Hi Yankee...thanks for your thoughts.
But if I follow your logic you remind me of yet another point made to me by dear ol' Grand Dad....two wrongs don't make a right!
Actually a kind reader who has chosen not to get involved because of the nastiness this type of discussion seems to attract has forwarded me a list of all of the sponsors and "friends" of this bill, along with the proposed legislation itself. I will note that soon after I posted my questions I received an email from the SBONH President questioning the motives of my post, but no offer to answer the questions I posed.
And what did I find? One politician that lives in Barnstead, another in Gilmanton. Neither abutting the Lake in question. And the rest? Two from Goffstown, others from Londonderry, Andover, Merrimack, Bristol and Rochester. I would hardly call them "Winni" representatives.
Where are the sponsors from the immediate Lake Winnipesaukee area? Surely if there is no support from the Lakes Region for the current SL law then SBONH should have lined up a bevy of Lakes Region legislators to co-sponsor or "friend" this Bill?
But they haven't, as of yet anyway.
I will print the propsed legislation below, but I want to point out another clever trick employed in the press release. The usage of the term "enhanced modification", whatever that is supposed to mean.
In actuality it is a "repeal" of the current speed limits. But "repeal" isn't a nice enough PC term when you are flying in under the radar.
Look closely at the verbiage for the bill...while it is cleverly called "Safety Enhancement Bill" the first line thereafter clearly states
"...RSA 270-D X is repealed and replaced with the following..."
I guess "safety enhancement" is much sexier then plainly stating "repeal and replace".
When I voted this particular fall I didn't vote along party lines, I voted to end the foolishness and doublespeak the occurs daily in our poltical houses in the name of doing business. The particular "doublespeak" press release by SBONH, with failure to inform the public of the entire story, smacks of what I stand against, even with my robe on!
Oh, and the proposed bill? ITL....Inexpedient to Legislate. The vague paramaters of the language make employment of the proposed legislation completely subjective and solely based on the opinion of the enforcing officer. In reality it is but a loose copy of the present Reckless Operation statute, a law rarely enforced again do to its vagueness and subjective nature.
I think there is a better way to address the speed issues on Lake Winnipesaukee and all other NH water bodies. I myself do not have the answer, but I know a pig in a poke when I see one, and this pig (legislation) is squealing at the top of its lungs.
Anyway, courtesy of a concerned citizen here is the proposed legislation:
SAFETY ENHANCEMENT BILL
RSA 270-D X is repealed and replaced with the following:
X. (a) Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed that is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing so that she can take proper and effective action to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore and be stopped within a distance appropriate to the prevailing circumstances and conditions.
In determining a safe speed the following factors shall be among those taken into account:
(b) By all vessels:
i. The state of visibility;
ii. The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels; iii. The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions; iv. At night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights; v. The state of wind, sea and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards; vi. The draft in relation to the available depth of water.
(c)Additionally, by vessels with operational radar:
i. The characteristics, efficiency and limitations of the radar equipment; ii. Any constraints imposed by the radar range scale in use; iii. The effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather and other sources of interference; iv. The possibility that small vessels, ice and other floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range; v. The number, location and movement of vessels detected by radar; vi. The more exact assessment of the visibility that may be possible when radar is used to determine the range of vessels or other objects in the vicinity.
(d) The speed limitations set forth shall not apply to vessels when operated with due regard for safety under the direction of the peace officers in the chase or apprehension of violators of the law or of persons charged with, or suspected of, any such violation, nor to fire department or fire patrol vessels, nor to private emergency vessels when traveling to emergencies. This exemption shall not, however, protect the operator of any such vessel from the consequences of a reckless disregard of the safety of others.
(e) Any conviction under this section shall be reported to the commissioner of the department of safety, division of motor vehicles, and shall become a part of the motor vehicle driving record of the person convicted and a fine of not less than $250 for a first offense, $500 for a second offense and a $1,000 fine and mandatory boating certificate suspension hearing before the Dept. of Safety for conviction of a third offense. Such a hearing of suspension of a boating certificate shall be held if the conviction of the third offense occurs within a five (5) year period of previous convictions under this section.