Proposed Law

[pm203]

As the owner of a boat that will do well over 90 mph,this proposed law will do nothing to change the way I boat one bit. The majority of the time, I cruise around 45 mph . Other times, when conditions permit, I might go for a short, high speed run, whether it's 60,70 or more. Law or no law, you cannot stop the speeding and noise any more than you can on route 93. I will continue to boat as I always have. And, from what I have been told, even if I get issued a ticket, which is VERY unlikely, it can be fought and won. I have muffled my boat to comply to noise regulations and do observe all current boating laws. Unfortunately, I will not respect or comply with a speed limit on this lake. Good luck trying to enforce it.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by pm203

As the owner of a boat that will do well over 90 mph,this proposed law will do nothing to change the way I boat one bit. The majority of the time, I cruise around 45 mph . Other times, when conditions permit, I might go for a short, high speed run, whether it's 60,70 or more. Law or no law, you cannot stop the speeding and noise any more than you can on route 93. I will continue to boat as I always have. And, from what I have been told, even if I get issued a ticket, which is VERY unlikely, it can be fought and won. I have muffled my boat to comply to noise regulations and do observe all current boating laws. Unfortunately, I will not respect or comply with a speed limit on this lake. Good luck trying to enforce it.

Although you won't be able to hear us, we will be cheering like crazy when you go by.

Live free or die.

[pm203]

Thank you for your support. And, yes, live free or die!

[fatlazyless]

If the 45/25 law actually gets passed in the new legislative session, why not set up a designated hi-speed area, since Winnipesaukee has a long and checkered history as a high speed type of a lake.

I suppose the big question is what area of the lake and for when?

Also, if it does pass, this forum will have lost its' biggest arguing issue in its' eleven year, forum history. We will definately need a new issue for us knuckleheads to argue over. The speed limits issue....it will be missed...

As a Wolfeboro hometown guy, waterskiing whiz. and a candidate, I wonder how Mitt Romney feels about the speed limits issue?

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

If the 45/25 law actually gets passed in the new legislative session, why not set up a designated hi-speed area, since Winnipesaukee has a long and checkered history as a high speed type of a lake.

I suggest Bob Bahre's, Clay Point, 36 million dollar, mega-mansion area in Alton. Ever drive past Bob's New Hampshire International Speedway and see his sign; it say's

HAVE A SPEEDY DAY!

Plus, now that he sold it, he'll have plenty free time.

I do not think this would work or this should be done. IT would crowd certain parts of the lake and it was cause marine patrol to stay in that area inatead of patrolling the whole lake. Also a lot of people in that area will make a fuss. There should be no speed limit on the lake, this is letting the few spoil for many others. This is what Marine Patrol is here for, just like on Highways with the Highway Patrol

[Bear Islander]

When the speed limit passes it will be too late to set up a "high-speed area" without passing another law.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

When the speed limit passes it will be to late to set up a "high-speed area" without passing another law.

If a bill must pass, it should include a distance from shore qualifier. For example, the speed limit would only be set within 100 yards of a populated shoreline. The boat separation would also be increased to 100 yards when above 50 MPH - with the faster boat as the burdened one. No law should pass until it accounts for fast-safe travel.

[Phantom]

Seems to me that (from the comments above) everyone has conceded that the Bill will pass ............. instead of continuing to fight vehemently, as the opposition continues to do !!

Happy (& Safe) New Year's to all.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Seems to me that (from the comments above) everyone has conceded that the Bill will pass ............. instead of continuing to fight vehemently, as the opposition continues to do !!

Happy (& Safe) New Year's to all.

The bill as attempted before will likely get a repeat of strong opposition. The democrats that help it pass are up for election next year so need to be careful they vote on the right side of the issue. A compromise that makes sense, is not based on fear, and allows safe-fast travel (day and night) might have a chance.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

"...The democrats that help it pass are up for election next year so need to be careful they vote on the right side of the issue..."

It is because they were on the right side of the issue that the bill exists at all.

I proposed a generous 130-MPH limit here that got rejected.

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

"...A compromise that makes sense, is not based on fear, and allows safe-fast travel (day and night) might have a chance...."

After several years of discussions, the compromise exists as a "three-year sunset" on the rule.

Surely the cult of high speed and death can keep Winnipesaukee's boaters safe for three years!

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Surely the cult of high speed and death can keep Winnipesaukee's boaters safe for three years!

How many innocent people have been runover and killed these past 3 years ?

Alas I doubt we'll ever have a bill that saves us from the cult of hyperbole and vitriol.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

How many innocent people have been run over and killed these past 3 years ?

1) Run over? Gee-golly...we have to look all the way back to August!

2) Or, I'll put it this way: More innocents than I want to wait for...to appear on "Google News Alerts". (Two photographers died in December celebrating this "Cult", btw.)

3) Killed? How far do we need to look?

Long Lake's high speed double-fatality would have been averted with any ten-year-old girl behind the wheel rather than some wealthy jerk out to prove that his chromosomes are more important than others'.

What do you propose be done about ocean-racers catapulting themselves 120-feet over your lakefront's property line?

4) Originally, I suggested that New Hampshire pass—then suspend—a speed limit indefinitely. Then reinstate it immediately upon the occurrence of a NH freshwater double-fatality attributable to a powerboat.

Had Long Lake adopted my proposal, that law would be in effect there today.

5) You forgot that the manufacturer themselves said that their own boat shouldn't be operating on Long Lake?

"...David Donchecz, chief operating officer of Michigan-based Sunsation Powerboats, told the Sun Journal of Lewiston that he thought the Dominator was too much boat with too much speed for such a lake..."
http://bangordailynews.com/news/t/ne...277&zoneid=500

A photograph of Long Lake could be mistaken for many locations at Lake Winnipesaukee: how many Long Lake geographical-analogs are there in Lake Winnipesaukee—hundreds?

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Alas I doubt we'll ever have a bill that saves us from the cult of hyperbole and vitriol.

Empathy is what's missing here—this law didn't appear out of thin air.

Responsible citizens are putting the blame where it belongs: on the cult that took just ten years to turn a residential lake's boating environment into one of irritation, anxiety and anarchy.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) Run over? Gee-golly...we have to look all the way back to August!

Wow you mean the unlight at night kayak. How fast was that boat going ? How would the speed limit have saved them ? I mean certainly any speed limit would have to take into account the possibility of incompetent kayakers out at night w/o lights .... The max speed limit should be set to make them safe .... right ?

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

2) Or, I'll put it this way: More innocents than I want to wait for...to appear on "Google News Alerts". (Two photographers died in December celebrating this "Cult", btw.)

3) Killed? How far do we need to look?

I would suggest we look as far as the lakes go ... here in NH. You see we have now many years of experience to inform us what to do in NH. Or is it your contention that experience here in NH doesn't inform us enough about what happens in NH to allow a reasonable decision ?

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

4) Originally, I suggested that New Hampshire pass—then suspend—a speed limit indefinitely. Then reinstate it immediately upon the occurrence of a NH freshwater double-fatality attributable to a powerboat.

Had Long Lake adopted my proposal, that law would be in effect there today.

And again how does that apply to here in NH ? What says that such a law would have prevented the incident you mention. We have many DUI laws on the books and yet we have DUI "accidents". Where's our double-fatality attributable to a power boat ? And shouldn't it be attributable be to speed in excess of the proposed limit ?

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

5) You forgot that the manufacturer themselves said that their own boat shouldn't be operating on Long Lake?

A photograph of Long Lake could be mistaken for many locations at Lake Winnipesaukee: how many Long Lake geographical-analogs are there in Lake Winnipesaukee—hundreds?

Long Lake at 11 miles long and maybe 1.5 wide, isn't Winnipesaukee.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Empathy is what's missing here—this law didn't appear out of thin air.

Responsible citizens are putting the blame where it belongs: on the cult that took just ten years to turn a residential lake's boating environment into one of irritation, anxiety and anarchy.

Funny thing when I boat on Winni the irritation, anxiety and anarchy come from the boneheads who don't understand or follow the boating rules I knew as a kid. Sometimes these boneheads are at the helm of the boats you so dislike but overwhelmingly they're at the helms of the average family boat.

I don't know what cult they belong to ... The Bonehead Brigade ?


I have empathy for the victims and scorn for the perpetrators. I just don't lump everyone who has a "gofast" into a cult. This is [comment pre-emptively deleted so as not to violate forum decorum].

[ApS]

(My responses in blue)

Mee&Mac: Wow you mean the unlight at night kayak. How fast was that boat going ?

Fast enough to become a killer—and to make three kayaks out of two.

Mee&Mac: How would the speed limit have saved them?

On water or land, speed limits aren't absolute: if it's raining, windy, foggy, crowded, misty, shallow, narrow, or moonless, the captain must still maintain a proper watch. What else could the "proper" in "proper watch" mean?

Where I've just moved to, about 1 in 10 powerboats pass by at night—illegally—without lights. (I'll find out why, but I think it relates to commercial fishing.)

Mee&Mac: I mean certainly any speed limit would have to take into account the possibility of incompetent kayakers out at night w/o lights .... The max speed limit should be set to make them safe .... right?

Whatever speed limit is voted for, I still couldn't feel vindicated if I'd killed one or both kayakers—but that's just me.

Mee&Mac: You see we have now many years of experience to inform us what to do in NH. Or is it your contention that experience here in NH doesn't inform us enough about what happens in NH to allow a reasonable decision?

Lake Winnipesaukee has been featured in movies with Smith Mountain Lake used as Winnipesaukee.

Smith Mountain Lake recorded "a double-fatality" last year, with the same cult responsible. We only have about ten years of widespread, grossly irresponsible, actions on Winnipesaukee; plus, the Big Lake only has a summer season—plus, "Noise and Action" is mostly on weekends. Offshore, the speed hazard to other boaters is minimal. Even then, Soundings magazine writes this month:

"...I could keep going on with the horror stories, but we all the the message. The number of people on the water who are lacking even the most basic boating skills and knowledge is staggering. We have a problem..."
—Tom Neale

Now, how many of the speed cult have any "skill and knowledge" in boat control at speeds over 45? Over 65? Or double that—at 130? (One-hundred-thirty MPH being a speed already seen on Winnipesaukee in recent seasons).


Mee&Mac: And again how does that apply to here in NH ? What says that such a law would have prevented the incident you mention. We have many DUI laws on the books and yet we have DUI "accidents".

A prohibition of alcohol aboard boats won't happen; add to that overpowered, overweight boats with something-to-prove-drivers—and there's a problem.

Mee&Mac: Long Lake at 11 miles long and maybe 1.5 wide, isn't Winnipesaukee.

OK, which is Lake Winnipesaukee—and which is Long Lake?






Mee&Mac: Funny thing when I boat on Winni the irritation, anxiety and anarchy come from the boneheads who don't understand or follow the boating rules I knew as a kid. Sometimes these boneheads are at the helm of the boats you so dislike but overwhelmingly they're at the helms of the average family boat.

There are probably average family boaters that don't know when they're in harm's way: the boaters that do know, support 45/25.

BTW, I have a screen-capture of ARG's last poll showing 76% of NH's polled, support the new law. Anyone with objections to publishing it here?

This is [comment pre-emptively deleted so as not to violate forum decorum].

Take Courage! The speed-cult is mailing their protests from Hawaii, across the nation—and from Sweden—to New Hampshire Representatives as we speak.

Oops...Don't take Courage—that's a British beer!

Mee&Mac: I don't know what cult they belong to ... The Bonehead Brigade?

Here, most readers don't profess this level of personal...um...um...um...paucity of cognition.

The MPs certainly seem to know where to look and, annoyingly, stake out NASWA. (That's just one lakeside locale where alcohol is served to boat captains having overpowered, overweight boats).

BWI-arrests are rare on Winnipesaukee. A speed limit would target the most dangerous BWI-perps, IMHO.

Mee&Mac: I have empathy for the victims and scorn for the perpetrators. I just don't lump everyone who has a "gofast" into a cult.

I'm not sensing "the empathy" for the two night-kayaking visitors. In their neighboring state, there may not be the same lighting requirement as New Hampshire's. (I'd find it very difficult to paddle while holding a lantern over my head in NH—but that's just me.)

As to "cult", there's this guy near me—with a Formula bearing the name "A Salt — Battery". (Formula doesn't make a "Dominator", "Eliminator", "Bandit", or "Outlaw" model.)

What's the message supposed to be, to supporters of a speed limit?

I see a cult proud of its "Outlaw" image—but maybe it's just me....

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

As to "cult", there's this guy near me—with a Formula bearing the name "A Salt — Battery". (Formula doesn't make a "Dominator", "Eliminator", "Bandit", or "Outlaw" model.)

What's the message supposed to be, to supporters of a speed limit?

I see a cult proud of its "Outlaw" image—but maybe it's just me....[/COLOR]

No to get too nitpicky but right off the but that boat looks like a Fountain Team Fishing to me, not a Formula. Fountain does make an "Executioner"...

I'll let Mee&Mac fire back first on the rest.

[Hottrucks]

I'm still trying to find out who went 130 mph and when and where???

and long lake is the pic on top but to be certain I would need to enlarge them and bit more??? I don't know of any obstuctions on the east side of the lake that look like that.... how ever looking at it again these pics where not taken with the same lens or Zoom factor the bottom one has a much higher detail to it so it was taken closer up giving the impression that the rocks are out further.....Kinda a smoke and mirrors thing????

[chipj29]

I sent a mass email to State Reps regarding my position on HB847. I received about a dozen emails back. Every single one of them opposes the speed limit. I spoke to my local Rep last night. She (a Dem) is for a speed limit. Of course she does not own a boat.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

I also had a great response from reps. Seems the tide is turning again. I think it is since they (read winnfabs) changed the bill (AGAIN) and made it a Winnipesaukee only bill. People in other communities in NH have called their reps and let them know that they are afraid.....there is that word again? That the performance boats will come to their beloved lake. Which isn't far fetched, I know several hot rod pwc owners who were discussing that a speed limit on winni, would give them the impetus to visit other lakes such as Winnisquam, Newfound, and Sunapee. So look out peaceful lakes....Here comes the Horsepower!!! Send thank you cards to Winnfabs!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I'll let Mee&Mac fire back first on the rest.

It's been eight days: He's not "firing".

Originally Posted by codeman671

Not to get too nitpicky but right off the but that boat looks like a Fountain Team Fishing to me, not a Formula.

One of my two errors: the boat appears to be named "A Salt and Battery"—my monitor isn't sharp enough to tell.

But why the in-your-face name? What's next, "Assault With a Deadly Weapon", "Manslaughter", "Malice Towards All"?

Pretty sharp—those who spotted the palm trees. This particular boat was located ¼-mile from me, and 1/10 mile from the open ocean—where excess speeds are tolerated by the widely-scattered boaters out there. Speed limit opponents—especially those who choose to ignore speed limit laws—need to continue displaying such sharpness at 80-MPH.

Originally Posted by codeman671

Fountain does make an "Executioner".

What??? No Fountain "Obliterator"??? There are still some kids out there to run over out there.

Originally Posted by Eric P

You can't be referring to the 2 kayakers out at night in kayaks (not theirs BTW) with absolutely no lights, drinking and nude? Yes, that's right, so speed limit or not what boat wouldn't have seen them. They were being quiet so as not to be noticed (gee I wonder why). Your agenda is obvious, so please making something out of nothing and with no facts.

Kayaks are normally quiet and are not normally equipped with navigation lights. The kayakers weren't charged for nudity or drinking—nor for the absense of a lantern.

It's not "nothing" when you fail to see objects in your path at speed—at any time. A skipper is responsible for his boat's actions—particularly when there are breathing, sentient beings in his boat or in front of it).

When a ball rolls out into my path between parked cars, I slow down. At what is being called a "slow" speed, Littlefield had ample time to observe the slower boat to his left before crushing it under his overweight, overpowered, 4½ tons. That the excessively-long deck on his 4½-ton boat covered the other boat from view hasn't been discussed.

Originally Posted by jrc

No one was killed or even injured in the kayak incident. You are making things up.

The speed wasn't fast enought to kill? The speedboat didn't make three kayaks out of two, either. What distance would you guess the boater was to meeting his maker? (In inches).

Originally Posted by Hottrucks

I'm still trying to find out who went 130 mph and when and where??? and long lake is the pic on top but to be certain I would need to enlarge them and bit more???

Try Google for combinations of "130-MPH, jolly-roger, winnipesaukee, performance-boats, donziregistry.com", and it should appear. I posted the link here months ago.

As in most things nautical, Dave R is right: Long Lake is the bottom photo. The two were selected for identical size (17K) to illustrate how executioners in one lake can be just as deadly in another. (Duh).

(Dave R is also right about his top speed handling as "nervous" in his own recreational boat.)

Originally Posted by Dave R

"...Speed limits certainly haven't had any effect on drunk driving on US highways..."

Alcohol is an increasing problem: Records are falling.

A woman was recently stopped with a BAC nine times the limit.

Originally Posted by pm203

As the owner of a boat that will do well over 90 mph,this proposed law will do nothing to change the way I boat one bit...Good luck trying to enforce it.

Just two weeks ago, a driver (with extremely important connections) "got enforced" caught going 70-in-a-30 New Hampshire speed limit zone. Maybe watch how this case runs its course?

Most citizens are wishing the state "good luck" in the enforcement of this case.

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

...you could walk in with a 47' Fountain....and walk out with a 12' kayak...

In my new—and admittedly eccentric—neighborhood, a family has cut the good front half off of a wrecked speedboat and is using it to store their garbage cans in! From the roadway, it looks pretty normal!

[Airwaves]

I find it interesting that while people who hate powerboats are pushing for an unenforceable (by their own admission) and an unfunded speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee, the NH Legislature is considering a bill that would INCREASE THE SPEED ON STATE HIGHWAYS!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

I find it interesting that while people who hate powerboats are pushing for an unenforceable (by their own admission) and an unfunded speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee, the NH Legislature is considering a bill that would INCREASE THE SPEED ON STATE HIGHWAYS!

Who has admitted that a speed limit is unenforceable?

And please consider that most of us OWN power boats.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

I find it interesting that while people who hate powerboats are pushing for an unenforceable (by their own admission) and an unfunded speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee, the NH Legislature is considering a bill that would INCREASE THE SPEED ON STATE HIGHWAYS!

I don't hate powerboats - but, in my opinion, the current unlimited speed limit is a bit insane (and very unsafe for the smaller, slower boats).

The NH Leislature considers all sorts of things. Given the current political mood about global warming (and oil shortages), I would be very surprised if that bill gets very far.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

...The speed wasn't fast enought to kill? The speedboat didn't make three kayaks out of two, either. What distance would you guess the boater was to meeting his maker? (In inches).
...

Well as I asked you originally, what speed is safe in this situation? You can't name a number because it depends on the conditions. A power boat can kill at any speed. One with a propeller can kill when stopped.

So picking an arbitrary speed to prevent death is impossible.

GWC, Cal, I know you are just joking around, but you know that those posts are going to be quoted ad naseum as proof that evil power boaters are against paddlers.

People who think they know better and only want to take away your freedoms to protect you, tend to be humourless, they won't get the irony.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by jrc

GWC, Cal, I know you are just joking around, but you know that those posts are going to be quoted ad naseum as proof that evil power boaters are against paddlers.

People who think they know better and only want to take away your freedoms to protect you, tend to be humourless, they won't get the irony.

I've canoed and kayaked and sailed and for the life of me I cannot understand the need for a LITTLE boat in the middle of a BIG lake other than a person having an underlying self distructive wish. I don't care if it's a sea kayak , an ocean kayak , a pool kayak , or a fly to the moon kayak. It's still a LITTLE boat in a BIG lake. A real news flash huh? Some kayak owners are well experienced and carry all necesary safety items and watch the weather but get caught in the broads in a summer thunderstorm with 4' waves and get beat in the head with your own , overturned kayak enough times , tell me they're not in trouble. Yeah , yeah they know what they're doing , they're strong swimmers....sorry , not in my book and you'll read about them in the news paper and all of this without even mentioning fast power boats.
My own personal opinion (which means nothing) is 150' from shore is plenty for a small and slow boat. Big ones already have to stay outside of this or go slow. Gee , that law is already in effect. When I canoe , I do it in small bodies of water. Most of which you can get out and walk if you have to. Maybe I'm just chicken , overly cautious , or have common sense , I'm not smart enough to figure it out
Where I grew up I lived half a block from a river where power boats were outlawed. Only sail and paddle craft were allowed. Worst part was it would have been fantastic for waterskiing. None of us ever tried to limit or take their river away because we have a right to powerboat on it. Shame it's still not 1960

OK enough , I'm off my soap box

[ApS]

Originally Posted by jrc

Well as I asked you originally, what speed is safe in this situation? You can't name a number because it depends on the conditions. A power boat can kill at any speed.

Let's start with these:

1) The speed that doesn't cut kayaks in half, or
2) The speed that doesn't launch a Donzi dealer into a 32-foot cabin cruiser to kill a married couple, or
3) The speed that doesn't send a Dominator 130-feet up a hillside after killing two boaters.

An after-dark 25-MPH is generally regarded as reasonable, even by the few detractors of Winnipesaukee speed limits. Under several adverse conditions/alcohol, one could still be charged additionally with Failure to Keep a Proper Watch, as Littlefield was: unless they're totally wasted, drinking speedboaters become thrill-killers.

Originally Posted by jrc

So picking an arbitrary speed to prevent death is impossible.

At a then-legal 45-MPH speed, Littlefield could have gotten away with leaving a debris field in his wake, keeping his killer 4½-ton boat out of sight, and leaving scant evidence of criminal activity. In leaving no witnesses, there'd be no prosecution and, subsequently, no House Bill 162 or 847. At "only" 28-MPH, two witnesses remained to trigger the hit-and-run investigation. With New Hampshire's new $2000 theshold for reporting collision damage—and slower speeds—the case wouldn't have made headlines. (Or the one new law that the Legislature has already made.)

I, for one, am delighted for the witnesses.

Originally Posted by jrc

Evil power boaters are against paddlers.

How about "Lake Lice"? And the paddlers they "can't see"?

Are there maybe two dozen Winnipesaukee testosterone-driven sociopaths who have driven Winnipesaukee's HB-847 to this point? It's not the family boaters who are to blame for a few dozen ocean-racers' transgressions on Lake Winnipesaukee: one Long Lake resident regarded the nearby double-fatality by observing, "This isn't Miami".

Originally Posted by jrc

One with a propeller can kill when stopped.

Agreed: even on the trailer, ocean-racer propellers can kill. Many have razor-sharp "Cleavers".

To avoid "cleaving" the neighborhood kids, special caution should be observed by ocean-racers. Covers, boxes, and gloves are manufactured for razor-sharp propellers with the same Kevlar that is used in bullet-proof vests.

Here's a photograph provided by a retailer of those protective devices:

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

...Fast enough to become a killer—and to make three kayaks out of two.

Mee&Mac: How would the speed limit have saved them?

[COLOR="Blue"]On water or land, speed limits aren't absolute: if it's raining, windy, foggy, crowded, misty, shallow, narrow, or moonless, the captain must still maintain a proper watch. What else could the "proper" in "proper watch" mean?

To quote President Reagan "There you go again"

No one was killed or even injured in the kayak incident. You are making things up.

Further, now you are saying that the boat captain must be responsible enough to adjust his speed to the conditions. He must do this to maintain a proper watch. Since this is clearly true, why do we need a new law? Can't we just arrest and/or fine the people who operate dangerously and don't keep a proper watch?

BTW what is the safe speed for a powerboat of any size or shape to operate, such that they can avoid unlit craft? Can you give me a number or are you going to tell me it depends on the conditions? Do you sense a theme here?

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

(My responses in blue)

Mee&Mac: Wow you mean the unlight at night kayak. How fast was that boat going ?

Fast enough to become a killer—and to make three kayaks out of two.

You can't be referring to the 2 kayakers out at night in kayaks (not theirs BTW) with absolutely no lights, drinking and nude? Yes, that's right, so speed limit or not what boat wouldn't have seen them. They were being quiet so as not to be noticed (gee I wonder why). Your agenda is obvious, so please making something out of nothing and with no facts.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Surely the cult of high speed and death can keep Winnipesaukee's boaters safe for three years!

Yup,here comes the unfounded and totally uncalled for scare tactics from the speed limit crowd.Can't people see through this verbal crap?

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

After several years of discussions, the compromise exists as a "three-year sunset" on the rule.

Surely the cult of high speed and death can keep Winnipesaukee's boaters safe for three years!

APS...

You are the master of the obvious!

The sunset clause is clearly a ruse designed to get those legislators who might be on the fence about HB-847 onboard. Extending a sunset clause quietly is usually pretty easy to do...

This undisputable fact remains... the last fatality on Lake Winnipesaukee as the result of a boat on boat collision occurred after sunset at an approximate speed of 28MPH in..... (drum roll please) 2002! Almost 6 years ago! We have had 5 seasons of darn safe boating.... so why do we need a 3 year law?

The MP study/report clearly shows no need for a speed limit, and points out that there are some serious costs to be borne with HB-847... training, equipment, manpower (2 MP Officers required on radar boat), court costs etc... all this $$$ and effort for a 3 year Lake Winnipesaukee only law?

I think if the legislators were to impose a night time limit of 35MPH (1/2 hour before and after sunset) and leave the day alone you would probably find very little objection....


Woodsy

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...This undisputable fact remains... the last fatality on Lake Winnipesaukee as the result of a boat on boat collision occurred after sunset at an approximate speed of 28MPH in..... (drum roll please) 2002!...I think if the legislators were to impose a night time limit of 35MPH (1/2 hour before and after sunset) and leave the day alone you would probably find very little objection...."

Lake Winnipesaukee's "Most-Experienced and Most-Educated Night-time Ocean-Racer" is out of jail now.

Using a legal technique that night known as "Hit and Run", he finessed the worst charge against him—and did it legally. Convicted only on the lesser charge, the proceeds of the civil law suit brought against him can only be termed as "modest".

Had the speed limit law been in effect then, the perp would be in jail for the commensurate number of years for the homicide. (An 84-year sentence was handed out in a similar ocean-racer crash, but that driver managed to kill everybody on the 31' cruiser he collided with.)

Maybe three years was asking too much of the cult. Today's Concord Monitor is showing a two year sunset clause being considered.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...05/1037/NEWS04

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Had the speed limit law been in effect then, the perp would be in jail for the commensurate number of years for the homicide.

How so? An ESTIMATED 28mph speed at the time of the accident could not be proven in a court of law. It certainly was not enough to warrant a claim that he was grossly deviating from the speed limit. Had he been doing 40 or 50mph the outcome would have been different, and more proveable in court.

The facts however still remain the same. He was drunk and left the scene of a fatal accident. Honestly, even the "drunk" is hard enough to prove as he did not stick around long enough to blow.

According the the law that you are lobbying for, Dan was basically complying already. It was other laws that he was breaking. Failure to maintain proper lookout, BWI, leaving the scene, etc..

[Skip]

Originally Posted by codeman671

How so?

As usual, the reference source provided does not make the argument intended.

The individual in Florida was sentenced to 84 years based on multiple convictions of manslaughter for six deaths induced by Boating While Intoxicated....

A close reading of the stories attached showed a belief that the individual was travelling most likely above the posted speed limit of 25 MPH but authorities agreed that in the narrow confines of the area of the crime that the vessel was not travelling anywhere near its maximum limits.

But again, the individual cited was convicted on manslaughter due to boating while intoxicated.

Also, the insinuation that operating at an estimated 28 MPH in the Littlefield case would have somehow equated to massive criminal penalties if a 25 MPH speed limit had been in effect shows a complete misunderstanding of how the criminal justice system works in New Hampshire. If the speed had been the contributing factor in the Littlefield collision the State already had an existing statute, the reckless operation RSA, that would have been invoked as a felony charge. Speed was not and still is not the contributing factor that caused the death in the Littlefield crime. The complete transcript of the original trial and the Supreme Court decision based on Littlefield's appeal is public record, and has been for years. Littlefield, although not found guilty of Boating While Intoxicated, was found guilty of the felony Failure to Maintain a Proper Lookout due in part to his consumption of alcohol on the night of the crime.

Finally, to equate the horrific crime in Florida (which the poster had to go back eleven years and thousands of miles to compare) in which six individuals were slaughtered versus the unnecessary death of one individual here in New Hampshire totally negates the ability to classify the two crimes and the resulting sentences as "similar".

[Cal]

A perfect example of how you can make a story SEEM to fit your agenda , right Skip?

And just what is the "Sunset Clause"

[ApS]

Originally Posted by codeman671

An ESTIMATED 28mph speed at the time of the accident could not be proven in a court of law...It certainly was not enough to warrant a claim that he was grossly deviating from the speed limit...The facts however still remain the same. He was drunk and left the scene of a fatal accident...It was other laws that he was breaking. Failure to maintain proper lookout, BWI, leaving the scene, etc..

"Hit-and-Run" was NH-legal.

He wasn't proven drunk, but a judge allowed the jury to consider witness' testimony—and was upheld.

He would be in technical violation of the speed limit and that would be weighed by the jury when such testimony is allowed by the judge. Juries will also be weighing the testimony of court experts in speed determinations.

Originally Posted by Skip

Also, the insinuation that operating at an estimated 28 MPH in the Littlefield case would have somehow equated to massive criminal penalties...As usual, the reference source provided does not make the argument intended.

Somebody said "massive"?

It's a jury that would be weighing his speed, his lack of proper lookout and all other illegal and anti-social behaviors. (See above).

My point was that eleven years ago, BWI was a very serious charge. Take the 84 years in prison and divide it by the number of victims, and you see that 16 years (for each victim) was adjudicated for a successful BWI prosecution.

Originally Posted by Skip

"...If the speed had been the contributing factor in the Littlefield collision the State already had an existing statute, the reckless operation RSA, that would have been invoked as a felony charge. Speed was not and still is not the contributing factor that caused the death in the Littlefield crime..."

You make my point: no speed law—no speed prosecution—no invocation of felonious behavior.

Originally Posted by Skip

"...Littlefield, although not found guilty of Boating While Intoxicated, was found guilty of the felony Failure to Maintain a Proper Lookout due in part to his consumption of alcohol on the night of the crime..."

Yes, thanks to the NH Supreme Court and a judge who saw a travesty unfolding in his courtroom.

Yet in another jurisdiction, 16 years was delivered for an analogous collision—even without a determination of actual speed.

Originally Posted by Skip

"...Finally, to equate the horrific crime in Florida..."

I first noticed the frequent mention of such speeders in Florida's canal system: most were overpowered monsters colliding with houses!

While the Grim Reaper took his highest toll in drivers and passengers, speed limits started popping up in the canals.

Speed limits in canals? Who knew?

Originally Posted by jeffk

"...This assertion keeps coming up from proponents of a speed limit and it is simply nonsense...the worst anyone would get from a speeding violation is a non criminal fine of up to $1000 and possibly a suspended license..."

"The worst" would be the technical violation of the speed limit law being considered by a jury who has already heard witnesses describing his pre-crash attitude, after-crash attitude, flight to avoid prosecution and aberrant behavior. (See above).

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...Had he been doing 40 or 50mph the outcome would have been different, and more proveable in court..."

Finally, I think you're onto something here: had he been going 40 (or 90), he would have passed safely ahead of the victims' boat. Collision avoided! Everybody safe! No laws needed!



BTW: Isn't someone familiar with courtrooms going to suggest that a post announcing intent to become a lawbreaker is a seriously bad idea?

While it's enormously high in cult value, I wouldn't want my insurance company to have that in print in a courtroom.

[Skip]

For the final time let me remind the reader that yes, Aps is correct in one tiny aspect of his opinion on this matter, speed did play a part in the conviction of Littlefiled.

How so?

An extensive investigation and re-creation of the accident led investigators to a reasonable belief that Littlefield was travelling approximatley 28 MPH at the time of the collision.

But given all the conditions present that evening the State opined and the jury and the NH Supreme Court concluded that the speed Littlefield was operating at was not a contributing factor to the accident, and that given his estimated speed and the environmental conditions he faced that night he easily should have been able to avoid a collision.

Therefore the jury's opinion, upheld by the NH Supreme Court, was that something else other than speed caused the collision and that something was the ultimate decision that imprisoned Littlefield.

And what was that something else? Again, a reading of the transcript of both the original trial and the appeal make it readily apparent. Littlefield was unable to maintain a proper lookout due in part to the amount of alcohol he had drank just prior to the collision.

Simple and obvious as that.

And the fact that Boating While Intoxicated laws with inherent criminal and civil penalties existed that evening that Littlefield chose to drink too much did nothing to deter him or three other adult passenges from preventing this crime.

The fact that there were children present during the drinking and subsequent collision did nothing to deter the crime.

The fact that a number of other horrific and well publicized alcohol related boating collisions have occured throughout the country prior to that night of drinking did nothing to prevent this crime.

And yet a handful out here wnat to continue to harangue that maybe a speed limit that night would have prevented Littlefield and his passengers from engaging in the course of action that ultimately led to this tragedy?

Oh, by the way.....in the horrific alcohol induced collision that Aps cites as the basis for his argument? Gee, there was a speed limit that night in that canal.

And it did nothing to prevent the deaths of six innocent people!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Finally, I think you're onto something here: had he been going 40 (or 90), he would have passed safely ahead of the victims' boat. Collision avoided! Everybody safe! No laws needed!

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't he hit the 22' boat directly in the stern? How would he have passed safely by?

I am going to refrain from responding to the rest of your post, your banter is meaningless and not fact based. Other posters such as Skip, Woodsy and JeffK have made strong factual arguments yet you continue to dazzle us with your hypothetical crap and twisted views. The facts are the facts APS, your speed limit would not have saved a life in this case. That Baja had just as much right to be on the water as any other boat on the lake, although the driver did not. It was not traveling at unsafe speeds for the conditions and as long as it met MP requirements for safety equipment and state noise requirements the only laws broken were by the driver.

The accident that took place in FL occured in an inland canal (clearly a narrower place than Winnipesaukee) as they were approaching a no-wake zone. With concentrated traffic and manatees in abundance the boat was clearly going too fast for the environment. Oh, and wasn't alcohol involved??? Maybe tougher BWI consequences would be a good place to focus efforts instead.

[SIKSUKR]

Folks, this is what we are dealing with when you try to have a meaningful, thought provoking discussion with the pro speed limit side. Just read the posts from both sides and see which sound logical and which sound like they are made to scare and shock with little regard to what the facts truly are. Shameful.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't he hit the 22' boat directly in the stern? How would he have passed safely by?

It was not "a direct hit". Any change in vectoring of those 4½ tons would have been safe.

Originally Posted by codeman671

Maybe tougher BWI consequences would be a good place to focus efforts instead.

Like our most famous case?

Originally Posted by chipj29

Are you seriously comparing a canal and a large lake WRT the need for speed limits?

The "Need for Speed" is enhanced in tight quarters (and alcohol); however, a photograph of Long Lake could be mistaken for hundreds of stretches on Lake Winnipesaukee, and the manufacturer said their own killer-boat was too powerful for the lake!

Originally Posted by Skip

"...Finally, to equate the horrific crime in Florida (which the poster had to go back eleven years..."

Okaaay...let's go back to the previous summer, where five died without speed limits—and no alcohol.

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

"...Just read the posts from both sides and see which sound logical and which sound like they are made to scare and shock with little regard to what the facts truly are..."

The above case mentions the use of GPS. Has the "Need for Speed" crowd ever mentioned GPS as an emerging factor in the frequent violations of Winnipesaukee's "safe-passage" rule?

BoaterEd's Les Hall spoke to this collision:

"...Had those two boats been running at 25 knots instead of 70, the failure would not have caused such a dramatic turn and the other boat may have had time to avoid it. Nor would the damage have been so extensive. You guys can posture all you want but it is not safe for two boats to be doing 70 or 80 side by side or for boats to be going that speed on inland waters. Exciting, yes. Safe, no...If accidents like this one keep happening, that's what will happen on the water - speed limits everywhere..."

Don't forget that between 100-130-MPH, I have many more hours (than most) on a closed race course. Also, I go boating 12 months a year.(And get to view other boaters from three different locales).

Soundings magazine is my boat-savvy reading, who recount the awful effects of speed, alcohol, money, ignorance and overpowered boats every month.

And this "isn't just about me" being a proponent: the entire editorial staff of the Concord Monitor has come on board today.

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dl...1027/OPINION01

(2nd paragraph from the bottom).

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

The "Need for Speed" is enhanced in tight quarters (and alcohol); however, a photograph of Long Lake could be mistaken for hundreds of stretches on Lake Winnipesaukee, and the manufacturer said their own killer-boat was too powerful for the lake!

Cum'on , get off it , will ya! First off , the BOAT and its HORSEPOWER had NOTHING to do with it. A 35 foot 300 hp CRUISER could have done the same thing since the ESTIMATED speed was ONLY 28 MPH. (Wide open for the cruiser)
One change in decision , anytime that evening , by either boater , could have made a world of difference!
Even if Littlefield had stayed and had ONE MOOOOORE drink , he wouldn't have been at that place and time that the accident took place. If he had been doing 45 mph , he would have been past the point of impact before the victims boat got there.
Rediculous senarios , yes , but factually TRUE...more true than "the boat had too much power for the lake" , because again and for the last time The Power Had Nothing to Do With It
Now let me rest my bruised finger tips (from POUNDING the keyboard) and go get some lunch

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I first noticed the frequent mention of such speeders in Florida's canal system: most were overpowered monsters colliding with houses!

While the Grim Reaper took his highest toll in drivers and passengers, speed limits started popping up in the canals.

Speed limits in canals? Who knew?

Are you seriously comparing a canal and a large lake WRT the need for speed limits?

[fatlazyless]

Just between you, me, and the very small number of the 424 NH legislators who may read this forum, I think the new community sailing facility for local kids-n-adults, that going up at Ellacoya State Park will carry more positive weight for the need for a speed limit than 100 people commenting about the technical aspects of the 150' foot rule.

As you may or may not know, the New Hampshire Dept of Parks & Recreation is on-board with the Lake Winnipesaukee Sailing Association, www.lwsa.org, to build a one million dollar plus, community sailing facility on a lightly used end of the beautifull beach at Ellacoya State Park. It is scheduled to open in the summer of 2009.
.............................

Want to help pay for the new community sailing facility with a tax deductible contribution? Go to www.lwsa.org and look around....at the donation link....at the photos....or go to the 'building Winni Sailing' thread in the nearby boating section and read all about it including a lengthy news article from the Laconia Daily Sun..

Happy and safe sailing & motorboating to eveyone in 2008. and please dig deep to help pay for the new community sailing facility that's opening in 2009!!
...................

...and now, it's back to the technical arguments....kersplash....pow.....& cowabunga!

[Hottrucks]

How could we support them ???

LWSA/WYC events are typically mixed-fleet, handicapped (PHRF) races with round-the-islands courses and are held on weekends. There are usually both racing (spinnaker) and cruising (non-spinnaker) divisions. In addition to the mixed-fleet race events, there is J/80 one-design class racing every Thursday evening during the summer - details here.

We welcome anyone who wants to participate - if you are inexperienced at racing but would like to learn,

I fearing for my life they're going to be racing!!!!!!!!!!

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Had the speed limit law been in effect then, the perp would be in jail for the commensurate number of years for the homicide.

This assertion keeps coming up from proponents of a speed limit and it is simply nonsense.

This http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/PEOPLE/INJU...oc/nhspeed.pdf provides a summary of NH automotive speeding laws. While a boating speed limit has yet to be finalized I doubt the penalties would be more harsh than the automotive counterpart. Others are better at providing law quotes than I but I get the following information (my bolding).

Adjudication of Speed Law Violations:
Civil/Criminal Adjudication of Violation: All Speed Law Offenses are Violations.5 ''265:2 & 625:9, II(b)
Other:
Sanctions Following an Adjudication of a Speed Law Violation:
Criminal Sanctions:
Imprisonment:
Term (Day, Month, Years,
Etc.): None
Mandatory Minimum Term:
Fine:
Amount ($ Range): Not more than $1,000 '651:2, IV(a)
Mandatory Min. Fine ($): None
Other Penalties:
Traffic School: An offender may be required to attend a Driver Attitude Training program. '263:56-e
Other:
Licensing Action:
Type of Licensing Action
(Susp/Rev): I. Suspension via Court Order '263:57
II. Suspension via a Point System6 '263:56, I(c) & III
5
A violation is not classified as a crime. '625:9, II(b)


So in summary the worst anyone would get from a speeding violation is a non criminal fine of up to $1000 and possibly a suspended license.

I would venture to guess that Mr. Littlefield would have happily pleaded guilty to a speed limit violation and paid a $1000 fine rather than face the charges and penalties (felonies) he ended up with. It will not be something he will easily forget, versus a fine which would have been relatively trivial to him. He spent more talking to his lawyer for a few hours. Yes, he slipped past the BWI charge. Having a speed limit in place would have done NOTHING to change that.

If you look at automobile accidents involving speeding, the speeding charge is usually the least charge mentioned. Other charges carry far more weight and have criminal consequences. These laws already exist for boating plus additional ones and are what were used to convict Mr. Littlefield of his felony crimes.

[pm203]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Seems to me that (from the comments above) everyone has conceded that the Bill will pass ............. instead of continuing to fight vehemently, as the opposition continues to do !!

Happy (& Safe) New Year's to all.

It's not that I feel that the bill will pass. It's just the fact it will be business as usual if it does pass. The speed and the noise will never go away. I would support a new law if it could be statistically proven that it was needed.And, as we all know, that is not the case here. In a world full of frivilous lawsuits and craziness, the last thing we need is to pass a another law based upon anything but the truth.

[Coastal Laker]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

Although you won't be able to hear us, we will be cheering like crazy when you go by.

Live free or die.

Wish I had a chance to visit this thread sooner. This is the first time in long time I've laughed out loud. The visual did it for me. Thanks

[ApS]

Originally Posted by pm203

"...Unfortunately, I will not respect or comply with a speed limit on this lake..."

Towards whom was your word "unfortunately" directed?

All the other ocean-racers?

[fatlazyless]

There's something new in this legislative session that may sway the opinion of a few of the 400 state representatives and 24 state senators with regard to passing a 45day/25night speed limit.

If you read the Laconia Daily Sun news article in the nearby thread, building Winni Sailing, it mentions that the NH Dept of Parks & Recreation is on-board with the Lake Winnipesaukee Sailing Assoc, www.lwsa.org, to build a one million dollar plus, community sailing center on a lightly used end corner of the very terrific state beach at Ellacoya State Park in Gilford.

My question to all the 424 NH legislators is: can the new community sailing program safely be in operation in the same lake with a totally unlimited motorboat speed limit? Can 300+ young student sailers, age 8-16, learn to sail in sailboats ranging from 10' Optimist beginner boats to 14' day-sailers to 14' Lasers to 16' blind & handicapped-friendly, computer adapted boats, to a Hobi Cat (for the hot-shot 15 year-olds) and at the same time coexist with high speed motorboaters?

We are talking about 32-foot performance motorboats, namely the Baja Outlaw, that weighs 8000lbs and is equipped with dual engines totaling 1200hp; motorboats capable of going 80mph. A few can even go faster than 100mph.

Is this a safe situation, and how does the NH Dept of Parks and Recreation feel about this?

..............................

Want to help build the new Winnipesaukee community sailing facility at Ellacoya State Park?

Mail your tax deductible donation to

Lake Winnipesaukee Sailing
Association, Inc.
PO Box 7047
Gilford NH 03247

or you can donate online at http://www.lwsa.org//store/index.php?cPath=3

www.lwsa.org ......psssst....check out all the photos!
.....................

[Cal]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

16' blind & handicapped-friendly, computer adapted boats, to a Hobi Cat (for the hot-shot 15 year-olds) and at the same time coexist with high speed motorboaters?

We are talking about 32-foot performance motorboats, namely the Baja Outlaw, that weighs 8000lbs and is equipped with dual 1200hp engines; motorboats capable of going 80mph. A few can even go faster than 100mph.

Is this a safe situation, and how does the NH Dept of Parks and Recreation feel about this?

Now that's a cleverly worded stupid question. How about , is a blind sailor safe on ANY lake , with or without ANY other boats?
Perhaps they should do away with noise restrictions so the blind ones are aware of approaching boats

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Cal

"...How about, is a blind sailor safe on ANY lake, with or without ANY other boats..."

A blind couple is circumnavigating the globe by sailboat as we write:

http://www.blindsailing.blogspot.com/

Originally Posted by Cal

"...Perhaps they should do away with noise restrictions so the blind ones are aware of approaching boats..."

So "the blind ones" can do what?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

A blind couple is circumnavigating the globe by sailboat as we write:

http://www.blindsailing.blogspot.com/

Well more power to them. They obviously have more guts than common sense since too many "sighted" sailors have falled off the edge of the earth

Secondly , it dosen't mention if they are "Totally" blind , as in see nothing but black or "Legally" blind ,where you do have some vision. I certainly wouldn't want a totally blind person docking next to me.
A past co-workers wife was legally blind but with glasses like Coke bottle bottoms was fully functional.
The term "blind" , in and of itself and be misleading or misused to one advantage or to forward ones agenda and we both know it.

Originally Posted by Acres per second

So "the blind ones" can do what?

Perhaps blatantly exercise their right of way over any power vessel from a 3hp 10' dinghy to a 1200 hp Baja to the Sophie C or the Mount itself.






BTW Happy New Year. Hope 2008 goes as "fast" 2007 did for you

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

My question to all the 424 NH legislators is: can the new community sailing program safely be in operation in the same lake with a totally unlimited motorboat speed limit? Can 300+ young student sailers, age 8-16, learn to sail in sailboats ranging from 10' Optimist beginner boats to 14' day-sailers to 14' Lasers to 16' blind & handicapped-friendly, computer adapted boats, to a Hobi Cat (for the hot-shot 15 year-olds) and at the same time coexist with high speed motorboaters?

We are talking about 32-foot performance motorboats, namely the Baja Outlaw, that weighs 8000lbs and is equipped with dual 1200hp engines; motorboats capable of going 80mph. A few can even go faster than 100mph.

Is this a safe situation, and how does the NH Dept of Parks and Recreation feel about this?

........................
........................

How is this any different than it's been for years? A few more sailboats on the lake isn't going to make much difference in the boating experience and it's pretty hard to get enough speed out of a sailboat to cause a deadly collision. I think the power boaters will be able to get out of the way of the novice teen sailors easily enough. I say build it as long as it's privately funded.

A 32 foot Baja with 2400 HP (pretty sure it's not a factory option) will go well over 100 MPH. Probably over 130. The latest Donzi 38 tops 110 with only 1400 HP, according to Boating Magazine.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

My question to all the 424 NH legislators is: can the new community sailing program safely be in operation in the same lake with a totally unlimited motorboat speed limit? Can 300+ young student sailers, age 8-16, learn to sail in sailboats ranging from 10' Optimist beginner boats to 14' day-sailers to 14' Lasers to 16' blind & handicapped-friendly, computer adapted boats, to a Hobi Cat (for the hot-shot 15 year-olds) and at the same time coexist with high speed motorboaters?

We are talking about 32-foot performance motorboats, namely the Baja Outlaw, that weighs 8000lbs and is equipped with dual 1200hp engines; motorboats capable of going 80mph. A few can even go faster than 100mph.

Is this a safe situation, and how does the NH Dept of Parks and Recreation feel about this?

First, let's dial back the hyperbole a bit.

The number of students expected FOR THE WHOLE YEAR is 300. They have courses for about 8 weeks. That averages out to around 35 students a week, a nice sized group but hardly a strain for a lake the size of Winnipesaukee that deals with thousands of boaters at a time.

And speaking of the size, is someone driving on Scenic Drive endangered by the higher level and speed of traffic on Lake Shore Road? Except for the the intersection of the roads I would guess that there is little threat to the drivers on Scenic Dr. because they are in separate locations. Similarly, if a powerboat follows the Mt Washington's route they are almost a mile from Ellacoya shore area, where I would guess most of the sailing training would be done. If the powerboat is in the broads, it is over 2 miles away from the Ellacoya shore. The only real threat might be if the powerboat buzzed the shoreline at high speed. Since this would break at least a half dozen existing laws I would think the Marine Patrol could deal with such a moron quite easily. Further, I would guess most power boaters, seeing a collection of sailboats would give them a very wide berth to avoid getting near them and having to drop to headway speed. I think the inexperienced sailors are in more danger of bumping into each other than running afoul of a powerboat. Why not simply flag the primary training zone and make it a restricted speed area?

Finally, although Baja's can be custom powered to run at very high speeds, the cost of such additional power would price the boat out of the range of the vast majority of people and would be a waste to have on Winnipesaukee where the opportunities to use such an extravagant boat would be limited. Are there really any boats on Winnipesaukee that can go much faster than 80 MPH? Talking about 100+ MPH boats on Winnipesaukee is like worrying about the problems of landing the space shuttle at Manchester airport. Yes, the shuttle exists and landing it puts a stain on the landing area. However, I don't think we need to worry about it landing in Manchester anytime soon.

I have been around novice Sunfish sailors many times. I have passed them at a distance at 55 MPH and cruised at headway speed through the middle of them when they were blocking a channel. No one had any problems. Why would an expanded sailing facility be any different?

Maybe I'll sign up for lessons when they get the new facility built.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by jeffk

First, let's dial back the hyperbole a bit.

The number of students expected FOR THE WHOLE YEAR is 300. They have courses for about 8 weeks. That averages out to around 35 students a week, a nice sized group but hardly a strain for a lake the size of Winnipesaukee that deals with thousands of boaters at a time.

Gee , imagine that...somebody made a misleading statement
Here I thought there was going to be 300 out there all summer long.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by pm203

As the owner of a boat that will do well over 90 mph, this proposed law will do nothing to change the way I boat one bit. The majority of the time, I cruise around 45 mph . Other times, when conditions permit, I might go for a short, high speed run, whether it's 60,70 or more. Law or no law, you cannot stop the speeding and noise any more than you can on route 93. I will continue to boat as I always have. And, from what I have been told, even if I get issued a ticket, which is VERY unlikely, it can be fought and won. I have muffled my boat to comply to noise regulations and do observe all current boating laws. Unfortunately, I will not respect or comply with a speed limit on this lake. Good luck trying to enforce it.

Although I am not a huge fan of the speed limit, I do believe if done right and certain busy areas of the lake had limits we would be at a happy compromise. However it is people like pm203 here that are to blame for the current state of things. I hate people with the attitude of screw the system I am going to do what I want. That is a poor attitude. NH maybe the live free or die state, but everyone in the state has the right to do that in away that is comfortable to them. At 45 mph in area that you may feel isn't congested there are others who feel it is, and you make them nervous. What give you the right to make others nervous?

That what this is all about, people are so concentrated on themselves these days they forget to think about how what they do may affect others. This isn't a debate only over speed, it is a debate over everyone be able to be comfortable and enjoy the lake.

Now stepping off the platform about the rude, selfish behavior, to the one on enforcement. everyone better be careful, your boat maybe able to scream across the lake and they will have a hard time getting the radar on you. But remember this just like NH successfully put noise pollution control in place to quiet boats down. Most new boats have PCM units for the motors. Governing an engine has never been easier. In other words, Get caught once shame on you, get caught twice, shame on us, get caught three times, either have your boat governed, or never be caught on the lake again. I personally would not want to see it come to that, but remember people there is more then one way to skin the cat, all of which can be made legal by your friendly legislator.

Blowing off the law because you don't think it is enforceable is only going to tender the fire.

[Hottrucks]

are they going to put a governer in my car if I get another speeding ticket???

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Hottrucks

are they going to put a governer in my car if I get another speeding ticket???

Not that I think it is right because I don't...... the fact is they can..... and eventually I can see it happening......

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

At 45 mph in area that you may feel isn't congested there are others who feel it is, and you make them nervous. What give you the right to make others nervous?
...
This isn't a debate only over speed, it is a debate over everyone be able to be comfortable and enjoy the lake.

I'm sorry but I think this idea of "I get to censor your behavior just because I don't like it" is not acceptable. My mother is uncomfortable driving faster than 40 MPH. Should everyone on the highway be forced to slow to 40 MPH to make her comfortable? If my idea of enjoyment of the lake is buzzing around on jet skis does your dislike of jet skis allow you to say I can't use them? If you are going to make laws, I believe they should be based on emperical need for the law, not just people's feelings. If feelings is the the rational for law then no one in the 60's would have been allowed to have long hair, rock & roll would have been DOA, and gay people would still be locked in closets.

I agree that public and flagrant violation of law can not be accepted but we all "bend" speed limits. So a 45 limit would effectively be a 55 MPH enforced limit, similar to highways. However, unreasonable laws are always being protested either through behavior or through legal challenge. Laws aren't always right.

[jrc]

I wish we could measure the effects of poorly implemted and thought out laws. Obviously the biggest one was prohibition, where breaking the law and corruption was so common place that many people lost respect for the law.

But think of the 55 MPH national speed limit. Has any law hurt the prestiege and respect of the police than that? Think about how you felt about the police on 9/12/2001, now think about how you feel when there's one behind you when you're doing 65 MPH in a 55 MPH zone even though the highway designed for 70 MPH.

I don't want to think about the MP that way.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by jeffk

I'm sorry but I think this idea of "I get to censor your behavior just because I don't like it" is not acceptable. My mother is uncomfortable driving faster than 40 MPH. Should everyone on the highway be forced to slow to 40 MPH to make her comfortable? If my idea of enjoyment of the lake is buzzing around on jet skis does your dislike of jet skis allow you to say I can't use them? If you are going to make laws, I believe they should be based on emperical need for the law, not just people's feelings. If feelings is the the rational for law then no one in the 60's would have been allowed to have long hair, rock & roll would have been DOA, and gay people would still be locked in closets.

I agree that public and flagrant violation of law can not be accepted but we all "bend" speed limits. So a 45 limit would effectively be a 55 MPH enforced limit, similar to highways. However, unreasonable laws are always being protested either through behavior or through legal challenge. Laws aren't always right.

I niether totally agree or totally disagree with you Jeff. Which is what makes this such a hard issue. However I think the bigest problem is that niether side is willing to give any. Personally I feel there are very few parts of the lake where speed is a concern. And if it was regulated in those areas only then the rest of the lake would be wide open, I don't think I have ever been in the middle of the broads when I felt there should be a speed limit. However I have been around the Wiers, when a bad egg takes off out of the channel, and puts the hammer down. And I feel that a speed limit would give the Marine Patrol the ability to stop someone like that, who is 150 feet from everyone, with out having to pull them over on a judgement based call.
This is a complex issue, with no good answer however I think if both side hadn't sunk thier heels in, a good comprimised could have been brought forth. Instead the politicians will decide if it is all or nothing.......


Buy the way do I think 45 is the magical number....... no I don't.... if a speed limit is set I hope they review the number often, and raise it, much like the speed limit got raised on the highways.......if a lake wide limit is to be imposed I think something like 60, is more practical, but then again that also really segragates a certain class of boats, and is that really fair.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

Buy the way do I think 45 is the magical number....... no I don't.... if a speed limit is set I hope they review the number often, and raise it, much like the speed limit got raised on the highways

Without revisting my prior comments on numbers, I'll say 2 things.

First I doubt any number will ever get reviewed for the same reason the highway limits haven't been reviewed. There's no desire to do so and every desire to avoid the whole issue. Neither the 45 on the lake nor the 55 on the highway had any safety related reasoning behind the number. The NMSL/55 wasn't even a safety issue when it was enacted, it was to save gas during the oil embargo of the time and was supposed to be temporary. We still have it, in reduced form, today.

Second the only reason the NMSL was watered down in the late 80's and then repealed in the mid 90's was due to massive non-compliance on the part of the driving public. Eventually despite all manner of statiscal manipulation to hide it, various "important" states were going to be found to not be in compliance and threatened with loss of Federal highway funds. The politicians weren't going to let this happen. Without politicians being threatening with loss of revenue I don't see any number imposed on the lake ever getting reviewed.

[pm203]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

compromise. However it is people like pm203 here that are to blame for the current state of things.

Don't blame me! I spent alot of money to quiet my boat down and DO follow all current laws. In fact, when coming out of the Weirs channel, I usually go another 200 feet before attempting to get on plane. Meanwhile,most every other "family boat" has the throttles pegged as soon as they pass the markers. I am certainly one of the more courteous boaters on the lake. It just sickens me to see this proposed speed limit law even being considered! It has been shot down countless times, only to be brought back to life, over and over, by the same selfish, misguided group for no other purpose but to discriminate against a certain type of boat. And why?? They don,t like them. And, that is what is so wrong with this proposed law. Rep Pilliod and his Winnfabs friends should be very ashamed.

[SS-194]

Not for nothin but 45 in a small boat is alot more fun then 90 in a bigger boat. You go for it skippa, rules are made to be broken right.The lake just isn't what it used to be.

[fatlazyless]

Just looked this up, the speed limits bill from the prior legislative session, HB 162, was passed in the House of Representatives by 193-139 out of 400 state reps on Feb 2, 2006 (Groundhogs day). That was a different group of state reps than who's serving now. It went on to die in the Senate by xx-xx.......16-9 or something....dunno.......(24 state senators) but the 2006 November election switched both the NH House & Senate from a Republican to a Democratic majority. But getting a majority of senators to agree to a new law like this and get it passed during an election year could be too difficult. So it's basically impossible to make an intelligent prediction. Maybe a dumb one, but nuthn too brite..... just too close to call?

Me....what do I predict.....I predict that the groundhog will NOT see its' shadow on February 2, and winter will last & last & last! Long live wintah!

........................

[Airwaves]

codeman671, my post was dripping with sarcasm

I was just pointing out, by use of sarcasm, that APS has once again traveled far and wide to try (again failing) to make a point. This time with a pic of a pretty Fountain blue water fishing boat in Florida. (The Fountain name is on the gunwale just above the word Battery)

I would also point out that this particular blue water fishing boat in Florida does not appear to be speeding or violating any other law.

Just another attempt by the "anti-powerboat/speed limits in search of a problem" crowd to take a perfectly innocent scene and twist it into something to be feared and crushed!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

codeman671, my post was dripping with sarcasm

I was just pointing out, by use of sarcasm, that APS has once again traveled far and wide to try (again failing) to make a point. This time with a pic of a pretty Fountain blue water fishing boat in Florida. (The Fountain name is on the gunwale just above the word Battery)

I would also point out that this particular blue water fishing boat in Florida does not appear to be speeding or violating any other law.

Just another attempt by the "anti-powerboat/speed limits in search of a problem" crowd to take a perfectly innocent scene and twist it into something to be feared and crushed!

Proof again APS doesn't know what he's talking about , or lying , or thinks WE don't know what we're looking at , or all the above.
In any case it is certainly indicative of a drowning man grabbing for anything he can. So keep up the great work because anybody that's truly knowledgable can see through your smoke and mirrors game and it only makes YOU look worse. You could wind up being your own worst enemy

[fatlazyless]

Hey, here's a thought, if HB847 actually passes the house, senate and executive, then some smart cookie should figure out a way "to melt down those huge fiberglass hulls, and beat them into kayaks." Just imagine such a process.....you could walk in with a 47' Fountain....and walk out with a 12' kayak, all set up for fishing......plus a big box of granola....gratis.....wow.....what a concept!!

[SS-194]

While i sit here and read the fireworks on each side of the speed limit issue. It sounds like Hilliary and Obama. Can someone out there just say simply that they love the lake for what it is. Beautiful water in a high place.
The best time on the lake is drinking that first cup of coffe on the dock before anyone is out on the water, be it a 4 ton ocean vessel or the guy doing 60 in his bass boat. If you have to go fast to enjoy the lake i feel sorry for those people. If you need a huge show off boat to have fun i feel sorry for those people. I have said before the lake is not what it used to be.
As big as the lake is, it gets real small at 70 plus mph. If you can't go fast
then maybe you will see that Winnipesaukee is ''Beatiful water in a high place" Maybe we should keep it that way. Is it possible?

[sum-r breeze]

Originally Posted by pm203

As the owner of a boat that will do well over 90 mph,this proposed law will do nothing to change the way I boat one bit. The majority of the time, I cruise around 45 mph . Other times, when conditions permit, I might go for a short, high speed run, whether it's 60,70 or more. Law or no law, you cannot stop the speeding and noise any more than you can on route 93. I will continue to boat as I always have. And, from what I have been told, even if I get issued a ticket, which is VERY unlikely, it can be fought and won. I have muffled my boat to comply to noise regulations and do observe all current boating laws. Unfortunately, I will not respect or comply with a speed limit on this lake. Good luck trying to enforce it.

Amen, Brother....Amen

The Breeze

[Island-Ho]

You two sound like the 1% of the boaters that are causing 98% of the animosity toward the GFBL crowd. I hope you will be the first to be targeted once the speed limit goes into effect!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Island-Ho

You two sound like the 1% of the boaters that are causing 98% of the animosity toward the GFBL crowd. I hope you will be the first to be targeted once the speed limit goes into effect!

You may be right. I should not have allowed myself to be pulled into this silly argument.

Woodsy- You are correct! Declare victory if you like.

[ApS]

So, we get to re-visit this thread again... remember the original post?

Originally Posted by pm203

As the owner of a boat that will do well over 90 mph,this proposed law will do nothing to change the way I boat one bit. The majority of the time, I cruise around 45 mph . Other times, when conditions permit, I might go for a short, high speed run, whether it's 60,70 or more. Law or no law, you cannot stop the speeding and noise any more than you can on route 93. I will continue to boat as I always have. And, from what I have been told, even if I get issued a ticket, which is VERY unlikely, it can be fought and won. I have muffled my boat to comply to noise regulations and do observe all current boating laws. Unfortunately, I will not respect or comply with a speed limit on this lake. Good luck trying to enforce it.

1) Whenever I see ineligible people using the handicapped parking spaces, SUVs parking in malls' fire lanes, and the occasional shooting of Bald Eagles, I am reminded of this post.

2) Another thought: some very vocal opponents to Winnipesaukee speed limits admit to living on different lakes!

Yup. Let's keep the speedsters on The Big Lake—that'll work.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

So, we get to re-visit this thread again... remember the original post?


1) Whenever I see ineligible people using the handicapped parking spaces, SUVs parking in malls' fire lanes, and the occasional shooting of Bald Eagles, I am reminded of this post.

2) Another thought: some very vocal opponents to Winnipesaukee speed limits admit to living on different lakes!

Yup. Let's keep the speedsters on The Big Lake—that'll work.

Yup, and plenty of people supporting the speed limit live on other lakes as well. Many of the businesses on the list of supporters have nothing to do with it either.

Then the scare tactics get spread, striking fear on the voters and representatives who have never been to or know nothing about the lake...

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Yup, and plenty of people supporting the speed limit live on other lakes as well. Many of the businesses on the list of supporters have nothing to do with it either.

Then the scare tactics get spread, striking fear on the voters and representatives who have never been to or know nothing about the lake...

How do explain the fact that most of the legislators that ARE familiar with the lake, also support speed limits?

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

How do explain the fact that most of the legislators that ARE familiar with the lake, also support speed limits?

I don't believe you. Please provide proof.

There are 419 legislators in the list I just downloaded from the state website. Can you list the names of the ones familiar with the lake? The names of the "most" of that set that support speed limits?

For what's its worth, 9 of the 13 legislators in a Winnipesaukee town did vote for the speed limit. But surely living in a Winnipesaukee town is not the same as being familiar with the lake. That definition leaves out Rep. Pilliod.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jrc

I don't believe you. Please provide proof.

There are 419 legislators in the list I just downloaded from the state website. Can you list the names of the ones familiar with the lake? The names of the "most" of that set that support speed limits?

For what's its worth, 9 of the 13 legislators in a Winnipesaukee town did vote for the speed limit. But surely living in a Winnipesaukee town is not the same as being familiar with the lake. That definition leaves out Rep. Pilliod.

So I guess you want to win this argument by inventing an extremely limited definition of "familiar with the lake". In you opinion what is required? Must they own a boat? How many hours of operation? How much horsepower?

Any legislator that lives in a Winnipesaukee town meets my definition. Your 9 out of 13 is the proof you are asking me for. If you listened to the debate in the house you should know that quite a few legislators from around the state stood up and related there Winnipesaukee experience and their support of speed limits. One was an ex Marine Patrol Officer. The debates are on the internet, go listen to them and hear the "proof" with your own ears.

I know a Senator that lives on Bear Island, does that count?

[jrc]

I don't want to win any argument. You stated something as fact that really is just your opinion or at best a guess.

Yes, I know that you know a Senator that has a summer house on Bear Island. Surely you didn't base your "fact" only on input from this one person.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jrc

I don't want to win any argument. You stated something as fact that really is just your opinion or at best a guess.

Yes, I know that you know a Senator that has a summer house on Bear Island. Surely you didn't base your "fact" only on input from this one person.

Your 9 out of 13 and the recordings of the debate are facts.

You are claiming the legislature didn't know what it was doing when it passed HB847 because they are not familiar with the lake. The truth is the legislature spent a great deal of time on this legislation including many public hearings and debates. Just because you don't like what they did, does not mean they didn't know what they were doing.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Your 9 out of 13 and the recordings of the debate are facts.

You are claiming the legislature didn't know what it was doing when it passed HB847 because they are not familiar with the lake. The truth is the legislature spent a great deal of time on this legislation including many public hearings and debates. Just because you don't like what they did, does not mean they didn't know what they were doing.

You are confusing me with another poster and/or misunderstanding my posts. All in all, it really doesn't matter, I'm sorry I bored the group.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jrc

You are confusing me with another poster and/or misunderstanding my posts. All in all, it really doesn't matter, I'm sorry I bored the group.

Sorry, it was codeman that made that claim. However you took up his argument so I don't see what difference it makes.

[DoTheMath]

SS-194, just out of curiosity, do you have any (real) experience with "high-performance" boats!? How about anyone on this thread that is in favor of a speed limit!? Real experience, not from watching them on TV - maybe, have you ever piloted a boat above, say... 60 mph? How about 80mph? And how about that magic number of 100mph you keep referring to? Do you know anything about how they work, how they operate - what it takes to make them run... in a safe manner? Most people (99%) I have spoken with about this topic - that are in favor of a speed limit - have NO clue what a boat that will run at higher speeds is all about, aside from what they may have seen on TV one Saturday. They have never even been in a boat that will run anywhere near 80mph, let-alone 100mph. But they think they know what it's all about, "ohh - that boat looks really fast, it must be dangerous!". How about people discuss the FACTS from first-hand experience only! There are car accidents every day, there was a 16 yr old kid killed down here in Lexington the other night - he was in a MINI VAN that struck a tree! It was driven by another teenager - it was a result of operator error! Do we need to outlaw mini-vans from being on the road now 'cuz they get into accidents and kill people!? I know several people with Porsche's, Ferrari's and Lamborghini's with no accidents OR speeding tickets in them... Hmmm, dumb-luck or just responsible operators!?

Like Sgt. Friday used to say - "just the facts ma'am". I don't see how one groups speculation and desires should over-shadow another's, ESPECIALLY when there are no FACTS to support them! This is the Live Free or Die state, it is a free country last I checked and our freedoms should be held in the highest regard. We have laws on the lake today that aren't (or can't be due to lack of coverage) even enforced - 150' safe passage always comes to mind - how about we work on those first!? We can't teach common sense - I agree 100% - but we can teach people to be better and more safety-conscious boaters.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by codeman671

"...plenty of people supporting the speed limit live on other lakes as well....

Uh...where are they here?

Lakefront dwellers on Ossipee Lake and at least two Maine lakes are represented here opposing Winnipesaukee's speed limits. A case of NIMBY?

Granted, I wouldn't want Lake Winnipesaukee's ex-cowboys near my guests and family either.

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

"...How about anyone on this thread that is in favor of a speed limit!? Real experience..."

As a passenger, I've crossed Lake Winnipesaukee at 120-MPH.

The floatplane I was in was flown by my Dad—a proven pilot.

Moreover, both parents are certified floatplane pilots, and my Dad raced a "Laconia Speedster" on Winnipesaukee out of Melvin Village.

Both are non-drinkers and want speed limits on Winnipesaukee. That includes my in-laws, who had a kayak incident with an all-white, high performance boat within 75 feet of shore! (Visibility problem over an excessively-long deck, I'm hearing).

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

"...We can't teach common sense...but we can teach people to be better and more safety-conscious boaters..."

I instruct high-speed automobile car control—most recently at 130-MPH. Our club has paid corner workers, fire trucks, and ambulance "at the ready" on a closed course.

Is that enough safety—where there's absolutely no chance of drowning??

At speeds that vary between 50 and 130-MPH, I can afford only a glance at the temperature gauge once a lap: If experience tells us to avoid distractions at high speed, how does a "driver", speeding across Winnipesaukee's shoals and 253 island-strewn waters at 150-feet per second or faster, manage high speed distractions with this panoply of instruments ...plus GPS???

[Seeker]

Acres per Second wrote:
At speeds that vary between 50 and 130-MPH, I can afford only a glance at the temperature gauge once a lap: If experience tells us to avoid distractions at high speed, how does a "driver", speeding across Winnipesaukee's shoals and 253 island-strewn waters at 150-feet per second or faster, manage high speed distractions with this panoply of instruments ...plus GPS???

I have a few problems with this one.
First, if you were traveling across Winnie at 120 in a floatplane you had better have been airborne as liftoff is somewhere between 35 and 65.
Second, I raced SCCA a long time ago at speeds in excess of what you mention. If I could look only at the temp gauge once per lap we would have never won a race. You must develop a scan of the instruments, whether in an aircraft, a race car or a boat, performance or otherwise. When you have enough experience you just know when something looks wrong (a needle in the wrong position) without really seeing it. If you can't, you should be doing something else.

[jrc]

APS,

If you can't look at instruments at speeds between 50 and 130 MPH, then how do people fly jet planes? Last I heard they fly around 600 MPH, sometimes right over the lake.

Seriously, if the traffic on the lake is dense enough so don't have time to look at your instruments or to navigate, then you should slow down, you are being reckless.

If you are crossing shoals or dodging islands so fast that you can't read your instruments or navigate, you should slow down, you're being reckless.

If you operate your boat recklessly you should be fined or jailed.

Not one speed limit opponent will recommend operating recklessly.

Not one speed limit opponent will suggest that speeds over 45 MPH are appropriate at all times and all places.

This is pretty simple stuff you think that you would have got it by now.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Uh...where are they here?

Lakefront dwellers on Ossipee Lake and at least two Maine lakes are represented here opposing Winnipesaukee's speed limits. A case of NIMBY?

Granted, I wouldn't want Lake Winnipesaukee's ex-cowboys near my guests and family either.

I don't live on Winni, or any other body of water. In fact, I rarely boat on Winni. In fact, my PWC barely exceeds the proposed 45 mph limit. But I am adamantly opposed to the speed limit bill. When I do go on Winni, I don't want to be worried about my speed. Not to mention that if the proposal passes on the largest lake in the state, I would venture to speculate that it would be passed on other bodies of water as well.
I will say it again...there is no data that proves that speed is an issue on Lake Winni.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by chipj29

"...I rarely boat on Winni. In fact, my PWC barely exceeds the proposed 45 mph limit...if the proposal passes on the largest lake in the state, I would venture to speculate that it would be passed on other bodies of water as well..."

Now, why wouldn't you want to share the "lake of your choice" with Winnipesaukee's ex-cowboys?

Originally Posted by Seeker

"...if you were traveling across Winnie at 120 in a floatplane you had better have been airborne as liftoff is somewhere between 35 and 65..."

But your "Unlimited Speeds" proponents tell us 120 is safe for boats! Floatplanes have options on the water—and virtually no traffic over the lake.

All boats are stuck in one dimension and, among Winnipesaukee's cowboys, small boats are the most-stuck.

Originally Posted by Seeker

"...I raced SCCA a long time ago at speeds in excess of what you mention. If I could look only at the temp gauge once per lap we would have never won a race..."

I'll guess you didn't have GPS, or have three engines in your Sports Racer—or an instument panel that looks like this one:



Most of us use lights like this one:

Originally Posted by jrc

"...if the traffic on the lake is dense enough so don't have time to look at your instruments or to navigate, then you should slow down, you are being reckless..."

...you're writing of the "common sense" we aren't witnessing on the lake?

Originally Posted by jrc

"...If you are crossing shoals or dodging islands so fast that you can't read your instruments or navigate, you should slow down, you're being reckless. ..."

Running across islands, running upside-down into cottages, running over other boats, and running ashore is reckless, but how many others got stopped by the NHMP?

Originally Posted by jrc

"...If you operate your boat recklessly you should be fined or jailed. ..."

One would think so...

Originally Posted by jrc

"...Not one speed limit opponent will recommend operating recklessly. ..."

I direct your attention to the first post in this thread, which begins..."Law or no law...."

"Law or no law, you cannot stop the speeding and noise any more than you can on route 93. I will continue to boat as I always have. And, from what I have been told, even if I get issued a ticket, which is VERY unlikely, it can be fought and won."

Originally Posted by jrc

"...Not one speed limit opponent will suggest that speeds over 45 MPH are appropriate at all times and all places...."

How about "over 90"?

"...As the owner of a boat that will do well over 90 mph,this proposed law will do nothing to change the way I boat one bit..."

Originally Posted by jrc

"...This is pretty simple stuff you think that you would have got it by now..."

I'm slow on the water, too.

Watch for me—especially if I'm capsized.

[DoTheMath]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Uh...where are they here?

Lakefront dwellers on Ossipee Lake and at least two Maine lakes are represented here opposing Winnipesaukee's speed limits. A case of NIMBY?

Granted, I wouldn't want Lake Winnipesaukee's ex-cowboys near my guests and family either.


As a passenger, I've crossed Lake Winnipesaukee at 120-MPH.

The floatplane I was in was flown by my Dad—a proven pilot.

Moreover, both parents are certified floatplane pilots, and my Dad raced a "Laconia Speedster" on Winnipesaukee out of Melvin Village.

Both are non-drinkers and want speed limits on Winnipesaukee. That includes my in-laws, who had a kayak incident with an all-white, high performance boat within 75 feet of shore! (Visibility problem over an excessively-long deck, I'm hearing).



I instruct high-speed automobile car control—most recently at 130-MPH. Our club has paid corner workers, fire trucks, and ambulance "at the ready" on a closed course.

Is that enough safety—where there's absolutely no chance of drowning??

At speeds that vary between 50 and 130-MPH, I can afford only a glance at the temperature gauge once a lap: If experience tells us to avoid distractions at high speed, how does a "driver", speeding across Winnipesaukee's shoals and 253 island-strewn waters at 150-feet per second or faster, manage high speed distractions with this panoply of instruments ...plus GPS???

Sorry - did you just compare a float plane and a boat in the same sentence when discussing speed limits ON the water!? If that is the path you're going to take... You mention you teach high-speed car control in automobiles, most recently at 130mph. Impressive, but I have traveled over land at 640mph. - yes really! Ohhhh, wait - I was in a commercial airliner... but it's the same thing, right!? Sorry - your stance is really starting to take on water here - pun intended.

As much as I envy your dad for piloting the boat that he did - back in the day (loved those boats) - and being an accomplished pilot, I'm not asking about your Dad here, I'm talking about you. I don't mix alcohol and boating either - water on the water, beer on the pier - a rule (and saying) instituted by the publisher of Poker Runs Magazine, Bill Taylor. All those "distractions" you mention on the dash of a performance boat are very easily managed, if you have the experience and know-how. There are only a few that you need to be concerned about in the short-term, oil & water - temp and pressure, as you know are the "life blood" of ANY internal combustion 4-stroke motor. Aside of that, all the rest are fuel level, speed, tach, boost, volts, etc...


As far as the kayak incident being caused by "an excessively long deck" on the accused offending vessel - pure speculation! Once a performance boat is on plane, the deck is flat and you can see the horizon just fine above it, and what is in the water in front of you as well. Now, take a 35' or 40' cruiser plowing along at 15 knots - there is a visibility problem due to deck position! Notice the attached picture - that was taken at 110mph (see the GPS in the middle of the pic.?), look at the deck position - you can't even see it, visibility just fine! Oh, and that boat is 32' long - a real 32', not including any platforms etc... And we were running in the Delta, where there were no other boats to worry about and it is perfectly legal to do so. And yes, throttles are in the back position as it is operated with foot throttles, and full drive and tab trim controls on the wheel so you can keep both hands on it. And we are wearing suspender style life vests - USCG approved BTW...

[chipj29]

From an email...

The Senate Transportation commitee has set the public hearing date. It will be Monday, April 21st 9-12am.
This is the last public hearing before the NH Senate votes on HB847.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chipj29

From an email...

The Senate Transportation commitee has set the public hearing date. It will be Monday, April 21st 9-12am.
This is the last public hearing before the NH Senate votes on HB847.

Darn, I'd love to be there but it's the same time as the Marathon.

[Airwaves]

I found these two articles, one from the Associated Press the other from the Boston Globe, interesting and very telling for the future funding of the New Hamsphire Marine Patrol.

First the AP article from March 28:
Boatbuilding hits the rocks

Then this article today from the Globe
Boat owners struggling to jump ship

(It appears you may have to register for free in order to view the articles) There are other articles that talk about stock prices for boat manufacturers taking hits, and West Marine Q4 profits way off as well but these two articles are representative, and funny neither one mentions a speed limit as the cause or even a factor!

So, how do these stories impact the Marine Patrol? As has been mentioned a number of times on this forum, the Marine Patrol gets its funding from NH boat registrations. That is why they have been doing direct mailings recently to boat owners asking you to register directly through the Marine Parol. That way they don't have to share the revenue with the towns.

If the economic factors that are effecting the boatbuilder and Massachusetts boaters looking to get out are also being felt in New Hampshire, the Marine Patrol budget will suffer.

So now we're looking at the possibility of a new law that will require new enforcement efforts from an agency that is facing funding cuts. Since New Hampshire Governor John Lynch has told his agency heads that because of an expected $50,000,000 budget shortfall to be prepared for cuts.

Even in the unlikely event that the state does step in and level fund the Marine Patrol the need for a new series of radar patrols is still a cutback since those patrols require radar certified Marine Patrol officers (training costs) to run radar duty instead of conducting safety patrols (patrol cutbacks). Accomplishing that, to cover a lake that is 72 square miles, is going to take more than one radar boat!

Such a move would be a reduction in safety to all boaters that I strongly oppose and actually will make the lake a LESS SAFE PLACE TO BE!

Ironic, a law requiring a speed limit could actually make the lake less safe!

In another thread someone asked how opponents to the speed limit would react if there are 22 speed related deaths this summer? I will pose the same question to you. How are you going to sleep at night if, because of the required radar patrols to enforce your speed limit, a boat is involved in an accident in an area where a Marine Patrol boat would normally be but can't be because it's doing a speed trap patrol and the victim of the accident dies?

Speed is not a problem on Lake Winnipesaukee but there are problems and taking the only law enforcement on the lake and cutting their patrol time to enforce an unnecessary law is just plain stupid!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

"...Now, take a 35' or 40' cruiser plowing along at 15 knots - there is a visibility problem due to deck position...!"

In defense of oversized Winnipesaukee cruisers, many have flybridges. (And passengers on the foredeck).

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

"...As far as the kayak incident being caused by "an excessively long deck" on the accused offending vessel - pure speculation! Once a performance boat is on plane, the deck is flat and you can see the horizon just fine above it, and what is in the water in front of you as well.

The incident—as told to me—was very close to shore, involved the boat leaving a dock after an overnighting, and proceeding at somewhere between headway speed and jogging speed. The "driver" failed to acknowledge their warning shouts, and didn't even acknowledge his error as he passed. (Not even glancing in their direction—not saying anything at all).

Perhaps he was distracted by something (cellphone?), but my "math" tells me that he simply couldn't see the lesser boat because of excessive deck on his boat.

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

"...Notice the attached picture - that was taken at 110mph (see the GPS in the middle of the pic.?), look at the deck position - you can't even see it, visibility just fine...And we were running in the Delta, where there were no other boats to worry about and it is perfectly legal to do so..."

On Lake Winnipeaukee, you'd be traveling at 161.334 feet per second on protected inland waters with an "Unsafe Passage" law. Your "driver" would have less than one heartbeat to dodge a turtle, a surfacing loon, capsized sailboarder or a swimmer. (And certainly couldn't come to a halt in time).

At those speeds (and greater) the GPS should be of a "heads-up" display, not low on the panel; that is, if the windshield were suitably undistorted.

Say, is that a boat "not to be worried about" in the windshield distortion?

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

"...All those "distractions" you mention on the dash of a performance boat are very easily managed, if you have the experience and know-how..."

Like the instruments on this $1-million boat?

Originally Posted by DoTheMath

"...we were running in the Delta, where there were no other boats to worry about and it is perfectly legal to do so..."

You don't indicate which "Delta", but isn't this boat part of "the Delta Experience"?

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

On Lake Winnipeaukee, you'd be traveling at 161.334 feet per second on protected inland waters with an "Unsafe Passage" law. Your "driver" would have less than one heartbeat to dodge a turtle, a surfacing loon, capsized sailboarder or a swimmer. (And certainly couldn't come to a halt in time).

At those speeds (and greater) the GPS should be of a "heads-up" display, not low on the panel; that is, if the windshield were suitably undistorted.

Say, is that a boat "not to be worried about" in the windshield distortion?


Like the instruments on this $1-million boat?





You don't indicate which "Delta", but isn't this boat part of "the Delta Experience"?

I don't see the point of posting this stuff, the poster was talking about being in a boat at 110 mph...somewhere OTHER than Lake Winni.
Where were those pics taken? Were they on Lake Winni? Was the driver experienced? Was the driver in either instance perhaps impaired?

Maybe next you should post some pics of sailboat accidents that occurred somewhere around the globe.

[chipj29]

These guys must have been going more than 45!

[DoTheMath]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

In defense of oversized Winnipesaukee cruisers, many have flybridges. (And passengers on the foredeck).


The incident—as told to me—was very close to shore, involved the boat leaving a dock after an overnighting, and proceeding at somewhere between headway speed and jogging speed. The "driver" failed to acknowledge their warning shouts, and didn't even acknowledge his error as he passed. (Not even glancing in their direction—not saying anything at all).

Perhaps he was distracted by something (cellphone?), but my "math" tells me that he simply couldn't see the lesser boat because of excessive deck on his boat.





On Lake Winnipeaukee, you'd be traveling at 161.334 feet per second on protected inland waters with an "Unsafe Passage" law. Your "driver" would have less than one heartbeat to dodge a turtle, a surfacing loon, capsized sailboarder or a swimmer. (And certainly couldn't come to a halt in time).

At those speeds (and greater) the GPS should be of a "heads-up" display, not low on the panel; that is, if the windshield were suitably undistorted.

Say, is that a boat "not to be worried about" in the windshield distortion?


Like the instruments on this $1-million boat?





You don't indicate which "Delta", but isn't this boat part of "the Delta Experience"?

So, you never addressed YOUR experience with performance boats!? Your "racer" that you built at Brewster... was it really a 1/12 scale!? Or was it the little 10' footer I mentioned with the 15hp outboard on it!? Come on, you can tell us Establish some credibility with me (and the board) here before you continue, that way we know if you know what you are talking about with regard to performance boats - and didn't just read it in a magazine.

As for the boat I was in, Cali. Delta - and the canopies only look distorted from that angle (the back seat) - they are F16 canopies that are optically correct and provide a PERFECTLY CLEAR view when sitting in either of the two front seats. (I know, I was sitting in both of them - at different times - at some point in time that day). That is a boat that you see through the canopy - it was over 1 mile down, we slowed down long before getting to it. And the GPS - who cares where that is located, it offers NO information pertaining to safe operation, it just tells you how fast you're going. Again, if you had any real experience with performance boats, you'd know that.

As for the $1mil. dollar boat that you posted a picture of above, do you know the owner and / or story behind that picture!?!? I do! What was your point in posting that...!? It happened 2,000 miles from the lake.

In fact - your point in posting any of those pics!? I can start to post pics of car accidents, plane crashes, jet skis that are smashed up - even bowriders that are wrecked... again, what's the point!?

Tell you what - again, establish some credibility for yourself in the high performance boating world, and we can have an adult conversation - now that you "are all grown up". Until then, stop posting your propaganda - 'cuz all you're doing is clouding the facts...

As far as the incident as "told to you" on the long foredeck issue, that is - at best - second-hand information, again - pure speculation, and since you were not actually there, dismissed!

[RTTOOL]

The Senate Transportation committee voted on HB847. The vote was 3-2
"Ought to Pass", which mean a recommendation
to pass the bill. The full senate will mostly likely vote on HB847 next
week. So continue to keep up the pressure. Your help is needed.

Thank you,


John Gallus
292 Prospect Street
Berlin, NH 03570-2137
(H) (603)752-1066
(O) (603)271-3077

Deborah Reynolds
5 Chaddarin Lane
Plymouth, NH 03264
(O) (603)271-3569

Joseph Kenney
PO Box 201
Union, NH 03887-0201
(H) (603)473-2569
(O) (603)271-3073

Kathleen Sgambati
25 Pine Street
Tilton, NH 03276
(H) (603)286-8931
(O) (603)271-3074

Peter Burling
20 Lang Road
Cornish, NH 03745-4209
(O) (603)271-2642

Jacalyn Cilley
2 Oak Hill Road
Barrington, NH 03825
(H) (603)664-5597
(O) (603)271-3045

Harold Janeway
225 Tyler Road
Webster, NH 03303
(O) (603)271-3041

Bob Odell
PO Box 23
Lempster, NH 03605-0023
(O) (603)271-6733

Sheila Roberge
83 Olde Lantern Road
Bedford, NH 03110-4816
(H) (603)472-8391
(O) None Specified

Molly Kelly
89 Colonial Drive
Keene, NH 03431
(H) (603)352-5605
(O) (603)271-7803

Peter Bragdon
P.O. Box 307
Milford, NH 03055 (H)
(603)673-7135
(O) (603)271-2675

David Gottesman
18 Indian Rock Road
Nashua, NH 03063-1308
(H) (603)889-4442
(O) (603)271-4152

Joseph Foster
9 Keats Street
Nashua, NH 03062-2509
(H) (603)891-0307
(O) (603)271-2111

Robert Clegg
39 Trigate Road
Hudson, NH 03051-5120
(O) (603)271-8630

Sylvia Larsen
23 Kensington Road
Concord, NH 03301
(H) (603)225-6130
(O) (603)271-2111

Theodore Gatsas
20 Market St
PO Box 6655
Manchester, NH 03104-6052
(H) (603)623-0220
(O) (603)271-8567

John Barnes
PO Box 362
Raymond, NH 03077-3062
(H) (603)895-9352
(O) (603)271-6931

Betsi DeVries
14 Old Orchard Way
Manchester, NH 03103
(H) (603)647-0117
(O) (603)271-2104

Robert Letourneau
30 South Avenue
Derry, NH 03038
(O) (603)271-8631

Lou D'Allesandro
332 St. James Avenue
Manchester, NH 03102-4950
(H) (603)669-3494
(O) (603)271-2600

Iris Estabrook
8 Burnham Avenue
Durham, NH 03824-3011
(H) (603)868-5524
(O) (603)271-3042

Michael Downing
7 Darryl Lane
Salem, NH 03079
(H) (603)893-5442
(O) (603)271-2674

Margaret Hassan
48 Court Street
Exeter, NH 03833-2728
(H) (603)772-4187
(O) (603)271-4153

Martha Fuller Clark
152 Middle Street
Portsmouth, NH 03801-4306
(O) (603)271-6933


http://www.opposehb847.com

Again, pass this on to everyone you know who can help us protect our
rights. The more letters and phones the the bigger the impact.

[Airwaves]

Actually they are scheduled to vote on the bill the day after tomorrow the 15th. Not next week. Next week will be too late.

[2Blackdogs]

Originally Posted by pm203

As the owner of a boat that will do well over 90 mph,this proposed law will do nothing to change the way I boat one bit. The majority of the time, I cruise around 45 mph . Other times, when conditions permit, I might go for a short, high speed run, whether it's 60,70 or more. Law or no law, you cannot stop the speeding and noise any more than you can on route 93. I will continue to boat as I always have. And, from what I have been told, even if I get issued a ticket, which is VERY unlikely, it can be fought and won. I have muffled my boat to comply to noise regulations and do observe all current boating laws. Unfortunately, I will not respect or comply with a speed limit on this lake. Good luck trying to enforce it.

As one of the longest running threads on this issue, this thread starter's last two sentences above can't be ignored now that I'm catching up on this issue.

Back when HB164 was started, this thread starter also wrote,

The majority of performance boaters are courteous,law abiding proffessional people whom are not to blame.Most of us treat our boats and equipment very seriously.One inexperienced or foolish drunk boater does not mean that we all are like that.

Is this funny or sad?

[pm203]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

As one of the longest running threads on this issue, this thread starter's last two sentences above can't be ignored now that I'm catching up on this issue.

Back when HB164 was started, this thread starter also wrote,

Is this funny or sad?

It is sad that needless legislation has gone so far based on nothing other than discrimination and fear spread by a small group of people. I have always been super courteous on the water and will always remain so. If speeding in the broads makes me a criminal ,so be it. That is what is sad. But, I bet close to 100% of the members of this forum are criminals as well, by exceeding the posted highway speed limit on the roads .Does that make us all criminals? I will always place safety as my highest priority whether on land or water and will always be one of the lake's most courteous boaters.

[EricP]

I'd say it's frustration at how long this has dragged out and how unnecessary the proposed law really is.