obvious point of reason. So by slowing down, boats will become quieter. This is a fortunate side effect we will enjoy from the speed limit, but it is only a side effect. Every supporter I have have talked to mainly wants to see boats limited to a REASONABLE SPEED for this lake (but I don't want to speak for them).



This is the most far-reaching of your stabs. I in fact love performance boats. I also love race cars and like to go to races at Louden, but would not like to see those cars racing down my street at those speeds when my grandkids are riding their bikes. I love to watch performance boats scream by when I'm in Miami Beach. I used to take my kids to watch the offshore event on the lake every year. It's very exciting and the boats are beautiful. But that was a sanctioned and highly supervized event, with family boaters kept out of the paths of the racing boats. I would feel differently if they allowed runabouts to travel in and out of the racing paths as they wished. Surely, you do not feel that would be safe, right? Yet today, that same situation could happen and it would be legal. Twenty offshore boats COULD trailer up here this weekend and have a drag race around the lake at 90MPH, with family boaters and sailboats meandering through their paths and dodging them, and it would all be legal. But would it be safe?



Or perhaps they should be obeying the mandate of their constituency. That is what this is really about. There is no "right" to drive fast in a boat in this state, so this should and will come down to the number of NH citizens who are in favor of a speed limit versus the number of NH citizens who oppose it. The way our government is set up, legislators know that they will subject themselves to being voted out if they do not adhere to the wishes of those whose votes they will need, and if they hope to be re-elected, they will vote according to the majority of their constituents. I'm anxious to see which way that will go. That is why don't want to waste my time listening to the opinions of GFBL boaters from New Jersey and Oregon. Their opinions simply don't count here. The opinions of people from Mass who own NH real estate and pay NH real estate taxes are always going to be given a certain amount of heed, but it is really going to come down to how NH voters feel.

"If they pass it then we’ll do it" -Barrett
 

"On Monday he assured that his agency will do everything in its power to uphold the law if it is approved. "If they pass it then we’ll do it ... I’m just not going to guarantee how successful it will be," said Barrett."

It is easy to see by the length of the posts which side of this argument is losing momentum.

Cannot Understand?
 

I have read all of the long winded posts on the speed limit and just like some of you that cannot understand the desire for a limit I cannot understand the opposition to it.



If the speed limit was 45 MPH I assume MP would give some leeway of 10 or 15 MPH. That means no stops until 60 MPH or so. How many boats out there ca go faster than that? I suspect 30% or so................judging by what I see at the docks.



Of the 30% or of those folks how many are going 60 MPH?



Slower is safer and there is not an argument in this world that can alter that fact.............although I am sure several of you will try. Please just use a little common sense here.



As far as enforcement hasn’t anyone been stopped by MP for going to fast in a no-wake zone? Let MP worry about enforcement. I am sure they will do just fine.



I do not know if the speed limit will pass BUT I do know that this is start of the process and if it is voted down this bill will keep coming up until it is passed. Makes the lake (common sense) safer for boaters, fisherman, kayakers etc.



Why oppose it?http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...cons/icon5.gif

Woodsy,

You're wasting your time asking for data, I've asked many times and get no response or a picture of a wrecked boat. I don't think there is any data or if there is, it shows there is not a problem. The 45 mph number is one pretty much pulled out of the air. What bothers me most is that the problems listed by the proponents of speed limits are not caused by excessive speed. Large wakes, noise, dangerous behavior won't be solved by a speed limit, anyone who thinks it will be is a dreamer. The other thing that bothers me are the claims that "speed estimation" is allowed as evidence in court. Humans are not equipped to estimate speed without measuring instruments (stop watch, measured distances, laser, radar). Estimating speed of one boat on the lake by eye with any reasonable accuracy is impossible.

Finally, a Common Sense post!
 

Thanks for a great post, JDeere! The opposition comes from the small percentage that will have to slow down to a reasonable speed.

Quote:

Slower is safer and there is not an argument in this world that can alter that fact.............although I am sure several of you will try. Please just use a little common sense here.

That's been my exact point, but the people who want to travel at 75mph and faster keep insisting that speed has nothing to do with safety. The truth is that the faster you are going, the more distance you cover. If you don't see a small boat (like a kayak) until you are close to it, you'll be all that much closer in the time that it takes you to avoid hitting it (or not). How is that not directly related to high speeds?

WHY YOU ASK!!
People like me who have boated in NH for 49 years that worked very hard to be able to afford a considerable investment on the ability to go over 100mph.
I do it safely, at the proper time and I do not over controle the boat. Most of the time I cruise at 50 to 70 depending on the weather, thats where I get my best mpg.To force somone like me to boat some where else is not living free.

PS: I have gone over 130mph and nobody noticed. I plan on buying a boat that goes over 145mph. I call it my endorphins.

I can't resist anymore
 

Because, In my opinion, the main purpose of the speed limit law is to discourage a certain type of boat from using the lake. In my opinion, the backers of the law are not that interested in safety, but rather in driving certain boats off the lake. A real concern for safety would address the most dangerous issues first. Things like summer weekend traffic in front of the Weirs Channel, between Eagle and Governors Islands, and near Glendale are much more dangerous than a 30' Baja zipping down the Broads at 60 MPH on a Tuesday, in September. The proposed law would stop the Baja but have no effect on the other issues.

This summer take a look around, watch the dangerous activity. You'll see for every boat exceeding 45 MPH, you will see 100 boats breaking the 150' rule, and 50 boats operating otherwise unsafely.

Just for background, I live in NH but not at the lake. The only motorboat I've ever owned, is a bowrider and will barely do 40 MPH. I've been on the lake with my family for 18 years and I've even kayaked on the lake.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't argue for certain laws, maybe banning certain boats is a good idea. Maybe lowering the noise limits is a good idea. But there should be truth in what the reason behind a law is.

Then perhaps a simple safety orange flag added to low visibility craft would be the answer. Seems like a real quick , easy fix to me. I know if I were in a little boat in big water it would make me feel better.

Being afraid to take the family out in the boat on weekends and keeping the swimmers closer to shore than the dock is not "living free" either.

And if my 13' alumacraft gets in your path when you are going 145 mph I will not be living free either.

It is incredible how the GFBL crowd just refuses to see our concerns. How many more need to die?

It is incredible how the GFBL crowd just refuses to see our concerns. How many more need to die?[/QUOTE]



WHO HAS DIED IN AN ACCIDENT WHERE SPEED WAS THE REASON?????????????? I WOULD LIKE SOME FACTS!

Jarhead

How can anybody be sighted for speed when there is no speed limit?

And the accident we all know about involved a speed greater than the proposed speed limit.

More importantly the accident involved a boat that should not be on Winnipesaukee in the first place.

I agree with Propellor as well. Barrett clearly stated that he doubts its enforceability and effectiveness. Of course he will try to enforce it, thats hs job and he certainly would not allow to be quoted as saying that he would not enforce a law put into action. A statement like that would have him looking for another career. It does not say that he thinks it is enforceable, that statement previously posted is clearly a false interpretation.

Traffic & marine radar principles...
 

Caution: If you think some of my other posts are boring or too long winded, better block me from your buddy list immediately!!! :)

Interesting post Woody, good handle on the basics.

I would like to point out, in the interest of accuracy, that the K-band radar units we are discussing here determine target speed via doppler, not time delay measurements. Also, the target, in relation to the radar unit, is not showing a constant bearing unless it is driving directly towards (yikes, collision course!) or directly away from the unit. Other than those two situations, it is generating a bearing rate depending on its aspect to the radar unit.

For those not familiar with doppler, think of standing next to a railroad crossing as a train sounding its whistle approaches you. As the train approaches, the whistle has a higher pitch. The instant it passes you by, the pitch is the original frequency. As it drives away from you, the pitch shifts to a lower frequency. That's doppler, in a nutshell.

The same principle applies to the handheld radar units under discussion. A carefully calibrated narrowband radio frequency is transmitted from the antenna arperture in a narrow conelike beam. At maximum range, that beam, only a few millimeters in diameter at the gun, has grown in size to several hundred feet. Any target within that cone generating relative motion in relation to the radar gun will return some level of signal. The greater the relative motion, the greater the speed displayed on the handheld unit. Unless the relative motion is dead on or dead away from the transmitter, any angle will show a speed lesser than that actually being conducted by the target. The greater the angle, the less the relative motion, hence less doppler shift, hence a displayed speed less than actual speed. The stationary radar does not care if it is down or up doppler, it just measures the difference of received frequency from transmitted frequency, and then generates a correlating speed number.

The other problem is the unit, utilizing what is known as the "capture effect", will display (in a multiple target situation) the unit producing the strongest doppler return signal. This is not the fastest target, or the closest target, or the biggest target. It is the target that due to its surface characteristics is returning the largest amount of signal at a given moment. In a multiple target situation, this can shift from target to target almost instantaneously. That is why these units will blank the dispaly when receiving multiple return signals, to minimize operator error.

Problems encountered by terrestrial radars are greatly amplified in waterborne situations due to platform instability, enhanced ranges and ghosting by signal reflection off the water, signal ducting caused by low level temperature inversions over the water, etc.

However, a trained and experienced operator should be able to compensate for these issues and operate a radar unit properly, albeit under limited and carefully controlled conditions.

Also, you are correct that there is no significant electronics difference between the terrestrial and marinized units. The only electronic difference is the ability to display speed in tenths of the measured unit (either knots or MPH), the ability to choose between knots or MPH display, the color white and a heavier rubber grip. Oh yes, I almost forgot the most important difference. The Marine version comes in a case that floats, vice the standard aluminum case that does not!

Finally, it will be a long time if ever that you see a marine "fire control" type radar unit used for speed analysis on an inland body of water. First, it would take three people to operate the platform correctly (radar operator, spotter and boat operator). And unless you were lucky enough to score someone with a military background, the cost to procure and make someone proficient in these devices would be cost prohibitive for an agency that depends heavily on seasonal help.

By the way, (as some of you have already guessed) I have been operating portable speed measuring devices since 1975. I also have six years active duty submarine service as the Sonar LPO on 640 class ballistic missile submarines with a specialty in narrowband doppler analysis, and ten years reserve duty with the Naval Inshore Undersea Warfare units as a watch officer, where I spent countless hours utilizing various Raytheon surface search radar units.

Yes, I know I am just an amateur at this stuff, but I always like to throw in my $.02 when the discussions get technical.

As always, feel free to e-mail me if you would like any amplifying information.

Skip

Lets see those facts!
 

Where are all the statistics on accidents reported on the lake? I would love to see one of the people pushing for a speed limit and posting here that all GFBL's are evil to get some real facts for everyone to see regarding the number of accidents in the last 5 years with their cause. How many people have died or how many accidents on the lake could be related to speed? How many to alcohol? How many to plain stupidity? I think that the results would be overwhelmingly towards alcohol or stupidity, not speed. If someone is screaming into Weirs on a congested weekend and acting reckless I can certainly see a need to rule for excessive speed but feel that this would be better handled as a reckless operation citation, not speeding. It has a much stiffer penalty and would call for witnesses instead of an opinion of a seasonal MP officer to make the sole call which could easily be refuted.

How may people are going to take speeding tickets to court? Probaby most. And to be enforced in court the officer needs to be present, this would take the patrolling officers off the lake frequently, rake up huge expenses and fill the local courts with a lot of minor infractions.

"How many more need to die"? Gimme a break. How many have died? Far less than people are claiming or eluding to. I certainly do not discount the value of life but that is a bit dramatic...

These long winded posts on how radar doesn't work are like those people that argue you don't need to pay taxes to the IRS because money isn't really money or something. I don't understand either argument but I know I DO need to pay the IRS.

And I also know that even if I win in court I have already lost by having to go there. It's usually easier and cheaper to pay the fine.

But even if you are right, and radar will not work on Winni, what difference does that make? NONE!

Very few speeding tickets will be written because the really fast boats will all be on the Atlantic, where they should be. Go to Lake George and count the GFBL boats you find there.

Need for limit not proven
 

Thanks Skip,
Between Woodsy's initial discussion and your expertise it seems clear to me that the speed enforcement technology is not very accurate on water.

The supporters of the speed limit say that the fast boats prevent their enjoyable use of the lake with smaller and slower boats. I recognize that taking a smaller boat into the broads on a busy weekend would entail a possible increase in risk. However, wherever there is a significant mismatch in the size and power of vehicles it is not a good idea to mix them too closely. This is why we have bicycle lanes and sidewalks and why most slower means of transportation are prohibited on high speed roads. Why is it demanded that every sq. foot of Winni must be allocated and protected for smaller boats? There are many areas that are not practical for larger and faster boats that can be used comfortably and exclusively by smaller craft. The 150' rule creates a buffer zone around every piece of land that is available for slower speed craft. There are also many other lakes, some of which completely prohibit power boats. I don’t want this to be misstated to say that I think smaller boats should be restricted. The choice to travel wherever they wish is theirs and they should be given every respect and legal protection (such as yielding to them) however I think that putting restrictions on other’s use of the lake so that the smaller, slower crowd can feel comfortable is going too far.

I also find it interesting that it seems to be the opinion of the speed limit supporters that if an accident happens at a fast speed then speed must be the cause of the accident. If a boat rams into a dock at 10 MPH or at 70 MPH the cause of the accident is not speed, it is operator error and illegal operation under many laws already in existence. You might even say the speed was excessive for the situation (even at 10 MPH). The purpose of a speed limit is to recognize that the conditions of operation are such that a limited speed is required. This is usually indicated by rising accident counts or excessive congestion. This may be true in some parts of Winnipesaukee where there is high traffic or limited maneuverability, especially on summer weekends. However, the statistics seem to indicate the vast majority of problems are reckless operation, drunk boating, and violation of the 150' rule. I wonder if there is an accident and the MP feels the speed was excessive if it is indicated on the accident report? You don't need a speed limit to make this observation. This would be a reasonable thing to track but until I see statistics that support excessive speed being a significant primary contributor to accidents I don't support a general speed limit on the lake.

Some more technical points to ponder
 

I see that Skip has chimed in on the point below as well. I gotta stop this work stuff and spend more time online I guess ... ;)

To address the initial point of the thread:

OK first let's clear up a minor technical point. Like "Woodsy" said above police speed radar is a straight line tool. Targets not moving directly to or away from the radar will have their measured speed reduced as has been discussed previously (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=1217). While laser radar (aka lidar) works by measuring timing from transmitted pulse to received pulse (multiple times over a small interval) to get an average speed over the measurement interval, the radar guns in question use the Doppler principle. So as not to bore everyone I won't bother explaining it here, you can google it to find out if you're curious. The difference is w/o distinction though as radar be it military, civilian or speed control, has some problems over water that don't exist in as much magnitude as they do on land. Some of these (ie - discrimination) were discussed in the thread above. Let me turn to the topic of radar reflectivity (aka radar cross section, RCS) of fiberglass boats. As many have said (and it's true) fiberglass isn't a good reflector of RF energy. Look at the covering over the marine and weather radar antennas, they're plastic and fiberglass because they don't reflect back too much energy. That said it's not like a boat will be invisible, it's just that the range at which the gun will lock on and display a speed will be reduced (in many cases) when compared to ranges for autos. I've tried to find some unclassified literature on boat RCS that I can share with y'all and the following is the best I can come up with at present.

http://www.iee.org/oncomms/pn/radar/...4%20%20RCS.pdf

In this they used civilian marine radar (CMR) to measure the RCSs of various targets, among them "small" (when compared to ships) boats. Of particular interest is the measured RCS of a 25' fishing boat (another reference lists a 28' commercial fishing boat at same RCSs), which was something between 1 and 10 square meters (m^2). A dingy was 0.01 to .1 m^2. I'd estimate a fiberglass boat might be around 0.5 to 5 m^2 (? maybe smaller ?). Consider that average numbers for a car are something like 100 - 120 m^2 and you can begin to appreciate the issue. Neglecting any other interfering effects and the max range is reduced to something between a quarter to a half of what it is for cars. It might even be worse if the measured boat RCSs above were for a beam aspects (looking at side of boat) rather than at it's bow from head on. In the later case the boat's RCS is certainly smaller again. Add in time varying reflections off waves and pointing error/beam loss of the gun and you've reduced the effective range even more. The end point is that while speed guns may be useful in some scenarios the boater has even more of a chance than a car does. What I'd predict would happen is easy to extrapolate from what's already happened in the car world. People will have radar detectors and perhaps "bear detectors" (detectors of police radio emissions) and the VHF (akin to the CB of the '70s). The MP will have certain locations where a trap might work and these will become known. In other open water locations any radar gun will be detected (heck the MP boat will probably be seen) before it can register the boat. You'll get people to slow down where and when the radar is in use and not in other places. This may have the desired effect of slowing people down in those places but I don't see it chasing performance boats off the lake. It'll become a big game as it was back in the bad ole days of the NMSL/55.

Lidar doesn't suffer some of the same problems that RF radar does but it has some of it's own. The big one is that the beamwidth is very small (about 10' wide @ 1500') and so it has to be held very steady to stay on target, something that will be very hard to do in a rocking boat (think about using a telescope in a boat). This is why you don't see moving lidar units like you see moving radar units. Use off a boat might catch some people (more when the water is calm, less normally) but now lidar detectors, which are pretty much useless in cars, have a chance to operate. If the beam isn't held steady the detector will go off and give some advance warning before the aim is re-centered. Whether this will be enough I don't know for sure. I also suspect there's some logic in the lidar guns that rejects readings that are too disparate from pulse to pulse and so even a somewhat steady (less unsteady) beam may be painting the bow then windsheild then ?? resulting in a longer time to "lock" than would be normal in auto usage. The guys who are long range rifle shooters and can breathe, time their squeeze and maintain sight picture during triggering may do OK with marine lidar. Others will be less effective. :) Oh yeah, it's going to be really, really hard :p to aim existing lidar guns to enforce the 25 mph night time limit. Are we going to have lidar for day and radar for night ?

To address speed limits in general :

When I have some more time to type I'll add some more things to think about. Suffice it to say that putting aside whether a SL is needed or not, effective or not, and whether the resources would be better used otherwise; how would one go about figuring out what it should be ? What is reasonable and why is that number reasonable ? What are the factors involved ? There was a time before politics got involved that SLs were set by analysis. Has anyone (other than me) done any analysis ? Hint: the answer is somewhere between NWS and 1000 MPH ;)

Sorry Islander should have used better word than cited , how about reason ? My bad i will edit. :coolsm:

Why oppose it?
 

J Deere says he has read all the posts, so he should know why the SL is being opposed if he read them all, so what do you not understand J Deere?

J Deere also said that there will probably be 10-15 mph leeway & that maybe true. So why isn't the proposed SL 60 mph? I'll tell you why, the supporters pushing the hardest want high performance boats off the lake period. They don't like them. 60 mph would not keep high performance boats from coming to Winni & they would still have to deal with what they think is unacceptable noise. So why not lobby to lower the db level?

If the speed limit supporters & WinnFABS were truly interested in making Winni a safer lake, long before now WinnFABS would have been in existence(instead of after a speed limit was proposed)& would have been lobbying & supporting better education, strengthening the certification program, demanding more & better trained marine patrol officers, demanding increased enforcement of existing laws etc. Where were these SL proponents before HB 162?

It may not "keep" them from coming to the lake, but it will certainly cut down on the number of them. In fact the more speed crazy the operator, the more likely they will go elsewere.

I disagree, because I believe the vast majority of high performance boats that use the lake are traveling between 50-60 mph. Lets hear from high performance operators that monitor this forum.

If your out there, is it fair to say that the majority of high performance boats are cruising in the 50-60 mph range?

As far as speed crazy, I don't believe you are going to see any difference because I think this type of operator rarely comes to Winni. As I have said in previous posts, I spend considerable time on the lake & I have never observed a high performance boat endanger another boat or person because of unreasonable speed or negligent operation.

Does not mean its never happened but if it was happening with any frequency at all I am sure I would have seen at least 1 incident if not a handful, I have not.

I doubt it will have much effect. There are examples of reckless boating all over the lake, the vast majority of which is never policed by the MP. If enforcement had the effect that you expect we would see a reduction in the amount of reckless behavior instead of the perceived increase, by all types of boats, that everyone seems to be reporting. The reckless boaters should be "getting the message" that their type of boater isn't welcome on Winni.

Further, I would expect the MP to focus their enforcement on the worst problems. If I was an officer and saw one boat crusing the broads faster than a speed limit and at the same time saw a boat cut within 25 ft of another boat at 20 MPH I would go after the slower boat causing the more urgent danger. Yes, some speeding tickets would be written, fines would be paid, and people would generally continue to boat as they choose.

Here you are Propeller. This slightly above my normal cruise of 3000 rpm which nets me 50 mph. That is where I get the optimal mileage. Above or below that the mileage drops. Above that , you must keep in mind replacement parts are expensive and I know my pockets aren't bottomless ;)
I do believe the issue is more of getting rid of a certain type of boat , namely the go fasts. Next it will be the cruisers because of their wakes , then the jetskis(at least the 2cycle ones). Next it could be you , so be careful what you wish for...you might just get it :( .
As far as me not coming to Winni...not till they ban powerboats. But then again I'm also an accomplished sailor (but don't let that be known on the "Marine Mafia" site).