"Educating" those danged Winnipesaukee boaters
 

"Education" appears eight times in the first thread -- all posted by proponents of excess speed.

Recognize this slogan? That's Tres Martin's school for performance boaters -- a school that might get your "Offshore" insurance premiums lower into four-digit figures -- if enrolling and completing it.

Any performance boater HERE ever enrolled? (And you guys did have a "bad 2005 summer", incidentally).

Probably not.

(It's everybody else who needs "Education").

Why bother?
 

Acres / Bear Lover / Islander,

Notice that virtually no others of the 65-70% of the Granite Staters who want a speed limit on their lakes are bothering to join in this "debate"? (notice the quotes around "debate"?) Don't waste your breath, no one else is. Let these people turn this forum into the region's own go-fast site and talk amongst themselves about the reasons we shouldn't have our speed limit on our lake. It lets them vent.

This reminds of the argument I had with the guy I caught hunting in my back yard a few years back. I allowed bow-hunting at the time, but caught this guy with a muzzleloader. He actually argued with me for ten minutes about how muzzleloaders were just as safe as bows, how careful he was, how he had taken the hunter safety course, etc, etc, etc. Finally, I just said "get off my land and don't come back, even with a bow". He could not grasp the notion that it was my land and I could set the rules, for whatever reason I chose. He wrongly assumed that he could gain the right to muzzleload here by winning an argument with me.

The poll that has these guys so upset was done by a very legitimate polling house and has a statistical accuracy of 4%. 66% (plus or minus 4%) of the registered voters in NH answered "Favor" to the question "Do you favor or oppose a law that would impose speed limits for boats on large lakes in New Hampshire?". There was no misleading and no chance for re-interpretation here...the question was very simple and direct. Only 22% (plus or minus 4%) answered "Oppose". Even 68% of the Republican voters that these people claim to represent answered "Favor" (as I would have). And after all of the statewide publicity that this bill generated over the year, it's hard to fathom that these respondents did not know what "law" this question was alluding to.

I also have to wonder why these people are not publicizing the results of the poll they had done? but then, I guess it must have just told them the same thing (plus or minus 4%).

And it's interesting to see how they are now poo-pooing the RR&D recommendation that they wooed so vigorously and unsuccessfully. This group of dedicated and qualified legislators studied this bill intently for 10 months, held numerous public hearings and public and private meetings, read thousands of letters, emails, and publications, and did not just recommend passage of HB162, but broadened and strengthened it to include all lakes and to attach violations to the offender's driving record. And they did this in bi-partisan fashion, with 3 of the 13 Republican members voting to support the strictest version. What a statement!

And it is so interesting to look back at last spring's threads and compare the shift in the debate from the non-compromising "no limits" to the compromising "why 45?". What came so resoundingly out of this summer's study, from both sides, was the indisputable fact that current laws, like the 150' rule that has been on the books for forty years and the certification course that is already in effect for virtually every last one of these arguers, are not working. And that the current MP strategy is not working. And that the safety department is out of touch with what is happening on and to this lake. While the safety director made clear that he saw no problems that needed fixing, the populace screamed out that Winnipesaukee is just an accident waiting to happen if some meaningful changes are not made now.

Now let them vent...its good for them. But they can't hunt on my land, even with a bow.

While watching Chris Matthews or some other screaming head politico, my wife lamented about us having a divided country. The election was 50-50, some issue is 50-50, some other issue is 50-50. I told her my opinion is that all the easy questions are already decided and not worth debating. No need to scream about the 60-40,70-30,80-20 issues. Those questions are quickly decided and although a few may gripe about them, no one really expects to change them.

So if the poll cited is correct, then this issue will be quickly implemented. Our elected officials will pass a law this winter. The opposition will fret for awhile, but finally realize it's futile. Is this what you predict? What if it doesn't work out that way?

not worth the breath
 

There have been and will continue to be more lies and misinterpretations with this subject here and on other sites.

It will be what it will be. You are right in one aspect though..... not worth debating here.

I still believe that what was offered as a solution was best. Reasonable and Prudent! This leaves it to the MP's to judge in any case for ANY infraction whether they think the infraction should be ELIVATED to above a speeding violation to breaking the "reasonable and prudent" rule which currently is more severe (misdemeanor).

However, I am sure that we don't want to talk about this here either. After all, this is about people that want to pass laws on "fear" and "discrimination".

It is really disappointing that after so much progress in the USA that we can go back to passing laws without factual basis.

My hopes are that once the House gets this in January that they throw it out completely. However, I am sure that the group that brought this and the old Sound Issue up will find another way in a couple of years to stir the pot.

Too bad some of those people weren't taught to simply enjoy life and what we have been given. Focus on the positive.

Which way should it be?
 

I'm sure many of the Forum Folk, including myself, are very interested in the arguments presented for both sides. And I for one recognize the very difficult decision process to come to a decision either way, and the "other side's" disappointment level when a decision is reached. Couple all that with a bunch of politicians making a decision based on how they deem the public will fare best, generally speaking, and (if you will excuse my citing ametaphor from an e-mail I received) you may end up at his point.

The video e-mail had a fellow sitting and reading the story "Twas the night before Christmas". The word changes throughout the story-telling were to make the story as politically correct as possible for 2005 standards. To keep it brief, this is only the last lines, but you will get the drift.

The "special person of non-specific holiday" cried out as he rode off through the skies, on his "non-specific holiday vehicle powered by organically fueled four-hooved creatures".
"Lady of the evening!, lady of the evening!, lady of the evening! Merry "non-specific holiday" to all, and to all a good night!"

Let's take care not to have others refine us to the point of losing the point.

For now, enjoy the winter, and holidays, because these will soon only be memories.

Lakewinniboater, why is it so hard to understand that not everyone sees it your way? No one is "discriminating". This is about safety, not discrimination. What's next, the ridiculous "you're just jealous" argument?

If you don't agree that it is a safety issue that's fine and I'd like to hear your reasoning. Just leave out the inflamatory words like "lies" and "discrimination".

No matter how much you scoff at your opponents the poll results in the other thread can't be ignored. Most people asked support a reasonable speed limit on inland lakes. If I was a legislator that wasn't directly involved with the issue that would carry a lot of weight. If those opposing hb162 have a poll with different results they should get it out there fast!

I won't get involved in the bickering but I do enjoy reading the point-counterpoint. Thanks to Skip, Mee-n-Mac, Woodsy and others for some interesting reading.

Lies and Misrepresentations?
 

I'm confused. Which side was the reference to "lies and misrepresentations" referring to?

What's the issue
 

Well is it about safety ... it depends. For some it is, for other's its clearly not and that's partly the reason why this issue is so emotional. On the safety side people say the lake is not safe (due to speed) and the counter argument is that if that is true why doesn't it show up in the accident statisics and MP reports. I often wonder if this specific point/counterpoint* doesn't fall into the catagory of it being that there's a 1 in XXX chance of being killed out there and getting the following 2 responses; "1 in XXX, that's waaaay too high" or "1 in XXX, there's more chance I'll be killed slipping in my bathtub, why get worried". Then there are the people who aren't saying it's unsafe but rather that they're afraid. I'm not sure how to address their issues because I don't quite understand where they're coming from. Simply saying they're afraid off being run-over and that the speed limit resolves this doesn't quite make sense to me but I can't resolve, or at least better define, the difference w/o the aforementioned understanding.

On the non-safety side ... there's ample evidence that some people just don't want "those boats" or "them people" not for some safety reason but rather just because. And that is going to piss some people off. Then it's no longer a debate about factual matters but rather a contest of wills. A fair corollary to the whole thing is gun control issues. You've got legitimate issues and you've got people labelling everyone who owns a gun as a "nut" (and to be fair of course they're are some nuts, there always is and will be).

What I wish people on both sides would remember is that neither group is a monolithic block, to be defined by their fringe elements. I concern myself less with the (IMO) illegitimate positions and try to see if there's some way to address the legitmate concerns.

*ooops forgot this part - if only the perjoratives would be as funny as the old SNL skits; "Jane you ignorant ....".

Here's one alternative
 

So let me propose the following (not original to me) concept then. What if people who wanted to boat at speeds over ZZ mph were required to have a "performance license" ? Extra training and certification, specific to high speed boating not racing, required as well as a means of letting the MP know that such a license was present onboard the boat that just went by. License collects points and gets rescinded for too many moving violations. You're then restricted to boat at pedestrian speeds. People not wanting to go faster then ZZ don't have to bother with the whole thing. I've left out many details of course but what do people think of the general idea ?

BTW - same idea proposed many years ago for autos

Those of us advocating better education or at least better enforcement of existing laws instead of speed limits, don't necessarily own (or even care for/about) performance boats. I certainly fall into that category. I also had the best Summer of my life in 2005...

I have seen far more boneheaded moves at well under 45 MPH than I have at elevated speeds. That's why I feel the way I do about the situation.

You must have some photos of dumb moves at slowish speeds in more conventional boats you could post.

If they are that skilled, should we exempt them from the safe passage law too? Why not? And how about those people who seem to be able to hold their alchohol better than the rest, should we allow them a higher blood alcohol limit? Let's base all legal limits on personal capacity and skill. Then let's make sure we have at least one cop assigned to every citizen, to keep track of it all.
Or maybe we can just accept the fact the the good people of NH want a speed limit on their lake, even for you, no matter how good you think you can drive. When I'm drifting worms off the east side of Welch and see a big 15000 pound bow heading straight at me at 90MPH, I'm jumping overboard. I'm not stopping to ponder whether this guy might have some special James Bond type license.

By the way, I have a really good appetite. Do you think I deserve bigger patties in my Big Mac?

Legal limits
 

Nope if for no other reason than that limit also places a zone around the unmoving boat wherein the swimmers can be safe from other boats, which at any speed much above NWS pose a reasonable threat. There are other reasons as well.

I assume, other than the flame bait rhetoric, that you have a problem with personal limits for practical reasons. In the situation I'm proposing I have a way that could be practical, though I've not disclosed it. The onus falls on the performance boater not the general public. No need for a unreasonable measures to be taken (such a cop for every person). Let me ask a theoretical question though, if a way could be found to individually determine whether each person had had too much to drink and then advertise that fact on his or her car, would you be against it ? If a practical way could be found to determine and convict (or acquit) each person depending on whether they really were impaired (or not) would you not want that ? If your objection is that in every case ever imaginable, everyone should be held the same limits then I can't help you.

I guess it all depends on how far away he is when you jump doesn't it. If you care to jump when he's a mile away, be my guest and get wet. Just don't expect anyone to agree with you when you claim you had to. And for the case when you really do have to jump, doesn't make a difference if it's 15000 lbs or 3000 lbs; 90 mph or 44.9 mph ? It just boils down to when. Now if the concept doesn't sound airtight enough for you then I don't see how the speed limit appeases you. In either case theres an enforcement portion that needs to be effective for it to work. No enforcement means nobody will bother with the "James Bond" license nor obey the speed limit.

Go ahead, buy two Big Macs, you deserve it. (I'd opt for the double quarter pounder myself).

There's a Problem?
 

Well, I've managed to stay away for 24 hours from this "educating the go-fasters" thread! It appears that just the suggestion of Tres Martin's high-speed boating school scared off all the Winnipesaukee go-fasters. (Talk about "Fear")!

Last week, Tres Martin himself famously wrote of this summer's go-fasts having "...all the weekend accidents". :(

Next:Somebody (meaning Mee'n'Mac), sees a speed problem on Lake Winnipesaukee!

Addendum: Island Girl is probably correct about the location. It is from a large collection of boat wreecks targeting speed. But even www.winnipesaukee.com has only a tiny fraction of "instructional" photographs from similar Winnipesaukee "incidents". Many of the worst fatal Winnipesaukee wrecks occurred at night anyway.

BTW I: Both Lake Travis (TX) and Lake Conroe (TX) have night time speed limits now due to Littlefield-type accidents.

BTW II: But look at the "signature" I found at a Lake Travis (TX) thread:
Whose New Hampshire poll to believe, anyway. Theirs? :laugh:

Huh?
 

Sure does not look like Winnipesaukee to me! Looks a bit like a Texas lake.

Because we all know that the water is slipperier in Texas.

Twist and shout
 

My, my, my what a tangled web you weave. No need for you to put words in my mouth, I can speak just fine thanks. First let's put straight why I suggested what I did. There seems to be a contingent of people who are afraid to boat on the lake. What exactly is at the root of this I can't say. However it certainly seems likely to me that one thing they could be worried about is whether the person at the helm of the boat type that scares them, is qualified to pilot a boat at that speed. OK I say, let me try to reassure you via a "high speed" license and certification and provisions to revoke that license should they be bad boys. I'm almost always been willing to put forth some extra effort to make somebody else feel better. Personally I have no doubt that any performance boater worth his/her salt would have any problem passing such a course and test.

Second, to correct your misstatement above, I really don't see a speed problem on the lake. In the last 5 years I can recall just 1 case at night where I thought a boater was travelling too fast (in the absolute sense). In all my 30+ years on the lake I don't recall ever being afraid because of someone going at "high" speed. I've seen lots of bonehead behavior at speeds under those per HB-162 and I really do believe we have a bonehead problem not a speed problem.

Clearer?
 

Mee-n-Mac: There seems to be a contingent of people who are afraid to boat on the lake.

ApS: Include me. Half of our boats are moldering on shore because nobody likes "going out" any more.

Mee-n-Mac: What exactly is at the root of this I can't say.

ApS: I can: Too many boats -- combined with alcohol + tonnage + Mass. + velocity.

Look at your lake photos from 20 years ago:
All the photos I have from July 1986 show zero (0) boats in the background. (At the very same location).

Today, we have Anarchy. You'll recall that I wrote a letter to the Granite State News with Winnipesaukee is Anarchy in its title. It was published just three days before Littlefield fled the scene of his fatality-collision.

Do you also recall that the Littlefield hit-and-run occurred just 10 days after this forum had this long "Marine Patrol...Please Help Us!" thread?

Everyone could see that something was clearly going wrong with Lake Winnipesaukee's 2002 speedboat environment. And it's not improving with age: Boaters are staying home.
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/oldforu...mes;read=42566

Mee-n-Mac: OK, let me try to reassure you via a "high speed" license and certification and provisions to revoke that license should they be bad boys.

ApS: What's wrong with Tres Martin's GFBL speed school? No HB162 opponent has volunteered having been there -- even to watch.

Bad boys? We have "Bad boys"?

Mee-n-Mac: I'm almost always been willing to put forth some extra effort to make somebody else feel better.

ApS: Clearly, you need to anchor off your shore some afternoon, although even your dock may not be safe. You recall the boater who destroyed 5 condominium docks with his speedboat -- with 18 passengers? An off-duty Cop? In a slow-speed zone? Sure, cops can feel "entitled", But should everybody with $375,000 to spend on a boat feel similarly entitled?

Mee-n-Mac: Personally I have no doubt that any performance boater worth his/her salt would have any problem passing such a course and test.

ApS: No kidding! It's not like the thoroughly disciplined testing you get when applying in Germany or England. There, drivers fail over and over again! And they check for nyctalopia -- night blindness -- too. You don't get a license there if you have night blindness. Here? Well, on Winnipesaukee, you can go as fast as you want at night, even though 1 out of 50 boaters have night blindness.

The lake is becoming a third-world escape for thrill-seekers, speeders, noise makers, public dock nuisances, rudeness, lewdness, alcohol, and even law enforcement. It's the "Me-Me-Me" generation come to visit...for two months.

Mee-n-Mac: "...I really don't see a speed problem on the lake. In the last 5 years I can recall just 1 case at night where I thought a boater was traveling too fast (in the absolute sense). In all my 30+ years on the lake I don't recall ever being afraid because of someone going at "high" speed.


ApS: Some skippers look down from their helms to other boats. Others have to look up. The ones looking down can afford to feel unafraid.

But I see a bonehead problem too -- exacerbated by chemicals, Mass., velocity, energy, and mass.

I pay $00.00 in liability insurance premiums for my 20-foot sailboat. Faster speedboats pay thousands in premiums -- some pay into the five-figures. Then we agree -- to disagree?

Mee-n-Mac: I've seen lots of bonehead behavior at speeds under those per HB-162 and I really do believe we have a bonehead problem not a speed problem.

ApS: Of course, one would.

The vast majority of boats owned by New Hampshire boaters can't go as fast as 45. It's an increasing minority of boats that the statute addresses.

Good Job APS!!!
 

Good job on your post and thanks for making an effort to explain to those who seem unable to grasp the concept.

I have a hard time grasping the concept of aps not likeing someone elses rights infringing on his...but it's ok for his rights to infringe on someone elses:confused:
I guess that falls under the "I don't like it , so you can't do it law"

The funny part is , all the bickering on here isn't going to change anything. It's either gonna pass or not pass. If it doesn't pass , there will be those who will keep at it. If it does pass , I'm not sure if things will change a whole lot...until they go after the mega cruisers then jet skis.
Just maintain a good sense of humor , for we have met the ememy , and they are us:laugh: :laugh:

I really dont believe it will change much.I will still use my boat ,cruising around 45-50 ish most of the time ,as I normally do and will still do 60-90 in the appropriate areas. You will still hear my twin engines(muffled of course) and have to deal with enfocement. I still cannot believe some of the things I read here. You cant have it your way.

I hear you Cal.I think the posts speak volumes to which ones are comman sense and which ones are....well....if you have comman sense you know what I'm talking about.I think it's pretty clear.

Bold added for emphasis.


Bingo, I've resisted posting here, but I just had to point this out. Clear case of I've got mine you can't have yours. Notice the mentality, too many boats, chemicals (alcohol and drugs), Mass. (Massachusetts = bad, I guess Florida is ok) and vast majority New Hampshire boaters are OK. People wonder why this arguement gets so emotional. The most telling part is too many boats. The problem is the speed limit won't fix this problem. Large wakes, speed limit won't fix. Chemicals, speed limit won't fix. Massachusetts, speed limit won't fix. Captain Bonehead veering toward you, speed limit won't fix (trust me 45 is just as scary as 65 when someone does this).
The blame Massachusetts mentality shows the true colors, here's an idea put up a fence at the border that'll solve the problem just like the speed limit will. NOT!!!!!!!!!

Biting the hand that feeds.....
 

Hmmm,

I posted something along these lines once before, but given recent comments I think it bears repeating.

There is no doubt amongst us fortunate enough to peruse these pages that Winnipesaukee.com is not only the premier Lakes Region website, but one of the best NH based websites out there.

That said, isn't it ironic that some folks (thankfully, a tiny minority) continue their baseless Massachussetts bashing via a web site hosted for us by a good family, from Massachussetts?:confused:

'Nough said......;)

Merry Christmas all, and a special thankyou and wish for the best of the Season to webmaster Don & his family,

Skip

Clearer ... somewhat
 

This is a long one, partly because I couldn't find a way to keep the continuity of thought w/o including a lot of the prior posts. Sorry 'bout that.


I said: There seems to be a contingent of people who are afraid to boat on the lake.

ApS replied: Include me. Half of our boats are moldering on shore because nobody likes "going out" any more.

Is it because nobody likes to go out or because people are afraid ? It's one thing to not like going out on the lake and another to be afraid to. If you want to support legislation just to change the lake so it's more appealing to you, that's your choice, but please don't use fear as a tactic to get there.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I said: What exactly is at the root of this (referring to aforementioned fear) I can't say.

ApS replied: I can: Too many boats -- combined with alcohol + tonnage + Mass. + velocity. Look at your lake photos from 20 years ago:
All the photos I have from July 1986 show zero (0) boats in the background. (At the very same location). Today, we have Anarchy. You'll recall that I wrote a letter to the Granite State News with Winnipesaukee is Anarchy in its title. It was published just three days before Littlefield fled the scene of his fatality-collision.

Do you also recall that the Littlefield hit-and-run occurred just 10 days after this forum had this long "Marine Patrol...Please Help Us!" thread?

Everyone could see that something was clearly going wrong with Lake Winnipesaukee's 2002 speedboat environment. And it's not improving with age: Boaters are staying home.

I can agree that there's more boats than I'd like to see* on the lake on the weekends but HB-162 doesn't address that does it. But let's pretend that it magically does, now those boats that are staying home will come and you're back to having too many boats. HB-162 doesn't address alcohol nor tonnage nor Mass (whatever you mean by that), it only addresses velocity. The majority of complaints in the "MP Please help us" thread mention 150' and RoW violations and wakes with 1 person complaining about speeds of 35+ in addition to those and 1 opining speed limits are a good idea (on weekends). Slow people down and they (150' and RoW violations) will still remain. Solve those (if ever possible) and I wonder if speed remains a real issue. While I fully understand that there are many issues and HB-162 isn't expected by even it's most ardent supporters to solve them all, let's try to stick to the topic at hand. Whether the lake is in “anarchy”, and how a minority group can cause and maintain that state is another debate. My question was specific to why are people afraid of the speeds present on the lake. You push a speed law to control speed. As has been amply demonstrated in prior posts the Littlefield incident wouldn't have been prevented had HB-162 been in effect that night. Now there may be good enough reason for a night time speed limit, Littlefield aside, though I think the 25 mph number is a tad low. I have less of a problem with that part of HB-162. That said I don’t think it’ll make much of a difference.

*I'd like to by able to get dock space whenever, wherever I go. I'd like to find anchorage away from somebody's house or other boats. I'm not going to push for legislation to get rid of other people so I can have those things though. That sounds a lot like "ME, ME, ME".

ps - Now you can explain why people from Mass are part of the problem and why NH (or FL) people aren't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I said: OK, let me try to reassure you via a "high speed" license and certification and provisions to revoke that license should they be bad boys.

ApS replied: What's wrong with Tres Martin's GFBL speed school? No HB162 opponent has volunteered having been there -- even to watch.

Nothing wrong it other than it's in FL and costs $2500. Perhaps something closer and less $$ might be possible. I was hoping to see if something along those lines in any way could be a potential solution, but if those people who are concerned about boat speed aren't primarily concerned about the qualifications of the driver, but rather about something else, then it won't help. I was less interested in what the GFBL crowd thought of the idea and more interested in what the thoughts of the pro HB-162 people were.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ApS replied: Bad boys? We have "Bad boys"?

Sure we do and they're in all types of boats. What I was suggesting was a means of feedback/control and quite frankly it's probably needed for all boaters not just the GFBL crowd (which was part of my suggestion). If you think it's really anarchy on the lake then I can think of 3 reasons why. One is ignorance and there's a lot of that. You only attack that through education. Another is indifference and fines for infractions are a way to attack that. If the present fine structure is insufficient (and a lot of people would say it is) then it should get addressed. Lastly we have malfeasance and to attack that you've got to have increasing fines for repeated offenses and the possibility of removing the offender from the lake (which is one function of a license). In the latter 2 reasons you need to have effective enforcement to catch the offenders. HB-162 only adds another task for the MP to accomplish. Without the progressivity or removal, HB-162 can do nothing more than hand out tickets of a different variety. The anarchy you describe will continue. Why would anyone who believes that the present tickets and enforcement is insufficient, believe some more tickets will change anything. If you want to agree that additional changes, along the lines of what I've mentioned, are also necessary then I'm led to ask what will HB-162 then additionally accomplish. At best you get some people (by your admission a minority) to slow down but are you really safer ? I don't think so because what I see more often than speed in excess of 45, is operation, at speeds under 45, inappropriate for the situation. HB-162 won’t stop that. A radar trap won't stop anything under 45 but a visible MP boat does (except for the aforementioned ignorant people). I'd rather have the MP boat sitting where needed than off in those few places where a radar trap will be fruitful.

BTW : I do detect a note of sarcasm and while that's just fine for your submissions to the Op-Ed page how about trying to drop it for while. Frankly all it does is make you appear to be "donkey" and has no place in any intelligent discussion of the topic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ApS replied: Clearly, you need to anchor off your shore some afternoon, although even your dock may not be safe. You recall the boater who destroyed 5 condominium docks with his speedboat -- with 18 passengers? An off-duty Cop? In a slow-speed zone? Sure, cops can feel "entitled", But should everybody with $375,000 to spend on a boat feel similarly entitled?

If there's a point you're trying to make in the above, let alone one relevant to HB-162 I'm failing to see it. If I recall the incident the cop in question was also alleged to have been drunk (I detect a common theme here). He had a 28' center console fishing boat and ran through a speed zone and crashed into the docks. If I were to use your type of "logic" it would be to say this shows that speed limits don't work. Certainly didn't stop him did it. The rest of your statement sounds more like your usual tirade that anyone who has either $$ or a larger boat than you deem acceptable is lacking in moral character. They’re all drunks or lewd or rude or “entitled” therefore we don’t have to be fair to them. Let’s not do the hard work of separating the good from the bad, let just toss the whole bunch out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I said: Personally I have no doubt that any performance boater worth his/her salt would have any problem passing such a course (refering to my hypothetical course and test above) and test.

ApS replied: No kidding! It's not like the thoroughly disciplined testing you get when applying in Germany or England. There, drivers fail over and over again! And they check for nyctalopia -- night blindness -- too. You don't get a license there if you have night blindness. Here? Well, on Winnipesaukee, you can go as fast as you want at night, even though 1 out of 50 boaters have night blindness.
The lake is becoming a third-world escape for thrill-seekers, speeders, noise makers, public dock nuisances, rudeness, lewdness, alcohol, and even law enforcement. It's the "Me-Me-Me" generation come to visit...for two months.


What is it (above) which is not like the thorough disciplined testing of Germany or England ? The hypothetical high speed course and test I was suggesting ? How would you know ? As to nyctalopia ... well this is an interesting point. Is your answer to night vision problems to slow people down so we have slow blind people out on the lake ? If not why are you mentioning it in this context ? If you think it's enough of an issue to mention, do you think there's another way to address that problem ? Moreover I'd really like to know if it's your belief that the 2% is enough of a threat, both in numbers and severity of impairment, to us other boaters out there that it deserves concern ? Or do you have some other concern re:nyctalopia ? Honestly, I'd like to understand because you keep bringing it up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I said: "...I really don't see a speed problem on the lake. In the last 5 years I can recall just 1 case at night where I thought a boater was traveling too fast (in the absolute sense). In all my 30+ years on the lake I don't recall ever being afraid because of someone going at "high" speed.

ApS replied: Some skippers look down from their helms to other boats. Others have to look up. The ones looking down can afford to feel unafraid.
But I see a bonehead problem too -- exacerbated by chemicals, Mass., velocity, energy, and mass. I pay $00.00 in liability insurance premiums for my 20-foot sailboat. Faster speedboats pay thousands in premiums -- some pay into the five-figures. Then we agree -- to disagree?

Aaaah … the rich can afford to be unafraid. And since they have so much money they are all cavalier about how they handle their boats. No need to pay attention, we’ll let the lawyers fix it. That’s their thinking is it ? We’ll probably have to agree to disagree on that point. As to why those who look up are afraid … you seem to forget I had much smaller boats (Minimax) as well. I have a sailboard too. I’ve borrowed my friends SeaDoo GTX and gone out and about on the lake. I can understand the trepidation some may feel when in a small craft around larger boats, bobbing up and down in the waves. It’s easy to wonder if the guy can see you. But if I’m looking up at the other guy then it’s almost certain he can see me (assuming he’s bothering to look). It’s easier to see from the high seat than it is from a low seat. I’ve got no reason to believe that the “big” boat guy is any less, or any more, attentive than the “small” boat guy. So thinking about it why should I be more afraid of the boat I’m looking up at vs the one I’m looking directly at ? Why aren’t people afraid of the average bowrider ? Why is he assumed to be more attentive than the other guy (your reason aside) ? Remember that guy this summer in the 23’ SeaRay, ran into the pontoon boat ? This is the part I don’t understand.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said: I've seen lots of bonehead behavior at speeds under those per HB-162 and I really do believe we have a bonehead problem not a speed problem.

ApS replied: Of course, one would. The vast majority of boats owned by New Hampshire boaters can't go as fast as 45. It's an increasing minority of boats that the statute addresses

And this is another perplexing part to me. Unless you believe this minority, by their speed alone, is causing the majority of the problems, the “anarchy”, why would somebody propose a speed limit first, before some other measures that would affect the majority who are part of the problem ? OK I say, perhaps their priorities are odd but it may still be a legitimate issue. And while I can see the potential for high speed to cause an accident (involving another boat) I don’t think you’re anywhere near that potential at 45 or even much higher. In other situations (like the Weirs when it’s crowed) the potential can be realized at speeds under 45. Looked at impartially it appears that HB-162 imposes a limitation on those who use good judgment in hopes to control those who don’t. From what I’ve seen the majority of those who aren’t using good judgment aren’t traveling above 45 when they are being “bad boys”. So HB-162 punishes the many (of that minority) for the sins of the few (in and out of that minority) while not giving law enforcement a tool that can be used to cure the biggest piece of the speed portion of the “anarchy” problem. Somebody slaloming between boats at less than 45 mph isn’t going to be affected by HB-162. And it’s the best solution to the speed part of the problem we all could imagine ? If you believe that any boat out in the Broads on a normal sunny day traveling at 55 mph is going to run over an FLL sized boat that might cross its path, short of good luck, then you should support HB-162. If anyone thinks this isn’t automatically dangerous then you should be asking for a better, fairer solution. And if it’s your belief that everyone with a “speedboat” or expensive boat is somehow morally lacking, as seems to be ApS’s view, then I have nothing polite to say about that.

I can't believe the patience you have with this poster, I don't think it will be fruitful.

For some posters, I think their point of view is colored by their point of view of the lake. One poster resides near the entrance to Winter Harbor, which has become a very busy part of the lake on weekends. For some reason, every boater I know says Winter Harbor is the best place to tube. Add in a popular cruiser anchoring spot at Johnsons Cove, and large mouth fishing near The basin, then try to squeeze all the those boats by his house. Another poster resides near the Bear Island Post office, every boat from Sheps, the channel or Paugus bay, goes by his house on the way to Braun Bay. So they live on the lake equivalent of a busy street corner. Unfortunately, the rules necessary for busy corners don't make sense for the wide open spaces on the rest of the lake.

In the spirit of the season.....
 

Ah, C'mon folks......its almost Christmas, we need to look at the brighter sides of things!

Let me be the first to start the positive trend by finding the good in narrow agendas;

You know what they say is the great thing about a narrow agenda???? Its much much more easier to see through! :D

(and before anyone gets upset and hits the post report button, I am only referring to the narrow agendas of the extremists and zealots at each end of the spectrum of this debate. I truly believe that there is a great number of people in the middle on this issue still wishing to borrow from both sides to come up with a reasonable solution to the occasional Lake overcrowding issues);)

Merry Christmas,

Skip

Skip,

How refreshing in this world of increasing PC to be wished Merry Christmas in such a public way. Kudos to you .

And a very Merry Christmas to you.


ITD

I should be a patient
 

"Oh I'm under no delusion that I'll ever convince ApS to change his view. I'm not even considering that. No I just try to respond and present what I see as the truth. Others, as you say, have differing viewpoints depending on where they are on the lake. They're not wrong in their appraisal per se and probably none of us have a large enough "view" to put everything into it's proper context. So I try to listen, reject those fringe element views (which as Skip points out come from both sides) and find some way to attack/solve those views/problems that I think are reasonable. After all a general description of what I do for a living is "proffesional problem solver". In that respect I see HB-162 as well intended but flawed legislation. It's not surprising given it's conception, gestation and birth violated all the good principles of problem solving. I am of the belief that some better legislation can help and can be found. When I get a chance (and that may be soon given the snow) I intend (did promise) to put some SWAGs into the "compromises" thread. Lastly I think most of us can identify with the issues raised in this discussion, we do differ in our response to them.

As to patience .... ha ... I'm certainly not a patient person (just ask "Mee"). I've just been "trained" properly. :eek: Try presenting to some company VP on why he's so full of S.... errr ... "misguided in his approach to the situation". Or going to the Pentagon to tell some Admiral that he couldn't find his A ..... aaahh... has not been "properly briefed by his staff". Now that's "patience" .... this is just a discussion forum, a bunch of us all shooting the S ... errr ... "fecal matter". ;) :D

So you're saying even if the law is passed you will blatanly break the law whenever you feel inclined to. You wonder why people feel the way they do? Look in the mirror...

Speed Or Ignorance???
 

I have been thinking about this for awhile now. Is speed really the issue or is it ignorance/lack or courtesy?

The speed limit is a pretty divisive issue, and just about everyone on this board knows why I am against HB-162. I want to hear from the HB-162 supporters, how exactly is a speed limit going to fix ANY of the issues on the lake? If speed were the issue, we would have collisions and accidents to point to and subsequently address. But we dont. So I am thinking the real problem is a lack of knowledge, specifically, the rules of the road and common boater courtesy. So how do we educate the masses? The legislature has passed a law requiring most (not all) who boat on Lake Winni to posess a Safe Boater Certificate by 2008.

I think the real problem is that the Safe Boater Law doesn't go quite far enough. How is it that anybody with a credit card that has room for a $2500 damage claim, with absolutely no boating knowledge or experience boating at all, can rent a Jetski, or 18' Bowrider or large 20+ Pontoon boat and NOT be required to have a Safe Boater Certificate? Its absolutely insane to think that a person is capable of driving any boat safely after a 20 question checklist. But thats allowed? Why? Because the marina owners and hoteliers want to rent boats and make money, regardless of the hazard they they are creating for everyone else. Then they have the chutzpah (Merrill and Rusty) to complain when a rental boater (with absolutely no prior boating experience) gets mad at them and thinks the lake is dangerous. Of course the boat renter thinks Lake Winni is dangerous! He has no prior safe boating education, no prior boating experience and he has decided to rent a boat on a busy summer weekend to the tune of $200/hr or so plus whatever money they make on the inevitable damage claim! Rusty & Merrill are laughing all the way to the bank at the expense of my personal freedom!

Daytrippers are also exempted from the law... so anyone with a boat not registered in NH, can launch it and go with a complete ignorance of NH boating rules and regulations! Sure there is a time limit imposed, 14 days, but who is tracking that? Most states do not have a 150' safe passage law like we do.

I propose the following....

1. New ANNUAL sticker (say $25) that is required for ALL watercraft used upon Lake Winnipesaukee, no exeptions. Thus includes powerboats of all kinds, kayaks, sailboats, canoes, PWC's. If you want to use the lake, you need to have a sticker. In order to purchase a sticker you would need to have successfully completed the safe boaters course or at the minimum, the rental course/questionaire. Initially there would be two colors... 1 color (green) indicates successful completion of the full safe boater course, 1 color (red) indicates completion of the rental course. After 2008 all boats registered in NH and used on Lake Winnipesaukee would be required to have the green sticker. Day trippers & vacationers would need to get a sticker for thier boats at a marina, and take the rental course/questionaire in order to purchase a sticker for thier boats (say $10 for a weeklong yellow sticker with the date of use printed on it). This gives the MP an easy visual check that the owner of the boat has been at least minimally educated on the NH rules & regulations pertaining to safe boating. The statute could also include that the owner of a boat be held liable for the the driver of the boats actions. This would help insure that the boat owner would inform anyone who was driving his boat of the rules etc.

You could breakdown the cost of the program, marinas get a percentage for admin fees, a percentage goes to MP to cover the cost of administering the program, and the bulk goes to the MP for use specifically on Lake Winnipesaukee. (Hiring more officers, new equipment etc, dedicated to Lake Winni.)

3. No sticker = FINE say $100.00, (you gotta make it painful or people won't care.) You could possibly make the fine payable at the marina when the offending boat goes and gets a sticker... fine would have to be paid before sticker issued? not sure if thats feasible without a seriously expensive computer system, but its an idea.

4. Study the areas of the Lake with the most congestion, and look at ways to control the boat traffic. Initially try NWZ's, but if the congestion persists, perhaps weekend only "safety zones" where a reduced speed is mandated.

5. Study the current noise law and perhaps reduce it somewhat. Noise seems to be a BIG part of the issue. Remove the restriction on switchable muffler systems. Have max db you can't exceed, but if you can make it quieter than the maximum, so as not to disturb your neighbors, I don't see why that should be illegal.

Woodsy

Exemption for daytrippers?
 

I can't find an exemption for daytrippers. Unless your talking about the general exemption for people holding similiar credentials from other states. IMHO that's a pretty small hole.
I'm not sure I want to pay an extra fee, but I like the idea of a visible indication of compliance, I know at least a dozen people that are flaunting the law. They plan to plead ignorance and just pay the fine if that doesn't work. Plus, there is a general lack of awareness of the law. The MP should be sitting at launch ramps giving out tickets or at least warnings.

The whole rental boat temporary certification is scary. The worst part is that a lot of rentals happen at the Weirs. Can you imagine, it's your first time operating a boat, it's a Saturday afternoon, in July, you have a eight people in 19' outboard and your crossing Weirs bay. This is a disaster waiting to happen. Same goes for Jetskis. I really can't understand how boat rental places manage to stay insured.

Finally on noise. Loud boats and motorcycles are a pet peeve of mine. For some reason NH law enforcement can't or won't enforce these laws. I'm not sure if the laws are poorly written or it's a tourism thing. But if you read the laws, there shouldn't be such a noise problem.

I told myself I would stay out of this debate, but alas. Just so everyone is clear, I am against the speed limit. It will not make the lake safer. That being said,

Woodsy, I can't really fathom having 2,3,or4 different colored stickers on my boat. Not only that, but I already pay enough money to register my boat, why should I have to pay more so that the MP knows I am certified? There isn't a separate sticker on my car telling the world I am a licensed auto driver. Thirdly, I hope you were kidding when you included canoes and kayaks in your post. When was the last time a kayak crashed into another boat causing serious damage and/or harm, traveled faster than headway speed, violated the right of way rule, etc? I will admit that occasionally you may see a kayak in the middle of the broads and while hard to see perhaps and not exactly exercising a lot of common sense, how will a sticker on a kayak make the lake safer? You're simply adding another layer of bureaucracy to the system. I think in another thread you proposed this idea and I think I responded to you then, sorry for being redundant.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=2294

I like the idea of a weekend NWZ. The most obvious place that comes to mind would be between Eagle and Governor's.

I think Woodsy wether right or wrong should get a star!! at least he made an attempt to solve our problems.:D

Varney Point as far as stickers go I would proudly show my sticker right next to my Safety Sticker, yea every year I have my boat inspected (at my request by MP) and they give me a sticker and I put it on my windscreen for all to see. Maybe this sticker can be used for dual purpose???? How many of your cars have parking or dump stickers on them??? Don't they know you live or work there?? kinda the same thing I would think.

Lake George does something like this I think?? Don't you pay for water use there???or is it just a large launch fee??

As far as stickers on row boat types why not they do use the water and the $$ would help MP AND LAKE ISSUES ONLY. Maybe they could get those little red flags like on OHRVs too?? Then we could see them better?? It seems we all pay to use the lake some have more advantages than other and there for they pay more. (Home on the lake pays big tax$$ = alot of advantages, person wanting a day at the beach pays to park and use the beach, small $$ it's kinda a sliding scale on your lake use I guess)

Here one for the ha ha pile maybe we could charge by the pound for boats?? This way a row boats pays pennies while the big cruzers and GFBLs pay dollars ?? Since it's these boats everyone has issues with and seem to cause the must disruption on the lake??

How about we do away with the sea doo types on weekends like other smaller lakes in NH?? Also a great place for one of those red flags?? I know, I know, but they can find new ways to create reviniue just like before they where made so common??:eek:


Larger NWZs yes yes yes on weekends!!

As far as day trippers unless they hold a card from somewhere saying they have been tought the basic rules of the road then they get the test and sticker more $$ for MP with a card yea they have to buy a sticker??

With a Better funded MP the lakes will be safer for everyone and I don't think anyone can contest that!!


Sorry more of my $.02 not picking on anyone. But I think we need more Ideas and less he said she said Maybe a place where we could post JUST IDEAS and then post the + or - of each.There maybe a way to keep it rolling and bring these new ideas to the MP.

Varney...

I decided to bring it up again for discussion, now that Don has opened up the HB-162 forum. Your point is correct that you don't need to show a license to register your car... however, if your license is suspended, you cannot re-register your car. I do agree with you on the fact that I really don't want to put a sticker on my boat.

However...

The situation is such that I think it might be a good idea... If you go to ANY launch ramp on the lake, be it private or public, there is absolutely no mention of the fact that a Safe Boater Certificate is required to boat on Lake Winnipesaukee! There is a small plaque on the public ramps mentioning the 150' safe passage law... but thats it! So lots of people, daytrippers, weekenders, fisherman or anyone else who put thier boats in once in awhile don't have any idea that a certificate is required.

My points are:

1. Gives everyone, including MP a quick visual check to see if the boat in question is in fact owned (not necessarily driven) by a person who took a safe boating course and passed. It also identifies those who would be daytrippers or boat renters and insures they have at least been given the 20 question checklist and that the checklist is good for 14 days... after that a SBC will be required.

2. It adds revenue to the coffers of the MP to provide funding for more officers, better training and equipment.

Woodsy

maybe we don't need an extra sticker...
 

just don't issue registrations unless the owner/operator is certified or exempt from certification. Unfortunately, I don't think that idea will be adopted, the DMV can't even seem to keep people with suspended licenses from registering their cars.

VP: There are pretty reliable rumors to there being a full time NWZ between Govenors and Eagle Island starting in spring 06.

FLL: There's been talk that the commitee expanded the speed limit to all large lakes and tied violations to automobile driving records. But, I haven't found an online version of the modified bill yet.

You may not be picking on anyone but my only boat is one of those"sea doo types".I am pretty much only on the lake on weekends.So the heck with me right?If you have a boat,how about we do away with your type of boat?No,the answer is not to ban any types of boats.The problem is with the operaters that are violating existing laws.Do away with them and 99% of the issues people have with boating on Winni will go away.I wish people could use some comman sense.

I am open to any other ideas to insure compliance with the SBC (Safe Boater Certificate) law. I think the law as it is currently written has no teeth at all. There are no signs of any sort telling daytrippers or weekenders that a SBC is required, they can plead ignorance and actually have a valid excuse. If there is no way to insure compliance with the law and enforce the law, then the prevailing attitude will be "why bother?".

The same goes for HB-162 as it is now written. Although they did take the step of linking boating offenses to your drivers license, there is still no funding package attached to the bill. Radar guns will cost money, Training the officers will cost money, the courts will cost money. Where is the money supposed to come from?

Woodsy

It really isn't fair they way HB162 supporters have their motives misrepresented.

Nobody thinks a speed limit will solve 99% of the lakes problems. I would be happy with 1%. The speed limit DOES NOT target any boat type anymore than a highway speed limit targets a car type.

If it makes things just a little bit slower, less hectic, quieter and safer, it will be worth wile.

We can never go back to the way the lakes was. We CAN make a tiny change in the direction it is going.

Hold on a second!!! all I was saying is that there are other lakes that do not allow sea doos on weekend already!!! I live on one.. It's not any type of boat it's the people operating them!!!

More ideas
 

I think "codeman" started an "compromise" thread (which I can't quite find time to collect my thougts into) which might be a good place to post more ideas. FWIW "JohnNH" had a similar thread a while ago, I'll post a link to it when I find it.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=1454