A Challenge for a Solution to Lake Speeds

[JayDV]

With all the Point and Counterpoint threads in this HB847 issue, I think a collective effort to map out a solution is a good positive direction. This devised solution could be presented to the delayed legislation hearing for consideration.

It is a given that everyone has Constitutional Rghts that can't be violated, but those Rights should not be acceptable practices anywhere and at the whim of the individual. Speeds are governed by laws (maybe inspired by common sense) where excessive speeds may harm or cause harm to others and/or the individual(s) involved. Car owners can drive as fast as they want/can at established speed facilities. Boats don't have the luxury of having a privatized body of water for speed so maybe a little give and take on Winni?

I suggest this challenge for the lake users to mutually come to an amiable solution and then present it to legislative body in charge.

I came up with one notion (posted earlier) that didn't even get a pfffffftttt but I thought is was a good start.
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...56&postcount=4

There may still be time due to the delay so other voices could be heard.

Can we hear yours?

Jay

[Cal]

Wonderful solution. Ever read 1984? Big brother is watching

[JayDV]

I Did read 1984 and I still believe it to be a concern. But I think the Freedom of Information Act (at least on this topic) can help to keep Big Bro in check and will absolutely keep Big Bro accountable. And that is important!

[Dick]

The last legislative session (2007) Representative C. Ahlgren sponsored HB 290 -- what he thought was a good compromise bill whereby the boat speed limit would be 65 mph if 1,000 feet or more from shore, other boats, etc.. , but if you were 150 to 999 feet from anything the speed limit would be 45 mph. This bill got killed.

Here is a compromise idea for a bill that I think makes a lot of sense and would get support from nearly everyone: let's have a boat speed restriction of 6 mph on all NH lakes if the boat is less than 150 feet from: shore, other boats, rafts, docks, . . . anything.

If the watercraft is > 150 feet from anything, we will rely on the U.S. Coast Guideline guideline that has served us (and most other states) very well over these many years, i.e., reasonable & prudent operation according to the prevailing conditions.

The Marine Patrol would not incur any additional costs to enforce the above proposal because radar and specialized training would not be needed. The MP has the power now to issue citations to boaters who are operating their watercraft in a careless or reckless manner in the professional judgement of the MP officer. And this all holds up in court.

Oooops . . . wait . . . isn't this the way it's been for many years? As a result there have been zero (as in none, nada, zip, 0) boat-to-boat collisions that involved a speed over 30 mph for the past 2 years at least.

Do emotional "I'm afraid" stories trump the facts?

Look . . . Winnipesaukee is BIG, exciting, and can be very intimidating -- even with no boats out on the lake -- as when there is a stiff wind out of the West. Winni is definitely not a small tranquil pond, but we have at least 900 other small lakes/ponds in the state that are.

[JayDV]

Originally Posted by Dick

The last legislative session (2007) Representative C. Ahlgren sponsored HB 290 -- what he thought was a good compromise bill whereby the boat speed limit would be 65 mph if 1,000 feet or more from shore, other boats, etc.. , but if you were 150 to 999 feet from anything the speed limit would be 45 mph. This bill got killed.

Here is a compromise idea for a bill that I think makes a lot of sense and would get support from nearly everyone: let's have a boat speed restriction of 6 mph on all NH lakes if the boat is less than 150 feet from: shore, other boats, rafts, docks, . . . anything.

If the watercraft is > 150 feet from anything, we will rely on the U.S. Coast Guideline guideline that has served us (and most other states) very well over these many years, i.e., reasonable & prudent operation according to the prevailing conditions.

The Marine Patrol would not incur any additional costs to enforce the above proposal because radar and specialized training would not be needed. The MP has the power now to issue citations to boaters who are operating their watercraft in a careless or reckless manner in the professional judgement of the MP officer. And this all holds up in court.

Oooops . . . wait . . . isn't this the way it's been for many years? As a result there have been zero (as in none, nada, zip, 0) boat-to-boat collisions that involved a speed over 30 mph for the past 2 years at least.

Do emotional "I'm afraid" stories trump the facts?

Look . . . Winnipesaukee is BIG, exciting, and can be very intimidating -- even with no boats out on the lake -- as when there is a stiff wind out of the West. Winni is definitely not a small tranquil pond, but we have at least 900 other small lakes/ponds in the state that are.

Dick - I Am in agreement with the Coast Guard rules as acceptable. But what I am reading here on the forum is that because so many naysayers have caught the legislation's ear a bill is being entertained with a probable passing if not next month or next year, then soon because Winni is only getting more and more popular and busier making the potential of the serious boating accident almost inevitable. As a preventative measure legislation will set forth a law based on whatever facts are obtained. Many have said the fact finding process used last summer was somewhere between planned-inaccurate and bogus. Istead I felt proposing an amicable solution to legislation will allow the lake users some voice in the process of determining whether there is a need for government intervention. I know the state polices the waters, but the properties are owned by the respective towns. Maybe those towns can also request some alternatives? Or maybe the towns are happy the state is stepping in? Maybe the Army Corp of Engineers (I'm guessing here) could help to set up the mechanics of fair evaluations?

[Dick]

Originally Posted by JayDV

" Winni is only getting more and more popular and busier making the potential of the serious boating accident almost inevitable."

If boating on Winnipesaukee were truly dangerous, why would it be a more and more popular boating destination? Wouldn't more people stay away and go to other lakes?

Then too, when there is more boat traffic (and especially in congested areas) the vast majority of boaters naturally have a tendency to slow down and be more alert. We hope the MP nails those few bonehead "captains" who exercise no common sense at all. Unfortunately we can't legislate common sense.

[Dick]

Originally Posted by JayDV

"Many have said the fact finding process used last summer was somewhere between planned-inaccurate and bogus."

They have stated this about the speed survey results because they do not like the results because the facts do not support their position. So they try to discredit the Marine Patrol officers. Do these people also discredit the boating accident/safety reports (over many years) from the U.S. Coast Guard, the National Association of Boating Law Administrators, and our own Dept. of Safety?

Emotional stories do not trump the facts. The facts are clear.

We all know what the real motivation is behind this boat speed restriction bill . . . and it isn't safety.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Dick

The last legislative session (2007) Representative C. Ahlgren sponsored HB 290 -- what he thought was a good compromise bill whereby the boat speed limit would be 65 mph if 1,000 feet or more from shore, other boats, etc.. , but if you were 150 to 999 feet from anything the speed limit would be 45 mph. This bill got killed.

Sounds like a start on a good compromise. We all know that speed has to be proper for the conditions. There are times and places where speeds can be high and other times and/or places (limited sightlines) where it can't. Having a speed limit that applies when and where the lake is "crowded" and doesn't when and where it isn't make sense. No wonder it was killed.

Originally Posted by Dick

Oooops . . . wait . . . isn't this the way it's been for many years? As a result there have been zero (as in none, nada, zip, 0) boat-to-boat collisions that involved a speed over 30 mph for the past 2 years at least.

Good point that's apparently lost on some people.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by JayDV

I came up with one notion (posted earlier) that didn't even get a pfffffftttt but I thought is was a good start.
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...56&postcount=4

Jay

Let me respond to your technical proposal with another, not that I think it's THE right answer nor do I think it would ever get true consideration. With an RFID type of chip it now becomes fairly easy and cheap to implement transponders that can sense the distance between vessels. This can be used to warn both vessels that a potential collision condition exists. It could do this night or day, rain and fog, glare or none. Similar techniques have been discussed as part of the various intelligent highway systems proposals. In time this will come to pass in the automotive world and then, perhaps, be passed down to the boating world. But don't hold your breath.

[JayDV]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Let me respond to your technical proposal with another, not that I think it's THE right answer nor do I think it would ever get true consideration. With an RFID type of chip it now becomes fairly easy and cheap to implement transponders that can sense the distance between vessels. This can be used to warn both vessels that a potential collision condition exists. It could do this night or day, rain and fog, glare or none. Similar techniques have been discussed as part of the various intelligent highway systems proposals. In time this will come to pass in the automotive world and then, perhaps, be passed down to the boating world. But don't hold your breath.

Like I said, it was an idea that needed extra work. But thanks.

I hope I wasn't misunderstood. I am completely in favor of the laws as they are. I am against these HB bills. There is very few things as exhilarating as speeding over the water. I had been going to Winni for 50 years and for 37 of them we had our own boat. As a young teen I found myself in front of the Laconia judge 2 times. I have reconciled with myself that my "fun" days up there are not in my future, but I read about the events up there right here on the forum. What I was hoping from this thread was to get the "gofast" people and the "slowdown" people to mutually come up with an acceptable formula. If left to legislation only, and they mandate a speed limit based on a political agenda (or whatever Dick's point was) without hearing all the voices then ...

But if what was said was that common sense will win out and the bill will not get passed then hooray!

[Dick]

Me-N-Mac wrote, "We all know that speed has to be proper for the conditions. There are times and places where speeds can be high and other times and/or places (limited sightlines) where it can't. Having a speed limit that applies when and where the lake is "crowded" and doesn't when and where it isn't make sense."

Very true. That is why you can't come up with some sort of arbitrary speed limit and make it apply to all situations. It is also why our current guideline of "reasonable and prudent according to the prevailing conditions" makes the most sense. I agree, when conditions are congested, 45 mph or even 30 mph, while legal, would be too fast. On the other hand if you are out on The Broads in your performance boat at 8:00 AM on a week day, there are no other boats in sight, and visibility is good, 45 mph is a totally unreasonable restriction.

Thanks for trying to mind-storm to come up with some sort of compromise solution that would be acceptable to both camps.

[BroadHopper]

I like the idea of a compromise. Hopefully our representatives in legislature is reading this post and realize there are intelligient alternatives.
As a barefoot skier, I will be vioalating the 45 'rule' everytime I exercise my hobby. I do this whenever the condtions are right and that there is no or very little traffic. I can't see an harm in this.

[Hottrucks]

Over the years i have noticed one thing and I think you will find this in many motor sports....the men/women that are true go fast people aren't the problem they are truthfully probably the best examples for there respective sports/hobbies..what we need to clamp down on is " Capt. Bonehead"
I'll use the same term as allot of others here ..the GFBL people don't run these boats flat out all the time and I'm sure that they want the same thing as everyone else....a Safe place to boat... I'm not going to even try to find or post #'s but Most all of us use our boats to hang out and relax with maybe ( Just a guess by looking @ alot of Hours meters) 10% of the time the boat is even running...yea we all have gone some place store, restaurant where ever and to say you never had an adult beverage I think would be a lie from 99.9% of boats...but we need to clamp down on what we all know is a big problem and probally cause of most accedents..it has been done in the cars and maybe we need to get on this a little harder.....AS has been said a million times people need to taught what proper edicate on the water is along with some common sence.....I think we need to find a way to get Joe weekend rental guy some of this and make the rental place more responceable, maybe all rentals should be tagged with there names ( we could all run the other way then) in 8" high letters down both sides..

That my .02 on this but I could go on!!!!!!!!!!

Jeff

[JayDV]

I remember my first try at barefoot skiiing. What a thrill! But that brings up a good point.

What are viable reasons to travel greater than 45mph?
1) Barefoot skiing - I believe they recommend > 48mph.
2) How about outrunning an electrical storm to port or home providing waves not too large?
3) Sea planes landing and takeoff

Here is a good one:
Is the lake a lake when it is frozen? If so ... any snowmobilers out there?

There may be others, but if bill goes through are these listed activities breaking the law?

If the law exists and these activities are overlooked does that mean the law can be bent? And does that set the precedent that attys can now cite thus further binding officers hands about enforcing laws? Not to mention the unrecoverable court costs involved.

[fatlazyless]

On February 2, 2006; HB162 which was the last version of the current HB847 speed limits, passed the 400 volunteer member, New Hampshire House of State Representatives by 193-139. On March 16, 2006 it died in the 24 member New Hampshire State Senate by 15-9.

Since 2006, the NH House and Senate have both changed from a red Republican to a blue Democratic majority.

Governor John Lynch has indicated that he will sign the speed limits bill if it reaches his desk.

Contrary to what someone like myself may incorrectly assume, the speed limits issue is not really a partisan D-R split issue as there as D's & R's on both sides of the issue.

The leader of the anti-speed limits in the House looks to be its' Republican minority leader, Rep. Mike Whalley (R) Alton, who also is one of the owner's of the state's largest jetski & jetboat dealership. So, he has a personal business interest here.

If you read the HB847 law, it applies to 'vessels.' As I understand it, 'vessels' do not include snowmobiles or airplanes.

Something new this year, which was not here in 2006, is the proposed community sailing facility at Ellacoya State Park in Gilford on Lake Winnipesaukee. The New Hampshire Department of Parks & Recreation is on-board with the Lake Winnipesaukee Sailing Association to build a community sailing building-sailing teaching facility at the end of the beautifull sandy beach in the corner close to Scenic Drive. It is scheduled to open in 2009!

If you want to help build the new community sailing facility, www.lwsa.org, a fully tax deductible organization, there is a donations link at http://www.lwsa.org//store/index.php?cPath=3. Please check out this website and the photographs for some insight into youth sailing, ages 8-16, & adults, on Lake Winnipesaukee, or take a peek at the 'building Winni Sailing' thread in the boating section, which includes a lengthy news article from the Laconia Daily Sun.

With the speed limit scheduled to be voted in the NH House on this Wednesday, how can the community sailing program coexist with 32'-8000lb-1200hp boats capable of 80-100mph who's owners insist that going 80-100mph is acceptable? The sailing program started in about 1988 and has outgrown it's hardworking, and highly regarded, Smith Cove facility in Gilford at www.FaysBoatyard.com and is making a giant step forward with its' move to the extremely attractive sandy beach at Ellacoya State Park located on the wide open expanse of Lake Winnipesaukee.
....

[JayDV]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

On February 2, 2006;
If you read the HB847 law, it applies to 'vessels.' As I understand it, 'vessels' do not include snowmobiles or airplanes.

Not to split hairs too closely 'Les, but according to definitions from 2 dictionaries (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vessel) vessels, among a couple of non-relevant definitions, ARE referring to aircraft. And since "travelling" would be reason for a vessel a decent Atty could attempt the correlation to snowmobiles and its associated speed over frozen water. Or even those car/motorcycle races.

The sailing group is a great idea, but is ice sailing not really sailing? Or the 45+ speeds attained in an iceboat excusable? And do they ice sail or race in coves? or only open spaces?

These are some more reasons that the slows and the fasts work together to reach resolutions not stand on opposite shores and digitally orate.

[BroadHopper]

I will be violating the 45 rule when I try to take off and land my Lake amphibian! A 'laker' is technically a boat once it lands in the water.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

I will be violating the 45 rule when I try to take off and land my Lake amphibian! A 'laker' is technically a boat once it lands in the water.

OK, lets try and kill this one last time.

HB 847 specificall addresses "vessels" on Lake Winnipesukee.

RSA 270-D:1 states: ...XI. ""Vessel'' means any type of watercraft used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water, except a seaplane.
Therefore by statute your aircraft is exempt from the speed limit as proposed is HB 847. There is no gray area or technicality that could include your aircraft under the bill proposed.

Further proof?

RSA 270:13-a closes any argument on HB 847 or any other regulation that would hamper your ability to take off or land:

270:13-a Operation of Seaplanes or Helicopters on Public Waters. –
I. Any seaplane or any helicopter on floats which lands on public waters shall be exempt from all laws and rules concerning the operation of boats for the purpose of landing and taking off from such public waters.
II. Any seaplane or any helicopter on floats shall exercise due caution and respect for the rights and safety of any person or boat using the public waters.

As for the applicability of HB 847 to ice racers or snowmobiles, neither meet the definiton of watercraft therefore they also are exempt from HB 847.

Hope this helps clarify the situation.....

Skip

[Woodsy]

HB-847 is a solution looking for a problem! UNFORTUNATELY THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DATA TO SUPPORT THE NEED FOR HB-847!

If you want to compromise, and if its truly about safety....

1. Leave the daytime as is.... most of the time your visibility is unlimited, and the safety record speaks for itself!

2. I would suggest a nighttime limit of 35MPH... on all NH inland lakes & ponds! I don't think you will find much oppostion to a nighttime speed limit from either side. 35 MPH is fast enough to allow the biggest boats to plane off safely and yet still get around the lake in a reasonable amount of time. I really don't care what the WinnCrab folks say, I have been on several 33' and larger speedboats, and they just doesn't plane off and go thru the water properly @ 25 MPH. The nose tends to ride high and the boat tends to wallow a bit and feel very sluggish and the engines aren't operating anywhere near effeciently. Trim tabs can help reduce, but not eliminate this, but not all boats have trim tabs!

3. Do not make the speeding violations attach to ones drivers license. Make the violations similar in scope to a speeding ticket on a snowmobile... you pay the fine, no harm/no foul. You don't pay the fine then its off to court with the possible consequence of attaching the violation to the license. You still need to have the MP officers radar certified, but because it is night only, it massively reduces the cost, workload and drain on MP resources. Most people would opt to pay the fine, rather than risk losing in court and having points attached to thier license and subsequent insurance premium increases!

4. A "3 strikes your out clause"... In essence, you can get 2 speeding tickets a season and just pay the fine... on the 3rd offense its mandatory you go before the the judge.... your safe boater cert is revoked until successful completion of a safe boater class, possibly a large fine say $500 for being a multiple offender and points on your driver's license.

5. Better funding for the MP... I know its unpopular, but any watercraft that currently do not require a registration (canoes, kayaks, sailboats etc) should have to purchase a $5 water access sticker. This money will go directly to Navigation Fund and allow the NHMP to put more officers on the water. This allows for better enforcement of our current laws. Nothing makes the busy areas on the lake safer than sight of a NHMP patrol craft just sitting there watching!

6. Allow for the "Quick & Quiet" exhaust to be legal, providing that any boat so equipped be capable of passing the noise test in both the quiet and loud positions. This will eliminate alot of the noise complaints especially late at night.


Woodsy

[JayDV]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

HB-847 is a solution looking for a problem! UNFORTUNATELY THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DATA TO SUPPORT THE NEED FOR HB-847!

If you want to compromise, and if its truly about safety....

1. Leave the daytime as is.... most of the time your visibility is unlimited, and the safety record speaks for itself!

2. I would suggest a nighttime limit of 35MPH... on all NH inland lakes & ponds! I don't think you will find much oppostion to a nighttime speed limit from either side. 35 MPH is fast enough to allow the biggest boats to plane off safely and yet still get around the lake in a reasonable amount of time. I really don't care what the WinnCrab folks say, I have been on several 33' and larger speedboats, and they just doesn't plane off and go thru the water properly @ 25 MPH. The nose tends to ride high and the boat tends to wallow a bit and feel very sluggish and the engines aren't operating anywhere near effeciently. Trim tabs can help reduce, but not eliminate this, but not all boats have trim tabs!

3. Do not make the speeding violations attach to ones drivers license. Make the violations similar in scope to a speeding ticket on a snowmobile... you pay the fine, no harm/no foul. You don't pay the fine then its off to court with the possible consequence of attaching the violation to the license. You still need to have the MP officers radar certified, but because it is night only, it massively reduces the cost, workload and drain on MP resources. Most people would opt to pay the fine, rather than risk losing in court and having points attached to thier license and subsequent insurance premium increases!

4. A "3 strikes your out clause"... In essence, you can get 2 speeding tickets a season and just pay the fine... on the 3rd offense its mandatory you go before the the judge.... your safe boater cert is revoked until successful completion of a safe boater class, possibly a large fine say $500 for being a multiple offender and points on your driver's license.

5. Better funding for the MP... I know its unpopular, but any watercraft that currently do not require a registration (canoes, kayaks, sailboats etc) should have to purchase a $5 water access sticker. This money will go directly to Navigation Fund and allow the NHMP to put more officers on the water. This allows for better enforcement of our current laws. Nothing makes the busy areas on the lake safer than sight of a NHMP patrol craft just sitting there watching!

6. Allow for the "Quick & Quiet" exhaust to be legal, providing that any boat so equipped be capable of passing the noise test in both the quiet and loud positions. This will eliminate alot of the noise complaints especially late at night.


Woodsy

I like this one. Complete with how the offenders will be handled. Thanks a lot. If the lights go on, the speed comes down. Cool.
Some people may not like the $5/non-motorized boat water access sticker, but a good idea. Here in CT we pay $20/year/registered vehicle for a town sticker that allows us use of town dump and parking at beaches regardles of number of times used.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

HB-847 is a solution looking for a problem! UNFORTUNATELY THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DATA TO SUPPORT THE NEED FOR HB-847! ....

Woodsy

This is incorrect! There have been accidents and deaths at speeds greater than proposed by HB847. These accidents and deaths are part of the data. Therefore your statement is not true.

I fully understand that you believe these accidents and deaths do not support the need for speed limits. But to say they do not exist is a lie.

[Woodsy]

Bear Islander...

When was there ever a DAYLIGHT fatal boat vs. boat collision that occurred at a speed greater than 45 MPH on Lake Winnipesaukee? How about ANY boat vs. boat DAYLIGHT collision that occurred at a speed greater than the 45 MPH proposed by HB-847? Please post the accident specifics!

In the last 5 YEARS there has only been 1 fatal boat vs. boat collision on Lake Winnipesaukee... and that occured at night at an estimated 28MPH! If you want to look like a fool and split hairs over 3 MPH, go ahead. This particular point has been discussed ad nauseum.

Why do we need HB-847? Because of 1 fatal accident that occurred at night, that involved ALCOHOL and occurred 5 YEARS AGO? That consitutes a demonstrable need for speed limit? WOW!! Thats a pretty good stretch even for you!


Woodsy

[Bear Islander]

Woodsy

If you were aware of even 1 accident then you should not have posted "ABSOLUTELY NO DATA".\

But nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to nighttime only!

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to Winnipesaukee only!

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to "5 years" only!

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to New Hampshire only!

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to "boat to boat" only!

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to "fatal accidents" only!

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to "non-alcohol related" only!

You only came up with those qualifications after I showed you your post was a lie!

There is more than enough data, and more than enough deaths, including two last summer on a lake not far from here.

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to Winnipesaukee only!

The law is for Winnipesaukee, therefore any other data is not germane to the discussion.

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to "5 years" only!

You have to cut data collection off somewhere, one accident in five years certainly indicates a lack of a pattern.

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to New Hampshire only!

Winnipesaukee is in New Hampshire, see my first response.

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to "boat to boat" only!

Not that I know of any non-boat to boat, but they are not as relevant to the problem. A single boat collision generally indicates that only those involved in the alleged irresponsible activity were affected.

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to "fatal accidents" only!

You were the one that indicated there were fatal accidents. Show us your data.

Nowhere in your statement did you limit the data to "non-alcohol related" only!

IMO, as soon as alcohol is inserted into the equation, all other contributing factors are moot. Driving under the influence, as we all know, is far riskier than speeding. It also indicates a complete disregard for any reason or safety, and therefore would not be impacted by pretty much any law the legislature could put on the books.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by chmeeee

The law is for Winnipesaukee, therefore any other data is not germane to the discussion.

HB-847 is written to include a speed limit on all NH lakes. The amendment to limit it to Winnipesaukee was added by the House Transportation Committee. When the House votes on the Bill, they will also have to vote on any amendments that were added. The original Bill could pass with or without any amendments.

IMO, as soon as alcohol is inserted into the equation, all other contributing factors are moot. Driving under the influence, as we all know, is far riskier than speeding. It also indicates a complete disregard for any reason or safety, and therefore would not be impacted by pretty much any law the legislature could put on the books.

One very strong argument for a lake speed limit law is actually BWI. People who operate under the influence often disreguard speed limits. Without a speed limit law all the MP has is their judgment that the operator is being reckless. A speed limit could make BWI behavior easier to spot.

Another point: Collisions might be rare, but close calls seem to happen quite a bit. No agency keeps track of close calls, so there’s no real data on this. I’ve had close calls with high speed boats on NH lakes, so I know for a fact that they do happen. And many other boaters had stated that they have had close calls. But whenever we point this out, we are told that we are exagerating (or are accused of lying). This is not a conspiracy - many of us have conclude from our own personal experience on the lake(s) that high speed boats are a danger to us.

The absence of a fatal accident is not proof that high speed boats are not a danger to paddlers.

Reducing the maximum speeds of boats will make any lake safer - that's a fact.

[Bear Islander]

OK, Just so we all understand.

For data to be considered the accident must take place in NH, on Winnipesaukee, during daytime, involve fatalities, must be boat-to-boat, involve speeds more than 3 mph over 45 mph, have taken place in the last 5 years, and most importantly there must be no alcohol whatsoever involved.

Anything else?

Didn't you forget "must not involve an underage operator". Otherwise you might need to include last summers fatal accident on Winni.



If you can't stand the heat...... Stop cooking the data!

[Skip]

Originally Posted by JayDV

Not to split hairs too closely 'Les...a decent Atty could attempt the correlation to snowmobiles and its associated speed over frozen water. Or even those car/motorcycle races...

The issue of snowmobiles, aircraft, ice boats etc. have been addressed several times already in any one of a number of threads that have been started in relation to this particular issue.

Once again, the proposed RSA does not apply to aircraft, or any type of mechanized vehicle operating on the frozen surface of public waters in New Hampshire.

If you have the time and patience to search all of the previous threads on this topic you will find the pertinent legal references that confirm this.

Thanks,

Skip

[JayDV]

Originally Posted by Skip

The issue of snowmobiles, aircraft, ice boats etc. have been addressed several times already in any one of a number of threads that have been started in relation to this particular issue.

Once again, the proposed RSA does not apply to aircraft, or any type of mechanized vehicle operating on the frozen surface of public waters in New Hampshire.

If you have the time and patience to search all of the previous threads on this topic you will find the pertinent legal references that confirm this.

Thanks,

Skip

Thanks Skip. I'm confident in your knowledge and memory. I'm merely trying to identify that there may be activities where speed limits may be exceeded. Sea planes landing and taking off is a big one as they have as much (or as little) emergency reaction time as the fast boats that have created a stir. And yes, I am reaching when I included frozen water and ice craft, but I watch Law & Order and I see how some of these McCoy-types tweak mindsets. It is easier to identify extreme instances and discount them, then to realize after the fact that something should have been included.

But aside from emergency vessels and barefoot skiing and bass boats, and I'll include Official Sanctioned Events, is there circumstances where excessive speed is needed or practiced?

[Dick]

Once again I must take my hat off to you for your intelligent and thoughful thinking. Many legislators (probably most) do not have any firsthand experience operating a boat on Winnipesaukee. Therefore, they do not have the insights into what all the implications may be for passing a new restrictive law. Have they thought about how this bill would restrict snowmobilers, barefoot skiers, bass fishermen? . . . I doubt it.

Are we turning into a nanny state? Most of us want government to stay out of our lives unless there is a very good objective reason to pass a new restrictive law. As I've written before, emotional "I'm afraid" stories should not trump the facts. Just because a bunch of organized lakeshore property owners want to drive the big performance boats off their lake and into the ocean does not make it right.

[fatlazyless]

...a nanny state...a nanny state...where have I heard those words before...is that the 'Dick' who is the chairman of the Gilford Budget Committee and has a 27' twin-hull, Skater-CAT w/ twin Merc 300hp, high performance two-strokes, that has seen 107mph, verified by gps, out on the Broads?

[Dick]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

...a Nanny State...a Nanny State...where have I heard those words before...is that the 'Dick' who is the chairman of the Gilford Budget Committee and has a 32' Skater w/ twin Merc 300hp, two-strokes, that has seen 107mph, verified by gps, out on the Broads?

I am not that man.

If that gentleman was out on The Broads on a week day, with few if any other boats in sight, and visibilty was very good, 45 mph would be an unreasonable restriction. On the other hand, if this gentleman was coming into a congested area within Wolfboro Bay, 45 mph (or even 30 mph) would be too fast. This is why NH, like most states, have adopted the U.S. Coast Guard guideline of operating your watercraft in a reasonable and prudent manner according to the prevailing conditions. As evidenced by our excellent boating safety record here in New Hampshire, this has served us very well. You can't pick a blanket arbitrary speed limit number and expect it to make sense in all conditions.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

OK, here's my compromise.

7 to 45mph = 150 foot rule
45 to 75 = 300 foot rule
75 and up = 600 foot rule.

Maps show three zones so we all know where it is even possible for a boat to consider a high speed range. 600 feet would restrict the boats to fairly ideal conditions in large areas.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Let me respond to your technical proposal with another, not that I think it's THE right answer nor do I think it would ever get true consideration. With an RFID type of chip it now becomes fairly easy and cheap to implement transponders that can sense the distance between vessels. This can be used to warn both vessels that a potential collision condition exists. It could do this night or day, rain and fog, glare or none. Similar techniques have been discussed as part of the various intelligent highway systems proposals. In time this will come to pass in the automotive world and then, perhaps, be passed down to the boating world. But don't hold your breath.

The Coast Guard has floated the idea of a transponder for all recreational boats. This was for homeland security issues but once they are on the boats, other applications are possible. But of course the potential for abuse by an overreaching government is also possible.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Let me respond to your technical proposal with another, not that I think it's THE right answer nor do I think it would ever get true consideration. With an RFID type of chip it now becomes fairly easy and cheap to implement transponders that can sense the distance between vessels. This can be used to warn both vessels that a potential collision condition exists. It could do this night or day, rain and fog, glare or none. Similar techniques have been discussed as part of the various intelligent highway systems proposals. In time this will come to pass in the automotive world and then, perhaps, be passed down to the boating world. But don't hold your breath.

Actually, a similar type of system is in use now for aviation. It is called TCAS. In a nutshell the planes interrogate each other for potential conflicts within a predetermined distance. If a conflict (collision) is eminent, the system gives a warning. The system is not without issues however, first and foremost is that not all aircraft are required to have the system. Secondly it is costly, although it is becoming less expensive. As with anything, a variant could be adapted to the lake. The main question becomes, considering the current statistics ( no speed related deaths in the past 5 or more years) is the expense of such a system justified? I say absolutely not. It would be an expensive way to address a problem that doesn't exist.

More info. on TCAS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCAS

[fatlazyless]

Mitt has expressed many times that he is against any speed limits and say's 'let the markets set the pace."

He's got this trick that he's perfected: standing on an old wood stepladder that's screwed to an old wood aquaboard, Mitt can waterski that set-up all the way around the scary waters of Rattlesnake Island, honest to goodness!!

[Hottrucks]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Mitt has expressed many times that he is against any speed limits and say's 'let the market steer the course."

He's got this trick that he's perfected: standing on an old wood stepladder that screwed to an old wood aquaboard, Mitt can waterski that set-up all the way around the scary waters of Rattlesnake Island, honest to goodness!!

Seems to me then he needs some education then........I wonder if he has his safe boater card??????? I will say.... nothing will be cooler than sitting in a class room with 20 secret service guys in black coats and ear pieces learning the 150' rule...and something tells me they would have GFBL boats in a big way..... or maybe a whaler with a 50 cal mounted on it

[ApS]

Originally Posted by JayDV

"...With all the Point and Counterpoint threads in this HB847 issue, I think a collective effort to map out a solution is a good positive direction...Can we hear yours...?"

Thanks for trying; as we've seen, it set a few gears to a-turning.

Originally Posted by JayDV

This devised solution could be presented to the delayed legislation hearing for consideration.came up with one notion (posted earlier) that didn't even get a pfffffftttt but I thought is was a good start.
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...56&postcount=4

Pfffffftttt. Your suggestion is costly to a resource-drained state.

In my plan, monies would be at the expense of the boat manufacturers (NAMMI), who have lots of cash—and the wherewithal to restore any boats tested for resale.

__________________________________________________


PLAN A: Require that a boat's top speed will not permit traveling more than 30-feet on land.

(Recalling Eagle-/Parker-/Rattlesnake-/Camp-Island's crashes related to speed).

1) Since we know that 130-feet on land is small change for some boats, obviously we can't re-use the Eagle Island crash site due to the close-call sleeping cabin dwellers there already received. Selected test locations need not endanger dwellings—though the structure would provide an adequately-sized target.

2) Use of a different state's waters (other than NH's) would remove any possible bias. I propose that Long Lake be used as a crash site, since a suitable site was quickly (but not quietly) prepared during last year's boating season.

3) Therefore, using much simpler technology than what JayDV has suggested, boats could be driven directly on shore to determine lethality—remotely.

4) On the up-side, this removes alcohol as a variable.

5) On the downside, there's always the argument that such examinations on waters other than New Hampshire lakes are always invalid.

PLAN B: Plan B proposes that any boat having a windshield be prohibited from exceeding 45-MPH. (Including boats with painted-over windshields, such as the boat pictured below).

Anyone who has experienced a wind velocity of 45-MPH in their unprotected face knows that 45 is very fast indeed in any conveyance without a windshield.



And speaking of that 7-ton, 95-MPH boat, its "captain" is quoted as saying:

"...I never only look up to 150’ and tend to see or view well beyond that and would certainly not aim directly towards another boat or person at any speed..." http://www.opposehb847.com/opposehb8...cbourgeois.htm

Missiles are for "aiming". I don't "aim" my boat.

Anyone else in the speed-limit debate thinking that "aim" is a very poor word-choice?

Could he see Evenstar directly ahead of him in the photograph?