You are a senator how do you vote on HB-847

[parrothead]

No responses more than the poll questions. One response per user please. No comments just a general poll of how everyone stands.

How do you vote for a 45/25 mph speed limit for Lake Winnipesaukee?

1. For
2. Against
3. Undecided

[fatlazyless]

Driving past Lakeport Landing, a fabulous Formula dealer in Laconia, their big sign out front used to say 'Senator Robert Boyce.' No need to guess how Boycie will be a-vote'n.......oopsie....guess what....Boycie is now known as the 'prior occupant.'

The same sign also used to say 'Craig Benson.' Lots of changes in NH politics since May 3, 2003. The 'Old Man of the Mountain' isn't the only NH institution that has crashed in the last five years.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by parrothead

"...No comments just a general poll of how everyone stands..."

Why no comments?

Shouldn't an on-line poll be restricted in some way? Will a vote from Sweden—or Hawaii—count equally with one from Moultonborough or Meredith?

A member who joined April, 2008 from Nevada is counted the same as a member who actually witnesses the increase in boating anarchy on our most-treasured inland protected water?

It would have been more resourceful to take a poll during the "Temporary Speed Limit" period announced by Director Barrett last July.

I'll say it before the poll closes next week: The same poll question appeared at this forum in 2002—and "broke even", so what validity can be gained from a poll taken this year? Just two days ago, everyone should have read here that online speed limit polls are actively manipulated by the Unlimited Speeds crowd.

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

"...Lots of changes in NH politics since May 3, 2003..."

I predict that this poll will NOT mirror the mood of the most recent House vote of 2-to-1 (overwhelmingly in favor) to the old House vote of 236-to-139. (Just warmly in favor).

The tide has changed in the NH Legislature, but don't expect to see that reflected at a poll where on-line voting is, sadly, actively manipulated behind the scenes.

[parrothead]

Having never posted a poll before, I put in the original post only one response per user, not realizing that the forum software only lets you respond once anyway.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Nice try Parrothead but Acres per Second (faster than Miles Per Hour) taint the poll IMO.

The tired claim that those opposed to the 45mph/25mph must be for unlimited speeds has already been shown to be FALSE.

APS posting it here and linking to his own more lengthy post is not fair to the voting process. There are already laws in place requiring reasonable speeds on the lake. APS's claim in THIS poll thread puts a bias into the results.

May I suggest that, since APS got his answer he DELETE his post, you delete your response and I delete this message. As for FLL ... what can I say?

Thanks Parrothead

Catch the "wave"

[Gilligan]

Acres,

Did you read these messages and the one that Parrothead already deleted?

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Islander

Our friends over at OSO are up to the same old tricks. Sending people here to vote on the poll. There goes any possible validity.

Prove it. I just searched OSO and I couldn't find any reference to people encouraging others to come and vote here.

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by Islander

Our friends over at OSO are up to the same old tricks. Sending people here to vote on the poll. There goes any possible validity.

You can only vote once in this poll, and anybody that uses the lake should have the right to vote once, shouldn't they?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by chmeeee

You can only vote once in this poll, and anybody that uses the lake should have the right to vote once, shouldn't they?

How about I ask for a copy of the WinnFABS list and I send out an email request for everyone to come here and vote?

That's why a poll like this or the Union Leader one don't work. It become a question of who can round up the most friends.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

How about I ask for a copy of the WinnFABS list and I send out an email request for everyone to come here and vote?

That's why a poll like this or the Union Leader one don't work. It become a question of who can round up the most friends.

First prove that this pole is tainted.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by islander

Our friends over at OSO are up to the same old tricks. Sending people here to vote on the poll. There goes any possible validity.

Originally Posted by bear islander

How about I ask for a copy of the WinnFABS list and I send out an email request for everyone to come here and vote?

That's why a poll like this or the Union Leader one don't work. It become a question of who can round up the most friends.

An easy check to see if this has been skewed would be to throw out any votes from new members, or members that have joined within a certain pre-set window. Pretty simple...

[parrothead]

Boy you all give me more credit than I deserve. I posted this poll as a way for anyone that frequents this website to vote on this issue without being dragged into the quicksand that is this debate. Just post a quick yay or nay and move on. Nothing more sinister than that.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

How about I ask for a copy of the WinnFABS list and I send out an email request for everyone to come here and vote?

That's why a poll like this or the Union Leader one don't work. It become a question of who can round up the most friends.

Better yet, why not ask for the phone numbers of poll participants.

After all, the poll results showed a majority were in favor of a Speed Limit.

Could it be that WinnFABS and the poll have skewered the truth?

P.S.- Don't forget to call all the Senators, too.

Why?

Originally Posted by Islander

APS

Its great that so many opponents are going to the hearing despite the vote being a done deal. 15 Senators have already declared their support for HB847 And a majority either voted for speed limits already or used it as a campaign promise.

See you all there! I will have on a yellow WinnFABS shirt. Please say hello!

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Islander

Our friends over at OSO are up to the same old tricks. Sending people here to vote on the poll. There goes any possible validity.

Somehow I seriously doubt there was any sort of large spike in registrations just to vote in this poll! Only 62 people have voted! However, I am sure our illustrious and patient webmaster could enlighten us all if there was!

49 against vs 13 for is hardly an skewed poll. At this point in time there are 23 members online and most are names I see often here. In fact thats approx 1/3 of the 62 people that voted!

Woodsy

[webmaster]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I am sure our illustrious and patient webmaster could enlighten us all if there was!

Below are the new registration stats for the last 30 days. The poll was posted on May 2nd.

[Woodsy]

Thanks Don...

WOW!!! A grand total of 3... Yes 3 new members!!! Hardly a massive skewing of the poll!

That kinda puts Bear Islander & Island Lover's OSO conspiracy theory to rest! Unless they want to somehow discredit Don now....

Woodsy

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Thanks Don...

WOW!!! A grand total of 3... Yes 3 new members!!! Hardly a massive skewing of the poll!

That kinda puts Bear Islander & Island Lover's OSO conspiracy theory to rest! Unless they want to somehow discredit Don now....

Woodsy

I really don't see how this is all that important. It's a poll on a BOATING FORUM! I would be shocked if it came out any other way. In fact I think 22% in favor is very good on a BOATING FORUM!

However for the sake of argument....

I don't think anybody said the idea was for people to come here, register, and then vote. I certainly didn't.

It could be the people from OSO that registered for the LAST POLL, or the one before that, that still have identities here. Now if the webmaster could tell us how many voted that have not posted in months, that would say something.

However, if it makes you happy, I think you people won this fair and square (before the OSO thing).

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I really don't see how this is all that important. It's a poll on a BOATING FORUM! I would be shocked if it came out any other way. In fact I think 22% in favor is very good on a BOATING FORUM!

I was not aware that this was a boating forum. I guess you learn something everyday!

I thought this was a forum open to all with an interest in Lake Winnipesaukee without any requirement for a fast, slow or row boat.

R2B

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

I was not aware that this was a boating forum. I guess you learn something everyday!

I thought this was a forum open to all with an interest in Lake Winnipesaukee without any requirement for a fast, slow or row boat.

R2B

Go to the top left of the page. Click on "Forums" then click on "Boating". We are in the "speed limit" section of the "Boating Forum".

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Go to the top left of the page. Click on "Forums" then click on "Boating". We are in the "speed limit" section of the "Boating Forum".

I know how these threads work, but thank you for your endless help!

I thought this poll was open to all people who were registered on the Winni forum. I am not aware of any special requirement to register for this thread. Webmaster, is there a special requirement?

Sorry if I am wrong. That is what I thought.

R2B

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

I know how these threads work, but thank you for your endless help!

I though this poll was open to all people who were registered on the Winni forum. I am not aware of any special requirement to register for this thread. Webmaster, is there a special requirement?

Sorry if I am wrong. That is what I thought.

R2B

No, there are no special requirements to post or vote in the boating forum. Did someone say there was?

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

No, there are no special requirements to post or vote in the boating forum. Did someone say there was?

Please stop trying to bait me. I was just pointing out a fact that this vote is open to all registered forum members.

I understand that 'flooding' threads is against the forum rules, so I do not want to engage you in these endless discussions.

The end of this discussion.

R2B

[Mashugana]

I wonder how some people will spin or challenge Webmasters posting.

Appears that Acres Per Second is not going to remove his posting and others are not honoring parrothead's request. He just wanted a simple, unscientific poll with no debate.

Thank you Webmaster and parrothead.

[parrothead]

Originally Posted by Islander

Our friends over at OSO are up to the same old tricks. Sending people here to vote on the poll. There goes any possible validity.

I know this is probably a waste of energy, but really? Islander, do you have evidence of this? I posted the poll and have not emailed, phoned, or registered mailed anyone about it. It was all in fun, there was no other motive. I'm sorry if you all think that there was sinister motive, that was not the intention.

[Island Lover]

I got an offshore only email notice of a pm. It asked me to come here and vote against speed limits.

Don't bother asking me my offshore name.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I got an offshore only email notice of a pm. It asked me to come here and vote against speed limits.

Don't bother asking me my offshore name.

Not that I have ANY reason to question the authenticity of your posting, could you cut and paste the message with the authors screen name? I don't need to know your name on that forum. I have SEVERAL friends on that forum and they know of no such PM's going out.

[Island Lover]

That would violate the TOS of both forums. I don't care what you believe.

P.S. Please post your friends names.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

That would violate the TOS of both forums. I don't care what you believe.

P.S. Please post your friends names.

Again, Islander if you want to drop comments like the PMing thing on OSO you need to back it up. Otherwise I believe it is inflammatory. If it continues I will follow up with a formal complaint. For now I'll leave it as it is. It's a continuation of what I have come to expect from the proponents. As of right now it is my opinion that you are lying about the PM on OSO. Woodsy, DoTheMath, cowisl are some of but not limited to my friends who post on both forums. As a matter of fact two of those members are MAJOR contributers on the OSO forum. One of them is in the boating industry. If anything is going on over there they would know immediately. It does a great disservice to all in an honest debate when someone fabricates information to stir the pot.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Again, Islander if you want to drop comments like the PMing thing on OSO you need to back it up. Otherwise I believe it is inflammatory. If it continues I will follow up with a formal complaint. For now I'll leave it as it is. It's a continuation of what I have come to expect from the proponents. As of right now it is my opinion that you are lying about the PM on OSO. Woodsy, DoTheMath, cowisl are some of but not limited to my friends who post on both forums. As a matter of fact two of those members are MAJOR contributers on the OSO forum. One of them is in the boating industry. If anything is going on over there they would know immediately. It does a great disservice to all in an honest debate when someone fabricates information to stir the pot.

Hazelnut - Slow down a little. In the first place that is not Islander your are talking to it's Island Lover. Islander did make the first OSO post but did not say how she knew.

There is more than one possibility here. You could have sent the PM to create a controversy. Or it could have been me. Or IL might be making it up. The point is we have no idea who did what to whom or why. This is the internet.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Hazelnut - Slow down a little. In the first place that is not Islander your are talking to it's Island Lover. Islander did make the first OSO post but did not say how she knew.

There is more than one possibility here. You could have sent the PM to create a controversy. Or it could have been me. Or IL might be making it up. The point is we have no idea who did what to whom or why. This is the internet.

Either way it was inflammatory in my opinion. It served no purpose but to discredit the thread and stir the pot. Islander/Island Life/whatever, I stand firmly by my post. It is one thing to debate opinions on a forum it is entirely different to lie and fabricate stories.

If I were Don these are the types of things that would have me banning/moderating posters.

[parrothead]

Lets calm down here folks. This poll was supposed to be fun. So I am sorry I started it. There was no malicious intent as I said before, and if this poll has been "hijacked" then I'm sorry again. But for God's sake let it go people. This is an small internet poll, that I came up with on a rainy Friday on a whim.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by parrothead

Lets calm down here folks. This poll was supposed to be fun. So I am sorry I started it. There was no malicious intent as I said before, and if this poll has been "hijacked" then I'm sorry again. But for God's sake let it go people. This is an small internet poll, that I came up with on a rainy Friday on a whim.

parrothead I am sorry for hijacking this thread. I really appreciate you posting the poll and I appreciate your comments on the subject matter. To that end I also appreciate Bear Islander (most of the time) I made an issue of this OSO post because I couldn't let it slide that one or two forum members would blatantly lie just to stir things up. I guess they just didn't like the results.

[Islander]

I have deleted my post. Parrothead I'm sorry I posted it. I was told about the OSO pm from another member here.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I got an offshore only email notice of a pm. It asked me to come here and vote against speed limits.

Don't bother asking me my offshore name.

Island Lover...

I am glad to know you pay $$$ to support the OSO website!

For the record, I would be one of those "friends" of HazelNut! Unlike some people I don't hide behind a screen name on the internet!

I did a quick search and there are NO threads on OSO asking anyone to come here and vote on this poll... While its entirely possible that some individual pm'ed you over on OSO, there was NO mass e-mail or PM sent by anyone... OSO limits you to 5 individual PM's just like this website does... def seems like alot of work to only get 51 votes!

Your just unhappy the poll doesn't reflect what you believe..

Woodsy

[parrothead]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I got an offshore only email notice of a pm. It asked me to come here and vote against speed limits.

Don't bother asking me my offshore name.

Was not my intention to "use" this poll for any agenda. I am not affiliated with any organization. I was just interested to see what the general opinion of people who frequent this website is. The opinions of a select few, me included, are already very well known on this topic.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

No, there are no special requirements to post or vote in the boating forum. Did someone say there was?

Until I saw the first-day's total, I thought voting was open to SENATORS ONLY!

(Though that might have made some interesting reading in itself).

Originally Posted by Mashugana

"...I wonder how some people will spin or challenge Webmasters posting..."

The poll ran through the 8th.

Note the twin-spikes of 18 new members? They arrived when the sparkplug of this lake's largest Drinking-Speedboat-Partying forum broke a months-long silence to re-enter the debate here.

(That forum, like OBO, hides its super-secret-scandals forum.)

Originally Posted by Woodsy

"...Unlike some people I don't hide behind a screen name on the internet...!"

Some people have extended families in the Lakes Region who are in favor of sane Winnipesaukee boating.

(Who don't need the hassle-factor-savvy of some Internet users).

Originally Posted by Mashugana

"...others are not honoring parrothead's request. He just wanted a simple, unscientific poll with no debate..."

Parrothead wants an unscientific poll?

Yup...Let's lock out the comments.

Originally Posted by Gilligan

"...Acres, Did you read these messages and the one that Parrothead already deleted...?

I dunno—I've probably missed any-and-all deleted messages.

While I watch this site progress weekly to become the most software-up-to-date forum on the Internet, half of my responses go to >>Preview Post>>Done>>blank screen>>"disappeared-forever".

(My Millennium isn't the most up-to-date computer in the world and, like me, tends to get "tired" by evening.).

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

"...The tired claim that those opposed to the 45mph/25mph must be for unlimited speeds has already been shown to be FALSE...".

How is the default position of sane boating law opponents NOT "Unlimited Speeds"?

Geesh...So many questions go unanswered.

Originally Posted by Codeman671

"...An easy check to see if this has been skewed would be to throw out any votes from new members, or members that have joined within a certain pre-set window. Pretty simple..."

How about membership before August 11th, 2002?

The outrage was palpable here at that hit-and-run-negligent-murder. (Especially before it was learned who it was and that it was a 4½ ton GFBL.)

Originally Posted by Skipper of the Sea Que

"...APS's claim in THIS poll thread puts a bias into the results..."

Mine is not "a claim": those are direct quotes from OBO to throw a poll successfully.

Originally Posted by chmeeee

You can only vote once in this poll, and anybody that uses the lake should have the right to vote once, shouldn't they?

Most revealing of OBO's quotes was...

"We certainly don't need ignorant non-boaters taking polls like this away from us."

Originally Posted by parrothead

"...This poll was supposed to be fun...Was not my intention to "use" this poll for any agenda..."

Nope...no chance of that!

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second;69814
responding to Skipper of the Sea Que's 1st message in this thread

Skipper of the Sea Que said: The tired claim that those opposed to the 45mph/25mph must be for unlimited speeds has already been shown to be FALSE

APS posting it here and linking to his own more lengthy post is not fair to the voting process. There are already laws in place requiring reasonable speeds on the lake. APS's claim in THIS poll thread puts a bias into the results.

And APS responds
How is the default position of sane boating law opponents NOT "Unlimited Speeds"?

Geesh...So many questions go unanswered.

Geesh, why don't you remember the answers that have been posted several times already? You do not know what people SUPPORT just because we oppose the unwise proposed 45/25mph speed limit.

Opposition to the 45 mph day and 25 mph night speed limit is NOT support for unlimited speeds. We already have laws regarding reasonable speeds on the lake. Are you suggesting that if we oppose 45/25 limits that we also want to remove current laws about reasonable speeds and have a truly Unlimited Speed lake? Are you trying to convince readers that those opposed to a 45/25mph limit do not support some other speed related regulations or proposals?

Let me try to say this one more way. There are many options with regard to speed. One is a 45/25mph speed limit that you support. There are SO MANY OTHER possibilities including the status quo. Opposing that one particular limit does NOT mean anyone is discarding any other regulations about speed including the current laws about reasonable and safe speeds.

This is really getting tedious and too time consuming.

[VtSteve]

A better poll might be this.

How many people have read the Speed Survey conducted by the MP?

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/s...rveyreport.pdf

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

A better poll might be this.

How many people have read the Speed Survey conducted by the MP?

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/s...rveyreport.pdf

Originally Posted by JULY 7, 2007 - SEPTEMBER 16, 2007
CONDUCTED BY
DIVISION OF SAFETY SERVICES
MARINE PATROL
STATISTICAL RESULTS OF SAMPLING

There were a total of 36 boats clocked going over 45 miles per hour which represents 0.9% of the total.

One might infer from the below post that Evenstar has not...

Originally Posted by Evenstar

There have been plenty of “incidents” in just recent years – that was pretty evident at the House hearing that I attended. The problem is that those in opposition to the bill are saying that we don’t need a speed limit since no one’s been killed on Winni lately.

Well, I’m not willing to wait for a fatality – especially when I could become the fatality. No one officially records close calls, near misses, or fortunate escapes from harm – yet those happen all the time. I have personally had dangerous “incidents” on Winni and I believe a speed limit would have prevented most of those, or at least reduced the danger involved.

Boats on Winni, which were traveling well in excess of 45 mph, have violated my 150 foot zone by a considerate amount . . . in some cases, within 50 feet of me - because the operator was traving too fast.

And this has occurred more than once – sometimes even more than once in a single outing. And many other paddlers on the lake have experienced this as well.

The bill is about safety – no matter how you try to spin it. And that’s what the Senators should be looking at. I contend that speeds above the limits in the bill are very unsafe on a busy lake that is populated with small, slow moving boats.

I’ve seen the difference that a speed limit cam make on a large NH lake. Squam is not only a good example – it also shows the NH’s Marine Patrol is perfectly capable of enforcing a speed limit.

Originally Posted by Evenstar 04-04-2005, 09:01 AM

I'm just wondering why Lake Winnipesaukee is being singled out for a bill to impose a limit on speed. Why not a state speed limit for all lakes? After all, aren't high speeds likely to be even more dangerous on smaller lakes?

I haven't kayaked on Winni yet, but I have been on other NH lakes enough to comment on high speeds. Yes, I have felt very unsafe at times, wondering if that speeding boat even sees me. In a sit in kayak, you actually sit below the water line and your top speed is maybe 5 MPH.

While kayaking on Squam last summer, my friend and I were both swamped by a speeding boat that passed within 40 feet of us and never even slowed down. So enforcement of current boating regulations seems to be the bigger issue here.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by GWC...

One might infer from the below post that Evenstar has not...

GWC, you know very well that I have read that study, since I have repeatedly posted my views on it - but just in case you don't remember, I'll repeat them:

The study is so flawed that, for all intents, the data collected is totally meaningless. I know how to do surveys correctly and am currently involved in the final stages of a municipal survey at my university that will be used in a town’s comprehensive plan. Basically, according to research methodology standards, the Marine Patrol did nearly everything wrong, like informing the public that a study was being done.

To do statistical analysis, you need to know what percentage of a target area was part of a study. The report gives no percentages at all. It never gives what percentage of the lake was included in the study, or even what percentage of the total boating hours were included in the recording of boat speeds. Here’s a more accurate analysis:

Based on a 10-hour boating day, the 11 weeks in this study add up to 770 hours (10 hours x 11 weeks x 7 days/week), yet speeds were only recording over 135 hours. And that’s a total of 135 – for all the sample areas combined. If all 9 sample areas were covered equally, speeds were recorded in each area for a total of only 15 hours over the entire summer – which is less than 2% of the daytime boating hours for this 11 week period. 98% of the time, at each of the study sites, speeds of boats were not being recorded at all.

So, at best, speeds were recorded during only 2% of the total daylight boating hours. And yet 11 boats were still recorded at speeds of over 50mph. If we assume that this is a fair sampling, these 11 boats actually translate into an estimated 539 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph (over the entire 770 total daylight boating hours during the 11 weeks of the study). BTW: that’s the correct why interpret a segment/population survey. The raw data means nothing until you expolate it back into the total population/period/area.

And that’s just in the sample areas of the lake! What about the rest of the lake? Why wasn’t the Broads included in the study, if they were actually trying to record the fastest boats?

So, based on the study, approximately 539 boats were traveling at speeds over 50 mph last summer – just within just the study area. If the study area was equal to 25% of the lake (which I doubt), than that translates to 2156 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph on the entire lake over those 11 weeks.

Isn’t it possible that some of those boats may have not seen a certain sea kayak until they were closer than 150 feet?

GWC:why are you still dredging up my posts from over 3 years ago, and taking them completely out of context?

[Mashugana]

If you want to use what you believe is a meaningless study to make your point I will be gracious and try see your pointt and respond to your conclusions.

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The [MP speed survey] study is so flawed that, for all intents, the data collected is totally meaningless. I know how to do surveys correctly {snip}. Basically, according to research methodology standards, the Marine Patrol did nearly everything wrong, like informing the public that a study was being done.
{snip}
Here’s a more accurate analysis:
{snip}
So, based on [Evenstar's interpretation of] the study, approximately 539 boats were traveling at speeds over 50 mph last summer – just within just the study area. If the study area was equal to 25% of the lake (which I doubt), than that translates to 2156 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph on the entire lake over those 11 weeks.

Isn’t it possible that some of those boats may have not seen a certain sea kayak until they were closer than 150 feet?

Yes ma'am it is absolutely possible that some of those boats many not have seen a certain kayak until they were closer than 150 feet. It does not mean that they did not see your kayak but it certainly is possible. You are right on that point. The possibility exists.

Your interpretation of the statistics has 2,156 boats actually going over 50 mph on the entire lake in all of 11 weeks. You did not say how long in minutes or hours they were presumed to be over 50 mph so I will ignore that omission for this post. How many of those 2,156 "speeding boats" were the cause of ANY kayak accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee? Still giving you the benefit of the doubt, if these violators (unsafe operation, 150' rule and maybe others) were going 45 mph instead of 50 mph would it have made any significant difference in their attentiveness? Probably not.

You will say that 45 mph instead of 50 mph would give the inattentive (and illegally operating) boaters more time to react to your presence. Maybe a fraction of a second or so. The main point from me is that these boaters are already violating the laws. If the MP aren't around to enforce those laws we already have that make those 150' violators behave how can you expect them to be there to enforce a new law that we do not need?

Again, I am accepting your interpretation of the statistics here simply for discussion purposes even though I may not believe your analysis of the data. You have not shown where that 5 mph difference would have prevented any of the kayak accidents that we never heard of or were unreported.

[ITD]

I don't know what happened to no comments only votes in this thread, but everyone else is ignoring it so I might as well too.

I see the survey has entered the discussion again. First of all, let's do the simple math, 36 boats out of 3,914 (day and night added together) were going over 45mph, which equals 0.9 % of the boats measured were at or over the proposed speed limit. Less than one percent. Calculate for the "high speed" boats, those over 50 mph and we end up with 0.28%. That would be 1 boat travelling 50 or over out of every 355 you see on the lake.

Pretty damning numbers against the "wild west" high speed boats everywhere argument if you are a proponent. So the spin doctors come out with their anecdotes.

Here are a few:

1. The areas were announced.
Actually only 3 of 9 were publically announced. The other 6 weren't.
2. Marked MP boats were used.
Ok, that's true, so what. Another argument used by the proponents
is that these high speed boats can't see anything until they are on top
of it giving them little time to react. For this study, the argument
is the high speed boats see the MP boats miles away and slow down.
Can't have it both ways guys.
3. The study only covered a small percentage of daylight hours, or the
study only cover a small area of the lake.

Irrelevant. We are talking about speed here, not boating density or
habits. If I believe these arguments, then I have to take them to the
appropriate level. For instance, the radar gun obtains its reading in a
few milliseconds and the average boat occupies only about 100 square
feet of the lake. So in reality the actual boating time the readings
reflect would be 2 milliseconds times 3,914 boats or about 8 seconds
of real boat time. The area covered by the readings would be 100
square feet times 3,914 boats, or 391,400 sq ft out of 72 square miles
of lake. Who cares, it doesn't matter, it's not relevant to the speed
recorded OR the sample required to get an understanding of what is
happening on the lake.

It is dangerous to take these numbers and start drawing boat population conclusions. The only relevant number from this study is that 1 out of 355 boats is travelling faster than 50 mph.

That number shows there are no problems on this lake that a speed limit will solve, everything else is just spin....

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by ITD

2. Marked MP boats were used.
Ok, that's true, so what. So the study is invalid, that's what! Another argument used by the proponents
is that these high speed boats can't see anything until they are on top
of it giving them little time to react. For this study, the argument
is the high speed boats see the MP boats miles away and slow down.
Can't have it both ways guys.

You post this and then say everything else is spin?

Was the proponent that brought up the visibility problem talking about kayaks, or Marine Patrol Boats.

What you posted is the very definition of spin....

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You post this and then say everything else is spin?

Was the proponent that brought up the visibility problem talking about kayaks, or Marine Patrol Boats.

What you posted is the very definition of spin....

Marked boats do not make the study invalid, just as marked cop cars do not make their speed readings invalid.

The "wild west" out there, "unsafe speeds", boats capable of "130 mph", close calls with high speed boats, all arguments used by the pro speed limit crowd. They make it sound like mayhem out there, yet a study is done and shows NO PROBLEM. Not even a hint of a problem. So the spin doctors come out and have done a pretty good job of tarnishing the reputation of the professionals who only tried to identify if there is a problem. They found there wasn't, and the pro speed limit crowd has no shame when it comes to manipulating to get what they want.........

There is no speed problem on the lake, reasonable people who look objectively can see that. People with an agenda can't.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by ITD

Marked boats do not make the study invalid, just as marked cop cars do not make their speed readings invalid.

The "wild west" out there, "unsafe speeds", boats capable of "130 mph", close calls with high speed boats, all arguments used by the pro speed limit crowd. They make it sound like mayhem out there, yet a study is done and shows NO PROBLEM. Not even a hint of a problem. So the spin doctors come out and have done a pretty good job of tarnishing the reputation of the professionals who only tried to identify if there is a problem. They found there wasn't, and the pro speed limit crowd has no shame when it comes to manipulating to get what they want.........

There is no speed problem on the lake, reasonable people who look objectively can see that. People with an agenda can't.

If you were going to do a speed study on the lake, and you wanted good data. Not politically motivated results or feel good results, but the real answers to how fast boats are going on the lake. Would you conduct the study from marked or unmarked boats?

[VtSteve]

I don't know about anyone else, but I wouldn't slow down just because I was in sight of an MP boat.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Would it be legal to equip a kayak with a dummy (no offense to anyone) and a gps system and let it roam various parts of the lake. Equip the vessel with a distance measuring device. Program the kayak to travel a random journey but not approach anything within 250 feet. Keep track of every encounter of moving objects. You could calculate the other boat's speed and how close the minimum passage point was. Keep track of boats that pass within a 1000 feet. Have the system audited by both sides of the issue and publish data on every passing event.

How many boats encountered?
Percent at 5, 10, 15 ... 125, 130 mph?
Minimum distance of passage?
Graph of speed vs passage distance of events < 150 feet.
Maps showing where 150 violations occurred.
Maps showing where 150 violations occurred with speed > 45.
Report results when dummy wearing orange and dark blue.

Can just picture this poor mannequin passing between governors and the weirs on the forth of July weekend.

Beep 70 feet at 24 mph @ 3 oclock
Beep 40 feet at 30 mph @ 11 oclock
Beep 15 feet at 15 mph @ 5 oclock
Mama.....

[Mashugana]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

Would it be legal to equip a kayak with a dummy (no offense to anyone) and a gps system and let it roam various parts of the lake.
{snip} Have the system audited by both sides of the issue and publish data on every passing event.

I think you have a handle on a good scheme RG. It may not be legal though to let a vessel float around without control. What would keep it from crashing into something even another kayak? Would it have a Rumba type sensor? Why not put an MP officer with radar in the unmarked kayak. Aww but then someone might claim a bias on one side or the other.

What ideas do you have for impartial measures about other concerns? There are already laws about 150 feet safe passage and more for loudness, erosion, and all the others but some people say only a new speed limit will work.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Mashugana

Your interpretation of the statistics has 2,156 boats actually going over 50 mph on the entire lake in all of 11 weeks. You did not say how long in minutes or hours they were presumed to be over 50 mph so I will ignore that omission for this post. How many of those 2,156 "speeding boats" were the cause of ANY kayak accidents on Lake Winnipesaukee? Still giving you the benefit of the doubt, if these violators (unsafe operation, 150' rule and maybe others) were going 45 mph instead of 50 mph would it have made any significant difference in their attentiveness? Probably not.

I didn’t interpret anything, it’s called statistical analysis – the marine patrol provided the raw data. The MP didn’t publish any data that give how long boats were going over 50 mph, so why would I be expected to include that “omission.” First of all “over 50 mph” does not mean 50 mph. according to the MP, 8 of the boats were going between 51 and 60 mph, and 3 were going between 60 and 70 mph. At 70 mph, a boat is going 103 feet per second – in less than 1.5 seconds it would cross my entire 150 foot zone – that’s not much more than a blink. The faster a boat is traveling the more of the lake that gets covered in that blink.

I’ve been trying to explain this for months, but most people here still don’t get it (or they are ignoring it). This is not about the difference between 45 and 50 mph – this is about continuing to permit boats to travel at unlimited speeds. If no boat ever went over 50 mph, then I wouldn’t be fighting so hard for a speed limit. The study actually gives that 27% of the boats that were traveling over 50 mph were traveling at speeds over 60 mph. When you plug that into those 2,156 boats, you have 582 boats that were traveling over 60 mph.

The other thing is that lack of kayak/powerboat high-speed collisions is not proof that we don’t need a speed limit – it just proves that people like me have been lucky so far. I have had high-speed boats violate my 150 foot zone just because the operators were traveling faster than their ability to see smaller boats (based on their expression and reaction when they did finally notice me.) These were unintentional violations – caused by their excessive speeds. Had they been traveling at a more reasonable speed they probably would have seen me much sooner.

So far I have not been run over by a powerboat – but I have had way too many close calls. And I’m not the only one – sooner or later a close call is going to result in a fatality. That’s what I’m fighting to prevent. Squam lake has a 40 mph speed limit, and I kayak there a lot on weekends. No powerboat has ever violated my 150 zone on Squam because they were traveling too fast to see me. That has only happened on likes without a speed limit.

Originally Posted by jrc

If this is how they teach probablity and statistics in your school you should ask for a refund.

fficeffice" />>>
>>
This has nothing to do with probability (this is the correct way to spell it, BTW). And there's nothing wrong with my statistical analysis. If you're so knowledgeable in this area, why don't you try to explain why my analysis is incorrect, rather than just making derogatory comments about my education?

[jrc]

withdrawn as off topic

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by jrc

Sorry I didn't know that spelling counted. I'm not very good at spelling, typing or grammar, feel free to make fun of me. Adults know they have weaknesses.

I honestly was not trying to make fun of you at all - I was just pointing out the proper spelling, as that's the way that my spell checker corrected it. I meant no harm.

The simplest thing is common sense. You cannot assume that the population of boats has a uniform distribution. That means that there are not always the same number of boats on the lake during daylight hours, your analysis assumes there are.

If the study was done properly, it would have been done in the areas of the lake that represented the overall condition found on the entire lake. I have to assume this is the case to do the analysis - what would you have me do, guess?

How can you make assumptions about a population from a sample without understanding that your assumption has a probabilty attached to it? When the polls say Clinton is ahead of Obama by 10% they always say something like with a 3% margin. That's a probablility.

Yes, it is called margin of error - and I've commented on this a number of times (I call this a statistical factor - you call it probability, language is my weakness, so I may very well be using the wrong word here).

As I have stated before, the report on the speed study did not give the margin of error - which in itself makes the data meaningless. Yet when I pointed that out, the speed limit opponents here jumped all over me. Claiming that I was just finding fault with the study because it didn't support the need for a speed limit.

Look, you either accept the study as valid or not. If you accept it as valid, then you have to use the raw data from it and plug it back into the environment. My analysis is only as accurate as the study - which I don't feel was done in a way that resulted in any usable data. But my analysis is still correct for the data that was given.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

...

I withdrew my previous comments as off topic. If you want me to explain probability and statistics as applied to the speed survey open another topic.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

....
To do statistical analysis, you need to know what percentage of a target area was part of a study. The report gives no percentages at all. It never gives what percentage of the lake was included in the study, or even what percentage of the total boating hours were included in the recording of boat speeds. Here’s a more accurate analysis:

Based on a 10-hour boating day, the 11 weeks in this study add up to 770 hours (10 hours x 11 weeks x 7 days/week), yet speeds were only recording over 135 hours. And that’s a total of 135 – for all the sample areas combined. If all 9 sample areas were covered equally, speeds were recorded in each area for a total of only 15 hours over the entire summer – which is less than 2% of the daytime boating hours for this 11 week period. 98% of the time, at each of the study sites, speeds of boats were not being recorded at all...

If this is how they teach probablity and statistics in your school you should ask for a refund.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by jrc

If this is how they teach probablity and statistics in your school you should ask for a refund.

You beat me to it... I was going to say the same thing. The variables alone have enough in them holes to sink the Mount. Drivel absolute drivel. Not to mention you can't EXPOLATE data. You can EXTRAPOLATE it though. I know you are going to claim that I am just being negative Evanstar but please. If you want to throw it around how "educated" you are and then post a completely ridiculous "lesson" on statistics you are going to be called out.

The end results even based on your flawed interpretation do prove one thing. The MAJORITY of boats on the lake are NOT exceeding 45MPH. You can spin it any way you want but that is a fact.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

You beat me to it... I was going to say the same thing. The variables alone have enough in them holes to sink the Mount. Drivel absolute drivel. Not to mention you can't EXPOLATE data. You can EXTRAPOLATE it though. I know you are going to claim that I am just being negative Evanstar but please. If you want to throw it around how "educated" you are and then post a completely ridiculous "lesson" on statistics you are going to be called out.

The end results even based on your flawed interpretation do prove one thing. The MAJORITY of boats on the lake are NOT exceeding 45MPH. You can spin it any way you want but that is a fact.

What is it with you people????!!!! Just because I'm in support of this bill does not give you the right to insult me!

It is also in violation of the forum rules:

Do not post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, slanderous, inaccurate, abusive, obscene, racist, hateful, harassing, sexually explicit, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law.

If you don't agree with something expressed on the Forum respond with your opinion, don't get personal! Your comments and opinions are welcome, personal attacks, insults or flames are not.

No "trolling" (trying to start arguments and upset people)!

You people really need to learn how to debate!

I've posted this before, but I'm still accused of bragging about all my abilities (now I'll likely be accused of looking for sympathy - which I'm not!). I'm a very open person and don't really know how to be anything but honest and direct - that's the only way that I can communicate.

You see, I happen to have brain damage, from being in a really bad accident when I was little. The left side of my brain was badly damaged. The left side is the language side, so I have some major problems with language - which includes things like spelling - which I mess up all the time. I cannot even think in words - I think only in images. When I write, I have to translate these images into words - which is a very difficult process. It takes me 3 or 4 times longer than the average college student to write a paper.

So please don't make fun of me because I mess up a letter or two now and then.

I'm a very good student, but only because I work extremely hard and stay up half the night studying. I'm able to attend my university because of academic scholarships and through a disability grant.

I can defend myself but it is not fair to attack me personally, just because I honestly believe that a speed limit will make our lakes safer.

If you don't agree with what I post - attack my points - not me.

No one has yet found anything specifically wrong with my statistical analysis of the speed study. All anyone's done so far is made fun of me and stated insulting generalities that my analysis is not correct. If I'm wrong, tell me why - don't just insult me in a lame attempt to discredit me.

Oh, Joe Kerr, I really don't know why you decided to join in on the attacks on me, other than it's really easy to join the crowd and pick on someone who is in the minority. I didn't get a 2.0 in Research Methodology last semester - I got a 4.0. I've never received less than a 4.0 in college (well, so far that is - but I tomorrow's final can easily end that streak).

[Joe Kerr]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Oh, Joe Kerr, I really don't know why you decided to join in on the attacks on me, other than it's really easy to join the crowd and pick on someone who is in the minority. I didn't get a 2.0 in Research Methodology last semester - I got a 4.0. I've never received less than a 4.0 in college (well, so far that is - but I tomorrow's final can easily end that streak).

Oh, Evenstar, I didn't know that I was attacking you. I thought I was making fun of "jrc's" spelling of "probability".

Originally Posted by ME quoting jrc's post

(even spelling - probablity ). Evenstar might have gotten a 2.0 or less in that course.

that course being statistics or whatever and not spelling. I don't not think you are taking a spelling class in college.

I did not know what kind of grades you get so I made the comment that you or anyone for that matter could get a 4.0 or a 2.0 and we would not know. No one asks to see a report card. Do you ask your doctor if he got an "A" or a "C" in broken arms?

The Einstein comment is easy to explain. He said "E=MC squared." A few characters. What you wrote was much more than that and I am not going to waste hours trying to figure it out. I couldn't follow it no way no how. It's not like an easy Einstein equation that has been proven. Your formula for safety has not been proven. Only speed limit of 45 mph will force boaters to give you your 150 feet of space there is no QED (thus it has been proved). There is no evidence that this speed limit will do much of anything except use resources that could be used to enforce current law.

For the record I am Against the proposed speed limit,

[Joe Kerr]

Originally Posted by jrc

If this is how they teach probablity and statistics in your school you should ask for a refund.

Hey be nice jrc. Not everyone gets a 4.0 perfect score in every class (even spelling - probablity ). Evenstar might have gotten a 2.0 or less in that course. Sometimes the student is at fault and sometimes it is the professor. Not everyone is an Einstein as Evenstar has demonstrated.

[Sandy Beach]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

The poll ran through the 8th.

Note the twin-spikes of 18 new members? They arrived when the sparkplug of this lake's largest Drinking-Speedboat-Partying forum broke a months-long silence to re-enter the debate here.

For the sake of argument assume that the 2 day spike in new members from 3 or 4 new members a day to 9 new members for 2 consecutive days is a plot to skew the informal poll. Not all 18 new members are poll pranksters, some are regular new members. Not all 18 might have voted but we will assume they did. In fact assume all 18 voted against HB847. Heck let's make it 20 votes. Subtract those 20 votes from the number against the bill and you still have more than twice as many votes against HB847 as you have for HB847. So much for alleged poll tampering.

The poll does not represent anything more than opinions of those who bothered to participate and nothing more so let us not argue about the results.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Some people have extended families in the Lakes Region who are in favor of sane Winnipesaukee boating.

We all want sane and safe boating on the lake. Even those who are opposed to the 45 m.p.h. speed limit.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

How is the default position of sane boating law opponents NOT "Unlimited Speeds"?

If one is against HB847 it does not follow that they must be for unlimited speeds. That is faulty logic. It is a scare tactic and a cry that has been made before. It is illogical. Against 45 m.p.h. daytime and 25 m.p.h. night time limits is just that with no other implications.

[Chris Craft]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

I got an offshore only email notice of a pm. It asked me to come here and vote against speed limits.

Don't bother asking me my offshore name.

As a moderator of OSO who also happens to boat on lake Winni. I can tell you that NO emails went out from OSO regarding coming onto this site and vote against your polls. We also have to the best of my knowledge no threads going at this time about this poll on OSO. There is no way for a memeber to send out a mass emialing to all or any other members. Evan as a moderator I do not have that ability. Since no one knows your screen name how would we know who to target in a pointed emailing campaign? So honestly I have to assume that you have made this up. OSO has a HUGE member base and a lot of them frequent this site as a lot of them also use this lake. Just because some one is a member of both sites should not make a vote invalid. Island Lover are you a paying member of the site?

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Chris Craft

As a moderator of OSO who also happens to boat on lake Winni. I can tell you that NO emails went out from OSO regarding coming onto this site and vote against your polls. We also have to the best of my knowledge no threads going at this time about this poll on OSO. There is no way for a memeber to send out a mass emialing to all or any other members. Evan as a moderator I do not have that ability. Since no one knows your screen name how would we know who to target in a pointed emailing campaign? So honestly I have to assume that you have made this up. OSO has a HUGE member base and a lot of them frequent this site as a lot of them also use this lake. Just because some one is a member of both sites should not make a vote invalid. Island Lover are you a paying member of the site?

Is it common for a OSO moderator to call a paying member a liar on a public forum? Without even listening to their side of the story?

Did you even read my post? Did I say anything about a mass mailing? Did I say anyone posted it in a thread? Are you making a mountain out of a molehill?

I got a PM. I have PMed them back asking for an explanation.

If I had wanted to make something up I could have posted at OSO saying "Go to Winnipesakee.com and vote on the speed limit poll there". Then I could have come back here and posted the same thing I did yesterday. It would be verifyable and true. But that would be a fraud, and I don't do things like that.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Is it common for a OSO moderator to call a paying member a liar on a public forum? Without even listening to their side of the story?

Did you even read my post? Did I say anything about a mass mailing? Did I say anyone posted it in a thread? Are you making a mountain out of a molehill?

I got a PM. I have PMed them back asking for an explanation.

If I had wanted to make something up I could have posted at OSO saying "Go to Winnipesakee.com and vote on the speed limit poll there". Then I could have come back here and posted the same thing I did yesterday. It would be verifyable and true. But that would be a fraud, and I don't do things like that.

If you are not lying, prove it. Post a copy of the PM with the member name from OSO that sent it. Plain and simple. Prove your innocence or admit your guilt and move on. I doubt highly that the OSO moderator is going to hold you in contempt of a rule for posting a PM, not that it should matter to you anyhow since you have previously done it to someone here.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by codeman671

If you are not lying, prove it. Post a copy of the PM with the member name from OSO that sent it. Plain and simple. Prove your innocence or admit your guilt and move on. I doubt highly that the OSO moderator is going to hold you in contempt of a rule for posting a PM, not that it should matter to you anyhow since you have previously done it to someone here.

Nice Try!

How can I do that without showing my OSO name? If I can post the name of the member that sent me the PM I will. Can Chris confirm that I can break that rule?

[hazelnut]

To recap here the original intention by Islander and Island Life was to discredit the pole:

ISLANDER: Our friends over at OSO are up to the same old tricks. Sending people here to vote on the poll. There goes any possible validity.

followed it up with this statement:

ISLAND LOVER: I got an offshore only email notice of a pm. It asked me to come here and vote against speed limits.

They got caught with their hand in the cookie jar and the backpedaling began.

ISLANDER: I have deleted my post. Parrothead I'm sorry I posted it. I was told about the OSO pm from another member here.

Hmmm I wonder who told you about the OSO pm???

Now we find out it boils down to Island Lover getting ONE pm from another member of OSO telling them to vote on the poll. So he says? Any way you slice it, it was a shameful attempt to discredit a genuine poll and debate on a subject. Typical of their behavior and I guess to be expected. But now we're "..making a mountain out of a molehill?" I guess we'll leave that up to Don.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Nice Try!

How can I do that without showing my OSO name? If I can post the name of the member that sent me the PM I will. Can Chris confirm that I can break that rule?

Honestly, who cares what your OSO name is? I certainly don't. Obviously you are there as a troll anyhow- simply to dig for dirt. Its not like you couldn't use another name anyhow. Just post the PM and the name of who sent it to or admit it is fake, discredit yourself here and move on.

I am am member of OSO as well, however I can't remember the last time I looked at anything other than the classifieds.

[parrothead]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mashugana View Post
"...others are not honoring parrothead's request. He just wanted a simple, unscientific poll with no debate..."
Parrothead wants an unscientific poll?

Yup...Let's lock out the comments.

I don't know why I am bothering, but here we go......
Acres we have never met, so please stop questioning my character in a public forum. To say that I started this poll with some agenda in mind is just wrong. I guess me saying that isn't really going to make you believe me, but you are going on an assumption of my motives. As the adage goes, if you assume..., well you know the rest.
I didn't want comments because there are enough threads hashing out everyone's opinions on this topic. Do you actually believe that a poll posted on this site by someone sitting at home on a rainy day is going to affect the vote? You could of just voted that you were for speed limits to increase that number and moved on.
It was supposed to be fun, until you derailed the poll with your first post. The premise being if you were on the Senate, and able to vote on this issue, how would you vote. That was the question, and anyone that is a member of this website could vote. They wouldn't have to explain why they voted the way they did, they could vote and be done. Because we have seen how this issue can drag you in like quicksand. Have a good weekend!