Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut
The irony of the whole speed limit debate is that the proponents only have one or two cases over a 40 year period to even present as "evidence." It is laughable. I'll even concede them to you and say YES you are 100% right, whatever you want to prove with those cases, bravo, well done. So where does that leave us? 40 years with 2 incidents that YOU say COULD have been prevented by a speed limit? Hysterical, that's what it is. We should base a law on this?
|
There have been plenty of “incidents” in just recent years – that was pretty evident at the House hearing that I attended. The problem is that those in opposition to the bill are saying that we don’t need a speed limit since no one’s been killed on Winni lately.
Well, I’m not willing to wait for a fatality – especially when I could become the fatality. No one officially records close calls, near misses, or fortunate escapes from harm – yet those happen all the time. I have personally had dangerous “incidents” on Winni and I believe a speed limit would have prevented most of those, or at least reduced the danger involved.
Boats on Winni, which were traveling well in excess of 45 mph, have violated my 150 foot zone by a considerate amount . . . in some cases, within 50 feet of me - because the operator was traving too fast.
And this has occurred more than once – sometimes even more than once in a single outing. And many other paddlers on the lake have experienced this as well.
The bill is about safety – no matter how you try to spin it. And that’s what the Senators should be looking at. I contend that speeds above the limits in the bill are very unsafe on a busy lake that is populated with small, slow moving boats.
I’ve seen the difference that a speed limit cam make on a large NH lake. Squam is not only a good example – it also shows the NH’s Marine Patrol is perfectly capable of enforcing a speed limit.