more expert testimony on SB-27

[ronc4424]

SB-27 would undermine commonsense speed limits on big lake

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll...985/-1/CITNEWS

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by ronc4424

SB-27 would undermine commonsense speed limits on big lake
Feb 01, 2011 12:00 am
To the editor,

.....

Also, we need to remember that the collision energy delivered by a boat traveling at 60 MPH is four times that of a boat traveling at 30 MPH in the event of a crash. The Blizzard accident before the 45/25 Law showed what can happen.

.....

Someone care to refresh my memory. What was the testified speed of the Blizzard accident?

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

Someone care to refresh my memory. What was the testified speed of the Blizzard accident?

I don't know about her speed as testified in her court trial, but this quote came from the Concord Monitor article, "Brakes On Boat Speed Limits" dated 12/2/2010;

Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed. One of those is the 2008 death of Stephanie Beaudoin of Meredith, who died when a boat piloted by her best friend, Erica Blizzard, crashed into Diamond Island on Lake Winnipesaukee in the dark, early morning hours. State authorities estimate Blizzard was going at least 33 mph.

[Rusty]

I would think that Mr. Thurston would know a little bit about how Lake Winnipesaukee has changed since the 45/30 speed limit became law.

This well written article is on page 4 of today's LDS:

Something had to change on big lake & speed limit did the trick
To the editor,
An open letter to New Hampshire
citizens:
My name is Jeffrey Thurston. My family and I have operated a marina and boat dealership on Lake Winnipesaukee for the last 39 years. During that time we all have seen boating take on different dimensions in the number, size, and speed at which boats and personal watercraft are operating. Prior to the implementation of the current lakewide 45/30 boating speed limits, it had been “uncomfortable” for many of the people I deal with as customers to go out on Lake Winnipesaukee.
Someone and something had to change, and that change this past season has been widely noted as the best thing to happen to family boating in a long time.
As many of you know, Winnipesaukee is comprised of more than 14 bays and over 250 islands. It is not one large bowl of water. It is up to the state to view the lake as a shared resource with emphasis on sustainability and the maximum diversity of users. The state’s own figures show there are more boats on the water today than in the past. As the density increases, it is difficult to imagine that unlimited speed could be tolerated, as long as boats stay an arbitrary 150-ft. apart.
With large off-shore type boats capable of speeds well in excess of 70 mph, 250+hp personal watercraft only 11ft. long, and low-profile fishing boats with 250+hp engines, how can anyone argue with the need to put a cap on how fast an individual boater can operate in the presence of others? This is particularly true when you consider how difficult it is to see some of these smaller PWC and boat types approaching. The argument becomes even more indefensible at night.
In all cases, the important sense of well-being for passengers on a boat subjected to others operating in such a manner is removed. Boat owners complained that the lake had lost its’ “FUN” feel when you were constantly wondering where and when something might come flying out at you and your family. Is that the legacy New Hampshire wants for their best known lake? I certainly hope not, and I’m confident that a large majority of the public agrees.
This law worked well in New Hampshire these past seasons, as it has in many other states for years. This speed limits law will not stop ANYONE from boating, but will instill and reinforce a sense of what is proper behavior on the state’s most important waterway. Only the Legislature can preserve this reality, and we are counting on them to keep sustainable use of Lake Winnipesaukee a treasured achievement. Support the current boating 45/30 speed limits law without any changes by contacting your Senator and Representatives to vote down SB-27.
Jeffrey Thurston, President
Thurston’s Marina
Weirs Beach

[jarhead0341]

A couple of problems I have with this letter written by Mr thurston if the lake is so congested that its hard to imagine not violating the 150 foot rule than existing laws say headway speed is he saying that its ok to be closer as long as you are under the 45 mph speed limit....... 150 feet is the same distance @ any speed ...... people where scared because people like him where telling them to be scared .... also isn't that the same thustons that have been renting boats to i would imagine very many inexperienced skippers , I am sure some know what there doing , that I have seen doing far more dangerous things than a boat by itself going 80 thru the broads . Like his its jmo.......... fire away

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by jarhead0341

A couple of problems I have with this letter written by Mr thurston if the lake is so congested that its hard to imagine not violating the 150 foot rule than existing laws say headway speed is he saying that its ok to be closer as long as you are under the 45 mph speed limit....... 150 feet is the same distance @ any speed ...... people where scared because people like him where telling them to be scared .... also isn't that the same thustons that have been renting boats to i would imagine very many inexperienced skippers , I am sure some know what there doing , that I have seen doing far more dangerous things than a boat by itself going 80 thru the broads . Like his its jmo.......... fire away

I have read your post ten times and I still don’t understand any of it. Is there a question or statement that you made that pertains to Mr. Thurston’s article?

Maybe it might help me understand what you are trying to say if you quoted Mr. Thurston’s exact comment/s, and then after that write your rebuttal.

Also if you a problem with the way Mr. Thurston runs his business (I think that’s what you’re saying…not sure though) could you please have some facts to back that up.

[jarhead0341]

Originally Posted by Rusty

I have read your post ten times and I still don’t understand any of it. Is there a question or statement that you made that pertains to Mr. Thurston’s article?

Maybe it might help me understand what you are trying to say if you quoted Mr. Thurston’s exact comment/s, and then after that write your rebuttal.

Also if you a problem with the way Mr. Thurston runs his business (I think that’s what you’re saying…not sure though) could you please have some facts to back that up.

You got the point you just don't want to admit it I gave an opinion just as he did all opinion no facts given in either case......... I have no problem with atone or the way they run their business just a little issue with the hypocrisy

[classic22]

Originally Posted by Rusty

I would think that Mr. Thurston would know a little bit about how Lake Winnipesaukee has changed since the 45/30 speed limit became law.

This well written article is on page 4 of today's LDS:

Something had to change on big lake & speed limit did the trick
To the editor,
An open letter to New Hampshire
citizens:
My name is Jeffrey Thurston. My family and I have operated a marina and boat dealership on Lake Winnipesaukee for the last 39 years. During that time we all have seen boating take on different dimensions in the number, size, and speed at which boats and personal watercraft are operating. Prior to the implementation of the current lakewide 45/30 boating speed limits, it had been “uncomfortable” for many of the people I deal with as customers to go out on Lake Winnipesaukee.
Someone and something had to change, and that change this past season has been widely noted as the best thing to happen to family boating in a long time.
As many of you know, Winnipesaukee is comprised of more than 14 bays and over 250 islands. It is not one large bowl of water. It is up to the state to view the lake as a shared resource with emphasis on sustainability and the maximum diversity of users. The state’s own figures show there are more boats on the water today than in the past. As the density increases, it is difficult to imagine that unlimited speed could be tolerated, as long as boats stay an arbitrary 150-ft. apart.
With large off-shore type boats capable of speeds well in excess of 70 mph, 250+hp personal watercraft only 11ft. long, and low-profile fishing boats with 250+hp engines, how can anyone argue with the need to put a cap on how fast an individual boater can operate in the presence of others? This is particularly true when you consider how difficult it is to see some of these smaller PWC and boat types approaching. The argument becomes even more indefensible at night.
In all cases, the important sense of well-being for passengers on a boat subjected to others operating in such a manner is removed. Boat owners complained that the lake had lost its’ “FUN” feel when you were constantly wondering where and when something might come flying out at you and your family. Is that the legacy New Hampshire wants for their best known lake? I certainly hope not, and I’m confident that a large majority of the public agrees.
This law worked well in New Hampshire these past seasons, as it has in many other states for years. This speed limits law will not stop ANYONE from boating, but will instill and reinforce a sense of what is proper behavior on the state’s most important waterway. Only the Legislature can preserve this reality, and we are counting on them to keep sustainable use of Lake Winnipesaukee a treasured achievement. Support the current boating 45/30 speed limits law without any changes by contacting your Senator and Representatives to vote down SB-27.
Jeffrey Thurston, President
Thurston’s Marina
Weirs Beach

Other than getting his name right and the fact that he owns a marina, I dont see another fact in his poorly written letter.

[RTTOOL]

Originally Posted by rusty

i would think that mr. Thurston would know a little bit about how lake winnipesaukee has changed since the 45/30 speed limit became law.

This well written article is on page 4 of today's lds:

something had to change on big lake & speed limit did the trick
to the editor,
an open letter to new hampshire
citizens:
My name is jeffrey thurston. My family and i have operated a marina and boat dealership on lake winnipesaukee for the last 39 years. During that time we all have seen boating take on different dimensions in the number, size, and speed at which boats and personal watercraft are operating. Prior to the implementation of the current lakewide 45/30 boating speed limits, it had been “uncomfortable” for many of the people i deal with as customers to go out on lake winnipesaukee.
someone and something had to change, and that change this past season has been widely noted as the best thing to happen to family boating in a long time.
as many of you know, winnipesaukee is comprised of more than 14 bays and over 250 islands. It is not one large bowl of water. It is up to the state to view the lake as a shared resource with emphasis on sustainability and the maximum diversity of users. The state’s own figures show there are more boats on the water today than in the past. As the density increases, it is difficult to imagine that unlimited speed could be tolerated, as long as boats stay an arbitrary 150-ft. Apart.
With large off-shore type boats capable of speeds well in excess of 70 mph, 250+hp personal watercraft only 11ft. Long, and low-profile fishing boats with 250+hp engines, how can anyone argue with the need to put a cap on how fast an individual boater can operate in the presence of others? This is particularly true when you consider how difficult it is to see some of these smaller pwc and boat types approaching. The argument becomes even more indefensible at night.
In all cases, the important sense of well-being for passengers on a boat subjected to others operating in such a manner is removed. Boat owners complained that the lake had lost its’ “fun” feel when you were constantly wondering where and when something might come flying out at you and your family. Is that the legacy new hampshire wants for their best known lake? I certainly hope not, and i’m confident that a large majority of the public agrees.
this law worked well in new hampshire these past seasons, as it has in many other states for years. this speed limits law will not stop anyone from boating, but will instill and reinforce a sense of what is proper behavior on the state’s most important waterway. Only the legislature can preserve this reality, and we are counting on them to keep sustainable use of lake winnipesaukee a treasured achievement. Support the current boating 45/30 speed limits law without any changes by contacting your senator and representatives to vote down sb-27.
Jeffrey thurston, president
thurston’s marina
weirs beach

jeffrey;
you say the law is working . Well here it goes . Is it bring you more business so people can rent your boats and you can make more.
Then the law is just for you. To get people that don't know how to drive a boat. What i mean is on summer day i was going down the channel and a boat you rented to sum expert cut across both lanes and smashed in wall across from your docks.
What a treasured achievement is how n.h. Went about how to get driver lic.to the day renter...

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by Rusty

This speed limits law will not stop ANYONE from boating,

It may not stop anyone from boating, BUT.......

Originally Posted by Rusty

but will instill and reinforce a sense of what is proper behavior on the state’s most important waterway.

........I don't believe violation of the 150 ft rule, cutting off other boaters and speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed are "proper behavior" on the lake! So in that sense, a defined speed limit does nothing.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

........I don't believe violation of the 150 ft rule, cutting off other boaters and speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed are "proper behavior" on the lake!

You are right Wolfeboro_Baja and I'm glad that you said that because IMHO that is what the SBONH members should be working on to make our beautiful Lake safer.

We need to get the violators educated about what you mentioned....and what better way to do that then getting the SBONH to do just that.

The speed limit law has taken care of one problem, now we all need to get involved and fix what you stated.

Thank you for bringing that up!

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by Rusty

We need to get the violators educated about what you mentioned....

We have been yelling and screaming about this since the very beginning of the speed limit debate and all we heard back from the SL supporters was the speed limit would fix EVERYTHING and once again, the supporters are saying it didn't!! Wow, there's a surprise!

The speed limit law was just a law looking for a problem to fix and apparently it didn't fix anything! Wow, another surprise....

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

...all we heard back from the SL supporters was the speed limit would fix EVERYTHING...

I have been paying close attention to SL debate on this forum since day one. I don't remember any SL supporter ever claiming the speed limit would fix EVERYTHING. Nor do I remember them making a claim that was similar to that, or even a claim that was in the ball park of what you suggest.

Can point me to a post where a claim like this was made?

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I have been paying close attention to SL debate on this forum since day one. I don't remember any SL supporter ever claiming the speed limit would fix EVERYTHING. Nor do I remember them making a claim that was similar to that, or even a claim that was in the ball park of what you suggest.

Can point me to a post where a claim like this was made?

BI,

I don't think you will find that exact quote, but you know that several very vocal SL supporters have hailed the SL as a panacea. APS is now arguing at the forum across the pond that littering (which is currently illegal under NH law) is caused by flying boats. It is his opinion that if the boats were traveling at 44 MPH, then empty food wrappers would not fly out from the boat.

I appreciate your positions and think you articulate them well without over- reaching

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

BI,

I don't think you will find that exact quote, but you know that several very vocal SL supporters have hailed the SL as a panacea. APS is now arguing at the forum across the pond that littering (which is currently illegal under NH law) is caused by flying boats. It is his opinion that if the boats were traveling at 44 MPH, then empty food wrappers would not fly out from the boat.

I appreciate your positions and think you articulate them well without over- reaching

Sorry, I know nothing of the kind. The speed limit has most often been called a "tool" that the Marine Patrol can use.

I am unaware speed limits ever been refereed to by supporters as a "panacea" or any word that is even roughly synonymous with panacea. I am not the one over-reaching here.


In any event, you should remember the Governor signed this bill into law only 7 months ago. Do you REALLY think he is going to sign a repeal this soon? Politicians hate the flip-flopper moniker.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I have been paying close attention to SL debate on this forum since day one. I don't remember any SL supporter ever claiming the speed limit would fix EVERYTHING. Nor do I remember them making a claim that was similar to that, or even a claim that was in the ball park of what you suggest.

Can point me to a post where a claim like this was made?

Go read the WinnFabs website: http://www.winnfabs.com/

Make sure you read the "Why a SL" link. Seems like your ilk was promoting the SL as the almighty savior of the lake to me

Also, the 'Boating' magazine editor did a great editorial this month regarding boating safety. Interestingly, the death rate for being at home is greater than stepping aboard a boat

If I had a scanner at home I would post it.

Maybe all the dealers should be banned from selling any boat capable of reaching a speed >45 MPH. Let's see if they will put their wallets where their mouths are.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Go read the WinnFabs website: http://www.winnfabs.com/

Make sure you read the "Why a SL" link. Seems like your ilk was promoting the SL as the almighty savior of the lake to me

Also, the 'Boating' magazine editor did a great editorial this month regarding boating safety. Interestingly, the death rate for being at home is greater than stepping aboard a boat

If I had a scanner at home I would post it.

Maybe all the dealers should be banned from selling any boat capable of reaching a speed >45 MPH. Let's see if they will put their wallets where their mouths are.

Thank you for directing me to the winnfabs website, I haven't been there for a while...it is always refreshing to go there once in a while just to read about how the SL law will (and has) helped the "Lakes Region Economic Health", "Safety", and "Equal Access or Management".


Can you show me where the winnfabs website stated that the “Speed Limit Law” would fix any of the following:

1. Violation of the 150 ft rule.
2. Cutting off other boaters.
3. Speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed.
4. BUI
5. Being a complete BONEHEAD!

[jarhead0341]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Thank you for directing me to the winnfabs website, I haven't been there for a while...it is always refreshing to go there once in a while just to read about how the SL law will (and has) helped the "Lakes Region Economic Health", "Safety", and "Equal Access or Management".


Can you show me where the winnfabs website stated that the “Speed Limit Law” would fix any of the following:

1. Violation of the 150 ft rule.
2. Cutting off other boaters.
3. Speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed.
4. BUI
5. Being a complete BONEHEAD!

just looking for a no bs answer if numbers 1 thru 5 are followed why the need for a speed limit ......... and if people dont follow 1 thru 5 why does anyone think they will follow the speed limit ?

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by jarhead0341

just looking for a no bs answer if numbers 1 thru 5 are followed why the need for a speed limit ......... and if people dont follow 1 thru 5 why does anyone think they will follow the speed limit ?

This is my no BS answer for “why the need for a speed limit” even if “numbers 1 thru 5 are followed”:

So that “large off-shore type boats capable of speeds well in excess of 70 mph, 250+hp personal watercraft only 11ft. long, and low-profile fishing boats with 250+hp engines” do not make it unsafe for people like you and I who only want to have fun and enjoy everything that the Lake has to offer.

Some people aren’t following 1 thru 5…BUT….they are following the new “Speed Limit Law” and it will only get better.

Thanks for the questions!

[jarhead0341]

Originally Posted by Rusty

This is my no BS answer for “why the need for a speed limit” even if “numbers 1 thru 5 are followed”:

So that “large off-shore type boats capable of speeds well in excess of 70 mph, 250+hp personal watercraft only 11ft. long, and low-profile fishing boats with 250+hp engines” do not make it unsafe for people like you and I who only want to have fun and enjoy everything that the Lake has to offer.

Some people aren’t following 1 thru 5…BUT….they are following the new “Speed Limit Law” and it will only get better.

Thanks for the questions!

thanx for the response .... how does it make it any safer if all the other rules are followed and who says the speed limit is being followed 100 %

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jarhead0341

thanx for the response .... how does it make it any safer if all the other rules are followed and who says the speed limit is being followed 100 %

David Barrett the head of the Marine Patrol is opposed to the speed limit yet admits it is being followed. He doesn't say it works 100%. After all very few things work 100%. Below are some quotes from Mr. Barrett from a recent interview in the Concord Monitor.

Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed. One of those is the 2008 death of Stephanie Beaudoin of Meredith, who died when a boat piloted by her best friend, Erica Blizzard, crashed into Diamond Island on Lake Winnipesaukee in the dark, early morning hours. State authorities estimate Blizzard was going at least 33 mph.

This year, Barrett said, the Marine Patrol issued eight tickets for speeding on the lake, resulting in court-issued fines in the vicinity of $100.

"That's testimony to the fact that there aren't a lot of people that go that fast," Barrett said.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Over the past 10 years, Barrett said, there have been three boating deaths attributed to speed. One of those is the 2008 death of Stephanie Beaudoin of Meredith, who died when a boat piloted by her best friend, Erica Blizzard, crashed into Diamond Island on Lake Winnipesaukee in the dark, early morning hours. State authorities estimate Blizzard was going at least 33 mph.

This year, Barrett said, the Marine Patrol issued eight tickets for speeding on the lake, resulting in court-issued fines in the vicinity of $100.

"That's testimony to the fact that there aren't a lot of people that go that fast," Barrett said.

Come on BI, there weren't that many boats speeding even BEFORE the SL law was rammed through.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Come on BI, there weren't that many boats speeding even BEFORE the SL law was rammed through.

Wrong again. There were plenty of boats going over 30 mph at night. That is where the speed limits has had the greatest impact.

And for many years I personally went faster than 45 mph just about every day I was at the lake. And that is all summer.



The current law was 6 years in coming and involved many public meetings around the lake area and many legislative debates. That does not meet my definition of "rammed through".

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Can you show me where the winnfabs website stated that the “Speed Limit Law” would fix any of the following:

1. Violation of the 150 ft rule.
2. Cutting off other boaters.
3. Speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed.
4. BUI
5. Being a complete BONEHEAD!

Go read the powerpoint. It specifically mentioned those items as the reason for the speed limit as a way to "minimize the imacts" of items 1-5. So yes, the WinnFabs ilk were selling this as a catch-all solution.

I'm sure when the 150 ft rule and boater education laws were passed, the same tired arugments were given.

Personally, I think the 150 ft rule should go away as it leads to unrealistic expectations.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Go read the powerpoint. It specifically mentioned those items as the reason for the speed limit as a way to "minimize the imacts" of items 1-5. So yes, the WinnFabs ilk were selling this as a catch-all solution.

I'm sure when the 150 ft rule and boater education laws were passed, the same tired arugments were given.

Personally, I think the 150 ft rule should go away as it leads to unrealistic expectations.

Would you please give me the pages of the power point presentation that references Items 1-5 and how the speed limit will help fix them.

Write it up like this if you would:

1. Violation of the 150 ft rule. Page ?
2. Cutting off other boaters. Page ?
3. Speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed. Page ?
4. BUI Page ?
5. Being a complete BONEHEAD! Page ?

I can't tie any of these items to the presentation...but hey..sometimes it takes a long time for things to sink in.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Would you please give me the pages of the power point presentation that references Items 1-5 and how the speed limit will help fix them.

Write it up like this if you would:

1. Violation of the 150 ft rule. Page ?
2. Cutting off other boaters. Page ?
3. Speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed. Page ?
4. BUI Page ?
5. Being a complete BONEHEAD! Page ?

I can't tie any of these items to the presentation...but hey..sometimes it takes a long time for things to sink in.

When you read the powerpoint, it is written in a way that suggests that the SL is the only way to solve items 1-5 while trying to marginalize that existing laws existing for all of them.

I also find is laughable that on page 3 they use an image that is not even from Winnipesaukee. That should be pointed out in the public hearing as that is an outright attempt to mislead if not dishonest.

1. Violation of the 150 ft rule. Page 15
2. Cutting off other boaters. Page ,13, 14, 16, 19
3. Speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed. Page 16 Quote from WinnFlabs: "High speed magnifies the consequences of any rules violations." <- Sure sounds to me that the SL supporters are claiming that all other rules are meaningless without a SL tacked on.

Read this next quote from the WinnFlabs site and tell me how this doesn't sound like the SL is the answer for all that ills Lake W:
"Some initiatives such as boater licensing and education have already been implemented however until speed is one of the points of education there is dramatically less value in these efforts."

4. BUI Page 16
5. Being a complete BONEHEAD! Page 13, 14, 16, 19

The SL supporters were willing to say and do anything to pass. This includes embellishment of facts.

APS is a prime example of someone who has lost all objectively and would propose that anyone who drives 46 MPH be jailed.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

When you read the powerpoint, it is written in a way that suggests that the SL is the only way to solve items 1-5 while trying to marginalize that existing laws existing for all of them.

I also find is laughable that on page 3 they use an image that is not even from Winnipesaukee. That should be pointed out in the public hearing as that is an outright attempt to mislead if not dishonest.

1. Violation of the 150 ft rule. Page 15
2. Cutting off other boaters. Page ,13, 14, 16, 19
3. Speeding through NWZ's at speeds above no wake speed. Page 16 Quote from WinnFlabs: "High speed magnifies the consequences of any rules violations." <- Sure sounds to me that the SL supporters are claiming that all other rules are meaningless without a SL tacked on.

Read this next quote from the WinnFlabs site and tell me how this doesn't sound like the SL is the answer for all that ills Lake W:
"Some initiatives such as boater licensing and education have already been implemented however until speed is one of the points of education there is dramatically less value in these efforts."

4. BUI Page 16
5. Being a complete BONEHEAD! Page 13, 14, 16, 19

The SL supporters were willing to say and do anything to pass. This includes embellishment of facts.

APS is a prime example of someone who has lost all objectively and would propose that anyone who drives 46 MPH be jailed.

You are completely missing what items 1-5 are saying.

That presentation does not say that having a speed limit will do anything to “STOP” boaters from violating the 150 ft. rule, cutting off other boaters, speeding through NWZ’s at speeds above no wake zone, BUI, or being a BONEHEAD! It just does not say that…period.

All that the presentation is saying is that speeding makes things worse……it does not say it will fix any of items 1-5.

If you want to read it that way then there isn’t anything that I can do to change your mind.

You state that “APS is a prime example of someone who has lost all objectively” …..IMHO I think maybe you have done the same thing as an opponent of the SL Law.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

You are completely missing what items 1-5 are saying.

That presentation does not say that having a speed limit will do anything to “STOP” boaters from violating the 150 ft. rule, cutting off other boaters, speeding through NWZ’s at speeds above no wake zone, BUI, or being a BONEHEAD! It just does not say that…period.

All that the presentation is saying is that speeding makes things worse……it does not say it will fix any of items 1-5.

If you want to read it that way then there isn’t anything that I can do to change your mind.

You state that “APS is a prime example of someone who has lost all objectively” …..IMHO I think maybe you have done the same thing as an opponent of the SL Law.

I'm not missing anything. The logic is quite simple to follow. The SL proponents argument is that a speed limit is the catch-all for what they infer are inherent problems with existing laws. So now you say the speed limit won't fix anything? I hear a really loud back-up alarm.
We didn't hear that in the testimony supporting the SL law did we?

Regarding my objectivity, I don't see many others willing to hear both sides and looking for data. I've stated many times I would support a SL if someone could show me objective data that the SL does anything of value. So, I would disagree with you.... Lack of evidence plus my own personal experiences on the lake is how I've based my decision.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

So now you say the speed limit won't fix anything? I hear a really loud back-up alarm.

All that I am saying is that IMHO the Speed Limit Law was enacted so that “large off-shore type boats capable of speeds well in excess of 70 mph, 250+hp personal watercraft only 11ft. long, and low-profile fishing boats with 250+hp engines” do not make it unsafe for people like you and I who only want to have fun and enjoy everything that the Lake has to offer.

If you don't think that the GFB's are a problem then that's OK with me.....I hope that you have fun on the Lake even though there is a Speed Limit in place.

[AllAbourdon]

Originally Posted by Rusty

You are right Wolfeboro_Baja and I'm glad that you said that because IMHO that is what the SBONH members should be working on to make our beautiful Lake safer.

We need to get the violators educated about what you mentioned....and what better way to do that then getting the SBONH to do just that.

The speed limit law has taken care of one problem, now we all need to get involved and fix what you stated.

Thank you for bringing that up!

People feel this way on both sides. I personally feel that the general public was sold on the idea of the 45MPH limit making the lake safer in general.

It only "fixes" one issue. It was just the easiest way to pass a new regulatory law on the lake because it is so cut and dry.

The accidents that occur would be avoided if the other rules/laws were enforced and obeyed.

The SL doesnt help with the 150ft rule, it doesnt help with right of way, safe passage, BWI, being courteous of your wake, and just proper education. It was the EASY way out. "Dont go over 45mph" everyone can understand that rule, its black and white and you dont need to think. It's simply an example of the government making a regulation rather than having people think for themselves.

From what I gather, most of the Anti SL crowd simply feel that an unjust regulation was slapped into place without fully asessing what the situation was.

I saw Pro-SL supporters walking around and getting signatures from people in Portsmouth, NH. Most of the people probably never even have been on the lake, own or operate a boat (power or not) They were getting signatures from college kids and people who had NO IDEA what the real issues were.

That is what I have issue with. My boat goes 41MPH on GPS at maximum speed and probably never will own a "go fast" type of boat.

Everyone seems to long for the days of yesteryears when people were more respectful and courteous. With so many regulations being in place nobody had to learn courtesy and respect, they just follow the law or they dont. You can't impose laws and have the result be more courteous people.

Sorry for the ramble, i am in a rush to get out of work and enjoy a weekend of shoveling my roof. Good weekend to pro and anti SL folks alike!!

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by AllAbourdon

People feel this way on both sides. I personally feel that the general public was sold on the idea of the 45MPH limit making the lake safer in general.

It only "fixes" one issue. It was just the easiest way to pass a new regulatory law on the lake because it is so cut and dry.

The accidents that occur would be avoided if the other rules/laws were enforced and obeyed.

The SL doesnt help with the 150ft rule, it doesnt help with right of way, safe passage, BWI, being courteous of your wake, and just proper education. It was the EASY way out. "Dont go over 45mph" everyone can understand that rule, its black and white and you dont need to think. It's simply an example of the government making a regulation rather than having people think for themselves.

From what I gather, most of the Anti SL crowd simply feel that an unjust regulation was slapped into place without fully asessing what the situation was.

I saw Pro-SL supporters walking around and getting signatures from people in Portsmouth, NH. Most of the people probably never even have been on the lake, own or operate a boat (power or not) They were getting signatures from college kids and people who had NO IDEA what the real issues were.

That is what I have issue with. My boat goes 41MPH on GPS at maximum speed and probably never will own a "go fast" type of boat.

Everyone seems to long for the days of yesteryears when people were more respectful and courteous. With so many regulations being in place nobody had to learn courtesy and respect, they just follow the law or they dont. You can't impose laws and have the result be more courteous people.

Sorry for the ramble, i am in a rush to get out of work and enjoy a weekend of shoveling my roof. Good weekend to pro and anti SL folks alike!!

For someone who is in a rush that was very well written.

The speed limit law was never intended to fix all the problems on the Lake. It was put in place so that “large off-shore type boats capable of speeds well in excess of 70 mph, 250+hp personal watercraft only 11ft. long, and low-profile fishing boats with 250+hp engines” do not make it unsafe for people like you and I who only want to have fun and enjoy everything that the Lake has to offer. It serves no other purpose than that.

[AllAbourdon]

That being said. I have friends running around in hydrostreams, apaches and allisons which are certainly capable of running well over the speed limit. Some of them at triple digit speeds.

I don't think it is fair to limit this group of boaters, it is their absolute lifestyle to wrench on and run these types of boats. I thorougly enjoy having my rear end planted on the floor of a 19 foot boat that is running 90+ mph. These boats are NOT ocean boats, they are lake and river boats doing what they were built to do. It is possible to operate a fast boat safely without putting OTHER PEOPLE in danger. I am more afraid of captain bonehead at 45mph than one of these guys at 75mph.

Go fast, hurt yourself, dont hurt other people. That's where education comes into play and understanding boundaries.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by AllAbourdon

That being said. I have friends running around in hydrostreams, apaches and allisons which are certainly capable of running well over the speed limit. Some of them at triple digit speeds.

I hope your friends have found a body of water that will allow them to go as fast as they want......however on Lake Winnipesaukee they will have to obey the speed limit of 45/30.

If you don't mind me asking, where do your friends go now to go triple digit speeds?

[BroadHopper]

I find the renters more scary than those who drives fast boats. I seen too many of them traveling the Weirs Channel NWZ at above no wake speed. One year a pontoon boat pulled right out of Thurston directly in front of a cruiser. The cruiser had to steer in front of me to avoid the renter. I put my craft into reverse and hit the rocks damaging a $600 SS prop. Several boaters pulled into Thurstons to complain. I guess this has happened before as Thurston already called the police and the MP. He was sitting behind his desk chuckling when the police told us to file a report and leave.

This is why I am strongly against temporary permits. I actually saw one guy fill out the test. The rental agent told him the answers. Not fair.

[VtSteve]

I think they should end the temporary permits now. Catering to a local business for short term profits and convenience is no way to manage safety.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

I think they should end the temporary permits now. Catering to a local business for short term profits and convenience is no way to manage safety.

Bingo! Another hypocrite profit taker. Well for me this is just another on the list of businesses to boycott (along with Alex Ray's restaurants (Common Man, Camp, Lago, Lake House) and Rusty McLear's establishments (Church Landing, Mill Falls, Inn at Bay Point) ). I'll pay double for gas before I fill up at Thurston's now.

Once again, my signature says it all.... Repeat after me:

[jarhead0341]

It's pathetic all about safety as long as my wallet is not effected

[pm203]

Originally Posted by Rusty

I hope your friends have found a body of water that will allow them to go as fast as they want......however on Lake Winnipesaukee they will have to obey the speed limit of 45/30.

If you don't mind me asking, where do your friends go now to go triple digit speeds?

As Jack Nicholson stated in one of his movies, "You Can't handle the truth".

[AllAbourdon]

Originally Posted by Rusty

If you don't mind me asking, where do your friends go now to go triple digit speeds?

The merrimack river, newfound, highland, webster, etc.

[Novah]

Originally Posted by Rusty

I would think that Mr. Thurston would know a little bit about how Lake Winnipesaukee has changed since the 45/30 speed limit became law.

This well written article is on page 4 of today's LDS:

Something had to change on big lake & speed limit did the trick
To the editor,
An open letter to New Hampshire
citizens:
My name is Jeffrey Thurston. My family and I have operated a marina and boat dealership on Lake Winnipesaukee for the last 39 years. During that time we all have seen boating take on different dimensions in the number, size, and speed at which boats and personal watercraft are operating. Prior to the implementation of the current lakewide 45/30 boating speed limits, it had been “uncomfortable” for many of the people I deal with as customers to go out on Lake Winnipesaukee.
The people who are uncomfortable are the people making bad decisions regarding their own actions. For example:
1. Cutting in front of boats that have the right of way only to have them arrive faster than you anticipated. Did they pay attention in operator licensing class?
2. Riding across the broads in a green kayak wearing a blue life jacket when there is a two foot chop. I think Kayaks should all be required to have one of those flags you see on incumbent bicycles operated on the road.
3. Swimming in the major travel lanes.
4. Thinking that the dotted lines around the markers on lake maps are the only travel lanes.
5. Thinking because they are towing a tube or a skier that they have the right of way and the 150 foot rule does not apply
Someone and something had to change, and that change this past season has been widely noted as the best thing to happen to family boating in a long time.I see that family boating every sunny day I am out. Overloaded boats, no life jackets in site, driver not following boating laws - these are the problems that need to be fixed
As many of you know, Winnipesaukee is comprised of more than 14 bays and over 250 islands. It is not one large bowl of water. It is up to the state to view the lake as a shared resource with emphasis on sustainability and the maximum diversity of users. The state’s own figures show there are more boats on the water today than in the past. As the density increases, it is difficult to imagine that unlimited speed could be tolerated, as long as boats stay an arbitrary 150-ft. apart.So does this mean the family boaters you speak of above that ride by at 35 miles per hour only 50 feet from me are safely operating?
With large off-shore type boats capable of speeds well in excess of 70 mph, 250+hp personal watercraft only 11ft. long, and low-profile fishing boats with 250+hp engines, how can anyone argue with the need to put a cap on how fast an individual boater can operate in the presence of others? This is particularly true when you consider how difficult it is to see some of these smaller PWC and boat types approaching. The argument becomes even more indefensible at night.
In all cases, the important sense of well-being for passengers on a boat subjected to others operating in such a manner is removed. Boat owners complained that the lake had lost its’ “FUN” feel when you were constantly wondering where and when something might come flying out at you and your family. Everyone I know who thinks the lake has lost its fun feel blames it on the speed limit. Is that the legacy New Hampshire wants for their best known lake? I certainly hope not, and I’m confident that a large majority of the public agrees.
This law worked well in New Hampshire these past seasons, as it has in many other states for years.The old law worked well too, it just didn't suite some peoples agendas This speed limits law will not stop ANYONE from boating, but will instill and reinforce a sense of what is proper behavior on the state’s most important waterway. Requiring an operators license was supposed to create proper behavior and it has not stopped the erratic behavior of those who should not be behind the wheel of a boat or any vehicle that goes not operate on a confined area like a road. Only the Legislature can preserve this reality, and we are counting on them to keep sustainable use of Lake Winnipesaukee a treasured achievement. Support the current boating 45/30 speed limits law without any changes by contacting your Senator and Representatives to vote down SB-27.
Jeffrey Thurston, President
Thurston’s Marina
Weirs Beach

See responses in blue above.

[Rusty]

Reading this new Bill is making me sea sick.

Below is some of the wording in SB-27 that I don't understand:
... shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights?
... The state of wind, sea, and current?
... The draft in relation to the available depth of water?
... The characteristics, efficiency, and limitations of the radar equipment?
... The effect on radar detection of the sea state?

I know I'm not the brightest bulb in this forum but could someone who helped write this Bill explain these things to me.

This is how some of it is written:

(1) By all vessels:
(A) The state of visibility.
(B) The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels.
(C) The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions.
(D) At night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights.
(E) The state of wind, sea, and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards.
(F) The draft in relation to the available depth of water.
(2) Additionally, by vessels with operational radar:
(A) The characteristics, efficiency, and limitations of the radar equipment.
(B) Any constraints imposed by the radar range scale in use.
(C) The effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather, and other sources of interference.
(D) The possibility that small vessels, ice, and other floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range.
(E) The number, location, and movement of vessels detected by radar.
(F) 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.

[Bear Islander]

Les

Going after Erica is one thing.

But I think you should leave the victims alone.

[Woodsy]

Rusty...

Here are some the terms explained in an understandable format. Essentially the bill is worded the same as Coast Guard Rule #6.... Its universally accepted as the defacto rule governing all maritime activities and is taught in all Safe Boating classes across the United States.


http://powerboat.about.com/od/boatin...-SafeSpeed.htm

Woodsy

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Rusty...

Here are some the terms explained in an understandable format. Essentially the bill is worded the same as Coast Guard Rule #6.... Its universally accepted as the defacto rule governing all maritime activities and is taught in all Safe Boating classes across the United States.


http://powerboat.about.com/od/boatin...-SafeSpeed.htm

Woodsy

Apparently we in NH are not smart enough to follow the same rules as the rest of the universe. Instead, we must be governed like children (or idiots), and subjected to the false agendas of the elitists like WinnFabs.

Repeat after me:

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Rusty...

Here are some the terms explained in an understandable format. Essentially the bill is worded the same as Coast Guard Rule #6.... Its universally accepted as the defacto rule governing all maritime activities and is taught in all Safe Boating classes across the United States.


http://powerboat.about.com/od/boatin...-SafeSpeed.htm

Woodsy

Most of the additions in this Bill are not measureable (they are guidelines only) and will just add confusion to the RSA.

Revised Statutes Annotated (RSA’s) are not guidelines, they are the law!

Guidelines didn’t control the speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee before the law was put into place and they won’t if the speed limit is replaced.

The NH Marine Patrol can measure the speed of a boat but they cannot measure guidelines.

IMO absolutely no thought was put in SB-27 before it was written….it was just a cut and paste job that took about 5 minutes to do. The state of wind, sea, and current…. The draft in relation to the available depth of water….. The effect on radar detection of the sea state??? What a joke this is to put in a NH RSA. How in heck is anyone suppose to measure any of this stuff to tell a boater he is going too fast?

This Bill cannot and should not replace what is written in RSA 270-D:2.

[AllAbourdon]

Originally Posted by Rusty

The draft in relation to the available depth of water….. The effect on radar detection of the sea state??? What a joke this is to put in a NH RSA. How in heck is anyone suppose to measure any of this stuff to tell a boater he is going too fast?

This Bill cannot and should not replace what is written in RSA 270-D:2.

Are the Coast Guard Navigation rules written so that they are incomprehensible? Figured they had been around and used for a lot longer.

Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she
can take proper and effective action to avoid collision 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:
(a) By all vessels;
(i) the state of visibility;
(ii) the traffic density including concentrations of fishing
vessels or any other vessels;
(iii) the maneuverability 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 of 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.
(b) 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.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by AllAbourdon

Are the Coast Guard Navigation rules written so that they are incomprehensible? Figured they had been around and used for a lot longer.

Every vessel shall at all times proceed at a safe speed so that she
can take proper and effective action to avoid collision 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:
(a) By all vessels;
(i) the state of visibility;
(ii) the traffic density including concentrations of fishing
vessels or any other vessels;
(iii) the maneuverability 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 of 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.
(b) 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.

Rules are principles that tell us how we should act. Examples of rules would be: to take your hat off in school, be on time to class, don’t cheat at board games, and don’t tell a friend’s secret (unless they are in a harmful situation). Laws are a little bit different. Laws when disobeyed, result in serious consequences. Laws have been developed by a society or government, which apply to all people in that society. Failure to follow laws can result in legal consequences, such as, paying a fine, doing community service, or going to jail.

We should not be putting Rules in NH RSA's!

[NoBozo]

What does Skip think...Just wondering... NB

PS: If I keep talkin like this I'm gonna be moderated..Been There..Done That....YUP: Maybe I'm just kidding...

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Rules are principles that tell us how we should act. Examples of rules would be: to take your hat off in school, be on time to class, don’t cheat at board games, and don’t tell a friend’s secret (unless they are in a harmful situation). Laws are a little bit different. Laws when disobeyed, result in serious consequences. Laws have been developed by a society or government, which apply to all people in that society. Failure to follow laws can result in legal consequences, such as, paying a fine, doing community service, or going to jail.

We should not be putting Rules in NH RSA's!

Maybe you should throw out all the rules governing small business in NH. That will be a huge relief. How about it?

Also all the rules for NH insurance industry. Maybe we can have some competition to drive down the premiums. What do you think?

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Maybe you should throw out all the rules governing small business in NH. That will be a huge relief. How about it?

Also all the rules for NH insurance industry. Maybe we can have some competition to drive down the premiums. What do you think?

Works for me!

[Woodsy]

Rusty...

Not sure what your backround is, but rest assured the Coast Guard "Rules" carry the full weight of law behind them.... You can and will be cited by the USCG for breaking any of them! Violation of any of these "rules" in the wrong circumstances can and will result in death or serious injury! Most of our existing boating RSA's take thier language DIRECTLY from USCG Rules & Regulations and the COLREGS!

International Maritime Law has been around alot longer than this country has existed! Most of the laws we have on the book in NH and the rest of the US regarding safe boating operation come directly from COLREGS!

http://www.boatingsafety.com/colregs.htm

If you notice, the COLREGS (also adopted by USCG) are broken off into numbered sections.... Rules 1-3 define the terms used. Rule 4 on defines the actual Rule of Law.

Also... last I checked there are no "signs" bobbing in the waters of Lake Winnipesaukee telling you what speeds are allowed. In fact I dont recall any signage at the boat launch either!

Woodsy

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

How in heck is anyone suppose to measure any of this stuff to tell a boater he is going too fast?

And what data exists to show that 45 MPH is too fast??????

[lawn psycho]

Hey Rusty, I think the WinnFlabs supporters must feel like they are standing on the deck of this ship. MUUUUUWAHAHAHAHAHA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVRxv...eature=related

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Reading this new Bill is making me sea sick.

Below is some of the wording in SB-27 that I don't understand:
... shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights?
... The state of wind, sea, and current?
... The draft in relation to the available depth of water?
... The characteristics, efficiency, and limitations of the radar equipment?
... The effect on radar detection of the sea state?

I know I'm not the brightest bulb in this forum but could someone who helped write this Bill explain these things to me.

This is how some of it is written:

(1) By all vessels:
(A) The state of visibility.
(B) The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels.
(C) The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions.
(D) At night, the presence of background light such as from shore lights or from back scatter from her own lights.
(E) The state of wind, sea, and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards.
(F) The draft in relation to the available depth of water.
(2) Additionally, by vessels with operational radar:
(A) The characteristics, efficiency, and limitations of the radar equipment.
(B) Any constraints imposed by the radar range scale in use.
(C) The effect on radar detection of the sea state, weather, and other sources of interference.
(D) The possibility that small vessels, ice, and other floating objects may not be detected by radar at an adequate range.
(E) The number, location, and movement of vessels detected by radar.
(F) 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.

I'm sorry but if you can't understand those statements, then you should NOT be operating a boat and that goes for anyone else that can't understand them!! You people that are so confused by those statements, do everyone else a favor and STAY OFF THE LAKE; YOU'RE THE REASON THE LAKE IS UNSAFE!! It's not unsafe just because a boat can travel faster than 45mph.

Originally Posted by Rusty

Rules are principles that tell us how we should act. Examples of rules would be: to take your hat off in school, be on time to class, don’t cheat at board games, and don’t tell a friend’s secret (unless they are in a harmful situation). Laws are a little bit different. Laws when disobeyed, result in serious consequences. Laws have been developed by a society or government, which apply to all people in that society. Failure to follow laws can result in legal consequences, such as, paying a fine, doing community service, or going to jail.

We should not be putting Rules in NH RSA's!

There's more than just the literal interpretation of the word "rule" that can be considered. You've never heard of "rules of the road" when driving a car? Perhaps you shouldn't be operating a car either!!

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

I'm sorry but if you can't understand those statements, then you should NOT be operating a boat and that goes for anyone else that can't understand them!! You people that are so confused by those statements, do everyone else a favor and STAY OFF THE LAKE; YOU'RE THE REASON THE LAKE IS UNSAFE!! It's not unsafe just because a boat can travel faster than 45mph.

There's more than just the literal interpretation of the word "rule" that can be considered. You've never heard of "rules of the road" when driving a car? Perhaps you shouldn't be operating a car either!!

NH RSA’s are not meant to be training manuals. If you want to know what the Boating Safty Rules are then go here: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rule...saf-c6100.html


These signs will take the variables out of my calculations when I need to know how fast I can go.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Why not just make one huge sign that says BOAT NOT PERMITTED and then all the problems go away. It would even stop the people from griping about shorefont property taxes as the house values drop, island properties would become worthless and less people would mean improved water quality, there would be no risk to humanity of getting hit by a boat, the docks would not need to be in the water and impacting fish species, no need for marine patrol expenses and maintaining all the markers, there would be no BUI, no need for the legislature to come up with endless laws to appease a small number of people who happen to own on Winni. Those are all just ideas from the 1st 1 um into my frontal lobe I'm sure there are many other ills that the banning ALL people from the lake would solve.

See, don't tell me I can't solve problems! Be careful what you wish for Rusty.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Rusty

These signs will take the variables out of my calculations when I need to know how fast I can go.

One of my winter visitations includes about 40 square miles of mostly woodlands and a few hundred residences. The speed limit is 25-MPH, and in a few places, 20-MPH.

With a hundred miles of dead-straight roadways, why is the speed limit set at 25?

Because these roadways pass through about 40 square miles of a Federal Wildlife Preserve set aside to save an endangered sub-species of deer!

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

One of my winter visitations includes about 40 square miles of mostly woodlands and a few hundred residences. The speed limit is 25-MPH, and in a few places, 20-MPH.

With a hundred miles of dead-straight roadways, why is the speed limit set at 25?

Because these roadways pass through about 40 square miles of a Federal Wildlife Preserve set aside to save an endangered sub-species of deer!

APS, every time someone steps on the lake bottom they cause water quality to decline as sediment that gets kicked up reduces clarity. If you were to sample the beach in front of shorefront houses during weekend play you would likely see an increase on phosphorus and N2 in the water.

Did you know that slower speeds in no-wake zones can churn up a lot of sediment than would be the case at higher speed?

The placement of docks and boathouses impacts fish species.

There is hard science to back-up what I am discussing. So since you are one of the people who promotes these kinds of things, are you willing to forgo your dock and shorefront properties from having beaches?

How about allowing faster speeds through NWZs to correspond to the average depth? Could be 8-12 MPH instead of a blanket 6 MPH.

Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is or are you they typical Winni "as long as I have mine" type of guy?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by ronc4424

SB-27 would undermine common sense speed limits on big lake...From our own experience, boats used to be able to legally go 85 MPH just 150 feet off shore near where we stay.

1) "Common sense" is the rarity we have all been striving for: "reasonable and prudent" is not.

2) "Near where we stay" is the language of a visitor to the lake: Winnipesaukee's lakefront residents aren't the only complainants.

Originally Posted by jarhead0341

I'm sure the booze wasn't the problem. 3 mph slower would have made a difference or perhaps if they where all traveling at reasonable or prudent speed the outcome would have been different

Come to think of it, under 45 is a "reasonable and prudent" speed. The vast majority of PFDs aren't capable of water impact at any greater speeds: If your PFD was purchased recently, look inside yours—you'll see that disclaimer!

[jarhead0341]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) "Common sense" is the rarity we have all been striving for: "reasonable and prudent" is not.

2) "Near where we stay" is the language of a visitor to the lake: Winnipesaukee's lakefront residents aren't the only complainants.



Come to think of it, under 45 is a "reasonable and prudent" speed. The vast majority of PFDs aren't capable of water impact at any greater speeds: If your PFD was purchased recently, look inside yours—you'll see that disclaimer!

So isn't 80 or 100 given the right conditions and situations

[ApS]

Originally Posted by jarhead0341

So isn't 80 or 100 given the right conditions and situations

1) "The right conditions" can't exist on a primarily residential lake with 253 islands, irregular inlets, coves, bays, harbors, with a wide assortment of recreational boaters day and night.

2) Just as BoaterEd's Les Hall writes from Concord:

"Take it to the ocean, it's only 1½-hours away."

3) Empathy is a vital trait—the glue that holds civilized society together. Empathy is generally conceived as the ability to put oneself in another’s shoes...what it would be like to be the other person and then experience similar reactions ourselves, and to have more of an involuntary, automatic response.

Our peaceable boaters are not getting empathy.

Originally Posted by jarhead0341

just looking for a no bs answer if numbers 1 thru 5 are followed why the need for a speed limit ......... and if people dont follow 1 thru 5 why does anyone think they will follow the speed limit ?

Our Speed Limit comes with a points system.

[Rusty]

This video shows what Lake Winnnipesaukee will look like every summer if SB-27 is passed:

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Except for daytime rather than nightime, this video looks like leaving Wolfeboro after July 4th fireworks.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Except for daytime rather than nightime, this video looks like leaving Wolfeboro after July 4th fireworks.

It wouldn't surprise me a bit Sue Doe-Nym.

Do you think any of these Go Fast Boaters were being “reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions”?

Do you think that any of these Go Fast Boaters took into consideration the following Coast Guard “RULES” which is written in SB-27

(A) The state of visibility.
(B) The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels.
(C) The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions.
(E) The state of wind, sea, and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards.
(F) The draft in relation to the available depth of water.

[Novah]

Originally Posted by Rusty

It wouldn't surprise me a bit Sue Doe-Nym.

Do you think any of these Go Fast Boaters were being “reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions”?

Do you think that any of these Go Fast Boaters took into consideration the following Coast Guard “RULES” which is written in SB-27

(A) The state of visibility.
(B) The traffic density including concentrations of fishing vessels or any other vessels.
(C) The manageability of the vessel with special reference to stopping distance and turning ability in the prevailing conditions.
(E) The state of wind, sea, and current, and the proximity of navigational hazards.
(F) The draft in relation to the available depth of water.

Rusty - I am against the speed limit. However, I agree there were some shots in the video that showed a pre-speed limit law being broken. The problem was not the speed of the boats, it was the closeness. It is illegal to travel under 150 feet from another boat even if the other operator is your good buddy.

There existing law to control this says anything over headway speed requires 150 feet between the boats. That is probably the law that is broken the most on our lakes. And yes, the boats in the video appear to be breaking it. They would have been breaking it at 45 miles per hour as well so the speed limit is not fixing the problem.

[MAXUM]

Well isn't that something, Thurston complaining about the safety of the lake and the speed limit. Hey how many times have I seen some yahoo outfitted with one of his rental boats, out there on the lake doing things far more dangerous and foolish than just going "fast"?

I say banning rentals is much more likely to have an affect on the overall safety of the lake.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

I say banning rentals is much more likely to have an affect on the overall safety of the lake.

Perhaps banning them entirely is going a bit too far but I don't see why they can't be required to produce a similar "license certification" as they would to rent a car!! You don't see National, Budget, Hertz or Avis renting a car to anyone without a valid driver's license! Renting a boat should be the same.

I still think the state should be licensing boat operators, just like they license operators of motorcycles, cars, trucks and airplane pilots, etc!

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

I still think the state should be licensing boat operators, just like they license operators of motorcycles, cars, trucks and airplane pilots, etc!

I don't disagree with your premise, but a License to fly a plane is a whole different category. The State has nothing to do with getting a Pilots License. The FAA (Federal) requires prospective pilots to get flight instruction from FAA Certified Flight Instructors AND have a minimum number of flight hours AND pass a written exam AND take a rigerous "Behind The Wheel" exam with an FAA Check Pilot...NOT your flight instructor, before being issued a License.

The FAA minimum number of Flight hours required is 40, BUT in Real Life it usually runs better than 60 hours.....IN The Plane. BTW: That is for a Full Fledged Pilots License..not the so called "Sports Pilot License" which is a relatively new category which carries numerous RESTRICTIONS. NB

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

I don't disagree with your premise, but a License to fly a plane is a whole different category. The State has nothing to do with getting a Pilots License. The FAA (Federal) requires prospective pilots to get flight instruction from FAA Certified Flight Instructors AND have a minimum number of flight hours AND pass a written exam AND take a rigerous "Behind The Wheel" exam with an FAA Check Pilot...NOT your flight instructor, before being issued a License.

The FAA minimum number of Flight hours required is 40, BUT in Real Life it usually runs better than 60 hours.....IN The Plane. BTW: That is for a Full Fledged Pilots License..not the so called "Sports Pilot License" which is a relatively new category which carries numerous RESTRICTIONS. NB

Mea culpa......that one was a bad example but you know what I was getting at. Something more than a "quickie quiz" administered by the marina renting the boat should be required! Like Seaplane Pilot said, has a marina ever flunked someone with money to spend?

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

Like Seaplane Pilot said, has a marina ever flunked someone with money to spend?

Wanna bet that more citations were issued to operators of rental boats for various infractions compared to the total number of speeding tickets handed out to ALL boaters?

I'd sure be curious to know just how many people "flunked". I agree w/ Seaplane no way anyone is going to turn away money that's sitting on the counter.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Wanna bet that more citations were issued to operators of rental boats for various infractions compared to the total number of speeding tickets handed out to ALL boaters?

I'll take that bet. Why? MP probably issues more warnings and tells renters "don't do that again" and gives them a free pass rather than issue a ticket.

The first order of business would be to get the MP to even record this level of detail. I doubt they do but maybe they'll suprise us.

In any event, it is ironic (err, moronic) that rental places would open their mouths about passing restrictive boating laws.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Well isn't that something, Thurston complaining about the safety of the lake and the speed limit. Hey how many times have I seen some yahoo outfitted with one of his rental boats, out there on the lake doing things far more dangerous and foolish than just going "fast"?

I say banning rentals is much more likely to have an affect on the overall safety of the lake.

Not just Thurston's but Fay's as well. Seriously, I think it's time for a bill to require a full Boater's Education Certificate to rent a boat (or PWC), not just a 10 second "quiz" given by the renter himself. (I wonder how many have actually "flunked" the renter, passing up the nice rental fee? I don't feel safe on the lake with these loose-cannon, unexperienced, uneducated renters operating boats. What do you say Senator Forrester? Senator Bradley? Hello...are you out there?

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Not just Thurston's but Fay's as well. Seriously, I think it's time for a bill to require a full Boater's Education Certificate to rent a boat (or PWC), not just a 10 second "quiz" given by the renter himself. (I wonder how many have actually "flunked" the renter, passing up the nice rental fee? I don't feel safe on the lake with these loose-cannon, unexperienced, uneducated renters operating boats. What do you say Senator Forrester? Senator Bradley? Hello...are you out there?

I think you are onto something with that suggestion!
Now is the time to get a bill going that will require a full Boater's Education Certificate to rent a boat (or PWC). No more of this 14 Day Temporary NH Safe Boating Certificate that is administrated by crooks who only want the money and could care less about the safety of honest hard working safe boaters. I’ll bet that there wasn’t one customer of these dishonest boat rental businesses that passed that test. We’ve got to get them off our Lakes before it’s too late. I’m sure statistics will show that the majority of tickets issued by the MP are to people who only had a temporary certificate.
Hey, how many times have I seen some yahoo outfitted with one of Shep Brown’s Boat Basin rental boats out there on the lake doing things far more dangerous and foolish than just going "fast"? I am going to pass the word around to boycott any boat rental business that allows anyone to rent a boat to someone who only has a temporary certificate. I’ll make sure to tell them that IMHO Shep Brown’ Boat Basin is the biggest offender.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Rusty

I think you are onto something with that suggestion!
Now is the time to get a bill going that will require a full Boater's Education Certificate to rent a boat (or PWC). No more of this 14 Day Temporary NH Safe Boating Certificate that is administrated by crooks who only want the money and could care less about the safety of honest hard working safe boaters. I’ll bet that there wasn’t one customer of these dishonest boat rental businesses that passed that test. We’ve got to get them off our Lakes before it’s too late. I’m sure statistics will show that the majority of tickets issued by the MP are to people who only had a temporary certificate.
Hey, how many times have I seen some yahoo outfitted with one of Shep Brown’s Boat Basin rental boats out there on the lake doing things far more dangerous and foolish than just going "fast"? I am going to pass the word around to boycott any boat rental business that allows anyone to rent a boat to someone who only has a temporary certificate. I’ll make sure to tell them that IMHO Shep Brown’ Boat Basin is the biggest offender.

Now you're barking up the right tree. Go after a real problem. Not sure about Shep's, but Thurstons is probably the worst offender.

[NHBUOY]

...let's see if I got this right...an INORDINATE amount of "licensed boaters" DON'T (or WON'T) follow the simple "Rules of the Road(water)" & operate their boats while under the influence...Enforce THESE rules/laws...Don't make NEW laws that are going to be "ignored" & NOT enforced...

[fatlazyless]

If John Steven were the governor, then this 55-mph increase would have a much better chance. With Governor Lynch, it's seems very likely that he will use his veto stamp and slap a fast veto on the bill if it passes the house.

Will it even pass the House? Nobody knows until the vote is held, but most likely there's plenty state reps who are keen to the governor's veto and will not care enough about the increase to 55 to be on the losing side when it will most likely get a veto, anyway. Probably, a number of undecided state reps will be no-shows on the day of the vote and essentially be punting on this issue.

[Winndow]

The Marine Patrol just testified to a bill in the Senate. HB 0548: Minimum Age for Operation. Amend RSA 270:30, I to read as follows:

I. Except as provided in this paragraph, no person under 16 years of age shall operate a motorized vessel [having power in excess of 25 horsepower] on the public waters of this state unless the person is accompanied by a person 18 years of age or older who has a valid safe boater education certificate, and such person shall be liable for personal injury or property damage which may result from such operation. Any person 12 to 15 years of age with a safe boater education certificate may operate a vessel having power of 25 horsepower or less without an adult.

2 Safe Boater Education; Certificate Required. RSA 270-D:10, I is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

I. No person shall operate a motorized vessel on the public waters of this state without first obtaining a safe boater education certificate.

3 Possession Required. Amend RSA 270-D:11, I(a) to read as follows:

(a) Possess the certificate when operating a motorized vessel [with any type of power motor in excess of 25 horsepower] on the public waters of the state.

4 Safe Boater Education Certificate. Amend the introductory paragraph of RSA 270-D:13, I to read as follows:

I. The commissioner or designee shall issue a safe boater education certificate to a person [16] 12 years of age or older who:

5 Repeal. The following are repealed:

I. RSA 270-D:13, IV, relative to attendance by 15-year-olds.

II. RSA 270-D:19, relative to voluntary attendance.

6 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2012.


This would require all people operating a powerboat to take a boating course. (Currently a 3 year old can drive a 25 hp boat!) It also limits the age for operation for 12-15 yr olds to 25 hp. No one younger could operate.

This bill passed the house but met serious resistence in the Senate at the committee level because several dealers spoke in opposition. Who??
You guessed it...Jeff Thurston, Merrill Fay, Shep Browns (Littlefield), One of the Crawfords from Winnisquam Marine, and others. They cry for safety and speed limits but they argued that financially this bill hurts them because people walk away from rentals when they realize they have to take a 1/2 test! Wiinisquam Marine has a fleet of 25 hp boats just so they can avoid the law.

I was sitting in on the hearing requiring 70 yr olds to take a driving test and this was the hearing before ours. I was shocked when these dealers spoke in opposition. I figured they were going to support. $$$ talks!

[lawn psycho]

I hope someone writes an editorial in the local papers to point out the hypocrisy.

Any dealer who supports the SL won't see $0.01 of my money.

[Chimi]

Originally Posted by Winndow

The Marine Patrol just testified to a bill in the Senate. HB 0548: Minimum Age for Operation. Amend RSA 270:30, I to read as follows:

I. Except as provided in this paragraph, no person under 16 years of age shall operate a motorized vessel [having power in excess of 25 horsepower] on the public waters of this state unless the person is accompanied by a person 18 years of age or older who has a valid safe boater education certificate, and such person shall be liable for personal injury or property damage which may result from such operation. Any person 12 to 15 years of age with a safe boater education certificate may operate a vessel having power of 25 horsepower or less without an adult.

2 Safe Boater Education; Certificate Required. RSA 270-D:10, I is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:

I. No person shall operate a motorized vessel on the public waters of this state without first obtaining a safe boater education certificate.

3 Possession Required. Amend RSA 270-D:11, I(a) to read as follows:

(a) Possess the certificate when operating a motorized vessel [with any type of power motor in excess of 25 horsepower] on the public waters of the state.

4 Safe Boater Education Certificate. Amend the introductory paragraph of RSA 270-D:13, I to read as follows:

I. The commissioner or designee shall issue a safe boater education certificate to a person [16] 12 years of age or older who:

5 Repeal. The following are repealed:

I. RSA 270-D:13, IV, relative to attendance by 15-year-olds.

II. RSA 270-D:19, relative to voluntary attendance.

6 Effective Date. This act shall take effect January 1, 2012.


This would require all people operating a powerboat to take a boating course. (Currently a 3 year old can drive a 25 hp boat!) It also limits the age for operation for 12-15 yr olds to 25 hp. No one younger could operate.

This bill passed the house but met serious resistence in the Senate at the committee level because several dealers spoke in opposition. Who??
You guessed it...Jeff Thurston, Merrill Fay, Shep Browns (Littlefield), One of the Crawfords from Winnisquam Marine, and others. They cry for safety and speed limits but they argued that financially this bill hurts them because people walk away from rentals when they realize they have to take a 1/2 test! Wiinisquam Marine has a fleet of 25 hp boats just so they can avoid the law.

I was sitting in on the hearing requiring 70 yr olds to take a driving test and this was the hearing before ours. I was shocked when these dealers spoke in opposition. I figured they were going to support. $$$ talks!

Where does WINNFABS stand on this issue? They should be in full support.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

If John Steven were the governor, then this 55-mph increase would have a much better chance. With Governor Lynch, it's seems very likely that he will use his veto stamp and slap a fast veto on the bill if it passes the house.

Will it even pass the House? Nobody knows until the vote is held, but most likely there's plenty state reps who are keen to the governor's veto and will not care enough about the increase to 55 to be on the losing side when it will most likely get a veto, anyway. Probably, a number of undecided state reps will be no-shows on the day of the vote and essentially be punting on this issue.

Yes, well how about that and isn't that interesting......gee whiz......no kidding!

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

This video shows what Lake Winnnipesaukee will look like every summer if SB-27 is passed:

Rusty I ask you to be objective. Do those boats in any way look like they are threatening anybody? Is it the noise or the appearance of speed?

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Rusty I ask you to be objective. Do those boats in any way look like they are threatening anybody? Is it the noise or the appearance of speed?

Evidently you didn't watch the video!!!

So I did a cut that is 2:28 into the video that shows one GFB amost hitting a sail boat. Go to that section of the video and tell me these guys aren't violating some Coast Guard "Rule".
Don't just jump into a conversation without atleast giving it some thought!

Take some time to watch that video and you will see that they could care less who gets in their way!!

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Evidently you didn't watch the video!!!

So I did a cut that is 2:28 into the video that shows one GFB amost hitting a sail boat. Go to that section of the video and tell me these guys aren't violating some Coast Guard "Rule".
Don't just jump into a conversation without atleast giving it some thought!

Take some time to watch that video and you will see that they could care less who gets in their way!!

I did watch the video. What I do see is what appears to be violation of the 150 ft rule (more than once).

I would also not characterize when they passed the sailboat as "almost hitting" it. Although zoom camera angles can fool us, it does however appear less than 150 ft away.

Go to Sebago. There is no 150 ft rule. The world does not end over there....

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

I did watch the video. What I do see is what appears to be violation of the 150 ft rule (more than once).

I would also not characterize when they passed the sailboat as "almost hitting" it. Although zoom camera angles can fool us, it does however appear less than 150 ft away.

Go to Sebago. There is no 150 ft rule. The world does not end over there....

NO!!!! You go to Sebago.....I like Lake Winnipesaukee just the way it is thank you.

The Senate Transportation Committee will hold a hearing on SB27 on Thursday, February 24 at 9am in Room 305/307 of the Legislative Office Building, which is the building across the street behind the Statehouse in Concord.

See you there lawn psycho

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

See you there lawn psycho

Unfortunately you won't. I'll be in San Jose that day for work unless they allow me to Skype in some testimony and soon thereafter I am back over the pond in Asia for a couple more weeks.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Unfortunately you won't. I'll be in San Jose that day for work unless they allow me to Skype in some testimony and soon thereafter I am back over the pond in Asia for a couple more weeks.

Say hi to Mr. Li (Lee) for me.

yāt louh seuhn fùng!

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Say hi to Mr. Li (Lee) for me.

yāt louh seuhn fùng!

Lee is more common in Korea (as is Kim) It's Mr. Liu in China....

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Rusty

This video shows what Lake Winnnipesaukee will look like every summer if SB-27 is passed:

Winnipesaukee with the passage of SB-27 would actually look just like Winnipesaukee without SB-27. As far as I can tell, SB-27 does not require people to operate at high speeds.

Why don't you show a video from Winnipesaukee prior to the speed limit? Wouldn't that be a more realistic depiction of Winnipesaukee without the current speed limit?

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Winnipesaukee with the passage of SB-27 would actually look just like Winnipesaukee without SB-27. As far as I can tell, SB-27 does not require people to operate at high speeds.

Why don't you show a video from Winnipesaukee prior to the speed limit? Wouldn't that be a more realistic depiction of Winnipesaukee without the current speed limit?

You say: "Winnipesaukee with the passage of SB-27 would actually look just like Winnipesaukee without SB-27."

I say: No it won’t, it will look just like that video with the President of SBONH leading the charge.

You say: "As far as I can tell, SB-27 does not require people to operate at high speeds."

I say: I know it doesn’t but they will and the President of the SBONH will lead the charge.

You say: "Why don't you show a video from Winnipesaukee prior to the speed limit? Wouldn't that be a more realistic depiction of Winnipesaukee without the current speed limit?"

I say: Believe me, prior to the speed limit I have seen days on Lake Winnipesaukee just like that video.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

You say: "Winnipesaukee with the passage of SB-27 would actually look just like Winnipesaukee without SB-27."

I say: No it won’t, it will look just like that video with the President of SBONH leading the charge.

You say: "As far as I can tell, SB-27 does not require people to operate at high speeds."

I say: I know it doesn’t but they will and the President of the SBONH will lead the charge.

You say: "Why don't you show a video from Winnipesaukee prior to the speed limit? Wouldn't that be a more realistic depiction of Winnipesaukee without the current speed limit?"

I say: Believe me, prior to the speed limit I have seen days on Lake Winnipesaukee just like that video.

Rusty, simple yes or no question.

Prior to the speed limit bill passing would the operators of those vessels be subject to ticketing for boating offenses?

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Rusty, simple yes or no question.

Prior to the speed limit bill passing would the operators of those vessels be subject to ticketing for boating offenses?

YES

This is my last post for this thread, I don’t want the webmaster to moderate me because I post too much.

See you all at the hearing on SB27 on Thursday, February 24 at 9am in Room 305/307 of the Legislative Office Building.

Rusty

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Rusty

YES

This is my last post for this thread, I don’t want the webmaster to moderate me because I post too much.

Rusty

The webmaster will not moderate you for posting too much, he only moderates when one posts too much garbage.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

The webmaster will not moderate you for posting too much, he only moderates when one posts too much garbage.

I know I said I wouldn't post again in this thread but I think Vitabene's comment should be addressed.

In the “Posting Guidelines” that are in the FAQ section it states the following: “Don't post excessive numbers of messages or comments. Posting more than a few messages or comments in a day is excessive and may get you moderated or restricted.”

I know there are a lot of members (including me) who post more than “a few” in a day but I just don’t want to be moderated if I over post.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Rusty

YES

This is my last post for this thread, I don’t want the webmaster to moderate me because I post too much.

See you all at the hearing on SB27 on Thursday, February 24 at 9am in Room 305/307 of the Legislative Office Building.

Rusty

Rusty, my issue with that video is there is what I would consider reckless operation which had a MP boat been in the area I suspect they would have been stopped. However, I think it's the sound that really draws the attention too them and why people oppose them.

Last summer we were at the West Alton sandbar and one of the super shiny old-school wooden boats picked up anchor. When he started the motor I swear it must have regsitered as a mini-quake. As he pulled away, he headed somewhere towards Wolfeboro at what appeared crusing speed probably around 20-25 MPH. That boat was loud and my wife's comment was, "why does he have to drive it so fast"?

Keep in mind that most basic bowriders can reach 50 MPH so making every boat on the water into law breakers isn't fair either. The speed limit doesn't change a single thing on the lake.

If you think the dumb moves are isolated to high performance boats you don't boat on the same Winni I do. However, I do find most people respectful of other boats and it's not pandamonium as the SL supporters would like to mislead the non-boating public to believe.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Believe me, prior to the speed limit I have seen days on Lake Winnipesaukee just like that video.

I've been boating on Winnipesaukee for 36 years. I don't believe you.

Here's a video that just as unrelated as the one you posted, but more entertaining.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Go to Sebago. There is no 150 ft rule. The world does not end over there....

Sebago has adequate line-of-sight nearly everywhere. Immediately adjacent is a lake where the world ended for two peaceable boaters.

(That perpetrator—described as "unremorseful and perjurous" by the judge—will be out of jail just in time for this 4th of July holiday-weekend.)

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

APS, every time someone steps on the lake bottom they cause water quality to decline as sediment that gets kicked up reduces clarity. If you were to sample the beach in front of shorefront houses during weekend play you would likely see an increase on phosphorus and N2 in the water.

Did you know that slower speeds in no-wake zones can churn up a lot of sediment than would be the case at higher speed?

The placement of docks and boathouses impacts fish species.

There is hard science to back-up what I am discussing. So since you are one of the people who promotes these kinds of things, are you willing to forgo your dock and shorefront properties from having beaches?

How about allowing faster speeds through NWZs to correspond to the average depth? Could be 8-12 MPH instead of a blanket 6 MPH.

Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is or are you they typical Winni "as long as I have mine" type of guy?

I've "had mine" for 55 years, so I can advise you that some visitors reversed Winnipesaukee's "relax-coefficient". Things got tense if you were a peaceable boater.

The situation got steadily worse until the Speed Limit came to the lake.

1) Sediment (+ Nitrogen and Phosphorus) is DES' responsibility—take it up with them.

2) "Producing-more-sediment-at-slower-speeds-than-No-Wake" is a new one on me.

3) Oversized boats produce greater damage above a genuine "no-wake" speed.

4) Ask any fisherman, fish are actually attracted to "structure".

My money is on the Speed Limit.

Originally Posted by Dave R

Winnipesaukee with the passage of SB-27 would actually look just like Winnipesaukee without SB-27.

1) In some ways, you are correct.

Rob LaPointe established a horrendous driving record before committing his double-homicide upon two peaceable boaters. The "points" gathered in the 22 convictions on his driving record meant nothing to him. Like Lake Winnipesaukee's most recent "celebrity", he retains "good" lawyers.

2) Last season, I watched as a GFBL passed a Marine Patrol at double the speed limit; at the time, the NHMP boat was towing a PWC, and unable/unwilling—to enforce noise- or speed- limits.

I've watched many summers as many other over-sized boats chose to ignore the laws they didn't like.

3) That Director Barrett is only lukewarm into enforcements, just may mean his time is up! (Just as former Commissioner Richard Flynn's backroom "monkeying" with Speed Limits led to his eventual replacement.)

Originally Posted by Dave R

Why don't you [Rusty] show a video from Winnipesaukee prior to the speed limit? Wouldn't that be a more realistic depiction of Winnipesaukee without the current speed limit?

I am now "out" of this discussion until Wednesday—but:

You can never beat "The Longest and Safest Season in Anyone's Memory".

1) SB-27 removes the speed limits, the points system, and any chance of ridding BWI through NHMP use of RADAR. (Especially RADAR after dark, when NHMP patrolboats are nearly indistinguishable from other night boat traffic).

2) Since these changes apply throughout the state, does Squam Lake risk losing its "kinder" reputation as well?

3) A Tuftonboro family—who remain unknown to me—tried to hand me their video camera—right from their dock! I had to turn down that offer, as there was great risk in being a small boater near this airborne ocean-racer, so this photo must substitute for the video.

BTW: This photo accompanied every letter I've mailed to those Representatives and Senators who were wishy-washy on Speed Limits.

'Guess I'll need to mail those again—just to make sure.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

[1) Sediment (+ Nitrogen and Phosphorus) is DES' responsibility—take it up with them.

2) "Producing-more-sediment-at-slower-speeds-than-No-Wake" is a new one on me.

3) Oversized boats produce greater damage above a genuine "no-wake" speed.

4) Ask any fisherman, fish are actually attracted to "structure".

My money is on the Speed Limit.

Here's one of a bizillion tidbits of information that I could link. I'm sure NH has something similar. http://www-heb.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pub...moorage_e.pdfS

A boathouse and covered dock is simply stealing from the lake as that area is totally shaded.

The biggest threat to the lake are those who on shorefront property. How many things from their properties and docks end up in the lake. You talk about stuff making into the lake. Let's talk about run-off from clearings and the 100s and 100s of septic fields that are nowvery close to the lake.

So keep spewing your venom about how everyone else is raining on your parade while you're the bigger part of the problem.

Too busy to play scientist right now.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Here's one of a bizillion tidbits of information that I could link. I'm sure NH has something similar. http://www-heb.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pub.../moorage_e.pdf
A boathouse and covered dock is simply stealing from the lake as that area is totally shaded. Keep spewing your venom about how everyone else is raining on your parade while you're the bigger part of the problem. Too busy to play scientist right now.

1) Look under many moored boats on the lake: Go slowly and you'll see Smallmouth Bass "taking in the view" from under those moored boats.

Triple-digit speeds—in any way that SBONH defines it—are no way to take in the many natural wonders and scenic beauty of Lake Winnipesaukee.

2) http://www-heb.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/pub.../moorage_e.pdf

Your "documentation" concerns the ocean's marine environment in Canada.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Your "documentation" concerns the ocean's marine environment in Canada.

APS, I give you an open invite to open a specific thread on this topic. Your choice.

[topwater]

BY Acres per Second.

Triple-digit speeds—in any way that SBONH defines it—are no way to take in the many natural wonders and scenic beauty of Lake Winnipesaukee.

That is such a STUPID statement. You are a foolish man. Talk about making things up, my goodness. I bet you have never, ever seen a boat go triple digit speed on Winnie in your life. Other then regulated boat races a few years ago. Speak the truth and others will listen, Talking BS, people think your a fool. But, I suppose if the shoe fits?? Just saying !!