Speed Limit Passes House

Bear Islander · 01-30-2008, 12:30 PM

The speed limit just passed the house.

The vote was 236 Yeas to 111 Nays.

AC2717 · 01-30-2008, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The speed limit was just passed the house.

hopefully the Senate has common sense, or I wonder if you could rule it unconstitutional?

funny I received numerous responses from state reps that vowed to vote no!

Hottrucks · 01-30-2008, 12:36 PM

what was the vote...I was Iced in up here and couldn't get there

where does it go next the senate..?? When???

Thanx

Resident 2B · 01-30-2008, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The speed limit was just passed the house.

This should not be a surprise to anyone. Speed limits have passed the House before. The Senate is the battleground.

In the past, the Senate has demonstrated with their votes that they are more realistic with their views, and less swayed by the embellishments of those without facts supporting their goals, than their brothers and sisters in the House.

Hopefully, the more experienced arm of government will do what they have done in the past.

R2B

Evenstar · 01-30-2008, 01:19 PM

Quote:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

Jan 30, 12:36 PM EST - N.H. House approves boat speed limit on largest lake

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- The House has approved a two-year trial boat speed limit on New Hampshire's Lake Winnipesaukee.

The House voted 236-111 Wednesday on a bill that set a 45 mph daytime limit and 25 mph nighttime limit on the state's largest lake.

Supporters argued the two-year trial would be plenty of time to test speed limits. They say speeders are spoiling the lake for other users.

Opponents argued the limits are unnecessary. As proof, they pointed to a Marine Patrol study last summer that found few boats exceeded the proposed limit. Opponents said it made no sense to pass a law in hopes a small, inconsiderate group would change its habits. They also argue the speed limits would be unenforceable since boats aren't required to have speedometers.

The House passed a bill two years ago to impose limits on all lakes and rivers, but the Senate killed it.

The House past the amended version of the bill. In 2006 HB162 passed the House 193-139, so support for a speed limit law has grown since then. Plus this is a very different Senate than the one we had in 2006. I known several Senators who will be voting for HB847.

ApS · 01-30-2008, 01:19 PM

Well....Just Dang!

I'd hoped to put Steve Fossett's old record-breaking multihull "Cheyenne" on Winnipesaukee. This cuts that possibility in half.

Cheyenne is selling for a tiny fraction of its original price, it's 125' long, and has already broken 55-MPH.

Smokelessly racing across the Broads at 55-MPH—and using no fossil fuels—has been a dream of mine. (OK, there's a little "smoke" off the hulls at high speed).

Just think, an ocean-racer 60-feet wide, and being the privileged boat over everybody else on the lake!

Just dang...

('Thought I'd do my speed runs nearest the NASWA crowd and go jumping their wakes—at night

.)

fatlazyless · 01-30-2008, 03:13 PM

I am almost at a loss for words, which is unusual for me, so let me just say that

...sometimes, you win, and

...sometimes, YOU LOSE!

....

On March 16, 2006, the New Hampshire State Senate voted 16-9 on HB162 with what was a Republican majority at that time.

Since the November 2006 election, the majority color of the 24 members of the problem solving and deep thinking New Hampshire State Senate has changed from a Republican red to a BRITE & HOPEFULL SHADE of DEMOCRATIC BLUE, which is just like the blue water out on Lake Winnipesaukee, brite & hopefull.

Therefore, knowing what we know about our hardworking and volunteer New Hampshire State Senate, we can all be very brite & hopefull.

...capiche!

Having said all that, if you study the votes, HB847 is not a partisan issue with Dems and Repubs all divided on it. There have been D's & R's on both sides of the vote, both in the House & previously in the Senate.

Each and every State Representative studies the issue carefully and then makes his/her own decision. HB 847 has been a one representative by one representative. non-partisan issue with each individual doing their own due diligence, and asking themselves: What is best for boating safety in New Hampshire?

'''''''''''''''''''''''''
All across the State of New Hampshire, youth summer camps, canoers, sailers, kayakers, rowers, fishermen/woman and motor boaters and jetskiers too are clapping and cheering. If you go stick your head out the window and listen quietly, you'll be able to hear them......clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap....for the New Hampshire House of Representatives, 236-111.

..........

SBC · 01-30-2008, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Each and every State Representative studies the issue carefully and then makes his/her own decision. HB 847 has been a one representative by one representative. non-partisan issue with each individual doing their own due diligence, and asking themselves: What is best for boating safety in New Hampshire?

What happened to government of, by and for the people?

I hope they (the Senate) maintain the common sense exhibited previously and don't let the personal agenda of any new and bright blue members muck up the props of progress.

Resident 2B · 01-30-2008, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

All across the State of New Hampshire, youth summer camps, canoers, sailers, kayakers, rowers, fishermen/woman and motor boaters and jetskiers too are clapping and cheering. If you go stick your head out the window and listen quietly, you'll be able to hear them......clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap....for the New Hampshire House of Representatives, 236-111.

..........

FLL,

I just stuck my head out the window and all I could hear was the wind!

R2B

Bear Islander · 01-30-2008, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SBC

What happened to government of, by and for the people?

It is alive and well and living in NH. Perhaps you are not aware but all the independent polls show that the vast majority of NH voters favor boating speed limits.

I will now stand aside so that my esteemed colleges on the other side of the aisle can explain why all those polls are bologna.

WeirsBeachBoater · 01-30-2008, 04:24 PM

Still along way to go, Although gloat if you will. You won a battle, but not the war my friends. The pro speed limit side, screamed victory when HB 162 was passed in the House. Where did that go? Same Place 847 will, out with the rest of the trash. I hope this opens the publics eyes to the reform needed in Concord. These Reps are out of control! Time for some restructuring. Too many reps, and too many old timers! Need some young fresh faces that are in touch with real life, Not just the retired and wealthy that can afford to work for $100/yr. Put some real everday people in the seats and see what happens!

Dick · 01-30-2008, 07:09 PM

The author of the HB 847 amendment, and who also wrote the House Transporation committee (7-6) blurb in the House regular claendar, was Rep. Howard Cunningham. This is what he wrote: "This amendment sets a 45/25 (day/night) speed limit and is designed to sunset on January 1, 2011. This interval will provide an adequate period of time to make pre/post speed limit comparisons."

Okay, we know what the baseline objective data is, i.e., ZERO boat-to-boat collisions involving a speed over 30 mph for the past 2 years (that's for all 970 lakes/ponds and thousands of miles of rivers, not just Winni). Now, IF this bill were to pass, what improvement over this could we logically expect to see over the next 2 years?

We haven't had a boat-to-boat fatality that involved a speed over 30 mph in over 5 years. Exactly what "comparison" should we expect to see over a 2 year "interval" in this regard?

If we were to end up with significantly more boat-to-boat collisions during the 2 year "comparison" period, would that mean that imposing the speed restriction did not improve our boating safety record, but rather had the opposite effect?

GWC... · 01-30-2008, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Well....Just Dang!

I'd hoped to put Steve Fossett's old record-breaking multihull "Cheyenne" on Winnipesaukee. This cuts that possibility in half.

Cheyenne is selling for a tiny fraction of its original price, it's 125' long, and has already broken 55-MPH.

Smokelessly racing across the Broads at 55-MPH—and using no fossil fuels—has been a dream of mine. (OK, there's a little "smoke" off the hulls at high speed).

Just think, an ocean-racer 60-feet wide, and being the privileged boat over everybody else on the lake!

Just dang...

Cheer up...

Quote:

Originally Posted by online Union Leader

The bill originally called for limits on all lakes of 10 acres or more. The House Transportation Committee amended the bill to cover only Lake Winnipesaukee, the state’s largest lake. It made the limit a two-year experiment, calling for them to expire in 2011.

Hope you are able to enjoy 45 mph and resist 55 mph until the 2011 season.

Why?

Quote:

Originally Posted by online Union Leader

The bill says that conviction of breaking the speed limits will appear on a violator’s driving record, kept by the Division of Motor Vehicles.

http://gamma.unionleader.com/article...7-39b77cc5058f

andyporter · 01-30-2008, 10:09 PM

Do we need a speed limit in the broads? Maybe coming in and out Weirs/Meredith. But the broads.

andyporter · 01-30-2008, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

It is alive and well and living in NH. Perhaps you are not aware but all the independent polls show that the vast majority of NH voters favor boating speed limits.

I will now stand aside so that my esteemed colleges on the other side of the aisle can explain why all those polls are bologna.

You aready got a no wake zone in front of your place. Right?
By the way I enjoy your webcam! Anymore Ice IN Ice out vids in the future?
That was cool.

KonaChick · 01-31-2008, 12:27 AM

If this inane bill passes and someone gets a ticket is it only NH drivers that will have this on their driving records or ALL drivers from all states?? It seems if it's only NH drivers there's a large group of individuals out there from different states that this bill will NOT affect. It makes no sense!!

SIKSUKR · 01-31-2008, 07:42 AM

Here's WMUR's story.

http://www.wmur.com/news/15176535/detail.html

chipj29 · 01-31-2008, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dick

The author of the HB 847 amendment, and who also wrote the House Transporation committee (7-6) blurb in the House regular claendar, was Rep. Howard Cunningham. This is what he wrote: "This amendment sets a 45/25 (day/night) speed limit and is designed to sunset on January 1, 2011. This interval will provide an adequate period of time to make pre/post speed limit comparisons."

Okay, we know what the baseline objective data is, i.e., ZERO boat-to-boat collisions involving a speed over 30 mph for the past 2 years (that's for all 970 lakes/ponds and thousands of miles of rivers, not just Winni). Now, IF this bill were to pass, what improvement over this could we logically expect to see over the next 2 years?

We haven't had a boat-to-boat fatality that involved a speed over 30 mph in over 5 years. Exactly what "comparison" should we expect to see over a 2 year "interval" in this regard?

If we were to end up with significantly more boat-to-boat collisions during the 2 year "comparison" period, would that mean that imposing the speed restriction did not improve our boating safety record, but rather had the opposite effect?

Maybe if a few of us go out there and carefully crash our boats into each others, we can show the data that proves that a speed limit causes crashes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KonaChick

If this inane bill passes and someone gets a ticket is it only NH drivers that will have this on their driving records or ALL drivers from all states?? It seems if it's only NH drivers there's a large group of individuals out there from different states that this bill will NOT affect. It makes no sense!!

There is no room here for things that make sense. You should know that by now.

fatlazyless · 01-31-2008, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KonaChick

If this inane bill passes and someone gets a ticket is it only NH drivers that will have this on their driving records or ALL drivers from all states?? It seems if it's only NH drivers there's a large group of individuals out there from different states that this bill will NOT affect. It makes no sense!!

Hey KonaChick...that's a good question...and the answer is that it is up to each individual state's dept of motor vehicles, or whoever decides for your state. Probably, the NH DMV forwards the info and the other states have their own protocol.

As someone on this forum likes to say; "You can't fix stupid!"....whatever.....hey...it's a big lake out there....wave to me...and I'll be happy to be waving back to you!

.......

Hey all, today's www.unionleader.com has a front page, speed limits article, and below the story they are looking for readers to express their opinions. I'd make a comment there except it's always an 'error in transmission' or something....wonder if the Union Leader has put a block on me?

SIKSUKR · 01-31-2008, 08:58 AM

Does anyone know how to find out who voted for or against hs847?I was on the house website and it shows the result only.It also says that an amendment was added but I couldn't see what it was.

After reading the Union Leader's story I see that the amendment was to make this bill effective for Winni only.Also, in the article it states only 10 of the 239 Dems voted against.Pretty much what I figured.We have lost our live free or die status in NH to the liberals moving here from the "more government is better" states.Very sad.Much more doom and gloom will be arriving soon.Carefull what you vote for folks cuz it's going to bite you in the butt.

Evenstar · 01-31-2008, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Does anyone know how to find out who voted for or against hs847?I was on the house website and it shows the result only.It also says that an amendment was added but I couldn't see what it was.

Here's the link: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill...=&q=1&lsr=1098

Quote:

After reading the Union Leader's story I see that the amendment was to make this bill effective for Winni only.

The bill was also amended with a "sunset clause", which means that it has to be reviewed (and voted on again) in 2011.

[/quote] the article it states only 10 Dems voted against.Pretty much what I figured.We have lost our live free or die status in NH to the liberals moving here from the "more government is better" states.Very sad.Much more doom and gloom will be arriving soon.Carefull what you vote for folks cuz it's going to bite you in the butt.[/quote]
I'm a native and I know plenty of other natives who are for this bil. The problem is that some people's freedom has a negative impact on the freedom of others. You can't just let everyone do whatever they want to - that would be anarchy. Laws are to (suposed to be) made for the good of the many - not for the special interest groups.

If so few boats are traveling over 45 mph (as many here claim), than why are so many here so upset with this bill? According to your own claims, only a very few people will have to slow down. This bill shouldn't have any impact on most of you.

COWISLAND NH · 01-31-2008, 09:39 AM

Quote:

'''''''''''''''''''''''''
All across the State of New Hampshire, youth summer camps, canoers, sailers, kayakers, rowers, fishermen/woman and motor boaters and jetskiers too are clapping and cheering. If you go stick your head out the window and listen quietly, you'll be able to hear them......clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap....for the New Hampshire House of Representatives, 236-111.

..........

Not us!! I hope to get everyone fired up about this....call call call the reps!!!!! This should NOT be passed!!!!! Inexperienced & scared captians make this lake unsafe!!!! The captians that pour time, money and love into their power boats that can go faster are not to blame. It's a shame that just because the campers, paddlers, and scared lake user don't like us we can't enjoy what we like.

winnilaker · 01-31-2008, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Does anyone know how to find out who voted for or against hs847?I was on the house website and it shows the result only.It also says that an amendment was added but I couldn't see what it was.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ie/r...callsearch.asp

ApS · 01-31-2008, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KonaChick

"...If this inane bill passes and someone gets a ticket is it only NH drivers that will have this on their driving records or ALL drivers from all states...??"

It's a long quote but it took an hour to find—so here it is from this insurance site: Most of the 50 states have reciprocal agreements with respect to traffic violations.

Quote:

"...though there are 5 states that are not currently members of the agreement they all still seem to share and receive in information from some if not all other states.

"The state of Georgia has other agreements with states to exchange information regarding traffic tickets their licensed drivers acquire out of state. The DDS states that the Department is authorized to suspend your license if its records or other evidence shows that you have accumulated 15 points within 24 months under the point system, including violations committed out of state.

"According to the Massachusetts driver's manual, MA has arranged to share driving record and criminal violation information with other states. So even though Massachusetts is not a part of the DLC, they have their own agreements with other states to exchange violation information.

"The RMV driver's manual goes on to say that certain traffic offenses committed by a MA licensed driver in other states will be placed on their MA driving record and treated by the RMV as if the offense had occurred in Massachusetts.

"The Michigan Secretary of State (SOS) site notes that out of state offenses are likely to eventually appear on your Michigan driving record. Thus even though Michigan is not a member of the DLC it appears their DMV will still share and exchange information with other state's courts and Department of Motor Vehicles regarding traffic violations.

"Tennessee dropped out of the DLC in 1997 so it is not currently a member of the agreement but the state still reports tickets back to your home state and other states can still report moving violations to the TN Department of Safety.

"Even though Wisconsin is not a member of the DLC their Department of Transportation will still share and exchange information with other state's courts and Department of Motor Vehicles regarding traffic violations. Wisconsin records out of state traffic convictions on a WI driver's record but does not assess points.

"To find out if your state has reciprocal agreements with any of these States check with your Department of Motor Vehicles. Or if you live in one of these 5 states you can check with the DMV or like agency to find out more about their agreements with other States."

Quote:

Originally Posted by KonaChick

It seems if it's only NH drivers there's a large group of individuals out there from different states that this bill will NOT affect. It makes no sense!!"..."

Now "it" appears to make sense: the agreement refers to moving violations only.

If you get a violation, I'm guessing you are innocent should you plead neither guilty nor innocent. ("The dog ate my ticket, your Honor." "The license tag number is off, yer Onner" etc.)

By paying the citation, you would be tacitly admitting guilt, so the points would be "reciprocated" to your state of residence. In not paying the citation, you could have a much bigger problem should you get another moving citation in New Hampshire again.

Generally speaking, if you are not found innocent in NH and if you don't pay, your best option is not to return to New Hampshire for about five to eight years; after which, the violation appears to get forgotten about. (Depending on just what you did, or allegedly did.)

Or one can captain one's boat in a sane manner, and pray that problem boaters with problem boats don't take that first drink of alcoholic beverage for the next two seasons.

Further in my Internet readings this morning, I'm finding that states are generally very poor record-keepers and that the legal system is truly messed up in matters of interstate moving violations and "insurance points".

It's the guys with the lawbooks that purportedly have the correct answers—and their hand in your pocketbook.

SIKSUKR · 01-31-2008, 10:48 AM

Thanks for that link Winnilaker.I will be voicing my disapproval to my respective reps.This process is not over people.Contact your state senator and let them know how you feel about this bill.I was going to say we certainly have a better shot at ending this bill given the smaller majority of Dems in the senate but it appears both branches are 60 to 40 percent Dems ro GOP.Let your opinion be known!

fatlazyless · 01-31-2008, 11:04 AM

Union Leader, Manchester, NH (AP New Hampshire)

"Gov. John Lynch say's he's not sure he'd sign a plan to set overall boat speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee.

The House yesterday approved setting speed limits for a two-year trial period. The bill that now goes to the Senate would set limits of 45 miles per hour during the day and 25 miles per hour at night.

Speaking this morning (on WGIR) Lynch said he doesn't think overall boat speeds are the most egregious problem on Winnipesaukee. He says there are other problems such as boats going too fast while too close to other boats or to shore.

He said he would consider the proposed limit if it gets to his desk."
......
Angela Anderson/ WGIR-AM
Union Leader

......

GWC... · 01-31-2008, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Does anyone know how to find out who voted for or against hs847?I was on the house website and it shows the result only.

Hope this helps...

SIKSUKR · 01-31-2008, 12:56 PM

Wow,that sounds like a total flip flop from Lynch's previous position.It's nice to see some comman sense from my Governor when he says what the rest of us speed limit opponents have been saying right along.

Speaking this morning (on WGIR) Lynch said he doesn't think overall boat speeds are the most egregious problem on Winnipesaukee. He says there are other problems such as boats going too fast while too close to other boats or to shore
There is hope.

bbarrell · 01-31-2008, 01:01 PM

Well, at least someone in this state has some sense! Thank you Gov. Lynch! I also saw an interview where he said he didn't think he'd pass any unfunded bill in 2008 that may cost additional money to regulate.
IF it gets passed, I'm glad it was amended to be a two yr trial and only Lake Winni. I think they will truly then learn this bill cost them more than any safety rewards they reaped from it and the data will prove it and this issue will be done.

I also think IF it passes the senate, it's gonna get amended again...likely to up the mph limits. But we'll see soon enough I guess!

I think they may have shot themselves in the foot from a lakes region economy standpoint....as I've always maintained, the people who really want their freedoms will take their money elsewhere...and it WILL have an impact on your tourism and taxes. I've just sold my lakefront property and boat. Perhaps for some supporters that's exactly what you wanted....but I'll be spending that money elsewhere now. Even though I'm against speed limits and will continue to join that fight.... I actually never drove my boat over 65mph and consider myself a very safe driver.

Seeker · 01-31-2008, 02:33 PM

Boating laws are like gun laws. If we would just enforce the ones we now have most problems would be eliminated.
What would make anyone think that someone who staggers onto their boat at 8 or 9 pm with a snootful is going to follow the 25mph night speed limit?

Evenstar · 01-31-2008, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbarrell

I also think IF it passes the senate, it's gonna get amended again...likely to up the mph limits. But we'll see soon enough I guess!

Or the Senate could remove the amendments that the House Transportation Committee added.

[/quote]I think they may have shot themselves in the foot from a lakes region economy standpoint....as I've always maintained, the people who really want their freedoms will take their money elsewhere...and it WILL have an impact on your tourism and taxes.[/quote]
It all depends on what you consider to be important.

Group A feels that being able to travel at unlimited speeds on the lake is important.

Group B feels that being able to feel safe out on the lake is more important.

If members of Group A actually leave, members of Group B will likely just replace them.

So how will this hurt our economy?

Especially when the opponents to the speed limit have been claiming that only a very tiny portion of the boats on Winni travel over 45mph. According to what has been posted on this forum, only 1% will have to slow down to comply with the speed limit. Are you now suggesting that a much greater percentage of boats have in fact been traveling at over 45 mph?

SIKSUKR · 01-31-2008, 03:24 PM

Here' Gov Lynch's statement on WMUR's website.

Lynch Says Boat Speeds Not Worst Problem On Lake
Governor Not Sure If He Would Sign Lake Speed Limit Bill

POSTED: 11:01 am EST January 31, 2008

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Gov. John Lynch said Thursday that he's not sure he'd sign a plan to set overall boat speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee

The House on Wednesday approved setting speed limits for a two-year trial period. The bill that now goes to the Senate would set limits of 45 mph during the day and 25 mph at night.

Speaking on WGIR, Lynch said he doesn't think overall boat speeds are the most egregious problem on Lake Winnipesaukee. He said there are other problems, such as boats going too fast while too close to other boats or to shore.

He said he would consider the proposed limit if it gets to his desk.

bilproject · 01-31-2008, 05:21 PM

Last time I checked it was not required to have an automobile licence to drive a boat, only a safe boating card. No reason for me to show a drivers licence to MP. My state will only apply motor car or truck violations from out of state to our license in NJ

hazelnut · 01-31-2008, 05:41 PM

That is a pretty or should I say VERY basic comment to a potentially real problem.

Your Group B are kayakers, conoers, campers, and sailboaters correct?

How many millions of dollars in lost GAS TAX revenue will be lost??? Last time I checked there weren't a heck of a lot of kayaks and canoes pulled up to the docks patronizing the restaurants and shops at anywhere.

I know this may seem like a bit of a generalization but seeing that you did it to arrive at your point I'll do the same:
Large, fast boat owners usually = Large bank accounts which usually = free cash to spend on gas, food, misc. items from boutiques and shops.

fatlazyless · 01-31-2008, 06:11 PM

Hey Hazelnut, what the state loses in its' gas tax money, it would easily exceed with increased business profits tax from big big sales of granola....it's the granola factor....if every kayaker who paddles on the north side of the lake stops at Heath's and gets some granola, the state's treasury will be very healthy & fat free!

Besides, the gasoline used by motorboats can be redeemed from the state with their non-motor vehicle, gas tax refund program, which every gasoline seller on the lake promotes.
.........

Just checked the www.unionleader.com and their speed limits article has a big long list of 25 reader comments. Is that a record?

People should be so passionate about education funding, or nursing home care by the counties, or health insurance, or something.

Performance motorboating: it's not a hobby, ........................it's a religion..............The Need for Speed!

KonaChick · 01-31-2008, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bilproject

Last time I checked it was not required to have an automobile licence to drive a boat, only a safe boating card. No reason for me to show a drivers licence to MP. My state will only apply motor car or truck violations from out of state to our license in NJ

And herein lies a real problem. Joe Schmoe from NJ with a big fast boat and a deep wallet could care less how many boating speeding tickets he gets. He'll gladly hand over a big fat check for all his speeding infractions and just conisder it a nice donation to the MP. This law will NOT take him off the lake or change his boating habits one bit. I know this because in our cove alone there's 3 Joe Schmoe's and from what I can see many more like him who boat on Lake Winni.

bilproject · 01-31-2008, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KonaChick

And herein lies a real problem. Joe Schmoe from NJ with a big fast boat and a deep wallet could care less how many boating speeding tickets he gets. He'll gladly hand over a big fat check for all his speeding infractions and just conisder it a nice donation to the MP. This law will NOT take him off the lake or change his boating habits one bit. I know this because in our cove alone there's 3 Joe Schmoe's and from what I can see many more like him who boat on Lake Winni.

My post was to show the effect on out of state driving records vs NH. I do not own a boat that can exceed the limit. Well maybe a jet ski at full throttle.

pm203 · 01-31-2008, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KonaChick

And herein lies a real problem. Joe Schmoe from NJ with a big fast boat and a deep wallet could care less how many boating speeding tickets he gets. He'll gladly hand over a big fat check for all his speeding infractions and just conisder it a nice donation to the MP. This law will NOT take him off the lake or change his boating habits one bit. I know this because in our cove alone there's 3 Joe Schmoe's and from what I can see many more like him who boat on Lake Winni.

The real problem are people who think there is a problem.

Evenstar · 01-31-2008, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Your Group B are kayakers, conoers, campers, and sailboaters correct?

How many millions of dollars in lost GAS TAX revenue will be lost??? Last time I checked there weren't a heck of a lot of kayaks and canoes pulled up to the docks patronizing the restaurants and shops at anywhere.

I know this may seem like a bit of a generalization but seeing that you did it to arrive at your point I'll do the same:
Large, fast boat owners usually = Large bank accounts which usually = free cash to spend on gas, food, misc. items from boutiques and shops.

No, you’re not correct at all. Group B includes any boaters who feel “that being able to feel safe out on the lake is more important.” That is how I described them in my post and that is exactly what I meant. Yes, it includes many sailors and paddlers, but it is not exclusive to just these individuals. The anti speed limit group tries to make it out that only non-motorized boat owners want a lake speed limit. That is just not true. There are also many powerboat owners who are for a speed limit.

My two groups were based entirely on the two sides that I saw at the Transportation Committee hearing last March. This wasn’t much of a generalization at all, because 90% of the people who testified in opposition to the bill fit Group A, and 90% of the people who testified in favor of the bill fit Group B.

What I do have a huge issue with is the way some people with “large bank accounts” seem to think they can get whatever they want – because of their financial status. Personally I don’t care how much money anyone has – that doesn’t mean that they are any better then anyone else, or that they deserve some kind of special privileges. I was very proud that over 2/3’s of my Representatives did what was right, instead of caving in to the demands of those with large bank accounts.

Apparently you have never attended the New England Paddling Exposition, at UNH each April. Because if you had, you would have noticed that we are not exactly an impoverished group. And, as a colligate sailor, I can state for a fact that there are some very wealthy people who own sailboats. Both sailors and paddlers probably spend more on gear (like foul weather clothing) than powerboat owners. And we are involved in very physical activity, so we do need to eat – and most of us don’t just live on granola bars (or vacation only in tents).

One more thing: How can the anti-speed limit group claim that the MP’s report on the speed of boats on Winni was so accurate, and then state that such a large number of powerboat owners are “going to take their business elsewhere? If only a very small percentage of boats were traveling over 45mph, then hardly any powerboat owners who will be affected by the speed limit law.

So, either the report is accurate, in which case very few boaters will be affected. Or it is very inaccurate (as I tried to point out) – which means that a much larger percentage of powerboats on Winni travel at speeds above 45mph.

Which one is it? You can’t have it both ways.

Silver Duck · 01-31-2008, 08:21 PM

You know, I'd really like to believe that the speed limit would make it safer for Evenstar, but, sadly, I really don't believe that the basic problem is visibility and reaction time.

If the problem actually was visibility, I don't think that I'd have so many boats zipping past me 30 - 40 feet away when I'm "doofing along" at hull speed (about 8 mph); between the height above water of my radar arch (8 1/2 ft.) and my hull color (burgundy), my boat is pretty easy to see!

IMHO, the main problem during the day is still Captain Bonehead who, by his very nature, is an inconsiderate bufoon, a committed scofflaw, and too danged stupid to pay proper attention to what he's doing or where he's going!

At night, the problem is a bit different. Here, visibility does play a major role in close calls and/or collisions; plus, it's very, very easy to mistake the all-around white light at the stern of a boat for somebody's porch light when you're coming up behind it. On most nights, 25 mph is way too fast for my tastes!

Sorry, WinnFabs, but I strongly suspect that the present proposed speed limits will not do very much to make the lake safer. I still feel that more could be accomplished by a major MP initiative to enforce the 150 ft. safe passage law.

Silver Duck

Dick · 01-31-2008, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

Sorry, WinnFabs, but I strongly suspect that the present proposed speed limits will not do very much to make the lake safer. I still feel that more could be accomplished by a major MP initiative to enforce the 150 ft. safe passage law.

Silver Duck

I totally agree

hazelnut · 01-31-2008, 10:34 PM

Fatlazyless, good, NO GREAT POINT!!!!! Actually GREAT POST!!! True DAT Granola sales would go through the roof. I love your sense of humor.

Good job keeping a sense of humor throughout this whole debate. People tend to internalize this whole thing so badly.

My original post was designed to shed light on the fact that it aint so easy to dismiss the GFBL boat crowd, of which I am NOT a member of. I am a 45MPH bowrider club president. Hownever, I don't want to see the GFBL crowd pushed aside. Those folks pay their fair share of the freight to exist on the "Big Lake."

fatlazyless · 01-31-2008, 10:59 PM

Possible six weeks between now and the Senate vote.

In 2006, HB 162 passed the House on 2/2/06, and died in the Senate on 3/16/06.

With just 24 Senators, could be the Senate will move it up for an early vote so's they can escape all the emails, and send it to the Governor. Understand the Governor wants to pound it with his veto stamp, just like he did with the seat belt law. Whoomp....veto-time....sayonara speed limits.....hello reelection...

tis · 02-01-2008, 07:35 AM

Dick, I also totally agree with Silver Duck. In fact, I just posted the same thing on another forum. The 150 ' rule is what needs to be enforced.

SIKSUKR · 02-01-2008, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

What I do have a huge issue with is the way some people with “large bank accounts” seem to think they can get whatever they want – because of their financial status. Personally I don’t care how much money anyone has – that doesn’t mean that they are any better then anyone else, or that they deserve some kind of special privileges. I was very proud that over 2/3’s of my Representatives did what was right, instead of caving in to the demands of those with large bank accounts.
Apparently you have never attended the New England Paddling Exposition, at UNH each April. Because if you had, you would have noticed that we are not exactly an impoverished group. And, as a colligate sailor, I can state for a fact that there are some very wealthy people who own sailboats. Both sailors and paddlers probably spend more on gear (like foul weather clothing) than powerboat owners.
Which one is it? You can’t have it both ways.

Do you even read the stuff you write?You say your glad that your reps did not cave in to the demands of wealthy people and then go on to say how wealthy the other side is.And to top it off your have the nerve to say we can't have it both ways.The attacks you complain about here are brought on by your own twisted posts.

fatlazyless · 02-01-2008, 09:16 AM

What w/ the Gov. inking up that veto stamp, you guys are walking down easy-street. Saw him at the Concord Wal-Mart with a new red ink stamper pad, and he had that determined look......like SPEED LIMITS VETO...here it comes! Hey....he said he was totally disgusted with all these Nanny Democratic whiners. Saw him hop on his Harley and roar off....not to worry...no speed limits will ever come to the Big Lake as long as Big Bad John is the Gov.!.

Evenstar · 02-01-2008, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Do you even read the stuff you write?You say your glad that your reps did not cave in to the demands of wealthy people and then go on to say how wealthy the other side is.And to top it off your have the nerve to say we can't have it both ways.The attacks you complain about here are brought on by your own twisted posts.

Yes, I read what I write. There is nothing "twisted" about my posts. Perhaps if you weren't in such a hurry to find fault with me, you would be able to understand what I'm writing better.

Look, most paddlers and sailors are not wealthy people - I never said that they were. But we are not impoverished either, so we do spend money and "SOME" people who sail are very wealthy. The key word here is "some" - as opposed to "most" or "all". Just like "some" sailboats also have a motor - so "some" of us use gas in our boats. Plus most of us own cars that require gas.

My point was, if a large group of high-speed boat owners actually do leave the lake, the economy of the lakes region is not going to be affected all that much - because other boaters will just take their place. Businesses in the area might have to adapt a bit, by focusing more on paddlers and sailors - which is why I mentioned "foul weather gear".

You guys love diverting a serious post by finding fault with anyone who doesn't agree with you - while ignoring the real questions and points.

I've posted this several times now, and it has been completely ignored, so I'll try one more time:

"How can the anti-speed limit group claim that the MP’s report on the speed of boats on Winni was so accurate, and then state that such a large number of powerboat owners are “going to take their business elsewhere? If only a very small percentage of boats were traveling over 45mph, then hardly any powerboat owners who will be affected by the speed limit law."

Bear Islander · 02-01-2008, 09:51 AM

When the Governor visited Bear Island last summer he gave the impression he supported speed limits.

Dave R · 02-01-2008, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

No, you’re not correct at all. Group B includes any boaters who feel “that being able to feel safe out on the lake is more important.” That is how I described them in my post and that is exactly what I meant. Yes, it includes many sailors and paddlers, but it is not exclusive to just these individuals. The anti speed limit group tries to make it out that only non-motorized boat owners want a lake speed limit. That is just not true. There are also many powerboat owners who are for a speed limit.

While I think your argument is silly; lets say, hypothetically speaking, these "group B" motor boaters suddenly arrive at Winnipesaukee now that they feel it's safe. Now we have a bunch of people who admittedly could not handle the lake before, roaming around feelin' all safe and secure, without a care in world. Oh yeah, that'll be a real treat for paddlers and law-abiding motor boaters. Be carefull what you wish for...

If your goal really is to attract "group B" motor boaters (I don't believe it is, BTW) and you are successful, you are in for a huge shock. "Group B" motor boaters ARE the problem. Anyone that can't be bothered to understand what's really happening on the lake is too clueless to boat safely. People who are scared of the lake SHOULD stay away, it's an unforgiving place and the nature of it has nothing to do with the style or brand of boats on it. I boat in many other places and Winnipesaukee has the most well-behaved, law abiding, and courteous motor boaters I have ever dealt with. Replace them with "group B"s and things will go downhill.

I hate to be this way, but as a trailer boater with thick skin and plenty of other boating options should things get unbearable on Winnipesaukee, I'm almost eager for that to happen, out of spite. Speed limit supporters have no idea just how good they have it now. Spend a 4th of July on Bow Lake, Big Island Pond, the CT. River, the ICW, or Pawtuckaway Lake sometime

.

rblackie86 · 02-01-2008, 10:05 AM

There is no legitimate data that shows excessive speed causes more boating accidents. Most who support the a speed limit on winni are just trying to legislate a type of lifestyle. Lets face it, there are people out there who enjoy going fast, as well as those who prefer to stay off the throttle. Safety should always come first, and when the lake is crowded and you see Mr. Genius flying into wolfeboro bay at 60mph+, I can't say that appears to be entirely safe for everyone else. It doesn't matter how experienced and comfortable you feel handleing your boat at those speeds. This seems more to be a judgement issue that a legitimate problem. If we all respect everyone around us we all can be happy out on the lake.

I think there are more important issues we need to take care of, like boat registration. It is obsurd to have to register conoes, kayaks, rowboats etc. All the state wants is more money! How does everyone feel about a size limit for the lake? I dont see the point in having a boat on the lake over 38-40 feet. Especially the big boats that can do 30-40mph+. 20 years ago the average size of most boats on the lake was around 20-22 feet. Granted I realize that boats cost big bucks, and there are many large boat owners who spent hundreds of thousand of dollars for them.

Hottrucks · 02-01-2008, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rblackie86

There is no legitimate data that shows excessive speed causes more boating accidents. Most who support the a speed limit on winni are just trying to legislate a type of lifestyle. Lets face it, there are people out there who enjoy going fast, as well as those who prefer to stay off the throttle. If we all respect everyone around us we all can be happy out on the lake.

I think there are more important issues we need to take care of, like boat registration. It is obsurd to have to register conoes, kayaks, rowboats etc. All the state want is more money!

If the State had more $$$ AND used it for better inforcement and lake maintainance we wouldn't be here in the first place??? I'm still looking to find where the $5 of my reg. for boat launch maintenance is going???

fatlazyless · 02-01-2008, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

When the Governor visited Bear Island last summer he gave the impression he supported speed limits.

It can be difficult to tell with politicians....good ones learn to be politically correct....and play to their audience......Governor Benson drove a bronze metallic Hummer.....Governor Lynch was in the papers yesterday as saying that speed is not the biggest problem on the lake....?

Did Gov Lynch have much to say about it at the Bear post office dock?

WeirsBeachBoater · 02-01-2008, 12:59 PM

If you were a politician, and you landed on a dock with a bunch of Extremists(winnfabs) wearing matching t-shirts and asking you to support a speed limit? Probably what all politicians do, tell them what they want to hear! Then 2 stops later bombarded by the Sea Ray owners group, anti 847, what did he say there????

Bear Islander · 02-01-2008, 01:09 PM

Who told about the t-shirts?

Were you there?

bbarrell · 02-01-2008, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rblackie86

There is no legitimate data that shows excessive speed causes more boating accidents.... It is absurd to have to register canoes, kayaks, rowboats etc. All the state wants is more money! How does everyone feel about a size limit for the lake?

You make excellent points! I think what the supporters don't understand is that people couldn't care less about driving 70,80,90 mph...it's the fact that our freedoms are being stripped away AND they are taking money to spend on this program (which will yield no safety results) away from other more important programs like education, environment, the huge spending deficit NH is in right now, etc....these useless laws on the books make it so much worse.

How about doing something that will either raise money or actually make the lake safer? We are focusing on the wrong stuff here and that's the main reason I don't support it. EVERYONE is affected regardless of whether you drive a speed boat or not.

fatlazyless · 02-01-2008, 01:28 PM

Last night the Union Leader had a photo of Gov Lynch getting his arm tattooed at a Weirs Beach professional medical facility that said: 'Redline 6000~MerC 454", whatever that means, and then he hopped on his Harley and headed across the ice to Eagle Island. So's I don't know, it looks like he is serious 'bout that speed limits being no real problem here.

What you think.....if it makes it to his desk.... cause I believe the Senate now has 14 Democrats to 10 Republicans,....he may just let it sit on his desk for ten days without signing it, and go that route.....who knows?

Dick · 02-01-2008, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rblackie86

It is obsurd to have to register conoes, kayaks, rowboats etc. All the state wants is more money!

When you register your motor boat each year, among other fees you also pay $5 for public water access building/improving/maintaining and $1 into the Fish & Game Search & Rescue fund. I own a canoe also and I pay absolutely nothing to help out. Our NH Fish & Game Dept. maintains 138 public water access sites -- boat ramp and parking area. All these are open for car-top paddlers to use . . . and we do use them. Of these 138 sites, 50 are car-top only . . . and yet paddlers pay nothing. The January 2008 Performance Audit of the Fish & Game Dept. recommends a paddler's decal to help pay for access and also support the wildlife programs that we all enjoy viewing.

Evenstar · 02-01-2008, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave R

While I think your argument is silly; lets say, hypothetically speaking, these "group B" motor boaters suddenly arrive at Winnipesaukee now that they feel it's safe. Now we have a bunch of people who admittedly could not handle the lake before, roaming around feelin' all safe and secure, without a care in world. . . . If your goal really is to attract "group B" motor boaters (I don't believe it is, BTW) and you are successful, you are in for a huge shock. "Group B" motor boaters ARE the problem. Anyone that can't be bothered to understand what's really happening on the lake is too clueless to boat safely. People who are scared of the lake SHOULD stay away, it's an unforgiving place and the nature of it has nothing to do with the style or brand of boats on it.

Why to you think my argument is is "silly"?

My “goal” is and has been just to support a lake speed limit bill because I honestly believe that allowing unlimited speeds on lakes is a very dangerous practice. It has never been my goal to exclude any type of boat from using our lakes, nor has it ever been my goal to attract any type of boat.

There are two groups that have formed because of HB847:
Group A: those in opposition – main argument is that they should being able to travel at unlimited speeds on the lake – and that a speed limit would violate their rights. This group is not exclusive to just high-speed boat owners.

Group B: those in support – most of whom believe that unlimited speeds are dangerous – the high speeds of some boats currently make the lake feel unsafe. This group is not exclusive to just paddlers and sailors.

Just because someone feels that high speeds that some boats travel have made the lake too dangerous, does not mean that they are inexperienced, can not “handle the lake”, or that they are “scared of the lake”. I’m very experienced, I can “handle the lake” just fine, and I’m not “scared of the lake” – but I’ve seen how dangerous it can be to allow boats to travel at unlimited speeds.

I don’t believe that the passage of HB847 into law will result in a mass exodus of power boaters. But even if that does happen, I think that an equal number of boaters will replace them pretty fast.

Do I feel that all power boaters are a threat to me? No; of course not. But some are a threat due to their inexperience, their lack of attention, and/or to their drinking. Having boats traviling at high speeds on a lake that is shared by much slower, much smaller boats is dangerous. Adding high speed to inexperience, lack of attention, and BWI creates an extremely dangerous environment.

A speed limit will not solve all the problems, but I do honestly believe that it will make the lake safer. Last spring, when I asked two marine patrol officers at NHTI what they thought about HB847, they eventually both admitted that they wanted it to pass, and that they saw a speed limit as "an effective tool”.

hazelnut · 02-01-2008, 01:50 PM

Keep telling yourself that Evenstar. I'm sure it won't affect the economy "all that much." So you agree that it will affect the economy a little bit? So lets enact a law that cures a problem that does not exist and risk putting some small businesses in the red and possibly out of business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Yes, I read what I write. There is nothing "twisted" about my posts. Perhaps if you weren't in such a hurry to find fault with me, you would be able to understand what I'm writing better.

Look, most paddlers and sailors are not wealthy people - I never said that they were. But we are not impoverished either, so we do spend money and "SOME" people who sail are very wealthy. The key word here is "some" - as opposed to "most" or "all". Just like "some" sailboats also have a motor - so "some" of us use gas in our boats. Plus most of us own cars that require gas.

My point was, if a large group of high-speed boat owners actually do leave the lake, the economy of the lakes region is not going to be affected all that much - because other boaters will just take their place. Businesses in the area might have to adapt a bit, by focusing more on paddlers and sailors - which is why I mentioned "foul weather gear".

You guys love diverting a serious post by finding fault with anyone who doesn't agree with you - while ignoring the real questions and points.

I've posted this several times now, and it has been completely ignored, so I'll try one more time:

"How can the anti-speed limit group claim that the MP’s report on the speed of boats on Winni was so accurate, and then state that such a large number of powerboat owners are “going to take their business elsewhere? If only a very small percentage of boats were traveling over 45mph, then hardly any powerboat owners who will be affected by the speed limit law."

No you want to twist this to prove your point, when the reality is WHY DO WE NEED A LAW telling us to drive 45 when we ALREADY DO IT! As a whole it was proven that SPEED IS NOT AN ISSUE!!! People already travel at the random "Safe Speed" of 45MPH. So why do we need a law telling us to do what we already do??? Why do this if there is ANY potential impact on the economy? It is already in a fragile state. Why enact a law that will historically speaking not save any more lives or prevent any injuries? It does not make sense. For the record my boat does 49MPH this will not affect me or the way I boat. I just do not see the point in enacting laws based on NO DATA. Where is your data? Why do we need this law? Please answer that question.

WeirsBeachBoater · 02-01-2008, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Who told about the t-shirts?

Were you there?

You under estimate my knowledge of what happens on this lake

Evenstar · 02-01-2008, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dick

Our NH Fish & Game Dept. maintains 138 public water access sites -- boat ramp and parking area. All these are open for car-top paddlers to use . . .

Not all are open to car-top paddlers. The State Owned parking lot just below Squam Lake Science Center is limited to trailer only parking. So, if you use the state boat launch on the Squam River, and you don't have a trailer, good luck in finding a place to park your car on a weekend.

A "conservation sticker" bill was defeated as ITL in the NH Senate just last spring.

I was against the bill since many paddlers have more than one kayak/canoe due to having boats for different conditions. Yet they can only use one at a time. And, if you want to hike in the White Mountains you already need to buy a $20 conservation sticker to park at the trailheads (which I have). Since many paddlers also hike, some would be paying conservation fees twice.

Why not just combine the two? Allow only vehicles with a NH Conservation sticker to park at public boat launches. This would increase the F&G revenue, would be more fair, and would be much easier to enforce (which was another problem with last year's bill.)

Resident 2B · 02-01-2008, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbarrell

..it's the fact that our freedoms are being stripped away AND they are taking money to spend on this program (which will yield no safety results) away from other more important programs like education, environment, the huge spending deficit NH is in right now, etc....these useless laws on the books make it so much worse.

How about doing something that will either raise money or actually make the lake safer? We are focusing on the wrong stuff here and that's the main reason I don't support it. EVERYONE is affected regardless of whether you drive a speed boat or not.

bbarrell,

You have completely and accurately summed up my feelings on this issue!

Freedom is very important to our family. Restricting individual freedom is a dangerous thing to do and should only be done when it benefits the general public. Otherwise, it becomes a self-interest or self-serving endeavor, and that is what I believe this speed limit proposal really is.

I do not have a fast boat. We have a 23' bowrider and we have two kayaks. We have lake front property and the big tax bill that comes with it. I am against the speed limit because I believe we get a more dangerous boating environment with the speed limit than we have today.

Enforcing the speed limit in a way that complaints will stand up in court will cost a lot of money and it will take MP Officers away from effectively monitoring the existing rules, most importantly the 150' rule. The 150' rule really makes sense and if it was completely followed by all boaters and enforced by the MP, we get a great boating environment for everyone.

All the unsafe conditions I have seen on the lake involved boaters that ignored the 150' rule. These boaters were never GFBL boaters, but where mostly rental boaters or boaters in smaller, often out-of-state, boats. We need to effectively address these boaters and make sure they know the rules we have in NH. That is what will work.

Slowing down a GFBL boat in the middle of the broads is not going to make the lake any safer and it will take MP Officers away from activities that result in making the lake safe, specifically enforcing the existing 150' rule.

R2B

codeman671 · 02-01-2008, 02:24 PM

Let's look at this a different way... The proponents are complaining that the lake is overcrowded and dangerous now. Any issues with this so far?

Now, what will happen when the big scary go fast boats leave (being that is the thought process behind them)? Their thoughts are that lots of families will come back who have been previously driven out They will be bringing their boats, jet skiis and bad boating skills to an already overcrowded lake. What will now happen is even more crowding, higher likelihood of accidents because of the crowding and sheer volume of boats, more pollution from the added people, boat traffic, swimmers, etc..

Are you really going to be happy with the outcome of this all should it pass? What is your next argument? Ban them all I bet...I hope your attempt at revenge is worth it, you may be the one bitten in the end.

fatlazyless · 02-01-2008, 02:40 PM

This state has some wacky rules...like I have seven: kayaks, canoe, rowboat,& sailboats and don't pay a dime for registration. Win $850,000 in the Powerball and the state makes a great big zero. Purchase a pizzarama pizza that needs to be baked at home in the oven at 350 degrees for 20 minutes and still I pay 8% or 40 cents tax for the pizza. So, my pizzarama pizza is paying for the state services used by the Powerball winner (who shall remain nameless because he is a reverred state leader).

Evenstar · 02-01-2008, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Keep telling yourself that Evenstar. I'm sure it won't affect the economy "all that much." So you agree that it will affect the economy a little bit? So lets enact a law that cures a problem that does not exist and risk putting some small businesses in the red and possibly out of business.

Economy is based on supply and demand. A speed limit is not going to decrease the demand to boat on Winnipesaukee – at most it might change the demographics of the users a bit. If paddling and sailing do become more popular, don’t you think that most small business that deal with the boating crowd will be smart enough to adapt to the changes in demand for different products?

Quote:

I just do not see the point in enacting laws based on NO DATA. Where is your data? Why do we need this law? Please answer that question.

I have repeatedly posted why I feel that we need a speed limit. How many times do I have to repeat my posts??? And I have already provided data here that was based on last summer’s MP report, showing how the report does not show the true number of boats that were traveling at over 45mph on the lake. Last year I also posted data showing that there was over 10 times the number of boating accidents in NH lakes per square mile of inland water than that of our neighboring state in 2005. I also posted that, according to the USCG accident statistics, the “excessive speed” went from the number 4 cause to the number 3 cause in 2005 (and it was still #3 in 2006). And that the number 1 most common accident was “collision with [another] vessel”.

The problem is that you and others do not see the problem, because apparently you have not had any close calls with high speed power boats. I and other have had close calls – so we see high speed as a problem. When we try to explain this we are accused of being easily frightened and afraid of the “big lake”, told that paddlers have no business being out more than 150 feet from shore, are accused of exaggerating, or of lying. Personally, I feel that close calls happen quite often – and that many of these close calls were the result of high speeds. No agency records close calls, so we have no way of knowing how often they occur.

Rattlesnake Guy · 02-01-2008, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

When the Governor visited Bear Island last summer he gave the impression he supported speed limits.

Bear Islander, on January 15th of this year you offered me this advice in response to the reps not always admitting that they might vote in favor of the bill.

You said
"You need to take some of those responses from reps with a grain of salt. After all they are politicians and adept in saying what you want to hear. Or at least in not saying what you don't want to hear.

Myself, I have not received a negative response. "

I agreed with you and offer the same advice back to you relative to your discussions with the Governor.

Who knows, this Republican might just vote for such a smart Democrat who is willing to make an independent decision he thinks is best for the majority. Then again...

Rattlesnake Guy · 02-01-2008, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

Let's look at this a different way... The proponents are complaining that the lake is overcrowded and dangerous now. Any issues with this so far?

Now, what will happen when the big scary go fast boats leave (being that is the thought process behind them)? Their thoughts are that lots of families will come back who have been previously driven out They will be bringing their boats, jet skiis and bad boating skills to an already overcrowded lake. What will now happen is even more crowding, higher likelihood of accidents because of the crowding and sheer volume of boats, more pollution from the added people, boat traffic, swimmers, etc..

Are you really going to be happy with the outcome of this all should it pass? What is your next argument? Ban them all I bet...I hope your attempt at revenge is worth it, you may be the one bitten in the end.

Well put. Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. I love fast boats because they have the smallest wakes.

Rattlesnake Guy · 02-01-2008, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

This state has some wacky rules...like I have seven: kayaks, canoe, rowboat,& sailboats and don't pay a dime for registration. Win $850,000 in the Powerball and the state makes a great big zero. Purchase a pizzarama pizza that needs to be baked at home in the oven at 350 degrees for 20 minutes and still I pay 8% or 40 cents tax for the pizza. So, my pizzarama pizza is paying for the state services used by the Powerball winner (who shall remain nameless because he is a reverred state leader).

FLL. Have you ever stopped to consider why the State runs a lottery? They don't wait for you to pay taxes on the winnings. They take their half before they tell you how much you win. Then the Feds take another half. If you are Lucky enough to win a big one, they use your half for 20 years interest free. I doubt the State is unhappy with the jackpot being tax free.

Cristen · 02-01-2008, 06:47 PM

This really bums me out. I can see enforcing a speed limit on small lake, but Winnipesuakee......come on. They don't call it the BIG LAKE for nothing!

I'm 30 years old, and have grown up on this lake. I remember the days of speeding around with my friends in some pretty fast boats, but we did it in places that were safe like the broads, not in heavily congested areas. There is absolutely no reason why you can open up your toys out on the big lake. You just need to be smart and safe about it.

I have a jet ski that I race around on like a crazy girl, and that isn't going to stop. A speed limit of 45......LAME!!!!!!

PS - Hey Marine Patrol.....here's a tip. Maybe you should go after the reckless boaters and some of the people that rent boats for that matter. I've seen lots of renters drop a boat in the lake without a clue as to where they are going, or how to drive a boat! SCARY!

fatlazyless · 02-01-2008, 07:32 PM

Hey Rattlesnake Guy, while that's true for the NH Lottery, it was a national Powerball where Sen Gregg hit five out of six numbers on a five dollar, quik-pik at a Washington DC gas station on Oct 25, 2005, winning $850,000. Yes, he paid federal income taxes, and no there was no NH tax on it.

It's off-topic so how 'bout we just drop it.
....................

Laconia Daily Sun, Thursday, Jan 31, 08
By Chris Dornin
Golden Dome News

Big House majority backs Big Lake speed limits

CONCORD - The House voted 236-111 Wednesday to restrict boat speeds to 45 mph in the daytime on Lake Winnipesaukee and 25 mph at night. After a two-year experiment, those limits would sunset unless lawmakers renewed them. The bill would also list any boating violations on a driver's auto record.

Democrats favored the bill, which now goes to the Senate for action, 194-10. Several sponsors were Republicans, but their party generally opposed the bill 99-42.

The Belknap County delegation backed the bill by 10-6.

In its earliest draft, House Bill 847 capped lake speeds across the state permanently. Rep. Jim Pilliod (R-Belmont) the prime sponsor of HB 847, called the final version a major compromise. He said the idea for the bill came from a Gilford marina owner hurt by too many speeders. He was losing rental and boat-slip customers in his family-oriented market.

Several lawmakers noted the unprecedented lobbying campaigns from both sides.

Rep. Robert Theberge (D-Berlin) said most of the opponents he heard from live out of state and own summer cottages on the lake. He listened more to the residents and voted for the bill.

Rep. John Tholl (R-Whitefield) got bombarded too, even though most of the lakes up north are too small to worry about.

"The only one with any speed issues is the Moore Resevoir on the Connecticut River," Tholl said. "On Jericho Lake (in Berlin) you'd run out of water by the time you got up to planning speed."

Pilliod said he fielded a wave of nearly identical emails from opponents across the country. Then he got flooded with earnest and individualized messages from the in-state supporters. Then came a late salvo of "better thought out" e-mails from the other side.

"The opponents must have learned a lesson," Pilliod joked in his floor speech. "But I've been power boating since 1935, and I've never gone faster than 25. High speeds are fun for some at the expense of others' feelings of safety."

Rep. Pennington Brown (R-Epping) said a friend of his owns frontage on Squam Lake.

"A power boat cut an aluminum canoe in half," he said. "The bow and stern paddlers were startled."

Rep. Dan Itse (R-Fremont) told lawmakers he got an e-mail from a Marine Patrol officer saying the agency had received no reports of boating accidents involving speeds greater than 30 mph. Rep. Jim Ryan (D-Franklin) chairs the House Transportation Committee and said lawmakers received thousands of copies of that message.

"What it said isn't the whole truth," Pilliod noted. "I recall a family that bought some personal watercraft and played tag. The mother ran over her daughter and killed her."

Lieutenant Tim Dunleavy keeps accident data for Marine Patrol at its headquarters in Gilford. In an interview after the House session, he said there were 54 reported accidents across the state in 2007, and three were caused by speeding. That included one each on Lakes Ossipee, Tucker and Winnipesaukee. Nine of the accidents took place between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. Speed was a factor in only one of the 80 accidents in 2006, and it caused four of the 60 accidents in 2005.

"We have many accidents at speeds greater than 30 or 40 mph," Dunleavy said. "But it's usually a skier who falls and gets hurt or a tuber flipping over. Or a boat hits a wake and the passenger chips a tooth. It's speed-related if a boat doing 60 does a barrel roll and ejects people."

Rep. Bill Denley (R-Wakefield) offered an amendment to cap speeds only at night, when he said it's crazy to drive faster than 25 mph. Running lights look too much like shore lights.

"But a daytime speed limit is feel-good legislation," Denley said. "It won't make anyone safer. The lake is a busy, busy place, but high speeds are perfectly safe in a number of areas. Between Six Mile Island and Wolfeboro Neck on an un-busy day is one of them."

His motion died 260-83.

Rep Sherm Packard (R-Londonderry) argued against the bill as the former chairman of House Transportation. He said Marine Patrol officers clocked 3,852 boats on Winnipesaukee last summer, and only 91 were going faster than 41 mph.

"If we had that kind of compliance on the highways we could get rid of the State Police and save a lot of money," he said. "Let's not pass legislation to solve a problem that does not exist."

Pilliod said nobody expected large numbers of speeders with the cops watching.

"Even with the radar guns you had boats going 60 out there." he said.

Rep. Fran Wendelboe (R-New Hampton) represents Center Harbor and said the real problem is violations of the 150-foot rule and the boat-user restrictions near shore.

"We just need better boater training and a little more money for Marine Patrol in the busy season, especially on weekends," she said.

Rep. Alida Millham (R-Gilford) cosponsored the bill and said its time has come.

"I have a place on Mark Island," she said. "There's a gut between Mark and Timber islands. People speed through there all the time."

Rep. John Thomas (R-Belmont) suggested scrapping most of the bill and just recording a speeder's violation on their auto license.

Rep. Mike Whalley (R-Alton) warned the bill would tax Marine Patrol officers, who have authority to crack down on speeding now. Boats have to operate safely and leave no wake within 150 feet of shore and other vessels.

"The idea you can't swim or row on the lake is far fetched," he added. "I have a rowing scull and I use it on the lake every day."

Senators now are bracing for a barrage of orchestrated messages on one of the most divisive issues of the 2008 session. Sen. Joe Kenney (R-Wakefield) is co-sponsoring HB 847 and said a similar bill died in the upper chamber two years ago. He's hopefull this time. He toured the Meredith section of the lake two years ago wih a group of lawmakers. What they saw convinced them of the need for a speed cap.

"We got up to 45 mph and the wave action was enough to knock you out of the boat," he said. "At that speed you close on other boats fast. The state is going to have 300,000 more people by 2020. We have to learn to share our natural resources."
.....
Laconia Daily Sun
Chris Dornin, Golden Dome News

....
This article should make the go-fasts jump for joy! So, how do you like them apples?

Hey, I think maybe this writer is a little biased in favor of the go-fasts. Shouldn't he be portraying the Democratic party as being totally objective and unbiased, and just a 'show me the facts' type of lawmakers!

rblackie86 · 02-01-2008, 09:51 PM

The January 2008 Performance Audit of the Fish & Game Dept. recommends a paddler's decal to help pay for access and also support the wildlife programs that we all enjoy viewing.[/QUOTE]

Powerboats cause pollution in our water so why should someone in a rowboat/kayak/ or even a sailboat with no engine have to pay for registration? I'd give a donation to support wildlife programs just because i think its a good thing to do. Then i would really know where my money is going.

GWC... · 02-01-2008, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rblackie86

The January 2008 Performance Audit of the Fish & Game Dept. recommends a paddler's decal to help pay for access and also support the wildlife programs that we all enjoy viewing.

Powerboats cause pollution in our water so why should someone in a rowboat/kayak/ or even a sailboat with no engine have to pay for registration? I'd give a donation to support wildlife programs just because i think its a good thing to do. Then i would really know where my money is going.

Some paddlers did not feel safe; hence, a speed limit is in the works.

It will require additional revenues.

If you want to dance, be willing to pay the fiddler...

fatlazyless · 02-02-2008, 08:50 AM

The one kayak I have that's set up for fish'n is a twelve footer and it's a camoflage, duck hunt'n, satin design of sand-beige-brown. Color is not much of a choice when double-discount buying, second hand. Crossing over to Dolly-Penney-Bear Islands takes about five minutes. When the gut is busy with motorboats, I always assume me & the boat cannot be seen. So, if a motorboat accidently smacks me good, whose fault is that?

........
Hey, the list of reader comments at the Union Leader speed limits article has grown to 34....well thought out explanations.....some people from this forum...too bad the Marine Patrol can't slap a two-cent tax on every word.

Cal · 02-02-2008, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

The one kayak I have that's set up for fish'n is a twelve footer and it's a camoflage, duck hunt'n, satin design of sand-beige-brown. Color is not much of a choice when double-discount buying, second hand. Crossing over to Dolly-Penney-Bear Islands takes about five minutes. When the gut is busy with motorboats, I always assume me & the boat cannot be seen. So, if a motorboat accidently smacks me good, whose fault is that?

Gee , with those colors why don't you just paint a big target on your back too

Then complain about the 40 mph boats that come too close.

Rattlesnake Guy · 02-02-2008, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

The one kayak I have that's set up for fish'n is a twelve footer and it's a camouflage, duck hunt'n, satin design of sand-beige-brown. Color is not much of a choice when double-discount buying, second hand. Crossing over to Dolly-Penney-Bear Islands takes about five minutes. When the gut is busy with motorboats, I always assume me & the boat cannot be seen. So, if a motorboat accidently smacks me good, whose fault is that?

.........

Good news. Today we bought a stealth boat that is completely silent and can't be seen. This way you won't see us coming when we can't see you crossing. Fortunately it only goes 45 mph so you should be fine.

tis · 02-02-2008, 07:40 PM

OK, can someone help me out here? I am having a disagreement with (Acres) on another forum about an existing law regarding speed. I thought that there was already a law that said something to the effect that you have to go a speed that is "reasonable and prudent "or "safe" for conditions etc. Therefore I thought that coverd it and we don't need a new law. We just need to enforce the existing law. Acres says that is only a law in Maine, so now I am really curious. Does anyone know for sure and can you quote the law, number etc.? Thanks.

Evenstar · 02-02-2008, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tis

. . .I thought that there was already a law that said something to the effect that you have to go a speed that is "reasonable and prudent "or "safe" for conditions etc. Therefore I thought that coverd it and we don't need a new law. We just need to enforce the existing law. Acres says that is only a law in Maine, so now I am really curious. Does anyone know for sure and can you quote the law, number etc.? Thanks.

Here's the link to General Rules for Vessels Operating on Water
"reasonable and prudent" does not appear. Nor is there anything about traveling at speeds "safe of conditions".
Here's the link to the amended version of HB847, which does include "reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions", but this only applies to Lake Winnipesaukee.

fatlazyless · 02-02-2008, 08:19 PM

Hi Rattlesnake Guy....hopefully I'll have enough time to sense the propeller revolutions as even a stealth boat needs to energize the water to be mov'n forward.........wwwrrrr......wwwrrrr....wwwrrrrr.. .....paddle......paddle.....paddle....exit stage right....

Fair skies, low humidity & good fish'n to you...

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

a message to the reader here...

Dear Reader, before it expires, suggest you look at the 35 e-mail, reader comments to the speed limits article in the www.unionleader.com, NH's largest newspaper, and especially to red-hot 'Bea from Gilford'......go Bea, go Bea, go Girl go! You the best of the best!!!

Hey there, just forget about today's super bowl, Patriots vs Giants, what WMUR & the Union Leader should be bookn' is 'Bea from Gilford' verses "Dick from some cute village" in the red-hot, speed limits debate of the totally committed, intellectually advanced, Super Advocates. Now, that would really get the ratings!

jrc · 02-02-2008, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tis

... Does anyone know for sure and can you quote the law, number etc.? Thanks.

We have at least two:

From CHAPTER Saf-C 400 WATERCRAFT SAFETY RULES
Saf-C 404.12 Operational Rules for Crossing Boat Wakes and Conduct Near Other Vessels.
....
(c) No boat operator shall operate his/her vessel in a manner that is unsafe, including the following types of conduct:
(1) Challenging other boaters by heading directly at a vessel and then swerving at the last minute to avoid collision;
(2) Weaving through congested boat traffic at greater than headway speed;
(3) Operating while his/her vision is obstructed; and
(4) Other types of operation that are intended to create erratic operational patterns so that other boaters cannot determine the course or heading of the vessel.

And we have this law:

270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Bear Islander · 02-02-2008, 11:51 PM

Suggesting that those two rules constitute any kind of a speed limit is more than a stretch. tis was asking for a rule that involved imprudent speed, there is no such rule.

If anyone was charged with breaking those rules based on speed alone they would be screaming there was is no speed limit. In court it would be argued (successfully) that if the intent of the law was to regulate speed then the word speed would have been included etc..

It would also be argued that the legislature considered a speed limit (more than once) and chose not to enact one, thereby making legislative intent on speed crystal clear.

If you guys were not trying to fight a speed limit you would never, never, never say those rules were about speed.

tis · 02-03-2008, 08:16 AM

I would certainly consider an unsafe speed as operating in a "careless and negligent" manner. I think that wording takes care of anything.
Thank you jrc.

fatlazyless · 02-03-2008, 08:32 AM

It's simple,.....just like the NH roads & highways all have speed limits....so should the waterways....it's all about S-A-F-E-T-Y. 45mph day-25mph night!

And don't forget, going 45 in a boat is hardly a slow speed, it is indeed a very fast speed! !

wifi · 02-03-2008, 09:06 AM

Oh yes, the buzz word "safety". When ever towns want new police or fire stations they start chanting "safety". After all, who can deny their fellow man "safety"?

I prefer facts and figures over emotional cover all statements. Not taking either side here.. yet

KonaChick · 02-03-2008, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

It's simple,.....just like the NH roads & highways all have speed limits....so should the waterways....it's all about S-A-F-E-T-Y. 45mph day-25mph night!

And don't forget, going 45 in a boat is hardly a slow speed, it is indeed a very fast speed! !

It's apples and oranges FLL....imagine the 150' rule on highways??

jrc · 02-03-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Suggesting that those two rules constitute any kind of a speed limit is more than a stretch....

I'm not saying that those laws constitute an arbitrary speed limit. I'm saying that they legislate against any situtation where excess speed causes dangerous or unsafe conditions.

An arbitrary speed limit regulates to a speed without regard to anything else. These laws regulate behavior that is unsafe, careless or negligent.

We have all seen situations where traveling over 45 MPH is safe. We have all seen situations where traveling at 44 MPH is unsafe. There are places and times where 10 MPH is unsafe and careless and negligent.

If you think that these laws are unenforcable against speed alone, you are right. But an MP can clearly use these laws against anyone, if their speed causes an unsafe situation.

Airwaves · 02-03-2008, 12:56 PM

I agree with JRC, those two regulations that are already on the books, provide the Marine Patrol with the tools needed to enforce a speed limit provided the boat is being operated in a manner that is dangerous, negligent or unsafe.

Now, to keep everyone happy, which at this point is probably going to be impossible, I urge the Senate to reject HB847 and instead adopt Coast Guard Navigation Rule 6.

No need to reinvent the wheel.

GWC... · 02-03-2008, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

I agree with JRC, those two regulations that are already on the books, provide the Marine Patrol with the tools needed to enforce a speed limit provided the boat is being operated in a manner that is dangerous, negligent or unsafe.

Now, to keep everyone happy, which at this point is probably going to be impossible, I urge the Senate to reject HB847 and instead adopt Coast Guard Navigation Rule 6.

No need to reinvent the wheel.

about as successful as the 150' rule...

Reminds me of the Titantic and the iceberg incident...

Guess you did not see the movie or Ballard's showing of the aftermath at the bottom of the ocean...

fatlazyless · 02-04-2008, 07:11 AM

NH State Rep Sherman Packard (R) Rockingham is currently in his ninth term and has served for about 18 years. From 1996-2006 he was the Chairman of the House Transportation Committee, and is now the ranking Republican on this committee.

Elected to the Sturgis Motorcycle Hall of Fame in 2003, he's been a long time advocate for "motorcycle-no helmet option' policy in NH.

"A solution looking for a problem" were his words and he voted no to the HB-847 speed limits bill.

Had he still been the chairman of the House Transportation Committee, would HB847 have passed with its' very strong 236-111 vote?

On February 2, 2006, the NH House passed HB162 by a much closer vote of 193-139 . It has 400 members, total.

SIKSUKR · 02-04-2008, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Suggesting that those two rules constitute any kind of a speed limit is more than a stretch. tis was asking for a rule that involved imprudent speed, there is no such rule.
.

How much more clear can imprudent speed get than with the speed limit we ALREADY have,headway speed when within 150 ft?This covers all that's needed on both sides already.THERE CAN BE NO BOAT SPEEDING 45 OR WHATEVER EXAGERATED SPEED PROPONENTS MAKE UP WHEN WITH 150 FT.Why is this not a speed limit in your eyes?

Bear Islander · 02-04-2008, 06:35 PM

The is no speed limit of any kind at this time. There is no "reasonable and prudent" language in the rules we have now.

Almost all of the opposition arguments revolve around the issue of safety. Safety is the most important issue to many speed limit proponents. However it is not the only issue.

Even we put aside safety (for the sake of argument) There is still erosion, drinking water quality, noise, pollution, congestion and equitable use of a limited resource. Those arguments alone are more than enough to justify a speed limit.

What response do you have to the directors of children's camps that will not let their boats go out on weekends? That is a "real world" problem. Do you have a solution?

Airwaves · 02-04-2008, 06:57 PM

GWC wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves
I agree with JRC, those two regulations that are already on the books, provide the Marine Patrol with the tools needed to enforce a speed limit provided the boat is being operated in a manner that is dangerous, negligent or unsafe.

Now, to keep everyone happy, which at this point is probably going to be impossible, I urge the Senate to reject HB847 and instead adopt Coast Guard Navigation Rule 6.

No need to reinvent the wheel.

about as successful as the 150' rule...

Reminds me of the Titantic and the iceberg incident...

Guess you did not see the movie or Ballard's showing of the aftermath at the bottom of the ocean...

Actually I had the pleasure of speaking and interviewing Bob Ballard twice personally. Funny, neither time did he mention a violation of Rule 6 or 150' rule during his exploration of Titanic or Bismark.

If you are trying to point out that had Rule 6 been in effect when Titanic was afloat then she may not have hit the iceburg, that is probably true.

I don't know if Rule 6 was in effect or not back then but it is today and imposes a speed limit on all vessels on federal and international waters and it acts as a tool for law enforcement to bring charges against the skipper who ignores it much as the current NH rules regarding Conduct Near Other Vessels and the Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats currently do if law enforcement choses to use them.

Bear Islander wrote:

Quote:

Even we put aside safety (for the sake of argument) There is still erosion, drinking water quality, noise, pollution, congestion and equitable use of a limited resource. Those arguments alone are more than enough to justify a speed limit.

I think we have put the safety issue aside since even the Marine Patrol research has shown the lack of a speed limit on Winnipesaukee is not an issue to safety. Erosion? It gets back to the issue of what causes more erosion, a boat on plane or a cruiser pushing a bow wave that washes up to it's flybridge (a sight I personally spotted this past summer) Pollution? How does limiting speed reduce pollution? Noise? Unless the Go Fast boats disappear which is unlikely, the noise will not be effected. Congestion? No one is going anywhere, the Marine Patrol research proved that. Equitable use of a limited resource...that's where it lies! An attempt to get a type of boat you don't like off the lake!

One other point, funding. I draw your attention to an Associated Press item today that I will have to paraphrase because of copywrite issues but it will be in your local paper tomorrow.

Revenues for January were $6.8 Million below estimates, receipts are $11.4 Million below estimates for the year. Gov Lynch is asking agency heads to address the shortfall.

So where are you going to get the money to fund this "Solution looking for a problem"?

overlook · 02-04-2008, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The is no speed limit of any kind at this time. There is no "reasonable and prudent" language in the rules we have now.

Almost all of the opposition arguments revolve around the issue of safety. Safety is the most important issue to many speed limit proponents. However it is not the only issue.

Even we put aside safety (for the sake of argument) There is still erosion, drinking water quality, noise, pollution, congestion and equitable use of a limited resource. Those arguments alone are more than enough to justify a speed limit.

What response do you have to the directors of children's camps that will not let their boats go out on weekends? That is a "real world" problem. Do you have a solution?

No speed limit? What about Headway speed, and no wake zones.
It has never been proven that additional speed limits will increase safety.
Erosion, the faster a boat travels on plane, the smaller the wake.
Noise has already been addressed, and just this past year.
Pollution, Thats a volume of boats issue, not speed.
Congestion is just that, Safe passage address that issue in relation to speed.
Equitable use, it is already 9 to 1 in your favor, and that ratio will not get better.
In the real world, the lake just gets conjested on summers with good whether. Common sense says stay closer to shore. Thats what I do when in my kayak.

The solution: EDUCATION not IGNORANCE, and of course COMMON SENSE

Lakegeezer · 02-04-2008, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Even we put aside safety (for the sake of argument) There is still erosion, drinking water quality, noise, pollution, congestion and equitable use of a limited resource. Those arguments alone are more than enough to justify a speed limit.

What response do you have to the directors of children's camps that will not let their boats go out on weekends? That is a "real world" problem. Do you have a solution?

I can't agree that the points raised here are more than enough to justify a speed limit. The point about noise is somewhat valid, as boats are louder as they go faster - but then again, they are gone faster too. Congestion is a poor argument, because faster boats are - woosh - out of the fray faster. The rest of the points are all valid issues, but boats going over 45 aren't the problem. Boats of all sizes and speeds are the problem.

In fact, if we want to switch to the issue to water quality and erosion, the separation rule is a huge cause of environmental issues. When boats slow down to pass and then come back on plane, bigger wakes are generated than if they had remained on plane. I'm not advocating that we eliminate the separation rule, but those who violate it are being kinder to our water quality and shore line. Its a trade-off we make.

As for the children's camps; not being able to go out on weekends may be a real-world problem, but not one that would be solved by a feel-good speed limit. Boats that are going over 45 are likely to be far from shore and more likely to be taking extra care to watch where they are going. The kids should learn not to be scared of them anyway. Fast boats don't cause any more accidents than the slow ones. Its the captain boneheads (fools at any speed) that are the danger to the camp kids. Just too many boats is likely another factor. While nobody seems to have a solution to Capt B, or congestion, I would tell the camp directors to encourage the lake community to come together to solve the problems of separation and the right-of-way rules, rather than fighting over an issue that won't solve the problem.

Oh, and I would also encourage a fast-boat driver to come in (bass boat or jet-ski would be my preference) and give the kids a thrill - one that they may soon lose the right to legally experience.

gtxrider · 02-04-2008, 08:32 PM

I hope the bill does not pass since I am planning on repowering the Jet Ski

WeirsBeachBoater · 02-04-2008, 08:34 PM

Quote:

What response do you have to the directors of children's camps that will not let their boats go out on weekends? That is a "real world" problem. Do you have a solution?

I love this one.... Let me ask you this. Do you think it is reasonable and prudent to take campers, who by their nature are new to kayaking, canoes, or sail boats, out into the broads? Let me qualify that further, lets say for the sake of argument it is a week day, light traffic, but we all know how quickly the lakes mood can change. Storm kicks up. Now you have inexperienced boaters in a bad situation. I have never seen GFBLS run out of control between Sandy and Cow or Long Island. I have however seen SI sailboats challenge the Sophie C? I have never seen GFBLS run circles near 3 mile, or drag race amongst the buoys near Camp Lawrence. I never have seen GFBL's run wide open at Brewsters rowing skulls or Sailboats. I have seen B/A set up their sailing course in a way that made it a hazard to boats entering and leaving the town docks.

So who is creating the "situations" the GFBL crowd or the Camp and their Crews???

Bear Islander · 02-04-2008, 10:19 PM

You can't eliminate the Capt Boneheads. But you can make some of them go away. When Capt B. looks around for a lake to torment, he is more likely to select one where he can go full speed with impunity.

Or look at it the other way around, having no speed limit at all, when other lakes do, is like a "Boneheads Welcome" sign on our lake.

The opposition logic has become so twisted that now campers in canoes, sailboats and kayaks are the problem, because they get in the way of the powerboats.

If the lake ever gets so congested that camp canoes and powerboats can't co-exist, then the powerboats will need to go. Including mine.

EricP · 02-04-2008, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evenstar

If only a very small percentage of boats were traveling over 45mph, then hardly any powerboat owners who will be affected by the speed limit law.

So, either the report is accurate, in which case very few boaters will be affected. Or it is very inaccurate (as I tried to point out) – which means that a much larger percentage of powerboats on Winni travel at speeds above 45mph.

Which one is it? You can’t have it both ways.

If 99% of the population were bald and a law was proposed that hair length couldn't exceed 1" then it's ok because only a small percentage of people would be affected?

This may seem like a ridiculous example but the proposed law is just as ridiculous.

Resident 2B · 02-04-2008, 11:07 PM

The lake is not crowded in most areas. It is crowded around the Weirs and between Meredith Neck and Bear Island on weekends. It is a bit congested around a few of the marinas also on weekends, but most of the lake is not crowded even on weekends. This is only between the hours of 10 A.M. and 5 P.M. on good weather weekends. It is also crowded around the Weirs for fireworks on Friday nights in July and August.

In fact, it is less crowded now than it was five years ago, and it was not crowded in most places then either. The cost of gas has had an impact.

Let's be fair in making these statements. The citizens of NH that have never been to the lake during the summer get the wrong impression and start to make decisions and support HB's based upon misinformation.

R2B

EricP · 02-04-2008, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Even we put aside safety (for the sake of argument) There is still erosion, drinking water quality, noise, pollution, congestion and equitable use of a limited resource. Those arguments alone are more than enough to justify a speed limit.

What response do you have to the directors of children's camps that will not let their boats go out on weekends? That is a "real world" problem. Do you have a solution?

None of your arguements have anything to do with speed. You will never be happy, and even if the speed limit passes you will find something else to complain about. Isn't there a speed limit on Squam? Please move there.

jrc · 02-05-2008, 07:58 AM

Come on, if it wasn't for misinformation, this argument would have been over years ago.

270:1 Declaration of Policy. –
...
II. In the interest of maintaining the residential, recreational and scenic values which New Hampshire public waters provide to residents of the state and to the promotion of our tourist industry, and in light of the fact that competing uses for the enjoyment of these waters, if not regulated for the benefit of all users, may diminish the value to be derived from them, it is hereby declared that the public waters of New Hampshire shall be maintained and regulated in such way as to provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, both from the shore and from water-borne conveyances. Such provisions shall take into consideration the following: the variety of special uses appropriate to our lakes, public safety, protection of environment and water quality, and the continued nurture of New Hampshire's threatened and endangered species.
...

We're supposed to share the lake, some people want to ban certains uses they don't like. They pretend it's about safety, but it's really about revenge and spite. It's sad to watch otherwise normal people bend the truth to get there way and win an arguement.

01-30-2008, 12:30 PM	#1
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,762 Thanks: 32 Thanked 440 Times in 207 Posts	Speed Limit Passes House The speed limit just passed the house. The vote was 236 Yeas to 111 Nays. Last edited by Bear Islander; 01-30-2008 at 01:52 PM. Reason: yeas added

01-30-2008, 01:19 PM	#6
ApS Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro Posts: 5,933 Thanks: 2,202 Thanked 776 Times in 553 Posts	Dern Lawmakers... Well....Just Dang! I'd hoped to put Steve Fossett's old record-breaking multihull "Cheyenne" on Winnipesaukee. This cuts that possibility in half. Cheyenne is selling for a tiny fraction of its original price, it's 125' long, and has already broken 55-MPH. Smokelessly racing across the Broads at 55-MPH—and using no fossil fuels—has been a dream of mine. (OK, there's a little "smoke" off the hulls at high speed). *Just think, an ocean-racer 60-feet wide, and being the privileged boat over everybody else on the lake!* Just dang... ('Thought I'd do my speed runs nearest the NASWA crowd and go jumping their wakes—at night .) __________________ Is it "Common Sense" isn't.

01-30-2008, 03:13 PM	#7
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,724 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 300 Thanked 1,000 Times in 729 Posts	I am almost at a loss for words, which is unusual for me, so let me just say that ...sometimes, you win, and ...sometimes, YOU LOSE! .... On March 16, 2006, the New Hampshire State Senate voted 16-9 on HB162 with what was a Republican majority at that time. Since the November 2006 election, the majority color of the 24 members of the problem solving and deep thinking New Hampshire State Senate has changed from a Republican red to a BRITE & HOPEFULL SHADE of DEMOCRATIC BLUE, which is just like the blue water out on Lake Winnipesaukee, brite & hopefull. Therefore, knowing what we know about our hardworking and volunteer New Hampshire State Senate, we can all be very brite & hopefull. ...capiche! Having said all that, if you study the votes, HB847 is not a partisan issue with Dems and Repubs all divided on it. There have been D's & R's on both sides of the vote, both in the House & previously in the Senate. Each and every State Representative studies the issue carefully and then makes his/her own decision. HB 847 has been a one representative by one representative. non-partisan issue with each individual doing their own due diligence, and asking themselves: What is best for boating safety in New Hampshire? ''''''''''''''''''''''''' All across the State of New Hampshire, youth summer camps, canoers, sailers, kayakers, rowers, fishermen/woman and motor boaters and jetskiers too are clapping and cheering. If you go stick your head out the window and listen quietly, you'll be able to hear them......clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap....for the New Hampshire House of Representatives, 236-111. .......... __________________ ... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake! Last edited by fatlazyless; 01-30-2008 at 03:48 PM.

01-30-2008, 07:09 PM	#12
Dick Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Cute village in New Hampshire Posts: 36 Thanks: 1 Thanked 9 Times in 5 Posts	The author of the HB 847 amendment, and who also wrote the House Transporation committee (7-6) blurb in the House regular claendar, was Rep. Howard Cunningham. This is what he wrote: "This amendment sets a 45/25 (day/night) speed limit and is designed to sunset on January 1, 2011. This interval will provide an adequate period of time to make pre/post speed limit comparisons." Okay, we know what the baseline objective data is, i.e., ZERO boat-to-boat collisions involving a speed over 30 mph for the past 2 years (that's for all 970 lakes/ponds and thousands of miles of rivers, not just Winni). Now, IF this bill were to pass, what improvement over this could we logically expect to see over the next 2 years? We haven't had a boat-to-boat fatality that involved a speed over 30 mph in over 5 years. Exactly what "comparison" should we expect to see over a 2 year "interval" in this regard? If we were to end up with significantly more boat-to-boat collisions during the 2 year "comparison" period, would that mean that imposing the speed restriction did not improve our boating safety record, but rather had the opposite effect? __________________ We can achieve only that which we "see" in our vision, believe is possible, and expect to manifest.

01-30-2008, 10:09 PM	#14
andyporter Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Bear Island Posts: 16 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Speed limit? Do we need a speed limit in the broads? Maybe coming in and out Weirs/Meredith. But the broads.

01-30-2008, 12:36 PM	#3
Hottrucks Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Lakes region NH Posts: 48 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	what was the vote...I was Iced in up here and couldn't get there where does it go next the senate..?? When??? Thanx

01-30-2008, 04:24 PM	#11
WeirsBeachBoater Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 709 Blog Entries: 9 Thanks: 39 Thanked 148 Times in 65 Posts	Still along way to go, Although gloat if you will. You won a battle, but not the war my friends. The pro speed limit side, screamed victory when HB 162 was passed in the House. Where did that go? Same Place 847 will, out with the rest of the trash. I hope this opens the publics eyes to the reform needed in Concord. These Reps are out of control! Time for some restructuring. Too many reps, and too many old timers! Need some young fresh faces that are in touch with real life, Not just the retired and wealthy that can afford to work for $100/yr. Put some real everday people in the seats and see what happens!

01-31-2008, 12:27 AM	#16
KonaChick Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 518 Thanks: 19 Thanked 62 Times in 15 Posts	If this inane bill passes and someone gets a ticket is it only NH drivers that will have this on their driving records or ALL drivers from all states?? It seems if it's only NH drivers there's a large group of individuals out there from different states that this bill will NOT affect. It makes no sense!!

01-31-2008, 07:42 AM	#17
SIKSUKR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,075 Thanks: 215 Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts	Here's WMUR's story. http://www.wmur.com/news/15176535/detail.html __________________ SIKSUKR

01-31-2008, 08:58 AM	#20
SIKSUKR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,075 Thanks: 215 Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts	Does anyone know how to find out who voted for or against hs847?I was on the house website and it shows the result only.It also says that an amendment was added but I couldn't see what it was. After reading the Union Leader's story I see that the amendment was to make this bill effective for Winni only.Also, in the article it states only 10 of the 239 Dems voted against.Pretty much what I figured.We have lost our live free or die status in NH to the liberals moving here from the "more government is better" states.Very sad.Much more doom and gloom will be arriving soon.Carefull what you vote for folks cuz it's going to bite you in the butt. __________________ SIKSUKR

01-31-2008, 10:48 AM	#25
SIKSUKR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,075 Thanks: 215 Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts	Thanks for that link Winnilaker.I will be voicing my disapproval to my respective reps.This process is not over people.Contact your state senator and let them know how you feel about this bill.I was going to say we certainly have a better shot at ending this bill given the smaller majority of Dems in the senate but it appears both branches are 60 to 40 percent Dems ro GOP.Let your opinion be known! __________________ SIKSUKR

01-31-2008, 11:04 AM	#26
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,724 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 300 Thanked 1,000 Times in 729 Posts	WGIR-AM, Union Leader Union Leader, Manchester, NH (AP New Hampshire) "Gov. John Lynch say's he's not sure he'd sign a plan to set overall boat speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee. The House yesterday approved setting speed limits for a two-year trial period. The bill that now goes to the Senate would set limits of 45 miles per hour during the day and 25 miles per hour at night. Speaking this morning (on WGIR) Lynch said he doesn't think overall boat speeds are the most egregious problem on Winnipesaukee. He says there are other problems such as boats going too fast while too close to other boats or to shore. He said he would consider the proposed limit if it gets to his desk." ...... Angela Anderson/ WGIR-AM Union Leader ...... __________________ ... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!

01-31-2008, 12:56 PM	#28
SIKSUKR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,075 Thanks: 215 Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts	Wow,that sounds like a total flip flop from Lynch's previous position.It's nice to see some comman sense from my Governor when he says what the rest of us speed limit opponents have been saying right along. Speaking this morning (on WGIR) Lynch said he doesn't think overall boat speeds are the most egregious problem on Winnipesaukee. He says there are other problems such as boats going too fast while too close to other boats or to shore There is hope. __________________ SIKSUKR

01-31-2008, 01:01 PM	#29
bbarrell Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 17 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Well, at least someone in this state has some sense! Thank you Gov. Lynch! I also saw an interview where he said he didn't think he'd pass any unfunded bill in 2008 that may cost additional money to regulate. IF it gets passed, I'm glad it was amended to be a two yr trial and only Lake Winni. I think they will truly then learn this bill cost them more than any safety rewards they reaped from it and the data will prove it and this issue will be done. I also think IF it passes the senate, it's gonna get amended again...likely to up the mph limits. But we'll see soon enough I guess! I think they may have shot themselves in the foot from a lakes region economy standpoint....as I've always maintained, the people who really want their freedoms will take their money elsewhere...and it WILL have an impact on your tourism and taxes. I've just sold my lakefront property and boat. Perhaps for some supporters that's exactly what you wanted....but I'll be spending that money elsewhere now. Even though I'm against speed limits and will continue to join that fight.... I actually never drove my boat over 65mph and consider myself a very safe driver.

01-31-2008, 02:33 PM	#30
Seeker Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Effingham Posts: 408 Thanks: 37 Thanked 19 Times in 15 Posts	Boating laws are like gun laws. If we would just enforce the ones we now have most problems would be eliminated. What would make anyone think that someone who staggers onto their boat at 8 or 9 pm with a snootful is going to follow the 25mph night speed limit?

01-31-2008, 03:24 PM	#32
SIKSUKR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,075 Thanks: 215 Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts	Here' Gov Lynch's statement on WMUR's website. Lynch Says Boat Speeds Not Worst Problem On Lake Governor Not Sure If He Would Sign Lake Speed Limit Bill POSTED: 11:01 am EST January 31, 2008 MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Gov. John Lynch said Thursday that he's not sure he'd sign a plan to set overall boat speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee The House on Wednesday approved setting speed limits for a two-year trial period. The bill that now goes to the Senate would set limits of 45 mph during the day and 25 mph at night. Speaking on WGIR, Lynch said he doesn't think overall boat speeds are the most egregious problem on Lake Winnipesaukee. He said there are other problems, such as boats going too fast while too close to other boats or to shore. He said he would consider the proposed limit if it gets to his desk. __________________ SIKSUKR

01-31-2008, 05:21 PM	#33
bilproject Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Bear Island/Fort Myers, Fla Posts: 229 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 1 Thanked 59 Times in 41 Posts	Last time I checked it was not required to have an automobile licence to drive a boat, only a safe boating card. No reason for me to show a drivers licence to MP. My state will only apply motor car or truck violations from out of state to our license in NJ

01-31-2008, 05:41 PM	#34
hazelnut Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,348 Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 508 Thanked 462 Times in 162 Posts	Not so fast Evenstar That is a pretty or should I say VERY basic comment to a potentially real problem. Your Group B are kayakers, conoers, campers, and sailboaters correct? How many millions of dollars in lost GAS TAX revenue will be lost??? Last time I checked there weren't a heck of a lot of kayaks and canoes pulled up to the docks patronizing the restaurants and shops at anywhere. I know this may seem like a bit of a generalization but seeing that you did it to arrive at your point I'll do the same: Large, fast boat owners usually = Large bank accounts which usually = free cash to spend on gas, food, misc. items from boutiques and shops.

01-31-2008, 06:11 PM	#35
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,724 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 300 Thanked 1,000 Times in 729 Posts	Hey Hazelnut, what the state loses in its' gas tax money, it would easily exceed with increased business profits tax from big big sales of granola....it's the granola factor....if every kayaker who paddles on the north side of the lake stops at Heath's and gets some granola, the state's treasury will be very healthy & fat free! Besides, the gasoline used by motorboats can be redeemed from the state with their non-motor vehicle, gas tax refund program, which every gasoline seller on the lake promotes. ......... Just checked the www.unionleader.com and their speed limits article has a big long list of 25 reader comments. Is that a record? People should be so passionate about education funding, or nursing home care by the counties, or health insurance, or something. Performance motorboating: it's not a hobby, ........................it's a religion..............The Need for Speed! __________________ ... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!

01-31-2008, 08:21 PM	#40
Silver Duck Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Billerica, MA Posts: 364 Thanks: 40 Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts	You know, I'd really like to believe that the speed limit would make it safer for Evenstar, but, sadly, I really don't believe that the basic problem is visibility and reaction time. If the problem actually was visibility, I don't think that I'd have so many boats zipping past me 30 - 40 feet away when I'm "doofing along" at hull speed (about 8 mph); between the height above water of my radar arch (8 1/2 ft.) and my hull color (burgundy), my boat is pretty easy to see! IMHO, the main problem during the day is still Captain Bonehead who, by his very nature, is an inconsiderate bufoon, a committed scofflaw, and too danged stupid to pay proper attention to what he's doing or where he's going! At night, the problem is a bit different. Here, visibility does play a major role in close calls and/or collisions; plus, it's very, very easy to mistake the all-around white light at the stern of a boat for somebody's porch light when you're coming up behind it. On most nights, 25 mph is way too fast for my tastes! Sorry, WinnFabs, but I strongly suspect that the present proposed speed limits will not do very much to make the lake safer. I still feel that more could be accomplished by a major MP initiative to enforce the 150 ft. safe passage law. Silver Duck

01-31-2008, 10:34 PM	#42
hazelnut Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,348 Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 508 Thanked 462 Times in 162 Posts	Hilarious Fatlazyless, good, NO GREAT POINT!!!!! Actually GREAT POST!!! True DAT Granola sales would go through the roof. I love your sense of humor. Good job keeping a sense of humor throughout this whole debate. People tend to internalize this whole thing so badly. My original post was designed to shed light on the fact that it aint so easy to dismiss the GFBL boat crowd, of which I am NOT a member of. I am a 45MPH bowrider club president. Hownever, I don't want to see the GFBL crowd pushed aside. Those folks pay their fair share of the freight to exist on the "Big Lake."

01-31-2008, 10:59 PM	#43
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,724 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 300 Thanked 1,000 Times in 729 Posts	Possible six weeks between now and the Senate vote. In 2006, HB 162 passed the House on 2/2/06, and died in the Senate on 3/16/06. With just 24 Senators, could be the Senate will move it up for an early vote so's they can escape all the emails, and send it to the Governor. Understand the Governor wants to pound it with his veto stamp, just like he did with the seat belt law. Whoomp....veto-time....sayonara speed limits.....hello reelection... __________________ ... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!

02-01-2008, 07:35 AM	#44
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,670 Thanks: 750 Thanked 1,444 Times in 1,003 Posts	Dick, I also totally agree with Silver Duck. In fact, I just posted the same thing on another forum. The 150 ' rule is what needs to be enforced.

02-01-2008, 09:16 AM	#46
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,724 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 300 Thanked 1,000 Times in 729 Posts	What w/ the Gov. inking up that veto stamp, you guys are walking down easy-street. Saw him at the Concord Wal-Mart with a new red ink stamper pad, and he had that determined look......like SPEED LIMITS VETO...here it comes! Hey....he said he was totally disgusted with all these Nanny Democratic whiners. Saw him hop on his Harley and roar off....not to worry...no speed limits will ever come to the Big Lake as long as Big Bad John is the Gov.!. __________________ ... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!

02-01-2008, 09:51 AM	#48
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,762 Thanks: 32 Thanked 440 Times in 207 Posts	When the Governor visited Bear Island last summer he gave the impression he supported speed limits.

02-01-2008, 10:05 AM	#50
rblackie86 Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	There is no legitimate data that shows excessive speed causes more boating accidents. Most who support the a speed limit on winni are just trying to legislate a type of lifestyle. Lets face it, there are people out there who enjoy going fast, as well as those who prefer to stay off the throttle. Safety should always come first, and when the lake is crowded and you see Mr. Genius flying into wolfeboro bay at 60mph+, I can't say that appears to be entirely safe for everyone else. It doesn't matter how experienced and comfortable you feel handleing your boat at those speeds. This seems more to be a judgement issue that a legitimate problem. If we all respect everyone around us we all can be happy out on the lake. I think there are more important issues we need to take care of, like boat registration. It is obsurd to have to register conoes, kayaks, rowboats etc. All the state wants is more money! How does everyone feel about a size limit for the lake? I dont see the point in having a boat on the lake over 38-40 feet. Especially the big boats that can do 30-40mph+. 20 years ago the average size of most boats on the lake was around 20-22 feet. Granted I realize that boats cost big bucks, and there are many large boat owners who spent hundreds of thousand of dollars for them.

02-01-2008, 12:59 PM	#53
WeirsBeachBoater Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 709 Blog Entries: 9 Thanks: 39 Thanked 148 Times in 65 Posts	What would you do? If you were a politician, and you landed on a dock with a bunch of Extremists(winnfabs) wearing matching t-shirts and asking you to support a speed limit? Probably what all politicians do, tell them what they want to hear! Then 2 stops later bombarded by the Sea Ray owners group, anti 847, what did he say there????

02-01-2008, 01:09 PM	#54
Bear Islander Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Bear Island Posts: 1,762 Thanks: 32 Thanked 440 Times in 207 Posts	Who told about the t-shirts? Were you there?

02-01-2008, 01:28 PM	#56
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,724 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 300 Thanked 1,000 Times in 729 Posts	Last night the Union Leader had a photo of Gov Lynch getting his arm tattooed at a Weirs Beach professional medical facility that said: 'Redline 6000~MerC 454", whatever that means, and then he hopped on his Harley and headed across the ice to Eagle Island. So's I don't know, it looks like he is serious 'bout that speed limits being no real problem here. What you think.....if it makes it to his desk.... cause I believe the Senate now has 14 Democrats to 10 Republicans,....he may just let it sit on his desk for ten days without signing it, and go that route.....who knows? __________________ ... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!

02-01-2008, 02:24 PM	#63
codeman671 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 3,454 Thanks: 220 Thanked 802 Times in 480 Posts	Let's look at this a different way... The proponents are complaining that the lake is overcrowded and dangerous now. Any issues with this so far? Now, what will happen when the big scary go fast boats leave (being that is the thought process behind them)? Their thoughts are that lots of families will come back who have been previously driven out They will be bringing their boats, jet skiis and bad boating skills to an already overcrowded lake. What will now happen is even more crowding, higher likelihood of accidents because of the crowding and sheer volume of boats, more pollution from the added people, boat traffic, swimmers, etc.. Are you really going to be happy with the outcome of this all should it pass? What is your next argument? Ban them all I bet...I hope your attempt at revenge is worth it, you may be the one bitten in the end.

02-01-2008, 02:40 PM	#64
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,724 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 300 Thanked 1,000 Times in 729 Posts	This state has some wacky rules...like I have seven: kayaks, canoe, rowboat,& sailboats and don't pay a dime for registration. Win $850,000 in the Powerball and the state makes a great big zero. Purchase a pizzarama pizza that needs to be baked at home in the oven at 350 degrees for 20 minutes and still I pay 8% or 40 cents tax for the pizza. So, my pizzarama pizza is paying for the state services used by the Powerball winner (who shall remain nameless because he is a reverred state leader). __________________ ... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!

02-01-2008, 06:47 PM	#69
Cristen Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 143 Thanks: 25 Thanked 11 Times in 6 Posts	A speed limit on Winni - BUMMER! This really bums me out. I can see enforcing a speed limit on small lake, but Winnipesuakee......come on. They don't call it the BIG LAKE for nothing! I'm 30 years old, and have grown up on this lake. I remember the days of speeding around with my friends in some pretty fast boats, but we did it in places that were safe like the broads, not in heavily congested areas. There is absolutely no reason why you can open up your toys out on the big lake. You just need to be smart and safe about it. I have a jet ski that I race around on like a crazy girl, and that isn't going to stop. A speed limit of 45......LAME!!!!!! PS - Hey Marine Patrol.....here's a tip. Maybe you should go after the reckless boaters and some of the people that rent boats for that matter. I've seen lots of renters drop a boat in the lake without a clue as to where they are going, or how to drive a boat! SCARY!

02-01-2008, 07:32 PM	#70
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,724 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 300 Thanked 1,000 Times in 729 Posts	Hey Rattlesnake Guy, while that's true for the NH Lottery, it was a national Powerball where Sen Gregg hit five out of six numbers on a five dollar, quik-pik at a Washington DC gas station on Oct 25, 2005, winning $850,000. Yes, he paid federal income taxes, and no there was no NH tax on it. It's off-topic so how 'bout we just drop it. .................... Laconia Daily Sun, Thursday, Jan 31, 08 By Chris Dornin Golden Dome News Big House majority backs Big Lake speed limits CONCORD - The House voted 236-111 Wednesday to restrict boat speeds to 45 mph in the daytime on Lake Winnipesaukee and 25 mph at night. After a two-year experiment, those limits would sunset unless lawmakers renewed them. The bill would also list any boating violations on a driver's auto record. Democrats favored the bill, which now goes to the Senate for action, 194-10. Several sponsors were Republicans, but their party generally opposed the bill 99-42. The Belknap County delegation backed the bill by 10-6. In its earliest draft, House Bill 847 capped lake speeds across the state permanently. Rep. Jim Pilliod (R-Belmont) the prime sponsor of HB 847, called the final version a major compromise. He said the idea for the bill came from a Gilford marina owner hurt by too many speeders. He was losing rental and boat-slip customers in his family-oriented market. Several lawmakers noted the unprecedented lobbying campaigns from both sides. Rep. Robert Theberge (D-Berlin) said most of the opponents he heard from live out of state and own summer cottages on the lake. He listened more to the residents and voted for the bill. Rep. John Tholl (R-Whitefield) got bombarded too, even though most of the lakes up north are too small to worry about. "The only one with any speed issues is the Moore Resevoir on the Connecticut River," Tholl said. "On Jericho Lake (in Berlin) you'd run out of water by the time you got up to planning speed." Pilliod said he fielded a wave of nearly identical emails from opponents across the country. Then he got flooded with earnest and individualized messages from the in-state supporters. Then came a late salvo of "better thought out" e-mails from the other side. "The opponents must have learned a lesson," Pilliod joked in his floor speech. "But I've been power boating since 1935, and I've never gone faster than 25. High speeds are fun for some at the expense of others' feelings of safety." Rep. Pennington Brown (R-Epping) said a friend of his owns frontage on Squam Lake. "A power boat cut an aluminum canoe in half," he said. "The bow and stern paddlers were startled." Rep. Dan Itse (R-Fremont) told lawmakers he got an e-mail from a Marine Patrol officer saying the agency had received no reports of boating accidents involving speeds greater than 30 mph. Rep. Jim Ryan (D-Franklin) chairs the House Transportation Committee and said lawmakers received thousands of copies of that message. "What it said isn't the whole truth," Pilliod noted. "I recall a family that bought some personal watercraft and played tag. The mother ran over her daughter and killed her." Lieutenant Tim Dunleavy keeps accident data for Marine Patrol at its headquarters in Gilford. In an interview after the House session, he said there were 54 reported accidents across the state in 2007, and three were caused by speeding. That included one each on Lakes Ossipee, Tucker and Winnipesaukee. Nine of the accidents took place between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. Speed was a factor in only one of the 80 accidents in 2006, and it caused four of the 60 accidents in 2005. "We have many accidents at speeds greater than 30 or 40 mph," Dunleavy said. "But it's usually a skier who falls and gets hurt or a tuber flipping over. Or a boat hits a wake and the passenger chips a tooth. It's speed-related if a boat doing 60 does a barrel roll and ejects people." Rep. Bill Denley (R-Wakefield) offered an amendment to cap speeds only at night, when he said it's crazy to drive faster than 25 mph. Running lights look too much like shore lights. "But a daytime speed limit is feel-good legislation," Denley said. "It won't make anyone safer. The lake is a busy, busy place, but high speeds are perfectly safe in a number of areas. Between Six Mile Island and Wolfeboro Neck on an un-busy day is one of them." His motion died 260-83. Rep Sherm Packard (R-Londonderry) argued against the bill as the former chairman of House Transportation. He said Marine Patrol officers clocked 3,852 boats on Winnipesaukee last summer, and only 91 were going faster than 41 mph. "If we had that kind of compliance on the highways we could get rid of the State Police and save a lot of money," he said. "Let's not pass legislation to solve a problem that does not exist." Pilliod said nobody expected large numbers of speeders with the cops watching. "Even with the radar guns you had boats going 60 out there." he said. Rep. Fran Wendelboe (R-New Hampton) represents Center Harbor and said the real problem is violations of the 150-foot rule and the boat-user restrictions near shore. "We just need better boater training and a little more money for Marine Patrol in the busy season, especially on weekends," she said. Rep. Alida Millham (R-Gilford) cosponsored the bill and said its time has come. "I have a place on Mark Island," she said. "There's a gut between Mark and Timber islands. People speed through there all the time." Rep. John Thomas (R-Belmont) suggested scrapping most of the bill and just recording a speeder's violation on their auto license. Rep. Mike Whalley (R-Alton) warned the bill would tax Marine Patrol officers, who have authority to crack down on speeding now. Boats have to operate safely and leave no wake within 150 feet of shore and other vessels. "The idea you can't swim or row on the lake is far fetched," he added. "I have a rowing scull and I use it on the lake every day." Senators now are bracing for a barrage of orchestrated messages on one of the most divisive issues of the 2008 session. Sen. Joe Kenney (R-Wakefield) is co-sponsoring HB 847 and said a similar bill died in the upper chamber two years ago. He's hopefull this time. He toured the Meredith section of the lake two years ago wih a group of lawmakers. What they saw convinced them of the need for a speed cap. "We got up to 45 mph and the wave action was enough to knock you out of the boat," he said. "At that speed you close on other boats fast. The state is going to have 300,000 more people by 2020. We have to learn to share our natural resources." ..... Laconia Daily Sun Chris Dornin, Golden Dome News .... This article should make the go-fasts jump for joy! So, how do you like them apples? Hey, I think maybe this writer is a little biased in favor of the go-fasts. Shouldn't he be portraying the Democratic party as being totally objective and unbiased, and just a 'show me the facts' type of lawmakers! __________________ ... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake! Last edited by fatlazyless; 02-01-2008 at 09:47 PM.

02-01-2008, 09:51 PM	#71
rblackie86 Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	The January 2008 Performance Audit of the Fish & Game Dept. recommends a paddler's decal to help pay for access and also support the wildlife programs that we all enjoy viewing.[/QUOTE] Powerboats cause pollution in our water so why should someone in a rowboat/kayak/ or even a sailboat with no engine have to pay for registration? I'd give a donation to support wildlife programs just because i think its a good thing to do. Then i would really know where my money is going.

02-02-2008, 08:50 AM	#73
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,724 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 300 Thanked 1,000 Times in 729 Posts	The one kayak I have that's set up for fish'n is a twelve footer and it's a camoflage, duck hunt'n, satin design of sand-beige-brown. Color is not much of a choice when double-discount buying, second hand. Crossing over to Dolly-Penney-Bear Islands takes about five minutes. When the gut is busy with motorboats, I always assume me & the boat cannot be seen. So, if a motorboat accidently smacks me good, whose fault is that? ........ Hey, the list of reader comments at the Union Leader speed limits article has grown to 34....well thought out explanations.....some people from this forum...too bad the Marine Patrol can't slap a two-cent tax on every word. __________________ ... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake! Last edited by fatlazyless; 02-02-2008 at 09:49 AM.