Proposed Law

[Islander]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

I think you are right. I know that Bear Island is the shortest distance between any two points on Winni. Keep it slow and watch out for kayakers. If I owned Y Landing, I know I'd be offering the cheapest gas on the lake this summer. There is a captive audience just looking for a reason to say hello to everyone on Bear Island this summer.

If you stop at Y-Landing check out the convenience store while they are gassing you. Tuffy is stocking up on sour grapes just for the GFBL crowd.




Good to know you have forgiven them for supporting speed limits.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Islander

If you stop at Y-Landing check out the convenience store while they are gassing you. Tuffy is stocking up on sour grapes just for the GFBL crowd.




Good to know you have forgiven them for supporting speed limits.

Apparently, the Senators are not the only ones enjoying old timer's...

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Islander
Suppose a GFBL makes it a habit of going 90 mph around the lake. How many times per day will this be reported to the Marine Patrol? How long will it be before the Marine Patrol start looking for this boat?

That’s a very good question, as a matter of fact your good friend Bear Islander can probably answer it since he posted;

Originally posted by Bear Islander
Boats go through the NWZ at high speed, full speed , ludicrous speed, whatever you can imagine.
...snip...
The most common violator is a very large cruise boat that passes more than once a day. I will not guess at its speed, but I have seen boats being overtaken by it have to go full throttle, in the NWZ, to get out of its way.

Then I posted the following as a suggestion since if that happened to me I would certainly be ticked off!

Originally posted by Airwaves
Just a thought, but it that's a problem out in front of your place, and since I beleive you already have a webcamera in operation, why not point it in a direction that would catch the violation on the web, and at an angle that would show the violator's bow number and/or boat name. I'd be willing to be that if you had these violations on tape and the MP could track them down a visit by a law enforcement officer would help your situation.

Then Bear Islander posted a response via VtSteve (BI doesn’t post responding directly to me any longer since I was so bold as to bring his credibility into question after he claimed time and again not to have posted something that he wrote and he denied it so BI took his bat and ball and went home

Originally posted by Bear Islander
I'm surprised you people are surprised. I suppose I have seen it for so many years it doesn't surprise me anymore. PWCs go through full speed the most, we don't even blink when they do it. I'm sure some have no idea it's a NWZ. One beautiful Cigarette (a real one) would go through at about 90. I thought maybe he was clueless. Then I found out he was from Cooks Point. That is within sight, so he must have known about the NWZ.

We had a neighbor that would throw tennis ball at them, but he is gone now.

A have a few videos but you can't read bow numbers from that distance. I have been thinking of setting a camera up with motion detection. Take a picture of every boat that goes through.

So Islander, that’s a long way to say that you folks that say you have problems with speeding boats don’t have a track record of reporting them!!!!!

Call the Marine Patrol and even if they don't show up you will have a record! In BIs case he knows where one of the offenders docks...yet he certainly didn't say he did anything about it!

I’ll betcha the only thing that gets reported if this bill becomes law is the continued 150 foot violation…but gee, isn’t that already law? BTW, they are NOT going to put a radar post at the NWZ near Bear Island

[fatlazyless]

As many boaters know, the Bear Island Post Office dock has been a Marine Patrol stake-out spot for no wake zone, plus six mph speeders, for years and years.

Today's www.citizen.com has an article on boating and the Marine Patrol and mentions that the MP may be required to enforce a speed limit this summer, depending on what the legislature does. Could the Senate change HB 847 so it becomes effective immediately? Like, why wait till January 1, 2009?

Three cheers to Tuffy and the Y-Landing for operating their little grocery, beer, milk, newspaper, hi-test gasoline, diesel fuel, boat accessories like air horns, bilge pumps, bow eyes, lines, and Suzuki outboards biz.

Do 250hp Merc two-strokes run better hole shots on high-octaine gas?

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

As many boaters know, the Bear Island Post Office dock has been a Marine Patrol stake-out spot for no wake zone, plus six mph speeders, for years and years.

Today's www.citizen.com has an article on boating and the Marine Patrol and mentions that the MP may be required to enforce a speed limit this summer, depending on what the legislature does. Could the Senate change HB 847 so it becomes effective immediately? Like, why wait till January 1, 2009?

Three cheers to Tuffy and the Y-Landing for operating their little grocery, beer, milk, newspaper, hi-test gasoline, diesel fuel, boat accessories like air horns, bilge pumps, bow eyes, lines, and Suzuki outboards biz.

Do 250hp Merc two-strokes run better hole shots on high-octaine gas?

Some Senators have an amendment for immediate enactment. It would have to go back to the House for approval.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

Some Senators have an amendment for immediate enactment. It would have to go back to the House for approval.

Did the amendment include the restrictions for Kayaks? They really should be lit and have flags. It's just not safe having a floating log out there, colored or not

[CaptDan]

the latest update:

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dl...1029/OPINION03

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Fatlazyless
As many boaters know, the Bear Island Post Office dock has been a Marine Patrol stake-out spot for no wake zone, plus six mph speeders, for years and years.

Wouldn't it be a hoot if because of the need for boats and crews to set up radar posts that they decide the Bear Island Post Office stake out spot would be one of the areas boats and crews are diverted away from?

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by WAM 290

the latest update:

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dl...1029/OPINION03

More single-minded crap there than you can shake a stick at.

I might add, don't forget the big, big wakes.

[SIKSUKR]

I wouldn't call that an update.That's one person's opinion in a letter to the editor.Does the Monitor publish opposing views?

[Seeker]

I wouldn't call it sound reasoning either. One-half the speed of a bullet? A .223 round leaves the muzzle at 3000 fps or 180,000 fpm or 10,800,000 fph which equals over 2000 mph. half of that is 90mph? Maybe in Laconia.
Another Scary Mary.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Seeker

I wouldn't call it sound reasoning either. One-half the speed of a bullet? A .223 round leaves the muzzle at 3000 fps or 180,000 fpm or 10,800,000 fph which equals over 2000 mph. half of that is 90mph? Maybe in Laconia.
Another Scary Mary.

Miles per second, miles per minute, miles per hour, facts don't matter to these speed limit proponents, only getting their way by any means. Apparently math isn't a strong point either, no wonder they are so wrong in their statements.

Pretty sad, but a classic example of how a representative government can be manipulated by the whims of a few. The Senators are supposed to be above this, we'll see........

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by ITD

Miles per second, miles per minute, miles per hour, facts don't matter to these speed limit proponents, only getting their way by any means. Apparently math isn't a strong point either, no wonder they are so wrong in their statements.

Pretty sad, but a classic example of how a representative government can be manipulated by the whims of a few. The Senators are supposed to be above this, we'll see........

SO TRUE! The absolute BEST example was this convoluted post by Evanstar:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...5&postcount=48

So many variables involved yet she concludes that, and I quote:
2156 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph on the entire lake over those 11 weeks.

Talk about a leap. I suggest you submit that to your professor Evanstar. You are making assumptions that you can not apply mathematics to. It's called human nature. So you get a study that actually TELLS you that in fact a tiny percentage of boats exceed 50mph and you EXTRAPOLATE the data to suit your claim. It would be wonderful if you could just live in a laboratory and assume that there were exactly that many boats on the lake exceeding 50mph in a given time period but even the staunchest scholar would concede that it would merely be speculative based on hundreds of variables. I pray to god that the Senators are reading every shred of debate on this forum. I firmly believe that they would see through the ridiculous claims made by proponents.

FYI: I submitted this "equation" to a fellow colleague, Math Teacher, who commented "in theory yes this math is acceptable, however we don't live in white rooms with lab coats. This is great on paper but in the real world there are far too many variables for this to hold any water in a scientific discussion." End quote.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

SO TRUE! The absolute BEST example was this convoluted post by Evanstar:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...5&postcount=48

So many variables involved yet she concludes that, and I quote:
2156 boats that were traveling at speeds over 50 mph on the entire lake over those 11 weeks.

Talk about a leap. I suggest you submit that to your professor Evanstar. You are making assumptions that you can not apply mathematics to. It's called human nature. So you get a study that actually TELLS you that in fact a tiny percentage of boats exceed 50mph and you EXTRAPOLATE the data to suit your claim. . . .

FYI: I submitted this "equation" to a fellow colleague, Math Teacher, who commented "in theory yes this math is acceptable, however we don't live in white rooms with lab coats. This is great on paper but in the real world there are far too many variables for this to hold any water in a scientific discussion." End quote.

Does that colleague of yours have a PHD in Political Science or in Public Relations? Because those are the qualifications of the professors who taught me to do statistical analysis. Where do you think people learn this stuff - I'm attending one of the best private universities in New England - I really think my professors know about this than you or your colleague. Has your colleague ever taken a course in Research Methodology? Because I have,and this is the correct way to do statistical analysis. BTW: My professor laughed at all the mistakes that were made in doing the Speed Study - he's the one who told me that it wasn't even a viable study.

You guys try to use the speed study as proof that we don't need a speed limit, without plugging the raw data back into the environment - which actually needs to happen for it to have any meaning. Then you don't like the result - so you attack me, because you don't know how to attack my analysis.

So far you have criticized my statical analysis without backing up your criticism at all - again, show me what is wrong with my analysis, rather than just being critical because you don't like the results.

My best friend's father is a civil engineer who does traffic studies and uses the exact same kind of statistical analysis as I did. There is nothing wrong with my analysis. They way that I did is is correct - this is how you do statistical analysis.

No, it's not a lab - but when you do research studies on the public, it has to be treated just like a lab to be a viable study.

The only part of my analysis that isn't based on data from the study was that I credited the study area as being equal to 25% of the lake - since no data was given in the report on what percentage of the lake was covered. I used a very generous percentage - which is way larger than what the actual percentage likely was. Do you contend that the study area covered more than 25% of the lake? The other thing that I don't have is the margin of error - because that want never published in the study (yet all viable statistical studies include a margin of error, to show how accurate the results were). I didn't plug in the margin of error because it is unknown.

[RTTOOL]

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

Thank you,


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


http://www.opposehb847.com

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

[Airwaves]

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

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

[B] BTW: My professor laughed at all the mistakes that were made in doing the Speed Study - he's the one who told me that it wasn't even a viable study.

Show me what is wrong with my analysis...

The only part of my analysis that isn't based on data from the study was that I credited the study area as being equal to 25% of the lake - since no data was given in the report on what percentage of the lake was covered.

So, you took numbers from a study that you state was not viable, and you want us to tell you want is wrong with your analysis?

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Does that colleague of yours have a PHD in Political Science or in Public Relations? Because those are the qualifications of the professors who taught me to do statistical analysis. Where do you think people learn this stuff - I'm attending one of the best private universities in New England - I really think my professors know about this than you or your colleague. Has your colleague ever taken a course in Research Methodology? Because I have,and this is the correct way to do statistical analysis. BTW: My professor laughed at all the mistakes that were made in doing the Speed Study - he's the one who told me that it wasn't even a viable study.
You guys try to use the speed study as proof that we don't need a speed limit, without plugging the raw data back into the environment - which actually needs to happen for it to have any meaning. Then you don't like the result - so you attack me, because you don't know how to attack my analysis.
So far you have criticized my statical analysis without backing up your criticism at all - again, show me what is wrong with my analysis, rather than just being critical because you don't like the results.
My best friend's father is a civil engineer who does traffic studies and uses the exact same kind of statistical analysis as I did. There is nothing wrong with my analysis. They way that I did is is correct - this is how you do statistical analysis.

No, it's not a lab - but when you do research studies on the public, it has to be treated just like a lab to be a viable study.

The only part of my analysis that isn't based on data from the study was that I credited the study area as being equal to 25% of the lake - since no data was given in the report on what percentage of the lake was covered. I used a very generous percentage - which is way larger than what the actual percentage likely was. Do you contend that the study area covered more than 25% of the lake? The other thing that I don't have is the margin of error - because that want never published in the study (yet all viable statistical studies include a margin of error, to show how accurate the results were). I didn't plug in the margin of error because it is unknown.

*SIGH* Here we go, Evanstar lashing out again with personal attacks, but we all have to sit here and take it, whatever.

For the record, my friend has a Ph.D in Mathematics. If I actually have to explain this out to you even though you make all these claims about your education I am beginning to have doubts about all your claims, but here goes.

You are taking a RECREATIONAL activity and trying to extrapolate data based on individual results. I will show you how and why you can not apply the same methodology used in traffic studies to a RECREATIONAL activity. In the interest of time I will try to hold it to just a few examples. Let me first start by simplifying your claim. You claim that over roughly a 10 week period if one boat was traveling 50+MPH then there were other boats at the same time traveling over 50MPH. You also state that we need to multiply that over a set of weeks, lets say 10 weeks. Therefore according to you there were roughly 50 boats elsewhere on the lake doing 50+MPH. That is a loose interpretation of your argument. Your numbers ended up claiming over 2,000 boats in roughly a 10 week period were exceeding 50MPH. Here are just a few reasons why you can not treat this like a typical traffic study.

#1 Unlike a highway people do not boat in the same pattern every day.
This is not I-93 during rush hour where you can make the assumption that the same people are traveling the same route every day. In highway analysis one can reasonably assume within a small margin that the traffic pattern would be similar on any given day within a set number of days, I.E. Monday through Friday. Therefore you could measure speeds in a set test area and then you could extrapolate that data to infer that the same numbers (Speed, Car Counts etc.) would apply to another zone taking into account variables such as road topography and such.

#2 Boating is a leisure activity
Applying finite math to a leisure activity to determine how many boats are in a set area traveling at a set speed is impossible. Boat A never left the dock because they decided to go swimming. Boat B left the dock but decided to slow cruise because they wanted to look at the McMansions. Boat C is setting up to waterski. Boat D is actually prepping for a high speed run across the broads but Boats E,F,G,H,I are waiting in line for a dock space. That is just day one. Day two, it is windy out and Boat A is cruising at 25MPH because Aunt Ann has a bad back and hates the waves. Boat B thinks it is too windy to boat today. Boat C is not about to waterski in this mess. Boat D is not at the lake because he is working. etc. etc. Day 3 is a rainy Monday and the only boats on the water are the Mount, Marine Patrol, the lone fisherman and a few hearty Islanders trying to get the kids off of the island.

Those are two examples for you to chew on as to why it is impossible to apply traffic study methodology to a LEISURE activity. You are also leaving out the human nature aspect of the equation. Commuting by car is an entirely different subject matter with an entirely different set of variables that are much more predictable. You are trying to apply logic to leisure and the best scientists in the world can't come up with a formula for that. Over a 10 week period people will boat thousands of different ways. To try and make a math equation that states One Boat traveling 50MPH in Meredith equates to 4 boats traveling 50MPH one in Alton one in Wolfeboro one in Center Harbor and one in the broads is ludicrous and down right laughable.

For the record I am not debating the validity of the study, I am debating your interpretation or should I say statistical analysis of the data. Which is completely and utterly rubbish.

[bilproject]

This discussion of statistical value of this study is academic for the reasons Hazelnut pointed out. Most people who say the study was not valid point out the fact that the marine patrol used marked boats and announced the areas to gather data. I would suggest that a large majority of the boaters were unaware of the study and could not tell you what a marine patrol boat looked like from a half mile away. Those of us that are on the lake a lot were very aware of both, but we are the minority of boaters. The 2 areas where a limit was announced showed no difference in stats from the areas that were sampled unannounced. This could support the idea that most boaters were unaware and going about their business as usual. The study is what was found at those places, at that time, for those boats. That is not and can not be disputed (unless we get into a discussion of the effectiveness of radar operated from a moving and rocking boat. If we go there then I'm afraid those for a speed limit would have to make a good case for not being able to enforce this law) This is the only data we have. It can be twisted and spun anyway you want when you talk about the whole lake on any given day at any given time.
I for one think that the State is writing a bad law. I believe that for 2 reasons. First, having the law at all is being based on emotion and individual observation not fact, scientific or other. Second, recording speed on water with accuracy from a small floating platform is at best effective only a small part of the time. There are simply too many variables that are effecting the readings. I would like to see the Senate back off and do a meaningful study of both speed and enforcement issues. Then if a law is needed pass one.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

So, you took numbers from a study that you state was not viable, and you want us to tell you want is wrong with your analysis?

Yes, I believe that the speed study was flawed in how it was done, so I don’t believe that the data produced is at all accurate. But that is a separate issue, from the methodology of doing statistical analysis. Many of the speed limit opponents use the data from the speed study like it is gospel – so they obviously believe that it is viable.

So you have two choices (and only 2):

1.) The study was not done correctly – so the data is meaningless, or
2.) The study was done correctly, in which case the raw data needs to be statistically analyzed by inserting back into the environment - this is done by multiplying the data by a time factor and by the percentage factor of how much of the lake was covered by the study.

You can’t argue that the study was done correctly and then say that my statistical analysis is incorrect merely because it used the data from that study.

Originally Posted by hazelnut

*SIGH* Here we go, Evanstar lashing out again with personal attacks, but we all have to sit here and take it, whatever.

I did not “lash out.” Please explain how asking for you colleague’s qualifications is a personal attack on you or on anyone.

But having a PHD in mathematics does not make you colleague more qualified than my professors who happen to be very qualified in their knowledge of statistical analysis.

If I actually have to explain this out to you even though you make all these claims about your education I am beginning to have doubts about all your claims, but here goes.

I don’t lie. My GPA was published in both the Concord Monitor and in the Manchester Union leader when my speech at my graduation from NHTI was covered last May. Goggle Arwen RWU and you’ll see that I really and a student there and really am a member of the sailing team.

The fact that the study was done on a recreational activity does not change the way that the data is analyzed. The purpose of the speed study was to the record speeds of boats on a lake over 11 weeks of summer boating. If the speed study was done correctly, the study areas should have been selected to accurately represent boat traffic on the lake (that is the goal of study areas), and the time periods in which they took the readings should have been selected to accurately represent the average activity that is going on during the day.

For the record I am not debating the validity of the study, I am debating your interpretation or should I say statistical analysis of the data. Which is completely and utterly rubbish.

If you accept that the study is valid – you have to accept that the data collected represents the average conditions on the lake on the average day. If this is not true, then the data and the study are invalid. You can’t have it both ways, not matter how much you try to spin this.

There is nothing complicated about what I did. And it is as accurate as the data collected (other than the fact that I had to guess at how much of the lake that study areas represent – which makes the number of speeding boats actually lower than it should be.)

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The fact that the study was done on a recreational activity does not change the way that the data is analyzed.
There is nothing complicated about what I did. And it is as accurate as the data collected (other than the fact that I had to guess at how much of the lake that study areas represent – which makes the number of speeding boats actually lower than it should be.)

Nice try Evanstar but NO. It absolutely changes the way the data is analyzed. Even a moderate scholar would understand this concept. Please stop arguing that point it's just a fact not an opinion no matter how many times you say it it is not going to make it true. I don't care what your GPA is. I agree there is nothing complicated with what you did. It was a fun math problem and you get good marks for completion. However when applied to the real world it does not hold even an ounce of water. If you can't see this you never will. Often times the problems with being a student is putting the book down and seeing the forest for the trees.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

So you have two choices (and only 2):

1.) The study was not done correctly – so the data is meaningless, or
2.) The study was done correctly, in which case the raw data needs to be statistically analyzed by inserting back into the environment - this is done by multiplying the data by a time factor and by the percentage factor of how much of the lake was covered by the study.

I have made no personal claims about the validity of the study. I find it one of many interesting points of reference.

So you have two choices (and only 2):

1) If you disagree with it, then do not attempt to use it in some manner to support your position, as this just makes you look silly and irrational.

2) If you agree with it, and choose to apply some method to extrapolate data from it, be prepared for other people to point out why your conclusions, and therefore your overall position, are incorrect.

[Dave R]

I have used power, sail and human powered boats on Winnipesaukee often for 30+ years. I have boated on the lake in ALL kinds of conditions. I have no stake in this game since my boat will barely exceed the speed limit and I will never own a GFBL boat.

I am certain that the speed data collected by the marine patrol last year is accurate. It mirrors my own speed observations perfectly. Boats going over 50 MPH really are few and far between.

You can argue about the legitimacy of the study, and manipulate the data all you want, but the fact that it accurately portrays boat speeds on the lake makes all the arguments and manipulation moot.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

But the whole, survey, and polls thing brought this to mind. My father once told me "Figures don't lie, But LIARS, figure!" Now I understand what he meant, the MP survey figures, don't lie, they show there is no speed issue. But the LIARS keep trying to confuse the general public with Figures, to make their point sound legit!

[Woodsy]

Evenstar...

So when you paddle on the ocean, or Lake George or Massachusetts or Maine or Vermont etc... What happens when a powerboat comes within 15' of you? Thats perfectly legal behavior in those places!

But I need to ask, but did you READ and actually COMPREHEND the 2007 Speed Survey Report?

You have repeatedly dismissed this study as inaccurate. I dont quite get your argument. What was so inaccurate? You were obviously not present for the NHMP testimony at the House Transp. Committee meeting in Franklin!

It was an UNFUNDED survey conducted by the NHMP designed soley to take a snapshot of the lake focusing mostly on weekends. Most reasonable people would agree that most of the issues occur on busy summer weekends, friday afternoon to sunday afternoon! The study was conducted during regular NHMP patrols with the help of NHMP Auxillary volunteers! Because it was conducted as part of a regular patrol schedule, it is actually a VERY ACCURATE snapshot as to what the NHMP would encounter if there was a speed limit enacted this year. Assuming of course that the NHMP are level funded and patrols are not reduced due to budgetary constraints.

There were 9 sampling areas, only two of which were known to the General Public. The selection of areas was based on TOPOGRAPHY, BOAT VOLUME, SAFETY CONCERNS and TRAFFIC PATTERNS. All of these areas were chosen to MAXIMIZE the radar units effectiveness! To simplify for you, they chose areas in which the radar unit would work the best!

If you actually read the report and looked at your chart Evenstar, you would see that a very large portion of the lake was indeed covered. The NHMP chose areas with large expanses of water, little or no obstruction and predictable traffic patterns! Let me simplify this for you... they chose places where they were most likely going to encounter boats travelling at a high rate of speed! Its not like they chose to conduct the study up in Green's basin or next to the Graveyard!

and BTW... one of the sampling areas was The Broads! Light #76 to Light #20! Don't forget both sides of Light #28 too! If you read the report and knew Lake Winnipesaukee you would have known this!

Your extrapolation of the survey is definitely flawed... and I find it humorous that such a self admitted brilliant college student like you doesn't see it! By your logic (if you want to call it that) you are saying the actual number of boats clocked should be multiplied to account for all other boats on the lake? at that time? Perhaps the study would have been more accurate if it was conducted from Ice Out to Ice In?

The boat volume of Lake Winnipesaukee is not a linear equation as you would apply to, say a roadway in a town or a highway! There are way too many variables, and very few predictable traffic/usage patterns. The NHMP picked the busiest areas of the lake during the busiest times (emphasis on weekends) to conduct the survey sample. If they picked the busiest areas for the sample, at the busiest times it would stand to reason that the other areas of the lake had less/slower boat traffic! In fact a greater sampling of the lake would have yielded slower average speeds!

Ultimately your positon is untenable! You have only emotion, not facts to bolster your position. You dismiss the NHMP study as flawed because it doesnt support what you believe! Had the NHMP report shown otherwise, no doubt you would be singing its praises! Perhaps if American Research Group had conducted the study the results would have been more to your liking!


Woodsy

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Evenstar...

So when you paddle on the ocean, or Lake George or Massachusetts or Maine or Vermont etc... What happens when a powerboat comes within 15' of you? Thats perfectly legal behavior in those places!

I've never paddled on Lake George, in MA or in ME, but no power boat has ever come within 15 feet of me that was going faster than headway speed. But we're talking about NH laws here.

But I need to ask, but did you READ and actually COMPREHEND the 2007 Speed Survey Report?

Yes I did and why is it that so many of you think that is ok to insult me? I don't have any problem comprehending things.

You have repeatedly dismissed this study as inaccurate. I don't quite get your argument. What was so inaccurate? You were obviously not present for the NHMP testimony at the House Transp. Committee meeting in Franklin!

I'm a full-time out of state college student - I would have been there if I could have, but that was not possible. I did testify at the House Transportation Committee Hearing in March of 2007 when the speed study was used to derail the bill last year.

The study is so flawed that, for all intents, the data collected is totally meaningless. Basically, according to research methodology standards, the Marine Patrol did nearly everything wrong, like informing the public that a study was being done. To do statistical analysis, you need to know what percentage of a target area was part of a study. The report gives no percentages at all. It never gives what percentage of the lake was included in the study, or even what percentage of the total boating hours were included in the recording of boat speeds. And it doesn’t include the margin of error."

If you actually read the report and looked at your chart Evenstar, you would see that a very large portion of the lake was indeed covered. The NHMP chose areas with large expanses of water, little or no obstruction and predictable traffic patterns! Let me simplify this for you... they chose places where they were most likely going to encounter boats travelling at a high rate of speed! Its not like they chose to conduct the study up in Green's basin or next to the Graveyard!

Then why were 29% of the total boats (1,121 out of 3852) recorded in AREA 1 (Light 60 to Weirs Channel)? This is not exactly a high-speed section of the lake.

and BTW... one of the sampling areas was The Broads! Light #76 to Light #20! Don't forget both sides of Light #28 too! If you read the report and knew Lake Winnipesaukee you would have known this!

Look, I haven't kayaked on Winni enough to memorize all the light numbers, and I don't take my map of the lake to my university. I asked if the broads were covered and no one ever stated that they were, so I figured that they were not. My error - but it was an honest one.

Your extrapolation of the survey is definitely flawed... and I find it humorous that such a self admitted brilliant college student like you doesn't see it! By your logic (if you want to call it that) you are saying the actual number of boats clocked should be multiplied to account for all other boats on the lake? at that time? Perhaps the study would have been more accurate if it was conducted from Ice Out to Ice In?

I don't consider myself to be brilliant - all I've done is stood up for myself when people here have insulted my intelligence.
No. That's not what I am saying at all. If the study was as accurate as you and others here are claiming, it would have represented the average condition found on the entire lake over this 11 week time period. If that is not true, then the study is not accurate. So point out what is wrong with my logic and/or math:

Taken directly from page 3 of the report: “This sampling was conducted on Lake Winnipesaukee from the period 07/01/07 through 09/16/07. Sample data was collected on 55 days and nights during the 11 week period.”

11 weeks = ~ 770 day light hours (10 hours x 11 weeks x 7 days/week). So where is my error here?

Taken directly from page 3 of the report: “Marine Patrol officers spent a total of just over 135 hours clocking powered vessels, including PWC’s.” And a bit further down: “A total of 9 sampling areas were selected.”
Since all the study areas are included in the percentage of the lake covered by this study, you have to determine the average amount of time spent at each area (since they weren’t recording the speed of boats at all areas at once).

So you have to divide the 135 total hours by the 9 areas. 135 / 9 = 15 hours. So the average number of hours recording speeds at each site was 15 hours. So where is my error here?

The 15 hours spent recording speeds at each site is less than 2% of the total daylight hours in the 11 week period. (15 / 770 = 0.19, which is 1.95%) So where is my error here?

The chart on page 6 of the report gives that 11 boats were going at speeds over 50 mph, during the time that the MP were recording speeds.
Since they were only recording speeds for ~2% of the total daylight hours in these 11 weeks, you have to divide these 11 boats by 2% (I’m rounding to keep things simple), which gives you that an estimated 550 boats were traveling over 50 mph in the study areas over the entire 770 daylight hours of this 11 week period. So where is my error here?

But the study did not cover the entire lake, but only a percentage of it. The report does not give what percentage of the total lake was covered – so I guessed high and used 25% which I feel is more than fair, as I don’t believe that the actual percentage was nearly this high. So you have to take the estimated number of boats and divide by 25% (which is the same as multiply by 4). 550 / .25 = 2200 boats. So, according to the data from the study approximately 2200 boats were traveling at speeds over 50 mph on the entire lake over this 11 week period.

So where is my error here? Do you believe that the study covered more than 25% of the lake?

You dismiss the NHMP study as flawed because it doesnt support what you believe! Had the NHMP report shown otherwise, no doubt you would be singing its praises!

No, that's not true all. Despite what you and others here may think of me, I am a very honest person. If the study was done correctly than I would have accepted it. And if I was not taking a university course in research methodology when the report was released, then I would not have realized that it was done in a way that would not produce accurate data.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Does that colleague of yours have a PHD in Political Science or in Public Relations? Because those are the qualifications of the professors who taught me to do statistical analysis. Where do you think people learn this stuff - I'm attending one of the best private universities in New England - I really think my professors know about this than you or your colleague. Has your colleague ever taken a course in Research Methodology? Because I have,and this is the correct way to do statistical analysis. BTW: My professor laughed at all the mistakes that were made in doing the Speed Study - he's the one who told me that it wasn't even a viable study.

You guys try to use the speed study as proof that we don't need a speed limit, without plugging the raw data back into the environment - which actually needs to happen for it to have any meaning. Then you don't like the result - so you attack me, because you don't know how to attack my analysis.

So far you have criticized my statical analysis without backing up your criticism at all - again, show me what is wrong with my analysis, rather than just being critical because you don't like the results.

My best friend's father is a civil engineer who does traffic studies and uses the exact same kind of statistical analysis as I did. There is nothing wrong with my analysis. They way that I did is is correct - this is how you do statistical analysis.

No, it's not a lab - but when you do research studies on the public, it has to be treated just like a lab to be a viable study.

The only part of my analysis that isn't based on data from the study was that I credited the study area as being equal to 25% of the lake - since no data was given in the report on what percentage of the lake was covered. I used a very generous percentage - which is way larger than what the actual percentage likely was. Do you contend that the study area covered more than 25% of the lake? The other thing that I don't have is the margin of error - because that want never published in the study (yet all viable statistical studies include a margin of error, to show how accurate the results were). I didn't plug in the margin of error because it is unknown.

That's not the most ridiculous use of forecasting I've seen, hey, the Guvmint pretty much has that tied up. Obviously, parts of the lake are far less traveled than others. Perhaps you should stake out some territory not covered by the MP in the study, and get a hint as to what's wrong with your attempts to extrapolate the data.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Evenstar...

So when you paddle on the ocean, or Lake George or Massachusetts or Maine or Vermont etc... What happens when a powerboat comes within 15' of you? Thats perfectly legal behavior in those places!

But I need to ask, but did you READ and actually COMPREHEND the 2007 Speed Survey Report?

You have repeatedly dismissed this study as inaccurate. I dont quite get your argument. What was so inaccurate? You were obviously not present for the NHMP testimony at the House Transp. Committee meeting in Franklin!

It was an UNFUNDED survey conducted by the NHMP designed soley to take a snapshot of the lake focusing mostly on weekends. Most reasonable people would agree that most of the issues occur on busy summer weekends, friday afternoon to sunday afternoon! The study was conducted during regular NHMP patrols with the help of NHMP Auxillary volunteers! Because it was conducted as part of a regular patrol schedule, it is actually a VERY ACCURATE snapshot as to what the NHMP would encounter if there was a speed limit enacted this year. Assuming of course that the NHMP are level funded and patrols are not reduced due to budgetary constraints.

There were 9 sampling areas, only two of which were known to the General Public. The selection of areas was based on TOPOGRAPHY, BOAT VOLUME, SAFETY CONCERNS and TRAFFIC PATTERNS. All of these areas were chosen to MAXIMIZE the radar units effectiveness! To simplify for you, they chose areas in which the radar unit would work the best!

If you actually read the report and looked at your chart Evenstar, you would see that a very large portion of the lake was indeed covered. The NHMP chose areas with large expanses of water, little or no obstruction and predictable traffic patterns! Let me simplify this for you... they chose places where they were most likely going to encounter boats travelling at a high rate of speed! Its not like they chose to conduct the study up in Green's basin or next to the Graveyard!

and BTW... one of the sampling areas was The Broads! Light #76 to Light #20! Don't forget both sides of Light #28 too! If you read the report and knew Lake Winnipesaukee you would have known this!

Your extrapolation of the survey is definitely flawed... and I find it humorous that such a self admitted brilliant college student like you doesn't see it! By your logic (if you want to call it that) you are saying the actual number of boats clocked should be multiplied to account for all other boats on the lake? at that time? Perhaps the study would have been more accurate if it was conducted from Ice Out to Ice In?

The boat volume of Lake Winnipesaukee is not a linear equation as you would apply to, say a roadway in a town or a highway! There are way too many variables, and very few predictable traffic/usage patterns. The NHMP picked the busiest areas of the lake during the busiest times (emphasis on weekends) to conduct the survey sample. If they picked the busiest areas for the sample, at the busiest times it would stand to reason that the other areas of the lake had less/slower boat traffic! In fact a greater sampling of the lake would have yielded slower average speeds!

Ultimately your positon is untenable! You have only emotion, not facts to bolster your position. You dismiss the NHMP study as flawed because it doesnt support what you believe! Had the NHMP report shown otherwise, no doubt you would be singing its praises! Perhaps if American Research Group had conducted the study the results would have been more to your liking!


Woodsy

Woodsy, I have it on good athority that radar just doesn't work well on the water. Plus any speed reading will be lower the the actual speed of the boat.



"You need to understand how police radar works, to understand why it is not useful for speed limit enforcement on Lake Winnipesaukee or any other body of water.

Radar (either Electronic or Laser) in the simplest of terms, works on the principle of shooting an electron beam in a straight line (straight line being very important) against a target and measuring the time it takes to reflect back. The time it takes the electron beam to reflect back is processed with an equation to give the police officer the target vehicle speed in MPH. It’s a pretty simple process when used on roadways against speeding automobiles traveling in fixed lanes relative to the position of the radar emitter. It becomes a lot more difficult when used on the water… let me explain.

You are traveling in your car down the highway, traveling at 65mph (or whatever speed you choose) and you happen across your friendly neighborhood State Trooper sitting on the side of the road with his handy dandy ACME Mark XXIV Radar Emitter. In this situation, as with most situations involving cars and radar, you are traveling along in the road in fixed bearing relative to the radar emitter. Fixed bearing means that your direction of travel relative to the radar emitter is known and cannot be deviated from. Think triangle. I have attached a simple diagram to explain. The direction you are traveling is known, and the distance from the radar unit to the centerline of your path of travel is also known and is extremely short relative to the range at which the radar emitter can “see” your car (usually ¼ mile or so approx 1420’ although radar emitters in the right conditions can accurately detect speeds up to 1+ mile away and are accurate at distances less than ¼ mile as well) Because two out of the three legs of the triangle are known, and one of those legs is extremely short in length relative to the other known leg, the accuracy of the radar emitter is within one or two mph of the actual vehicle speed. Assuming of course the radar emitter is properly calibrated.

Out on the water things become far more difficult to measure speed accurately with a radar emitter. There are too many variables. The primary issue with using radar as a tool to enforce a speed limit is that distance and bearing of the target vessel is not fixed relative to the radar emitter. Boats do not travel in straight lines or in fixed lanes like cars do. I have attached another diagram to help explain. Although the radar emitter will give the MP Officer a speed readout, it will not be accurate because distance and bearing (direction of travel) relative to the radar emitter are unknown. It will actually give a slower readout than the actual speed of the target vessel. If the radar readout is not accurate, you will not be able to use it in court of law. It’s a simple geometry problem and you cannot accurately solve the equation with those two unknown variables.
There are many other variables to consider as well, here are a few of the more obvious.

1. The overwhelming majority of boats on Lake Winnipesaukee are made of fiberglass and short of the engine and sterndrive contain very little metal. Fiberglass is a very poor reflector of radar energy.

2. Water has a very dense molecular structure, very similar in density to concrete. This dense molecular structure can reflect radar energy, causing false readings especially when you consider that waves are in a constant state of motion and change. This is usually called backscatter.

3. Radar cannot discern one boat from another. As the radar energy leaves the emitter it forms essentially an ever expanding cone of energy waiting to be reflected back to the emitter. Because you do not know distance and bearing of the target boat relative to the position of the radar emitter, you cannot with any degree of certainty declare that the readout on the radar emitter was from energy reflected by the target boat. Indeed the radar emitter will give a reading from the first reflection it gets, rendering it useless on a busy holiday weekend in any congested area.

The only type of radar that would be of use for enforcing speed limits on the lake would be military style naval radar with target designation and tracking capabilities. However, these radars are extremely expensive to purchase and maintain, and require a dedicated highly trained officer to operate. This is an EXTREMELY cost prohibitive system, with very little benefit in cost or enforcement.

The Marine Patrol is understaffed and under funded as it is. It is primarily a seasonal agency tasked with keeping the waters of the state safe. It would be an undue burden on the Marine Patrol and the Judicial system to enact legislation that will do nothing but clog the courts with winnable appeals, thus rendering the speed limit moot.

The biggest issue with the lake is the large amount of people who enjoy the lake on any given weekend in the summer. There are more boats of all types on the water, so there is a perception that the lake is overcrowded. The speed limit does nothing to ease this situation and essentially singles out one type of boater, the go-fast boater, who is a member of an extremely small percentage of boats using the lake.

The reality is, If you stay away from the busier parts of the lake, Meredith, Weirs, Wolferboro & Alton the lake can be extremely enjoyable and alot less crowded."

[Islander]

[SARCASM] I think I now understand about the angles, [/SARCASM] and the speeds reading lower. So that explains why the speeds in the study results were so low? Now we have proof the study in wrong.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Islander

I think I now understand about the angles, and the speeds reading lower. So that explains why the speeds in the study results were so low? Now we have proof the study in wrong.

You're like the little dog that comes along behind all of BI's posts and adds a "yip yip yip" to the conversation. Try contributing something unique and valuable once in a while.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

I heard a rumor that a few PRO SPEED LIMIT people got together to call the Senators to urge them to vote NO SPEED LIMITS. Did they come to their senses at the last minute?

I can't believe that they conspired to call them with an ANTI-speed limit message on their HOME phones - at 3:00 in the morning.

They didn't do that, did they?

There is no speed problem on the Lake. We need more enforcement of the current rules!

AL, Skipper of the Sea Que The only way my boat can approach 40mph is downhill.

Kayakers love water --- Boaters love people

.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Islander

I think I now understand about the angles, and the speeds reading lower. So that explains why the speeds in the study results were so low? Now we have proof the study in wrong.

You obviously don't understand, this argument has been disproven previously....

I quote myself, from a previous thread on this subject.....

"Now the SL crowd is crying about readings being slower if the boat is travelling at an angle to the radar. Well let's see, if the angle is 10 degrees the error would be about 1.5% if the angle is 30 degrees the error would be about 13%. The MP said that they only included measurements that were straight on, I believe them. Let's say for arguments sake that all the readings were taken at 30 degrees, that would skew the data to 13% faster. Even at that 97% of the boats would be travelling less than 45 mph. LEGISLATORS THERE IS NO SPEED PROBLEM ON THE LAKE."

[Woodsy]

BI...

Thanks for cutting and pasting one of my older posts!!! I should have done that as it would save me ALOT of time typing!!!

The MP chose the test zones as places where they thought the radar units worked best! In fact the NHMP testimony at the House Transportation Committe meeting in Franklin completely corroborated what I posted way back when!!

Woodsy

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Islander

I think I now understand about the angles, and the speeds reading lower. So that explains why the speeds in the study results were so low? Now we have proof the study in wrong.

Islander...

Thats funny that if BI posts it... it must be true! LOL!!

Its a cut and paste of one of my old posts way back on HB-162! You look like a fool!

THE NHMP testified in Franklin that the radar worked best when the targeted boat traveled on a direct bearing either towards or away from the NHMP boat... perhaps you werent there to witness this testimony? In any case the NHMP testimony completely corroborated what I posted so long ago!

Woodsy

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Woodsy, I have it on good athority that radar just doesn't work well on the water. Plus any speed reading will be lower the the actual speed of the boat.



"You need to understand how police radar works, to understand why it is not useful for speed limit enforcement on Lake Winnipesaukee or any other body of water.

Radar (either Electronic or Laser) in the simplest of terms, works on the principle of shooting an electron beam in a straight line (straight line being very important) against a target and measuring the time it takes to reflect back. The time it takes the electron beam to reflect back is processed with an equation to give the police officer the target vehicle speed in MPH. It’s a pretty simple process when used on roadways against speeding automobiles traveling in fixed lanes relative to the position of the radar emitter. It becomes a lot more difficult when used on the water… let me explain.

You are traveling in your car down the highway, traveling at 65mph (or whatever speed you choose) and you happen across your friendly neighborhood State Trooper sitting on the side of the road with his handy dandy ACME Mark XXIV Radar Emitter. In this situation, as with most situations involving cars and radar, you are traveling along in the road in fixed bearing relative to the radar emitter. Fixed bearing means that your direction of travel relative to the radar emitter is known and cannot be deviated from. Think triangle. I have attached a simple diagram to explain. The direction you are traveling is known, and the distance from the radar unit to the centerline of your path of travel is also known and is extremely short relative to the range at which the radar emitter can “see” your car (usually ¼ mile or so approx 1420’ although radar emitters in the right conditions can accurately detect speeds up to 1+ mile away and are accurate at distances less than ¼ mile as well) Because two out of the three legs of the triangle are known, and one of those legs is extremely short in length relative to the other known leg, the accuracy of the radar emitter is within one or two mph of the actual vehicle speed. Assuming of course the radar emitter is properly calibrated.

Out on the water things become far more difficult to measure speed accurately with a radar emitter. There are too many variables. The primary issue with using radar as a tool to enforce a speed limit is that distance and bearing of the target vessel is not fixed relative to the radar emitter. Boats do not travel in straight lines or in fixed lanes like cars do. I have attached another diagram to help explain. Although the radar emitter will give the MP Officer a speed readout, it will not be accurate because distance and bearing (direction of travel) relative to the radar emitter are unknown. It will actually give a slower readout than the actual speed of the target vessel. If the radar readout is not accurate, you will not be able to use it in court of law. It’s a simple geometry problem and you cannot accurately solve the equation with those two unknown variables.
There are many other variables to consider as well, here are a few of the more obvious.

1. The overwhelming majority of boats on Lake Winnipesaukee are made of fiberglass and short of the engine and sterndrive contain very little metal. Fiberglass is a very poor reflector of radar energy.

2. Water has a very dense molecular structure, very similar in density to concrete. This dense molecular structure can reflect radar energy, causing false readings especially when you consider that waves are in a constant state of motion and change. This is usually called backscatter.

3. Radar cannot discern one boat from another. As the radar energy leaves the emitter it forms essentially an ever expanding cone of energy waiting to be reflected back to the emitter. Because you do not know distance and bearing of the target boat relative to the position of the radar emitter, you cannot with any degree of certainty declare that the readout on the radar emitter was from energy reflected by the target boat. Indeed the radar emitter will give a reading from the first reflection it gets, rendering it useless on a busy holiday weekend in any congested area.

The only type of radar that would be of use for enforcing speed limits on the lake would be military style naval radar with target designation and tracking capabilities. However, these radars are extremely expensive to purchase and maintain, and require a dedicated highly trained officer to operate. This is an EXTREMELY cost prohibitive system, with very little benefit in cost or enforcement.

The Marine Patrol is understaffed and under funded as it is. It is primarily a seasonal agency tasked with keeping the waters of the state safe. It would be an undue burden on the Marine Patrol and the Judicial system to enact legislation that will do nothing but clog the courts with winnable appeals, thus rendering the speed limit moot.

The biggest issue with the lake is the large amount of people who enjoy the lake on any given weekend in the summer. There are more boats of all types on the water, so there is a perception that the lake is overcrowded. The speed limit does nothing to ease this situation and essentially singles out one type of boater, the go-fast boater, who is a member of an extremely small percentage of boats using the lake.

The reality is, If you stay away from the busier parts of the lake, Meredith, Weirs, Wolferboro & Alton the lake can be extremely enjoyable and alot less crowded."

BEAR ISLANDER? Does this represent a change of heart on your part?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

BEAR ISLANDER? Does this represent a change of heart on your part?

The quote was written by Woodsy way back BEFORE the speed limit study. At that time it was to the opponents advantage to argue that RADAR doesn't work on the water, and that the speed would read considerably LOWER than reality.

But when the speed study seemed to favor the oppositions position (IT DOESN'T), suddenly RADAR became incredibly reliable and accurate. And the lower speed reading, caused by the angle, became unimportant.

I posted Woodsy's pre-study, and post-study opinions on RADAR so we can compare. The highlighted sections show clearly the change in position.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by ITD

The MP said that they only included measurements that were straight on, I believe them.

Then boats that went PAST the Marine Patrol at 90mph, 100mph, or 160mph etc.. did NOT have their speeds included in the study.

RADAR has a limited distance, as Woodsy has pointed out. A boat going 130mph would have to go directly AT a MARKED Marine Patrol boat to a close distance before turning. Ya Right!

So are you surprised when reported speeds were low? The study was DESIGNED to fail. If you didn't think it favored your position you would agree.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Islander

Then boats that went PAST the Marine Patrol at 90mph, 100mph, or 160mph etc.. did NOT have their speeds included in the study.

RADAR has a limited distance, as Woodsy has pointed out. A boat going 130mph would have to go directly AT a MARKED Marine Patrol boat to a close distance before turning. Ya Right!

So are you surprised when reported speeds were low? The study was DESIGNED to fail. If you didn't think it favored your position you would agree.

Not to put too fine of a point on it, but you're living in a fantasy world if you actually think there were boats traveling at 160MPH on the lake. Even 90 or 100MPH seems highly doubtful, but we'll share your lunacy for a moment and allow the assumption that it is possible, although not probable.

Everything you post seems to be this Chicken Little fantasy mis-interpreted hype-drivel. If you're a proponent of the speed limit law, that's fine, but support your position with something that is factual and possible. The stuff you're spewing out here makes me wonder if you make your own tinfoil hats, or get them custom made at a haberdashery.

[Woodsy]

Evenstar...

OH MY HEAD! Where do I begin???

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I've never paddled on Lake George, in MA or in ME, but no power boat has ever come within 15 feet of me that was going faster than headway speed. But we're talking about NH laws here...

So where on the ocean have you paddled? Where else other than NH Inland waterways?

Originally Posted by Evenstar

Look, I haven't kayaked on Winni enough to memorize all the light numbers, and I don't take my map of the lake to my university. I asked if the broads were covered and no one ever stated that they were, so I figured that they were not. My error - but it was an honest one..

If you read and UNDERSTOOD the NHMP Speed Survey Report you would have know that the Broads was included in the survey. Just about every place a boat had the room to go fast was included in the survey.....

Light #50 to the Weirs Channel is the Upper 2/3 of Paugus Bay and it is quite the speed zone... and arguably one of the BUSIEST areas of the lake! There are two big yacht clubs, a huge development and 3 of the lakes biggest marinas are at the end of Paugus Bay.... Irwin Marine, Lakeport Landing Marina, and Paugus Bay Marina!

Originally Posted by Evenstar

The study is so flawed that, for all intents, the data collected is totally meaningless. Basically, according to research methodology standards, the Marine Patrol did nearly everything wrong, like informing the public that a study was being done. To do statistical analysis, you need to know what percentage of a target area was part of a study. The report gives no percentages at all. It never gives what percentage of the lake was included in the study, or even what percentage of the total boating hours were included in the recording of boat speeds. And it doesn’t include the margin of error.".

The NHMP conducted a Speed Survey, intended to take a SNAPSHOT of what was actually going on Lake Winnipesaukee! It was not a detailed study on the number of boats on the lake at any given time, nor was it intended to be! This survey was UNFUNDED and conducted during regularly scheduled patrols on the busiest sections of the lake! It is a very accurate measure of what a NHMP officer might encounter on any given day during a regular patrol shift!

However, I am going to show you the absolute FLAW in your logic equation! At the risk of making you look foolish, I am going to beat you over the head with your own math! I am going to use your equation and plug in the numbers for boats traveling under 50 MPH!

Your saying that over an 11 week span (770 Daylight Hours) there were approx 2,200 boats traveling greater than 50 MPH. 11 boats clocked over 50 MPH divided by 2% = 550 boats. (11/.02 = 550). You then assume that the number needs to be multiplied yet again because the speed zones only covered 25% of the lake... (and YOUR being generous @ 25%) 550/.25 = 2200 boats going faster than 50MPH over that 11 week span.

Assuming your formula is correct... Lets plug in the numbers for the boats going less than 50 MPH....

3841 boats clocked UNDER 50 MPH divided by 2% = 192,050 boats. (3841/.02 = 192,050). You then assume that the number needs to be multiplied yet again because the speed zones only covered 25% of the lake... (and again YOUR being generous @ 25%) 192,050/.25 = 768,200 boats going LESS than 50MPH over that 11 week span.

11 weeks = 77 days (770 daylight hours)
768,200 boats going less than 50 MPH
2,200 boats going greater than 50 MPH
768,200 + 2,200 = 770400 boats total during the survey
770,400/77 = 10,006 boats daily using Lake Winnipesaukee
768,200/77 = 9977 boats daily traveling less than 50 MPH
2,200/77 = 29 boats daily traveling greater than 50 MPH

29/9977 = .003% of the boating population travels over 50 MPH any given day of the survey!

You can apply YOUR Research Methodology ANYWAY you so choose. the problem with your math is.... THE PERCENTAGES DON"T CHANGE!!!

Do you seriously think that there were 770,400 BOATS on Lake Winnipesaukee during those 11 weeks?? I dont think anyone is going to believe those numbers! I think you might want to ask the University for a refund!

Woodsy

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

29/9977 = .003% of the boating population travels over 50 MPH any given day of the survey!

You can apply YOUR Research Methodology ANYWAY you so choose. the problem with your math is.... THE PERCENTAGES DON"T CHANGE!!!

Do you seriously think that there were 770,400 BOATS on Lake Winnipesaukee during those 11 weeks?? I dont think anyone is going to believe those numbers! I think you might want to ask the University for a refund!

Woodsy

Long time reader, first time poster.

I have been actively reading this debate for over six months now. I have seen arguements both logical and illogical, factual and opinionated being tossed around by both sides of the speed limit debate. I have seen facts and numbers being manipulated to support each side of the arguement.

I have wanted to chime in many times when I read opinions, lies, and
arguements that do not hold water.

As this debate comes to an end, I just want to say Bravo to Woodsy's last post. It clearly outlines the "fuzzy math" the proponents have been using on this forum, op ed pieces in the local papers and before the house committees.

- No matter how you spin the numbers, at any point in time, there are WAY less than 1% of the boats on the lake exceeding the 'proposed' speed limit (it is not speeding yet)
-Education not regulation
-I love my 150 ft rule - please enforce it!!!!

RJ

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The quote was written by Woodsy way back BEFORE the speed limit study. At that time it was to the opponents advantage to argue that RADAR doesn't work on the water, and that the speed would read considerably LOWER than reality.

But when the speed study seemed to favor the oppositions position (IT DOESN'T), suddenly RADAR became incredibly reliable and accurate. And the lower speed reading, caused by the angle, became unimportant.

I posted Woodsy's pre-study, and post-study opinions on RADAR so we can compare. The highlighted sections show clearly the change in position.

BI...

Clearly the change in what position?

My post study comments in no way contradict my pre-study comments! I have never argued that marine radar is reliable or accurate... I pointed out the flaws of marine radar prior to the Speed Survey, and the Speed Survey Report and the Testimony of the NHMP @ the House Transp. Committe hearing in Franklin confirm my statements! If you were there, you would have known this! I also point out that the NHMP was/is concerned with meeting the burden of proof required of HB-847 in the NH Courts!

Perhaps you dont quite understand it... at least you posted the whole post and didn't take the highlighted sentences out of context!

Woodsy

[MAINLANDER]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Evenstar...

OH MY HEAD! Where do I begin???



So where on the ocean have you paddled? Where else other than NH Inland waterways?



If you read and UNDERSTOOD the NHMP Speed Survey Report you would have know that the Broads was included in the survey. Just about every place a boat had the room to go fast was included in the survey.....

Light #50 to the Weirs Channel is the Upper 2/3 of Paugus Bay and it is quite the speed zone... and arguably one of the BUSIEST areas of the lake! There are two big yacht clubs, a huge development and 3 of the lakes biggest marinas are at the end of Paugus Bay.... Irwin Marine, Lakeport Landing Marina, and Paugus Bay Marina!



The NHMP conducted a Speed Survey, intended to take a SNAPSHOT of what was actually going on Lake Winnipesaukee! It was not a detailed study on the number of boats on the lake at any given time, nor was it intended to be! This survey was UNFUNDED and conducted during regularly scheduled patrols on the busiest sections of the lake! It is a very accurate measure of what a NHMP officer might encounter on any given day during a regular patrol shift!

However, I am going to show you the absolute FLAW in your logic equation! At the risk of making you look foolish, I am going to beat you over the head with your own math! I am going to use your equation and plug in the numbers for boats traveling under 50 MPH!

Your saying that over an 11 week span (770 Daylight Hours) there were approx 2,200 boats traveling greater than 50 MPH. 11 boats clocked over 50 MPH divided by 2% = 550 boats. (11/.02 = 550). You then assume that the number needs to be multiplied yet again because the speed zones only covered 25% of the lake... (and YOUR being generous @ 25%) 550/.25 = 2200 boats going faster than 50MPH over that 11 week span.

Assuming your formula is correct... Lets plug in the numbers for the boats going less than 50 MPH....

3841 boats clocked UNDER 50 MPH divided by 2% = 192,050 boats. (3841/.02 = 192,050). You then assume that the number needs to be multiplied yet again because the speed zones only covered 25% of the lake... (and again YOUR being generous @ 25%) 192,050/.25 = 768,200 boats going LESS than 50MPH over that 11 week span.

11 weeks = 77 days (770 daylight hours)
768,200 boats going less than 50 MPH
2,200 boats going greater than 50 MPH
768,200 + 2,200 = 770400 boats total during the survey
770,400/77 = 10,006 boats daily using Lake Winnipesaukee
768,200/77 = 9977 boats daily traveling less than 50 MPH
2,200/77 = 29 boats daily traveling greater than 50 MPH

29/9977 = .003% of the boating population travels over 50 MPH any given day of the survey!

You can apply YOUR Research Methodology ANYWAY you so choose. the problem with your math is.... THE PERCENTAGES DON"T CHANGE!!!

Do you seriously think that there were 770,400 BOATS on Lake Winnipesaukee during those 11 weeks?? I dont think anyone is going to believe those numbers! I think you might want to ask the University for a refund!

Woodsy

Thank you for taking the time needed to show people how "scare tactics" work.
You did a great service.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Islander

Then boats that went PAST the Marine Patrol at 90mph, 100mph, or 160mph etc.. did NOT have their speeds included in the study.

RADAR has a limited distance, as Woodsy has pointed out. A boat going 130mph would have to go directly AT a MARKED Marine Patrol boat to a close distance before turning. Ya Right!

So are you surprised when reported speeds were low? The study was DESIGNED to fail. If you didn't think it favored your position you would agree.

Speaking of scare tactics!!

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Islander

Then boats that went PAST the Marine Patrol at 90mph, 100mph, or 160mph etc.. did NOT have their speeds included in the study.

RADAR has a limited distance, as Woodsy has pointed out. A boat going 130mph would have to go directly AT a MARKED Marine Patrol boat to a close distance before turning. Ya Right!

So are you surprised when reported speeds were low? The study was DESIGNED to fail. If you didn't think it favored your position you would agree.

...but according to those that say the study was flawed, the general boating public knew the MP was out casting radar for the study AND slowed to the speed limit when they noticed an MP present.

This brings up another question I've had for a while. If there is currently no speed limit, how did ALL of these (2000+) speeding boats know to slow to a speed under 45MPH when an MP was present to invalidate the speed study? If 60mph is not an infraction of boating regulations, why slow down?

(pre spin assumptions - there were no other boats within 150ft of the 'speeding' vessel, they were not 150ft from the shoreline, they were not operating in a NWZ)

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Ryan

This brings up another question I've had for a while. If there is currently no speed limit, how did ALL of these (2000+) speeding boats know to slow to a speed under 45MPH when an MP was present to invalidate the speed study? If 60mph is not an infraction of boating regulations, why slow down?

Exactly Ryan.But not according to the highly educated proponents.There just has to be something wrong with that study doesn't there?

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Evenstar...
However, I am going to show you the absolute FLAW in your logic equation! At the risk of making you look foolish, I am going to beat you over the head with your own math! I am going to use your equation and plug in the numbers for boats traveling under 50 MPH!
Your saying that over an 11 week span (770 Daylight Hours) there were approx 2,200 boats traveling greater than 50 MPH. 11 boats clocked over 50 MPH divided by 2% = 550 boats. (11/.02 = 550). You then assume that the number needs to be multiplied yet again because the speed zones only covered 25% of the lake... (and YOUR being generous @ 25%) 550/.25 = 2200 boats going faster than 50MPH over that 11 week span.
Assuming your formula is correct... Lets plug in the numbers for the boats going less than 50 MPH....
3841 boats clocked UNDER 50 MPH divided by 2% = 192,050 boats. (3841/.02 = 192,050). You then assume that the number needs to be multiplied yet again because the speed zones only covered 25% of the lake... (and again YOUR being generous @ 25%) 192,050/.25 = 768,200 boats going LESS than 50MPH over that 11 week span.

11 weeks = 77 days (770 daylight hours)
768,200 boats going less than 50 MPH
2,200 boats going greater than 50 MPH
768,200 + 2,200 = 770400 boats total during the survey
770,400/77 = 10,006 boats daily using Lake Winnipesaukee
768,200/77 = 9977 boats daily traveling less than 50 MPH
2,200/77 = 29 boats daily traveling greater than 50 MPH

29/9977 = .003% of the boating population travels over 50 MPH any given day of the survey!

You can apply YOUR Research Methodology ANYWAY you so choose. the problem with your math is.... THE PERCENTAGES DON"T CHANGE!!!

Do you seriously think that there were 770,400 BOATS on Lake Winnipesaukee during those 11 weeks?? I dont think anyone is going to believe those numbers! I think you might want to ask the University for a refund!

Woodsy

HURRAY HURRAY BRAVO WOODSY!
I'm thinking that should be the end of this debate about the "extrapolation" of data on the speed survey.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

HURRAY HURRAY BRAVO WOODSY!
I'm thinking that should be the end of this debate about the "extrapolation" of data on the speed survey.

Good luck with the ending of the debate.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Islander

Then boats that went PAST the Marine Patrol at 90mph, 100mph, or 160mph etc.. did NOT have their speeds included in the study.

RADAR has a limited distance, as Woodsy has pointed out. A boat going 130mph would have to go directly AT a MARKED Marine Patrol boat to a close distance before turning. Ya Right!

So are you surprised when reported speeds were low? The study was DESIGNED to fail. If you didn't think it favored your position you would agree.

I'm not surprised that the reported speeds are low. Especially when you consider the boats that can go 130 mph probably cost $500,000. Not many of those around, never mind on the lake. That's the problem when you exaggerate, it's so easy to point out how ludicrous your views are.

Islander, you are so far out in left field it's not even funny. If I follow your logic, then a speed limit cannot be enforced. That's just what we need, a law that can't be enforced. Fits right in with the rest of your logic, or lack thereof.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

So where on the ocean have you paddled? Where else other than NH Inland waterways?

I thought this was supposed to a discussion on a NH speed limit – but I have paddled in Rhode Island, since my university is located right on the coast – on Mount Hope Bay and Narragansett Bay – this is also whereI have sailed the most, but I've also sailed in Boston, in races. And I only live 3 miles from Vermont – so I have kayaked there as well.

If you read and UNDERSTOOD the NHMP Speed Survey Report you would have know that the Broads was included in the survey. Just about every place a boat had the room to go fast was included in the survey..... Light #50 to the Weirs Channel is the Upper 2/3 of Paugus Bay and it is quite the speed zone... and arguably one of the BUSIEST areas of the lake!

Why do you feel this constant need to insult me, just because you disagree with me? I stated that I read the report and that I understood it – and I don’t lie. One of the most congested and “busiest areas of the lake” is not going to be where boats are going to be found traveling the fastest. 29% of the boat speeds in the survey were recorded in this area, which represents a tiny percentage of the lake, with conditions that at not the average lake conditions. This throws the averages way off by adding such a large number of boats that are traveling at slower speeds than they would be in a less congested area.

The NHMP conducted a Speed Survey, intended to take a SNAPSHOT of what was actually going on Lake Winnipesaukee! It was not a detailed study on the number of boats on the lake at any given time, nor was it intended to be!

I know that. But it was a snapshot of only a percentage of the lake (less than 25%) and it was a snapshot of what was happening during a tiny percentage of the time in those 11 weeks (1.9%).

However, I am going to show you the absolute FLAW in your logic equation! At the risk of making you look foolish, I am going to beat you over the head with your own math! … You can apply YOUR Research Methodology ANYWAY you so choose. the problem with your math is.... THE PERCENTAGES DON"T CHANGE!!! … I dont think anyone is going to believe those numbers! I think you might want to ask the University for a refund!

Again you throw insults at me.

What I stated was: “according to the data from the study approximately 2200 boats were traveling at speeds over 50 mph on the entire lake over this 11 week period.” I never once stated that these were all different boats!!! And I never stated that the percentages would change. So don’t accuse me of stating something that I didn’t!

If the study was done correctly and the “snapshot” was an accurate representation of the speeds of boats on the lake, than my statistical analysis is just as accurate. Boats were not recorded over the entire lake, so the raw data needs to be adjusted to cover the entire lake, and the data was collected during less than 2% of the total daylight hours of these 11 weeks last summer – so this needs to be factored in as well.

The results (which you seem to have so much trouble accepting) gives that if the MP was recording speeds of boats on the entire lake, and were doing so over all 770 daylight hours of these 11 weeks, that they would have recorded approximately 2,200 boats traveling over 50 mph. This is NOT the number of boats – this is the number of OCCURRENCES!!! I thought that was obvious to everyone – but apparently it wasn’t.

But this is a significant number, because it represents an average of 28 boats (occurrences) per day (during this 11 week period) where boats are traveling at speeds above 50mph. The chances of me encountering a high-speed boat is directly connected to how much time I spend out on the water. If I’m out on the lake in my kayak for 8 hours (which is typical for me), I’m going to encounter a number of these 28 high-speed boats. And this just represents an average day. On nice days and on weekends this number of high-speed boats (and high-speed occurrences) will increase. Most high-speed boats do not violate my 150 foot zone, but some do – so this is a problem for me.

There is nothing wrong with my statistical analysis. The problem is that you don’t understand my analysis – and this seems to be true of several other forum members.

Whenever I post something that is not in line with the views of powerboat owners, you guys are like a bunch of sharks having a feeding frenzy – which really isn’t a very nice way to treat another member – even if you happened to disagree with her. Give a girl a break! I’m not your enemy – I just have a different point of view, which is base on my own personal experiences – which happen to be different from yours.

I really don’t deserve this treatment, nor do I deserve the insults. There is nothing “fuzzy” about my math; I’m not “spinning” numbers; I’m not trying to use “scare tactics”; or do anything else that I’ve been accused of. I am a very honest person and am not trying to distort the truth in any way.

You guys insist on using the speed study report to “prove” your points. I’m just trying to explain that you can’t just use the raw data without including any statistical analysis – and I’m trying to show what the study actually shows. (Although I still think that the number of high-speed occurrences or artificially low, because of the way that the data was collected).

You don’t have to like my conclusions – and I’m totally willing to discuss anything that you believe I made an error with. But you and others here do not have the right to insult me, just because you don’t agree with me or because you don’t understand what I posted.

Oh, and Skipper of the Sea: I don't apprectiate you using a distorted verison of my signature as another way to insult me. That is wrong. I haven't done anything to you.

[Woodsy]

Evenstar...

It is truly amazing to me how you just do not get the math... I have quite the grasp on your analysis! In fact I understand it completely and quite possibly better than you do. You used a relatively standard formula to extrapolate data! Not really a big deal, but the formula is flawed in this application and that is shown by the extraordinarily LARGE number of boats. To be clear, when I say boat I meant singular instance as I assumed did you. In no way did I mean to infer that there were somehow 770,400 boats floating on Lake Winnipesaukee!

REMEMBER THIS IS THE FORMULA YOU USED!

Using YOUR formula YOU extrapolated 2200 boats going over 50 MPH or approximately 28.5 per day over the 77 day period!

Using YOUR formula I extrapolated 768,200 boats going under 50 MPH or approximately 9976.6 per day over the 77 day period!

28.5/9976 = .0028

Essentially you have less than 1/3 of 1% chance of coming into contact with a boat traveling over 50! What part of this math dont you understand? I am using YOUR formula! No matter how you extrapolate & multiply the numbers, the ratio/percentage doesnt change.

If YOUR formula is being applied correctly (and I do not think it is.. But I will get to that) your chances of running across a boat doing over 50MPH are essentially nil... .0028! If I were to extrapolate further, your chances of encountering a boat going over 60 MPH are for all intents and purposes non-existant!

But lets go one step further and say that of the boaters 2% are Capt. Boneheads who have a complete disregard of the rules & regs!

9976*.02 = 199.5 Capt. Boneheads!
28.5*.02 = .6 Capt Boneheads!

So every other day, 1 of the 28.5 boats going over 50 MPH is being driven by a Capt. Bonehead! While everyday 200 boats going under 50 MPH are being driven by a Capt. Bonehead!

Who do you think your going to have an encounter with? Need I calculate that for you too?

Now... on to the flaws with your formula!

By using YOUR formula we can extrapolate that the NHMP would have clocked 770,400 boats over the 11 week survey.

Good luck trying to get ANYONE to believe that number!!! There is no way that number could be remotely accurate and here is why...

The reason your formula/logic is flawed is because you are taking a blanket approach. If you knew the lake better, perhaps you would understand the flaws in your formula.

1. Lake Winnipesaukee has very little boating activity between Ice Out and Memorial Day and between Labor Day and Ice In.

2. The lake is really only "busy" boatwise (only in certain areas) during the nice (weatherwise) summer WEEKENDS between June 20th (roughly when the kids get out of school) and Labor Day (roughly when the kids go back to school). The NHMP speed survey was conducted during this time, only missing 1 or 2 weeks. When the weather is bad boat traffic decreases signifigantly!

3. Weekends are measured from Friday 2pm to Sunday 2pm, unless its a Holiday weekend such as July 4th & Labor Day. Before Friday 2pm the lake is relatively quiet, although usually a little busier than a thursday. Boat traffic picks up noticeably friday afternoon. Sunday afternoon sees sharp drop off in boat traffic as people are packing up to head home!

4. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday & Thursday are EXTREMELY low traffic boat days, unless the monday is a holiday, then the sunday boat traffic is busier and monday tapers off after noon.

5. All boat traffic on the lake is not equal... so your blanket approach of multiplying to cover the entire area of the lake is inherently flawed. For example areas such as the Weirs and Meredith see alot of boat traffic, while areas off the beaten path such as Moultonborough Bay and all of the little coves see very little boat traffic.

6. There is no reason to adjust the raw data at all. It was taken by NHMP Officers & volunteers during REGULAR PATROL SHIFTS in the areas of the lake where the boat trafiic is higher. They are obviously not going to waste thier time & effort trying to clock boats in the smaller coves & bays! You need to remember, this was an UNFUNDED study!

Hope this helps you to better understand why your formula is flawed in this instance!

Woodsy

[hazelnut]

Evanstar,

The big problem here is YOUR analysis. You are NOT WRONG. I repeat NOT WRONG in your math. Once again stated another way you are 100% CORRECT. But this is where it ends. You are doing a MATH PROBLEM. It looks great on paper I applaud your efforts. However, the reality is there are not 775,000 incidents to track on Lake winnipesaukee in an 11 week period. And by incidents I mean boats traveling at ANY speed. The shear volume of craft that you suggest are using the waters during this period to create the supposed 2,200 "speeders" or does not exist. I explained in it a literal manner and I believe Woodsy has explained it in a finite matter extremely well. It seems that you can't comprehend this because you disagree with the numbers. For a moment forget the debate and just pretend we are debating the volume of traffic on the lake. Now do you really think that your numbers represent an accurate example of the volume of craft on the lake in a 10 week period?

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Evanstar,

The big problem here is YOUR analysis. You are NOT WRONG. I repeat NOT WRONG in your math. Once again stated another way you are 100% CORRECT. But this is where it ends. You are doing a MATH PROBLEM. It looks great on paper I applaud your efforts. However, the reality is there are not 775,000 incidents to track on Lake winnipesaukee in an 11 week period. And by incidents I mean boats traveling at ANY speed. The shear volume of craft that you suggest are using the waters during this period to create the supposed 2,200 "speeders" or does not exist. I explained in it a literal manner and I believe Woodsy has explained it in a finite matter extremely well. It seems that you can't comprehend this because you disagree with the numbers. For a moment forget the debate and just pretend we are debating the volume of traffic on the lake. Now do you really think that your numbers represent an accurate example of the volume of craft on the lake in a 10 week period?

Extrapolation can, and usually is, the absolute killer in analysis. Especially true for non linear data. Take this in a real world example.

One of the most congested and “busiest areas of the lake” is not going to be where boats are going to be found traveling the fastest. 29% of the boat speeds in the survey were recorded in this area, which represents a tiny percentage of the lake, with conditions that at not the average lake conditions. This throws the averages way off by adding such a large number of boats that are traveling at slower speeds than they would be in a less congested area.

Of course it throws off the averages. When dealing with Winni, it should be rather obvious that congested areas would result in lower speed, that's what the skippers Are Supposed To Be Doing!

I would expect that at random, conditions aside, boats would be clocked at a higher average speed out in the Broads than around the Weirs. I would also expect boaters to be going slow in a NWZ. So you argue that by having a larger percentage clocked in congested areas throws off the averages? The look at the raw numbers of boats. I'd expect the number of boats in the Broads to be less than Paugus Bay on the weekends, that might just be why those areas are called congested in the first place.

I also think the subsequent extrapolations you did prove out this point. If you did a study of boats randomly out on the "less congested" area, I'd think you'd find out what's really going on. Not that many boats, and yes, a higher percentage going faster, depending on conditions, than they are in the busy areas. That would not shock most people, as it didn't shock anyone that's been out on the lake that speed generally goes down given the amount of boats in the area. For those that are running to close to others, well, there are rules about this are there not?

If your intent was to show that the average speed increases somewhat by throwing a larger percentage of boats from say, the Broads, into the mix, well I'd have to say how many D's in Duh?

[SIKSUKR]

Would you guys stop picking on me?Anytime you disagree with me you have to attack me even though I know I'm wrong.I can call you guys out and sling dirt around but that doesn't count cuz I said it.I am never wrong,I am very smart,probably smarter than most of you.I am highly skilled in paddling crafts so you can not question my point of view even if you have the same interest.You opponents are always attacking me and I don't deserve it.Wa Wa Wa.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Evanstar,

The big problem here is YOUR analysis. You are NOT WRONG. I repeat NOT WRONG in your math. Once again stated another way you are 100% CORRECT. But this is where it ends. You are doing a MATH PROBLEM. It looks great on paper I applaud your efforts. However, the reality is there are not 775,000 incidents to track on Lake winnipesaukee in an 11 week period. And by incidents I mean boats traveling at ANY speed. The shear volume of craft that you suggest are using the waters during this period to create the supposed 2,200 "speeders" or does not exist. I explained in it a literal manner and I believe Woodsy has explained it in a finite matter extremely well. It seems that you can't comprehend this because you disagree with the numbers. For a moment forget the debate and just pretend we are debating the volume of traffic on the lake. Now do you really think that your numbers represent an accurate example of the volume of craft on the lake in a 10 week period?

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Evenstar...

REMEMBER THIS IS THE FORMULA YOU USED!

Using YOUR formula YOU extrapolated 2200 boats going over 50 MPH or approximately 28.5 per day over the 77 day period!

Using YOUR formula I extrapolated 768,200 boats going under 50 MPH or approximately 9976.6 per day over the 77 day period!

768,200 + 2,200 = 770,400 boats in 77 days

or...

770,400 / 77 days = 10,005.2 boats per day

Phew, so many boats, little wonder the Senate voted to pass HB847...

Now, if only the House and Senate would pass a Bill requiring all vessels, be they wind, power, or paddle, to pay a registration fee to help fund the NHMP.

Remember: Civil Liberties and Equitable treatment for all...

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

That would not shock most people, as it didn't shock anyone that's been out on the lake that speed generally goes down given the amount of boats in the area.

I'm still in shock that by using 'Kayak math' there is the potential for more than 700,000 boats to be cruising the lake over the July 4th weekend!!!!! YIKES!

[Resident 2B]

I sure hope that the folks moving into the old Waldo-Peppers offering seafood with dock service did not calculate the boat traffic using 'kayak math' in their business model. If they did, they will be wondering where all the boats went.

R2B

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

It is truly amazing to me how you just do not get the math... I have quite the grasp on your analysis! In fact I understand it completely and quite possibly better than you do. You used a relatively standard formula to extrapolate data! Not really a big deal, but the formula is flawed in this application and that is shown by the extraordinarily LARGE number of boats. To be clear, when I say boat I meant singular instance as I assumed did you. In no way did I mean to infer that there were somehow 770,400 boats floating on Lake Winnipesaukee!

I “get the math” just fine – and I seriously doubt that you understand this better than I do.

Have you recently (or ever) taken a college level course in Research Methodology? Have you ever done statistical analysis on the data from a municipal survey (that you helped design, and spent time collecting the data on), to aid a town in putting together their comprehensive plan? So don’t be so quick to dismiss me as someone who does not know what she is doing. The problem is that you are still looking at the data wrong – and you are still not getting my conclusions.

And you did post:

” Do you seriously think that there were 770,400 BOATS on Lake Winnipesaukee during those 11 weeks??

Which is inferring “that there were somehow 770,400 boats floating on Lake Winnipesaukee.”

Essentially you have less than 1/3 of 1% chance of coming into contact with a boat traveling over 50! What part of this math dont you understand? I am using YOUR formula! No matter how you extrapolate & multiply the numbers, the ratio/percentage doesnt change.

My chance of encountering a high-speed boat is way higher than what the static snapshot and you calculations suggest – because all the boats are moving – and what I didn’t factor in (and could have) were the boat speeds.

For instance, a boat traveling at 50 mph uses (or covers) 10 times more of the lake than I do in my kayak at 5 mph – during the same time period that we are both on the lake. So the faster that a boat is traveling, the more likely it is that I will encounter that boat on the lake – the percentages increase directly as the speed increases. The lake is roughly 20 miles long, so if I paddle from one end to the other it will take me about 4 hours. In that 4 hours a boat that is covering the same 20 mile stretch of lake at 50 mph will pass me 10 times.

This represents 10 high-speed encounters in just a 4-hour period of time, with just 2 boats on the lake (who happen to be using the same 20 mile stretch of the lake). Those 11 weeks equal 770 daylight hours. Therefore my chances of encounter a high-speed boat are considerable – which is what my actual experience paddling on the lake has been.

Now... on to the flaws with your formula! By using YOUR formula we can extrapolate that the NHMP would have clocked 770,400 boats over the 11 week survey. Good luck trying to get ANYONE to believe that number!!! There is no way that number could be remotely accurate and here is why… The reason your formula/logic is flawed is because you are taking a blanket approach. If you knew the lake better, perhaps you would understand the flaws in your formula.

As far as your points 1 through 4: I clearly stated that my analysis only covers the 11 weeks of the study – that’s what the 770 hours represent.
I also clearly stated: “If the study was done correctly and the “snapshot” was an accurate representation of the speeds of boats on the lake, than my statistical analysis is just as accurate.” My conclusion is and has always been that this study was not done correctly – and that data which was collected is flawed. And once anyone takes the data and tries to do statistical analysis on it they get some really strange results.

The problem is that the data collected does not accurately represent the average boat traffic on the entire lake over the entire 11 week period. The MP purposely used areas of the lake where boat traffic was high in order to record a large number of readings over a relatively short period of time. In 135 hours, they RECORDED the speeds of 3852 power boats – that’s more than 28 boats per hour or 1 every 2 minutes! And this is just the boats that they were able to record, not the total number of boats that went by them.

My contention is that, by using the busiest areas of the lake for the study, the study did not represent the average condition on the entire lake. Boats are going to travel at slower speeds in areas where the boat traffic is high.

5. All boat traffic on the lake is not equal... so your blanket approach of multiplying to cover the entire area of the lake is inherently flawed. For example areas such as the Weirs and Meredith see alot of boat traffic, while areas off the beaten path such as Moultonborough Bay and all of the little coves see very little boat traffic.

There is nothing wrong with my approach – that is exactly how statistical analysis is done. But (and this is a really important but) any statistical analysis is only as good as the data that was collected.

The speed study is being used as “proof” that few boats on the lake are traveling at speeds over 45 mph – so there’s no reason to enact a speed limit. What it actually shows is that on areas of the lake where boat traffic is the highest, there are only a small percentage of boats that are traveling over 50 mph on the busiest times of the highest boat traffic days.

Had the study areas actually represented the average conditions on the lake, on an average day during these 11 weeks, the data collected would have been totally different. And statistical analysis of that data would have given very different results. But then the data may have supported the need for a speed limit - which is why the study was not done correctly.

6. There is no reason to adjust the raw data at all.

Yes there is. Even the report is called “RECREATIONAL BOAT SPEED SAMPLING.” A sampling results in raw data that is supposed to accurately represent the overall population/area/time period/condition. Since boats were not recorded over the entire lake, but only in sample areas, the raw data needs to be adjusted to cover the entire lake. And since the data was collected only during less than 2% of the total daylight hours of these 11 weeks last summer – the total hours need to be factored in as well. This is what statistical analysis does.

I see the forum sharks are still circling. I'm sooo impressed . . . it takes . . . let's see . . . 5 of you guys (at this point) to debate (or to try to intimidate) just one college girl.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

I sure hope that the folks moving into the old Waldo-Peppers offering seafood with dock service did not calculate the boat traffic using 'kayak math' in their business model. If they did, they will be wondering where all the boats went.

R2B

It's all good. They did a test market during Bike Week, whereby they made a $8900 profit for the week. Therefore, their overall annual profit should extrapolate out to $56,098,211.18.

[Resident 2B]

Great news!

Thank God someone will be making money.

Love the math!!

R2B

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Ryan

I'm still in shock that by using 'Kayak math' there is the potential for more than 700,000 boats to be cruising the lake over the July 4th weekend!!!!! YIKES!

I was coming over for a rally this July. But once I heard that the number of boats had exceeded 643,668, I canceled my plans. That's just way to dangerous for me. I like to go out in the middle, jump off the boat, then cleand the bottom off with a mop. With boats traveling around at 130mph, I just couldn't deal with it.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Ryan

I'm still in shock that by using 'Kayak math' there is the potential for more than 700,000 boats to be cruising the lake over the July 4th weekend!!!!! YIKES!

Hilarious... new term "kayak math"

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Islander

If you stop at Y-Landing check out the convenience store while they are gassing you. Tuffy is stocking up on sour grapes just for the GFBL crowd.

Good to know you have forgiven them for supporting speed limits.

The grapes must be from the same vineyard from which WINNFABS gets its grapes to make its "whine".

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

I “get the math” just fine – and I seriously doubt that you understand this better than I do.

Have you recently (or ever) taken a college level course in Research Methodology? Have you ever done statistical analysis on the data from a municipal survey (that you helped design, and spent time collecting the data on), to aid a town in putting together their comprehensive plan? So don’t be so quick to dismiss me as someone who does not know what she is doing. The problem is that you are still looking at the data wrong – and you are still not getting my conclusions.

And you did post:
Which is inferring “that there were somehow 770,400 boats floating on Lake Winnipesaukee.”


My chance of encountering a high-speed boat is way higher than what the static snapshot and you calculations suggest – because all the boats are moving – and what I didn’t factor in (and could have) were the boat speeds.

For instance, a boat traveling at 50 mph uses (or covers) 10 times more of the lake than I do in my kayak at 5 mph – during the same time period that we are both on the lake. So the faster that a boat is traveling, the more likely it is that I will encounter that boat on the lake – the percentages increase directly as the speed increases. The lake is roughly 20 miles long, so if I paddle from one end to the other it will take me about 4 hours. In that 4 hours a boat that is covering the same 20 mile stretch of lake at 50 mph will pass me 10 times.

This represents 10 high-speed encounters in just a 4-hour period of time, with just 2 boats on the lake (who happen to be using the same 20 mile stretch of the lake). Those 11 weeks equal 770 daylight hours. Therefore my chances of encounter a high-speed boat are considerable – which is what my actual experience paddling on the lake has been.


As far as your points 1 through 4: I clearly stated that my analysis only covers the 11 weeks of the study – that’s what the 770 hours represent.
I also clearly stated: “If the study was done correctly and the “snapshot” was an accurate representation of the speeds of boats on the lake, than my statistical analysis is just as accurate.” My conclusion is and has always been that this study was not done correctly – and that data which was collected is flawed. And once anyone takes the data and tries to do statistical analysis on it they get some really strange results.

The problem is that the data collected does not accurately represent the average boat traffic on the entire lake over the entire 11 week period. The MP purposely used areas of the lake where boat traffic was high in order to record a large number of readings over a relatively short period of time. In 135 hours, they RECORDED the speeds of 3852 power boats – that’s more than 28 boats per hour or 1 every 2 minutes! And this is just the boats that they were able to record, not the total number of boats that went by them.

My contention is that, by using the busiest areas of the lake for the study, the study did not represent the average condition on the entire lake. Boats are going to travel at slower speeds in areas where the boat traffic is high.


There is nothing wrong with my approach – that is exactly how statistical analysis is done. But (and this is a really important but) any statistical analysis is only as good as the data that was collected.

The speed study is being used as “proof” that few boats on the lake are traveling at speeds over 45 mph – so there’s no reason to enact a speed limit. What it actually shows is that on areas of the lake where boat traffic is the highest, there are only a small percentage of boats that are traveling over 50 mph on the busiest times of the highest boat traffic days.

Had the study areas actually represented the average conditions on the lake, on an average day during these 11 weeks, the data collected would have been totally different. And statistical analysis of that data would have given very different results. But then the data may have supported the need for a speed limit - which is why the study was not done correctly.


Yes there is. Even the report is called “RECREATIONAL BOAT SPEED SAMPLING.” A sampling results in raw data that is supposed to accurately represent the overall population/area/time period/condition. Since boats were not recorded over the entire lake, but only in sample areas, the raw data needs to be adjusted to cover the entire lake. And since the data was collected only during less than 2% of the total daylight hours of these 11 weeks last summer – the total hours need to be factored in as well. This is what statistical analysis does.

I see the forum sharks are still circling. I'm sooo impressed . . . it takes . . . let's see . . . 5 of you guys (at this point) to debate (or to try to intimidate) just one college girl.

Seriously though? You are still defending your math? I weep for the college graduates of this era. Evanstar you really need to take your head out of the book. There are many forum members who are MUCH smarter and MUCH more educated than you. I know that is difficult for you to comprehend but it is true. Please stop trying to suggest the 1/4 of a million vessels were traveling on the lake in an 11 week period. You are looking sillier and sillier by the day. Notice absolutely nobody on this forum backs up one single claim that you have made.... EVER. Even the staunchest proponents have distanced themselves from you. You have done a wonderful job showing a simple math equation... bravo. The end result is that you are trying to suggest that there were 2,200 violations in an 11 week period. With that (according to percentage) you need to accept that there were 770,000 non offenders. So please I have asked you and I ask again. Do you really think that there were that many craft on the lake during the time frame? Does this need to continue? This is getting silly. Please stop.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Seriously though? You are still defending your math? I weep for the college graduates of this era. Evanstar you really need to take your head out of the book. There are many forum members who are MUCH smarter and MUCH more educated than you. I know that is difficult for you to comprehend but it is true. Please stop trying to suggest the 1/4 of a million vessels were traveling on the lake in an 11 week period. You are looking sillier and sillier by the day. Notice absolutely nobody on this forum backs up one single claim that you have made.... EVER. Even the staunchest proponents have distanced themselves from you. You have done a wonderful job showing a simple math equation... bravo. The end result is that you are trying to suggest that there were 2,200 violations in an 11 week period. With that (according to percentage) you need to accept that there were 770,000 non offenders. So please I have asked you and I ask again. Do you really think that there were that many craft on the lake during the time frame? Does this need to continue? This is getting silly. Please stop.

You need to stop judging me and refrain from attacking me for what you think I wrote. Personal attacks are against forum rules! Yet you just continue to insult me whenever you reply. Go back and read my post again. I am done replying to your personal attacks.

[CaptDan]

good spirits level = 0





--> closed

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

For instance, a boat traveling at 50 mph uses (or covers) 10 times more of the lake than I do in my kayak at 5 mph – during the same time period that we are both on the lake. So the faster that a boat is traveling, the more likely it is that I will encounter that boat on the lake – the percentages increase directly as the speed increases. The lake is roughly 20 miles long, so if I paddle from one end to the other it will take me about 4 hours. In that 4 hours a boat that is covering the same 20 mile stretch of lake at 50 mph will pass me 10 times.

This represents 10 high-speed encounters in just a 4-hour period of time, with just 2 boats on the lake (who happen to be using the same 20 mile stretch of the lake). Those 11 weeks equal 770 daylight hours. Therefore my chances of encounter a high-speed boat are considerable – which is what my actual experience paddling on the lake has been.

If you are going 5 MPH and the motor boat is going 50 MPH, it's only going to pass you once as you both go from one end of the lake to the other. If the motor boat is going 30MPH, or 130 MPH, it still only passes you once. The speed of the boat does not change the number of times you'll encounter it.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Dave R

If you are going 5 MPH and the motor boat is going 50 MPH, it's only going to pass you once as you both go from one end of the lake to the other. If the motor boat is going 30MPH, or 130 MPH, it still only passes you once. The speed of the boat does not change the number of times you'll encounter it.

You're just forgetting the world of extrapolation Dave.

Imagine over 700,000 boats passing her continuously, 24/7. It's numbers like those that give us the weather forecasting we have today. Chance of accuracy, about 12.5%

[Mashugana]

I must agree with Ryan.

Originally Posted by Ryan

I have been actively reading this debate for over six months now. I have seen arguements both logical and illogical, factual and opinionated being tossed around by both sides of the speed limit debate. I have seen facts and numbers being manipulated to support each side of the arguement.

I have wanted to chime in many times when I read opinions, lies, and
arguements that do not hold water.

As this debate comes to an end, I just want to say Bravo to Woodsy's last post. It clearly outlines the "fuzzy math" the proponents have been using on this forum, op ed pieces in the local papers and before the house committees.

- No matter how you spin the numbers, at any point in time, there are WAY less than 1% of the boats on the lake exceeding the 'proposed' speed limit (it is not speeding yet)
-Education not regulation
-I love my 150 ft rule - please enforce it!!!!

RJ

It would appear that the Senate would rather have the Marine Patrol concentrate on enforcing the proposed speed limits rather than the current 150 foot law.

[Gilligan]

If this becomes law it starts in 2009, correct? There will be no 45/25 speed limit anywhere on Lake Winnipesaukee this season 2008, is that right?

If that's right then this summer will be the last one for statistical data before the 45/25 limits are in place. If there is some anomaly this year and then normal in 2009, they then might claim that the 45/25 law was the reason.

I've heard about people defrauding insurance companies by arranging auto accidents. Is it possible someone could arrange a few boating accidents to help their cause and make a point?

[Chris Craft]

Originally Posted by Gilligan

If this becomes law it starts in 2009, correct? There will be no 45/25 speed limit anywhere on Lake Winnipesaukee this season 2008, is that right?

If that's right then this summer will be the last one for statistical data before the 45/25 limits are in place. If there is some anomaly this year and then normal in 2009, they then might claim that the 45/25 law was the reason.

I've heard about people defrauding insurance companies by arranging auto accidents. Is it possible someone could arrange a few boating accidents to help their cause and make a point?

Would highly doubt that. Plus there is no way they will get a speed boat owner to help them out. Well I should never say never but.... That would be getting into insurance fraud with the claim afterwards and while I think that the Winfabs people tend to lets just call it missinform, I would not think that they are criminal....

Lets just hope that everyone has a very safe and happy summer. My guess is that fuel costs will keep the lake fairly light on the traffic side.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

...and as my previous posts infer, what the speed limit proponents also find distasteful is the premise made by people like you that this "agenda" of concern for their family is so inherently evil and self-serving.

Concern for family is honorable. Asking others to restrict their activity for no useful purpose is not. Its the draconian attitudes that is felt to be evil and self-serving.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Concern for family is honorable. Asking others to restrict their activity for no useful purpose is not. Its the draconian attitudes that is felt to be evil and self-serving.

Never the pragmatic approach to issues like this. What causes the accidents? How can we reduce them?

Accidents are usually caused by.

1) Drunks
2) Wild driving and inattentiveness
3) No Lights at night
4) Poor visibility
5) Submerged objects
6) Driving too close
7) Large Wakes

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Never the pragmatic approach to issues like this. What causes the accidents? How can we reduce them?

Accidents are usually caused by.

1) Drunks
2) Wild driving and inattentiveness
3) No Lights at night
4) Poor visibility
5) Submerged objects
6) Driving too close
7) Large Wakes

And don't forget #8, mechanical failure.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Never the pragmatic approach to issues like this. What causes the accidents? How can we reduce them?

Accidents are usually caused by.

1) Drunks
2) Wild driving and inattentiveness
3) No Lights at night
4) Poor visibility
5) Submerged objects
6) Driving too close
7) Large Wakes

Is that your personal list? Because the US Coast Guard also has a list.

And you will notice that New Hampshire has boating regulations to cover all of the primary causes except excessive speed.




United States Coast Guard

BOATING STATISTICS 2006

Executive Summary
...
Operator inattention, carelessness/reckless operation, excessive speed,
and no proper lookout are the primary contributing factors in all reported
accidents.
...
US Coast Guard - KNOWN ACCIDENT CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 2006
OPERATOR CONTROLLABLE
Operator Inattention ...............611
Careless/Reckless Operation .....517
Excessive Speed ....................464
Passenger/Skier Behavior .........390
No Proper Lookout ..................368
Operator Inexperience .............356
Alcohol Use ...........................351

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Is that your personal list? Because the US Coast Guard also has a list.

And you will notice that New Hampshire has boating regulations to cover all of the primary causes except excessive speed.




United States Coast Guard

BOATING STATISTICS 2006

Executive Summary
...
Operator inattention, carelessness/reckless operation, excessive speed,
and no proper lookout are the primary contributing factors in all reported
accidents.
...
US Coast Guard - KNOWN ACCIDENT CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 2006
OPERATOR CONTROLLABLE
Operator Inattention ...............611
Careless/Reckless Operation .....517
Excessive Speed ....................464
Passenger/Skier Behavior .........390
No Proper Lookout ..................368
Operator Inexperience .............356
Alcohol Use ...........................351

Which law covers Passenger/skier behavior? What about No Proper lookout?

With all due respect, these statistics have nothing to do with Winni, nor does the US Coast Guard operate on the lake.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Ryan

Which law covers Passenger/skier behavior? What about No Proper lookout?

With all due respect, these statistics have nothing to do with Winni, nor does the US Coast Guard operate on the lake.

These are National statistics that do include Winnipesaukee. The Marine Patrol reports lake statistics to the Coast Guard.

For "No Proper Lookout" read paragraph 6 here http://www.nh.gov/judiciary/supreme/...5/littl071.htm

Passenger/skier behavior could be anything, but it comes AFTER excessive speed.

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

These are National statistics that do include Winnipesaukee. The Marine Patrol reports lake statistics to the Coast Guard.

For "No Proper Lookout" read paragraph 6 here http://www.nh.gov/judiciary/supreme/...5/littl071.htm

Passenger/skier behavior could be anything, but it comes AFTER excessive speed.

I've learned a lot about negligence. The law broken was homicide (no link required).

To avoid another circular arguement about which statistics apply to Winni and what is "excessive" speed, we'll just agree to disagree at this point.

[Lakegeezer]

We're missing the Coast Guard's definition of excessive speed. The NH lawmakers have had their take at it, but it would be nice to understand what definition the pros use when they check that box.

I still think it would be interesting to know how many lawmakers have a boater's certificate. There is no doubt that excessive speed is the cause of accidents, but there is signficant doubt that 45/25 is always excessive speed. Sometimes, like at night and in the fog, excessive speed may mean anything over headway. That's why previously existing laws mentioned reasonable and prudent.

[Island Lover]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

That's why previously existing laws mentioned reasonable and prudent.

That's just not true.

The anti-speed limit folks have repeated this lie so many times that many well meaning people, like yourself, think its true.

There is no reasonable and prudent speed regulation in New Hampshire. There never has been.

[GusMan]

And when the Governor signs the new speed limit bill...

We *still* won't.

Gusman

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

That's just not true.

The anti-speed limit folks have repeated this lie so many times that many well meaning people, like yourself, think its true.

There is no reasonable and prudent speed regulation in New Hampshire. There never has been.

There should be, and Rule 6 was a good place to start.

But it's articles like this that fully explain both the intent of the new law, and the intent of the supporters.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...7-789376f5182b

"On a calm summer evening in 2002, an elderly Meredith man was out slowly boating with his family when he was run over and killed by a speeding 8,000 pound, 1,200 HP cigarette boat. The cigarette boat operator appealed his conviction to the state Supreme Court, where one of the Justices asked in amazement: "Isn't there a speed limit?" Why can everyone seem to recognize this omission except our Legislature?

John Chase is a musician in Wolfeboro."

Always similar language, and Always a complete disregard for the facts, which is clearly the intent. When just the facts of an incident are reported, it's far less effective as a biased medium.

One thing that's almost always divisive, and ineffective, is being blatantly dishonest and/or misleading. I might add, I do not concur with the reasoning of one Justice, that wondered why there wasn't a speed limit law. The Court affirmed the Insurance company's denial of coverage due to his negligent operation of the boat (http://www.insurancejournal.com/news...2/21/48902.htm)

So, they ruled his operation of the boat that night (at some 28mph I remember?), was negligent, and thus, not covered under his insurance policy. Skip did a great job on posting the facts of this accident awhile back. I believe the same rules apply on our roads and highways, where many have been deemed to be operating too fast for conditions. I must admit, I've never heard of a policies coverage being denied for that, but I don;t follow that stuff either.

[Coastal Laker]

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Guy

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

Live free or die.

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

[flyry49]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

There should be, and Rule 6 was a good place to start.

But it's articles like this that fully explain both the intent of the new law, and the intent of the supporters.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...7-789376f5182b

"On a calm summer evening in 2002, an elderly Meredith man was out slowly boating with his family when he was run over and killed by a speeding 8,000 pound, 1,200 HP cigarette boat. The cigarette boat operator appealed his conviction to the state Supreme Court, where one of the Justices asked in amazement: "Isn't there a speed limit?" Why can everyone seem to recognize this omission except our Legislature?

John Chase is a musician in Wolfeboro."

Always similar language, and Always a complete disregard for the facts, which is clearly the intent. When just the facts of an incident are reported, it's far less effective as a biased medium.

One thing that's almost always divisive, and ineffective, is being blatantly dishonest and/or misleading. I might add, I do not concur with the reasoning of one Justice, that wondered why there wasn't a speed limit law. The Court affirmed the Insurance company's denial of coverage due to his negligent operation of the boat (http://www.insurancejournal.com/news...2/21/48902.htm)

So, they ruled his operation of the boat that night (at some 28mph I remember?), was negligent, and thus, not covered under his insurance policy. Skip did a great job on posting the facts of this accident awhile back. I believe the same rules apply on our roads and highways, where many have been deemed to be operating too fast for conditions. I must admit, I've never heard of a policies coverage being denied for that, but I don;t follow that stuff either.

{I disagree.} i have investigated this incident pretty well and cant seem to find it saying that speed was the direct link. and another thing, media is BIAS. i have taken a whole class at PSU on how the media is bias so never use or quote a newspaper when your trying to prove a point. all you people hear is "speed boat" killed whoever on the lake and you immediately think the person was speeding and thats why there was an accident. o yeah and by the way that supreme justice that made that comment has never seen this lake nor knows how big it is or how popular it gets. therefor he doesn't have an educated opinion with this matter.

[2Blackdogs]

Originally Posted by pm203

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

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

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

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

Is this funny or sad?

[pm203]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

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

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

Is this funny or sad?

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

[EricP]

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

[The Big Kahuna]

The Salem Witch Trials! That worked really well! Jim Crow Laws! Needed those didn't we! The list goes on and on, add the Speed Limit Law to those and you just came full circle of creating laws out of fear of what might happen!

[COWISLAND NH]

Is the 2007 Marine Patrol accident log available to the public? Has anyone been to the WINNFAB website!??....if I'd never boated on Winni it would make boaters that can travel faster then 45mph sound like evil, family hating, nature hating, crazy people. I just can not understand why or how a small group of people who (as they say on their website) are scared of boating in crowds (reason=bc of other boats...)decide how other people should go boating. Please lets have a contest and see who has better boating skills...I bet 100 to 1 that I'd smoke anyone of the WINNFAB crew. Have you ever pulled into Wolfboro docks and see the family pull out the "pole", husband yelling at wife, people on docks scrambling to help..HEEHEE...bet then can't navigate over 30mph with out wettin their pants AND THEIR SCARED OF US!!!!!!!!!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by COWISLAND NH

Is the 2007 Marine Patrol accident log available to the public? Has anyone been to the WINNFAB website!??....if I'd never boated on Winni it would make boaters that can travel faster then 45mph sound like evil, family hating, nature hating, crazy people. I just can not understand why or how a small group of people who (as they say on their website) are scared of boating in crowds (reason=bc of other boats...)decide how other people should go boating. Please lets have a contest and see who has better boating skills...I bet 100 to 1 that I'd smoke anyone of the WINNFAB crew. Have you ever pulled into Wolfboro docks and see the family pull out the "pole", husband yelling at wife, people on docks scrambling to help..HEEHEE...bet then can't navigate over 30mph with out wettin their pants AND THEIR SCARED OF US!!!!!!!!!

You are about as wrong as you can be. Perhaps you have not considered that people afraid of boats don't live on islands. Or that when you live on an island your boating skills improve rapidly. I take a boat to get the morning paper. Islanders boat in all kinds of weather, including conditions where most boats don't leave the dock.

I'm not sure what your definition of "smoke" is. But if it involves boat handling expertise, I wouldn't bet against WinnFABS. You can be sure that family at the Wolfeboro docks did not come from an island.

Every WinnFABS person I know has at least one boat capable of going well over the proposed limit. So do I.

Sorry if this ruins your stereotyped image.

[Turtle Boy]

Have you ever pulled into Wolfboro(sic)docks and see(sic) the family pull out the "pole", husband yelling at wife, people on docks scrambling to help..HEEHEE...bet then(sic) can't navigate over 30mph with out wettin their pants AND THEIR(sic) SCARED OF US!!!!!!!!!




I hope your boating skills are better than your spelling skills.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Have you ever pulled into Wolfboro(sic)docks and see(sic) the family pull out the "pole", husband yelling at wife, people on docks scrambling to help..HEEHEE...bet then(sic) can't navigate over 30mph with out wettin their pants AND THEIR(sic) SCARED OF US!!!!!!!!!




I hope your boating skills are better than your spelling skills.

Who gave you the spell checking responsibilities?

[flyry49]

its funny to see when people make a point that stands strong they get attacked on spelling and grammar instead of the point(s) they made.It only shows one thing.

just as a question, I'd like to know what everyone wishes to accomplish by putting a speed limit on the lake during the day. i can understand why it might be necessary on weekends in popular locations like maybe in front of the weirs, i can also see why a nighttime speed limit could make it a little safer. it does get hard to see on a cloudy night. but during the day? why?

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by flyry49

its funny to see when people make a point that stands strong they get attacked on spelling and grammar instead of the point(s) they made.It only shows one thing.

just as a question, I'd like to know what everyone wishes to accomplish by putting a speed limit on the lake during the day. i can understand why it might be necessary on weekends in popular locations like maybe in front of the weirs, i can also see why a nighttime speed limit could make it a little safer. it does get hard to see on a cloudy night. but during the day? why?

It's pretty simple really, "They" want to see the GFBL boaters go away. It really is that simple, in spite of their continued lies about the reasoning.

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

lies about the reasoning.

????? VtSteve....lies about reasoning by speed limit proponents?


The premise that the GFBL's don't need speed limits because they can be trusted to do what is "reasonable and prudent" ?
Remember your high school Latin...res ipsa loquitur...the thing speaks for itself. Now the very visible spokesperson for the GFBL crowd appears to have done something very much less than reasonable and prudent resulting in a passenger's death. The other passenger states they were drinking at the Wolftrap. Formula boat planing at 02:30 in dark foggy conditions. " Hey, we don't need no limits".

Lies about reasoning huh?

[2Blackdogs]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

It's pretty simple really, "They" want to see the GFBL boaters go away. It really is that simple, in spite of their continued lies about the reasoning.

In a GFBL, you can miss colliding with a lot of Winnipesaukee islands while sober; however that "seasoned captain", President of the NHRBA, proves that island residents are at risk from those like pm203 and nearly all the others here, who deny that their risk-taking affects others.

How many "fun weekends" has the President of the NHRBA posed that 15,000 pound threat to us boaters?

How many islands are there in Vermont, where you sleep?

Really, are you at risk from GFBLs when asleep in Vermont?

We are.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by 2Blackdogs

In a GFBL, you can miss colliding with a lot of Winnipesaukee islands while sober; however that "seasoned captain", President of the NHRBA, proves that island residents are at risk from those like pm203 and nearly all the others here, who deny that their risk-taking affects others.

How many "fun weekends" has the President of the NHRBA posed that 15,000 pound threat to us boaters?

How many islands are there in Vermont, where you sleep?

Really, are you at risk from GFBLs when asleep in Vermont?

We are.

Yawn. Spare me.

[SIKSUKR]

Oh I see.2Bd and TB have already figured out that speed greater than 25 mph was the factor in the Diamond Island crash.And they are here to tell you that this accident would not have happened if there was a speed limit.Do you guys really believe the crap you spew here?

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by flyry49

its funny to see when people make a point that stands strong they get attacked on spelling and grammar instead of the point(s) they made.It only shows one thing.

just as a question, I'd like to know what everyone wishes to accomplish by putting a speed limit on the lake during the day. i can understand why it might be necessary on weekends in popular locations like maybe in front of the weirs, i can also see why a nighttime speed limit could make it a little safer. it does get hard to see on a cloudy night. but during the day? why?

First, you are assuming a speed limit is only about safety. I support the speed limit but safety is not my first concern. Children's camps on the lake have had to curtail their boating at times do to the confusion and congestion on the lake. Talk to any camp director about the situation on the lake and will get a totally different take on the problem. The New Hampshire Camp Directors Association supports HB847. That is good enough for me.

Winnipesaukee is one of the few lakes in the area that do not already have restrictions. As time passes more and more high performance boats will be forced to the fewer and fewer lakes that allow unrestricted speed. I do not want this lake to be "the destination" for high performance boats.

The growing tendency toward bigger, faster and more horsepower is increasing pollution on the lake. The water quality, particularly in our bays, is dropping. We need to move toward less horsepower, less wake, less speed, less pollution. Winnipesaukee is a community drinking water supply.

Tourism has been negatively effected. Local businesses complain that the situation on the lake is keeping away families. Kayakers and other small boaters complain they have been forced off the lake by congestion and high speed. Several large marinas on the lake support speed limits as well. They make their living by selling and servicing boats, when they tell you there is a problem it's time to listen.

As to safety, and your question. You admit there is a problem in certain places at certain times. It would be difficult to have a speed limit that was only on weekends or in some parts of the lake. However I would support a reasonable compromise along those lines.

There was a lot of talk about an exception for the broads, but the opposition took a "no limits" attitude so a compromise solution was not possible.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by flyry49

its funny to see when people make a point that stands strong they get attacked on spelling and grammar instead of the point(s) they made.It only shows one thing.

I'm not in favor of the speed limit bill, but I want to address your comment above. I would argue that a poorly articulated, poorly written comment never "stands strong".

When all you have is the written word to convey your competence and convince people to believe in you, it is somewhat important to present an educated and supportable appearance.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

????? VtSteve....lies about reasoning by speed limit proponents?


The premise that the GFBL's don't need speed limits because they can be trusted to do what is "reasonable and prudent" ?
Remember your high school Latin...res ipsa loquitur...the thing speaks for itself. Now the very visible spokesperson for the GFBL crowd appears to have done something very much less than reasonable and prudent resulting in a passenger's death. The other passenger states they were drinking at the Wolftrap. Formula boat planing at 02:30 in dark foggy conditions. " Hey, we don't need no limits".

Lies about reasoning huh?

There have been two separate and distinct arguments on these threads, one for the GFBL focus and the others focused on safe boating in general. I understand some people's gpointing out in the irony of the tragedy that occured this month, but in reality, nothing that's been reported thus far makes your case for anything. I refuse to engage in speculation because anything could change in the next week or so. No sense making painful specualtion. I know you think drinking and boat accidents make a case for speed limits, and I generally have no idea how you get there except as an act of desperation. Your comment about "Formula boat planing at 02:30 in dark foggy conditions. " Hey, we don't need no limits", makes little sense. Passing a speed limit law would have changed what exactly in this case? If it was a 20' Bayliner what would have changed exactly?


"Reasonable and Prudent" is always what most of us hope for. If my boating experience of more than 40 years counts for anything, I would arrest all the drunks, ban PWC's, wakeboard boats, vessels trolling across channels widthways, and all cruisers making a wake I don't approve of. But alas, this will not happen. As much as we'd all like to see human behavior change so that we're all safe and happy, there is no magic wand. Boaters can help by calling in and reporting problems, especially repeated violations from the same people. Without the public's support, it's highly unlikely things will change.

I'd also like to add this. Between you and the other hack here. Continually pointing out any affiliation or positions that the victim's in this accident held, put you in the category of pond scum IMO. I know very well what your responses would be had a pontoon boat out partying late at night in the same circumstances would have been, and so do you. It's human nature for some folks to get so caught up in their crusading causes, just or not, to lose sight of the big picture.

Try to reflect upon what it is you're motivated in here. I'm primarily interested in boating safety, accident causes, and generally enjoyment of boating. I have no desire, nor the budget to go 100mph in a boat, not my thing. I'm also not into late night binge drinking on boats, and am scared as heck of those people, whether they are in a kayak or a 50' Outer Limits. The circumstances revealed thus far in this case have started to paint a picture, both of the events surrounding the accident, and of the posters on this forum.

I can honestly say that I have a great deal more respect for many on this forum now than when we were fiercely debating the SL topic. Congrats to the many that have shown the respect and humanity that has made boating such a great way of life for many. Regardless of differences, we share far more in common than we have differences. Some others have simply lost sight of the primary issues, and hopefully at one point, we can all become part of the solutions, or at least do our little part in reducing the problems.