Winnipesaukee Forum - View Single Post

ApS · 02-12-2006, 07:03 PM

Fat Jack:

I see a double-jeopardy problem should two alternate methods be used for noise-measure.

This proposal appears to be a way to avoid the hazardous and time-consuming effort to test the boats at WOT. Speeds for these boats are ratcheting upwards every year, so it's a safety concern for the MPs, too. Why not go for the easier spot-test at docks and ramps, rather than test a boat whose muffler is restored for the WOT test the following week anyway? (With an attorney present.

)

HB1624 appears to be based on noise-controls adopted in other states and are probably noisier than allowed by our present law. Seeing that present Winnipesaukee compliance and enforcement is impotent, this "in-place" testing may not be such a bad thing. At present, the MPs can't catch most noisy offenders—much less those operating recklessly.

02-12-2006, 07:03 PM	#34
ApS Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro Posts: 6,053 Thanks: 2,282 Thanked 789 Times in 565 Posts	Double Jeopardy is why Fat Jack: I see a double-jeopardy problem should two alternate methods be used for noise-measure. This proposal appears to be a way to avoid the hazardous and time-consuming effort to test the boats at WOT. Speeds for these boats are ratcheting upwards every year, so it's a safety concern for the MPs, too. Why not go for the easier spot-test at docks and ramps, rather than test a boat whose muffler is restored for the WOT test the following week anyway? (With an attorney present. ) HB1624 appears to be based on noise-controls adopted in other states and are probably noisier than allowed by our present law. Seeing that present Winnipesaukee compliance and enforcement is impotent, this "in-place" testing may not be such a bad thing. At present, the MPs can't catch most noisy offenders—much less those operating recklessly.