Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Lake Issues > Boating Issues > Speed Limits
Home Forums Gallery Webcams Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Register FAQDonate Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-12-2009, 09:16 PM   #1
Mee-n-Mac
Senior Member
 
Mee-n-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,943
Thanks: 23
Thanked 111 Times in 51 Posts
Arrow Lookee here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kracken View Post
Isn’t the purpose of this forum for all BOATERS to discuss their view points?

Just a thought….

Maybe if every member, opposers, supporters, and people just sitting on the fence could give a speed limit they believe is fair. If you say 45/25 that is fine, if you say unlimited…that’s fine too, it’s just an opinion. Maybe we are not that far apart. If every member could give a number…not a reason, just a number ( I am looking right at you Mee-n-Mac).

I think it would be interesting to see where the boaters of Winnipesaukee stand.
Set the night speed limit to either 30 or 35 MPH. Why ? My best attempts to get a handle on it tell me the average joe might get into trouble above 40 MPH at night. I doubt there's much safety benefit to 25 vs 30 vs 35. But there's certainly a difference in boat handling and efficiency. Tell you what, in the spirit of compromise and to keeps things nautical, make it 30 knots.

For daytime let it be unlimited in the Broads and 1000' ft away from any other boat. It's the 45 MPH the supporters want in all other places. Reasonable and prudent clause applies at all times as it always has. Why ? Because the number of truly fast boats is so low that the "speed" problem is more theoretical than actual and since you can't please either side completely ... send them to play in different rooms !
__________________
Mee'n'Mac
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity or ignorance. The latter are a lot more common than the former." - RAH
Mee-n-Mac is offline  
Old 08-12-2009, 10:10 PM   #2
trfour
Senior Member
 
trfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Lakes, Central NH. and Dallas/Fort Worth TX.
Posts: 3,694
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 3,069
Thanked 472 Times in 236 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac View Post
Set the night speed limit to either 30 or 35 MPH. Why ? My best attempts to get a handle on it tell me the average joe might get into trouble above 40 MPH at night. I doubt there's much safety benefit to 25 vs 30 vs 35. But there's certainly a difference in boat handling and efficiency. Tell you what, in the spirit of compromise and to keeps things nautical, make it 30 knots.

For daytime let it be unlimited in the Broads and 1000' ft away from any other boat. It's the 45 MPH the supporters want in all other places. Reasonable and prudent clause applies at all times as it always has. Why ? Because the number of truly fast boats is so low that the "speed" problem is more theoretical than actual and since you can't please either side completely ... send them to play in different rooms !
And just maybe, I can get away with a comment here.... Enforce the laws that are and were law before the speed limit. First of all, lets disallow darts and a dartboard with speed limit stickers pasted all over it in the lawmaker's chambers.... The lawmaker's have unlimited resources at their disposal. They are not where they are to throw indiscriminate patches, but instead to collectively solve problems, and to protect the public at Large. Sometimes they get carried off the pathway.
I understand that most of them are trying to enjoy their summer vacations at this time, so I as well will go away now!
__________________
trfour

Always Remember, The Best Safety Device In The Boat, or on a PWC Snowmobile etc., Is YOU!

Safe sledding tips and much more; http://www.snowmobile.org/snowmobiling-safety.html
trfour is offline  
Old 08-13-2009, 06:29 AM   #3
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,320
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trfour View Post
And just maybe, I can get away with a comment here.... Enforce the laws that are and were law before the speed limit.

Sounds like the discussions from years past. Perhaps my memory is foggy. But I don't recall any of the SL proponents being engaged in discussions concerning enforcement. To downplay any other problems, some of the most vocal shills have stated there are no other problems on the lake. A pretty ridiculous assertion. But the main point is this, SL proponents are rarely, if ever, promoting safety. The espouse fear, and have great contempt for those that take the discussion to broader areas of enforcement and safety.
VtSteve is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to VtSteve For This Useful Post:
LIforrelaxin (08-13-2009)
Old 08-13-2009, 12:51 PM   #4
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,764
Thanks: 32
Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VtSteve View Post
Sounds like the discussions from years past. Perhaps my memory is foggy. But I don't recall any of the SL proponents being engaged in discussions concerning enforcement. To downplay any other problems, some of the most vocal shills have stated there are no other problems on the lake. A pretty ridiculous assertion. But the main point is this, SL proponents are rarely, if ever, promoting safety. The espouse fear, and have great contempt for those that take the discussion to broader areas of enforcement and safety.
Most of your posts are reasonable, but you are way off base here.

What you call safety threads I would call "Divert attention from the SL" threads or even "Convince people we are interested in safety" threads.

I joined the NHRBA shortly after it was formed. I was soon told to "go away" they didn't want any spies from the speed limit supporters. To bad I wasn't able to take part in the vote they had about supporting HB162 or not. I guess the vote came out that they would oppose it, big surprise.

So give me a break with all this "SL supporters don't want safety" talk.

And please tell me where SL supporters claimed there were "no other problems on the lake". That doesn't pass the laugh test.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 08-13-2009, 01:14 PM   #5
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 508
Thanked 462 Times in 162 Posts
Default In the end...

... Bear Islander I do and will always have a difficult time drawing a correlation between the SL Law and addressing safety on the lake. Based on what most of us here observe going over 45MPH has nothing to do with all the incidents on the lake jeopardizing our lives. When thinking about supporting the law did you just throw your hands up in exasperation one day and say "well it's a start!" I am curious as to how you reached the conclusion that it would actually address the Cap. Boneheads on the lake. This isn't to say that there isn't one or two idiots that have done 50+ and caused and incident or made someone "scared." My position is and will always be why create a law that only addresses the minority? I just don't understand it? The majority problems need to be addressed. Why waste time and money on something that has little or no impact on the real problems plaguing the lake. This (for you elChase) is why I actually care about this "fight." I am sick and tired of the diversion of funds and attention towards a law that I predict won't work towards fixing the problem. Not because I support people doing 100MPH across the broads, Ludicrous in my opinion, sorry. But to target the guy who wants to do 55-65 maybe even 75 across the broads, eh who cares. As long as he does it safely I don't care. How many boats can actually do 75+ anyway? The law is a waste of resources plain and simple.
hazelnut is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to hazelnut For This Useful Post:
Ryan (08-13-2009)
Sponsored Links
Old 08-13-2009, 02:12 PM   #6
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,320
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Most of your posts are reasonable, but you are way off base here.

What you call safety threads I would call "Divert attention from the SL" threads or even "Convince people we are interested in safety" threads.

I joined the NHRBA shortly after it was formed. I was soon told to "go away" they didn't want any spies from the speed limit supporters. To bad I wasn't able to take part in the vote they had about supporting HB162 or not. I guess the vote came out that they would oppose it, big surprise.

So give me a break with all this "SL supporters don't want safety" talk.

And please tell me where SL supporters claimed there were "no other problems on the lake". That doesn't pass the laugh test.
Sure it does. I usually put in terms like "rarely, if ever", and "mostly", and sometimes think of you personally as I do it. You get pretty confusing when you start adding in terms like "erosion" and "environment", as though the SL specifically helps those areas out. I do know, BI, that your own ideas in regards to the lake, and boating in general on the lake, are far less shallow, and thus, far more complex than those of "Most" of the pro SL crowd.

But let's get to the meat of the issue may we? It's hard to differentiate from safety and the SL law itself, since that was the guise it was passed on. But I don't really care about the two opposing groups in the SL debate, they were both biased, and in the end, myopic in their focus. I will say that the NHRBA appeared to at least do Something targeted towards safety, where the other organization? Maybe nothing?

But this is you and me having a discussion. I say, "most" pro speed limit advocates, especially those that are emphatically pro speed limit, are Rarely, if Ever seen in discussions involving overall safety on the lake. Some of the more ridiculous proponents did join in, but only to add that the lake is a wonderful, safe, and friendly place this year, And Last because of their new law. One particular proponent basically called anyone that said it was not, a liar. But he then added that traffic on the lake was not down, and would not comment when proven to be quite ridiculous in making those statements.

You're one of the very few SL promoters that ever gets engaged in some of these discussions, although I wish you did more often. You were quite vocal about the shenanigans that take place around Bears Island, particularly the kid's camps. People flying through the NWZ daily. But then you couch, and time your statements to make sure it doesn't interfere with a certain law. So how are things around your parts these days, particularly on weekends?

For people that are generally not cognizant of their bad actions, enforcement is needed. I fully recognize that some people do things that annoy experienced boaters not out of stupidity or arrogance, but that they may be new to the game, and do not Know the right way. Those are the ones that many of us try to help out. Then there are those others. We all know the kind, and their actions. No one specific group, they come in all flavors.

Hazelnut is dead spot on accurate. Many (most) of us, are pretty sick of the activity that goes on on lakes across the country, let alone just Winni. By no means am I a goody two shoes safety advocate. I deplore the thought of wearing a PFD at all times in a boat. So instead of trying to diss genuine thoughts, why don't you show everyone where the overwhelming majority of the SL crowd engages in anything other than steadfastly sticking to the SL alone. Many are so scared that the SL provisions will be found to be unneeded, they just lie about what's going on. I'm sorry to say BI, that you yourself just will not address some of the things reported because deep down, you just think that the law will rid the lake of "some" boats, which can only be a better thing. I agree, twelve boats on the lake would be great, just mine maybe better.

But my theory is that all waterways would be far, far better places, if the existing laws in place were enforced, and the aholes knew they would be enforced. The most active SL supporters don't really care about this part, since it's not in the top three in their agenda. So while many of us support more funding for the MP, and more co-operation with them in trying to get the bad guys off the water, they remain silent.

You tell me that's BS?
VtSteve is offline  
Old 08-13-2009, 02:13 PM   #7
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,764
Thanks: 32
Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post
... Bear Islander I do and will always have a difficult time drawing a correlation between the SL Law and addressing safety on the lake. Based on what most of us here observe going over 45MPH has nothing to do with all the incidents on the lake jeopardizing our lives. When thinking about supporting the law did you just throw your hands up in exasperation one day and say "well it's a start!" I am curious as to how you reached the conclusion that it would actually address the Cap. Boneheads on the lake. This isn't to say that there isn't one or two idiots that have done 50+ and caused and incident or made someone "scared." My position is and will always be why create a law that only addresses the minority? I just don't understand it? The majority problems need to be addressed. Why waste time and money on something that has little or no impact on the real problems plaguing the lake. This (for you elChase) is why I actually care about this "fight." I am sick and tired of the diversion of funds and attention towards a law that I predict won't work towards fixing the problem. Not because I support people doing 100MPH across the broads, Ludicrous in my opinion, sorry. But to target the guy who wants to do 55-65 maybe even 75 across the broads, eh who cares. As long as he does it safely I don't care. How many boats can actually do 75+ anyway? The law is a waste of resources plain and simple.
I can tell you the exact moment when I knew Winnipesaukee needed a speed limit. I was taking to the director of a non-profit children's camp on the lake and he told me he could not let his small boats go out on the lake on certain days because of the lakes cowboy atmosphere. I have subsequently spoken to other camp directors on the lake that said much the same thing.

Reason number two is that as a former NH camp director I support the New Hampshire's Camp Directors Association endorsement of speed limits.

I have other reasons for supporting a speed limit, but the ones above are all I need.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 08-13-2009, 02:21 PM   #8
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH
Posts: 5,587
Thanks: 3,228
Thanked 1,107 Times in 797 Posts
Default Boneheads

I just can't understand how the speed limit law control the Capt, Boneheads around the summer camps? Maybe we should enact a law to keep boaters 1500 feet away from summer camps. I think that would be more effective.

BTW, I spent many summers at various summer camps. I even became a CIT/counselor and camp brings back wonderful memories. The Boneheads were a nuisance! Not the speeders.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 08-13-2009, 02:38 PM   #9
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,320
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second View Post
When a cruiser's wake is caught on a webcam overturning kids in a canoe...and several drown...?

Do you deny that a headline—past or present—has NOT driven our lawmakers?
Missed this one. So the lawmakers were driven to pass the SL law partly because of a cruiser wake? I do remember "some" people discussing cruiser wakes quite a bit. Has the SL law slowed down the cruisers to 45 mph as well?
VtSteve is offline  
Old 08-13-2009, 02:41 PM   #10
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH
Posts: 5,587
Thanks: 3,228
Thanked 1,107 Times in 797 Posts
Default Cruiser's wakes

Are at the maximum at 25 mph. Creating shore erosion. Guess the SL proponents do not want to hear about consequences.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 08-13-2009, 02:46 PM   #11
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,320
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
I can tell you the exact moment when I knew Winnipesaukee needed a speed limit. I was taking to the director of a non-profit children's camp on the lake and he told me he could not let his small boats go out on the lake on certain days because of the lakes cowboy atmosphere. I have subsequently spoken to other camp directors on the lake that said much the same thing.

Reason number two is that as a former NH camp director I support the New Hampshire's Camp Directors Association endorsement of speed limits.

I have other reasons for supporting a speed limit, but the ones above are all I need.
Well those are pretty fine reasons, on the surface. I'm sure they probably appreciate the lower traffic on the lake as a whole this year. I certainly remember you mentioning the camps and their safety issues at length many times. A lot of the discussions morphed into NWZ violations, not to mention 150' violations. Many of us thought it was not only prudent, but based on your observations and others, necessary, that the NWZ be expanded, and that a larger safety zone be installed in those areas.

My guess is that some violations will occur still, and that it will be back to normal when summer returns, with a multitude of boats. Congestion always brings problems with it. If some of the more vocal SL proponents are correct, many of their friends will be back on the lake again, now that they say it's safer.

It's always more important to go with the best solutions, not the favored answer. Sounded like an enforcement problem then, and my guess is, it will continue to be an enforcement problem in the future. You have a webcam there, ever stream it to the MP?
VtSteve is offline  
Old 08-13-2009, 02:40 PM   #12
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,764
Thanks: 32
Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadHopper View Post
I just can't understand how the speed limit law control the Capt, Boneheads around the summer camps? ...
That's simple. Captain Boneheads that move to another lake because they don't like the speed limit don't bother summer camps. Captain Boneheads that don't come to Winni because of the speed limits don't bother summer camps.

You can't deny that there is a cowboy atmosphere out there at times. If you are a camp director thinking about sending out canoes, row boats, sailboats and kayaks with children in them then that atmosphere is a serious consideration and worry.

A speed limit will not make Winni into Golden Pond, but it is a viable step to getting the lake under better control. We all know there are performance boaters that have left the lake and claim they will not return while there is a speed limit. Hopefully some of them are the Captains we speak of.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 08-13-2009, 02:51 PM   #13
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,320
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
That's simple. Captain Boneheads that move to another lake because they don't like the speed limit don't bother summer camps. Captain Boneheads that don't come to Winni because of the speed limits don't bother summer camps.

You can't deny that there is a cowboy atmosphere out there at times. If you are a camp director thinking about sending out canoes, row boats, sailboats and kayaks with children in them then that atmosphere is a serious consideration and worry.

A speed limit will not make Winni into Golden Pond, but it is a viable step to getting the lake under better control. We all know there are performance boaters that have left the lake and claim they will not return while there is a speed limit. Hopefully some of them are the Captains we speak of.
Something I would hope for as well. Unfortunately, Hope doesn't feed the bulldog. I would assume mostly a-holes would leave and go elsewhere, which is what many hoped for in the first place I'm sure. Heck, I'd support them leaving as well.

With all of the problems endured by the summer camps, one would think that the MP would have had a field day, PRE-SL Law. But apparently they either didn't patrol the trouble zones much, or their actions had no impact?

Funny how we've come back full circle to some of the original sources of the discussion

Forgetting about the SL law, compromise, and all that BS for a minute. Let me try something different.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 08-13-2009, 05:57 PM   #14
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 508
Thanked 462 Times in 162 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
You can't deny that there is a cowboy atmosphere out there at times. If you are a camp director thinking about sending out canoes, row boats, sailboats and kayaks with children in them then that atmosphere is a serious consideration and worry.

A speed limit will not make Winni into Golden Pond, but it is a viable step to getting the lake under better control. We all know there are performance boaters that have left the lake and claim they will not return while there is a speed limit. Hopefully some of them are the Captains we speak of.
I can't deny it and I won't deny it. This was the crux of a discussion recently between elchase and myself and others. I firmly believe that cowboy atmosphere is ever present on the lake and has not been affected by the new law. This supports my main point. I truly believe that any resources directed at this law is a waste. True, Winni will never be confused with Golden Pond but I think this was the wrong step. It deflected attention away from the real problem.

I still question whether or not a large amount of boaters actually possess a Boaters License. A kid at one of the Marina's sort of confirmed that for me when he told me that many people ask him what the fine is for driving a boat without a license. But I digress.

I think the current law was thrown in as a supposed cheap and easy magic bullet that many thought would "fix" the lake. I don't think by my experiences that anything has been fixed. I know it's early but it doesn't look promising.

As for the camps, if you know where I am you'll know that there are two camps very close to me. I see what you mean with your concern about the campers safety. I see people using the kids in kayaks and sailboats like a slalom course. Instead of altering their course and giving the kids a huge buffer they pick the gaps between the pack of boats. Scary stuff. However, I've never observed this activity taking place at more than 25-35 MPH. Not saying it hasn't happened before it just seems that generally speaking speed isn't the issue with this one.

So I defer to my point that we are targeting the minority problem in hopes of fixing the majority problem. I have a hard time with that correlation.

Also, I hope you don't see these posts as ganging up on you it just seems that you are the only SL Supporter interested in engaging in actual debate right now.
hazelnut is offline  
Old 08-13-2009, 05:30 PM   #15
Resident 2B
Senior Member
 
Resident 2B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North Shore, MA
Posts: 1,358
Thanks: 995
Thanked 314 Times in 164 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
I can tell you the exact moment when I knew Winnipesaukee needed a speed limit. I was taking to the director of a non-profit children's camp on the lake and he told me he could not let his small boats go out on the lake on certain days because of the lakes cowboy atmosphere. I have subsequently spoken to other camp directors on the lake that said much the same thing.

Reason number two is that as a former NH camp director I support the New Hampshire's Camp Directors Association endorsement of speed limits.

I have other reasons for supporting a speed limit, but the ones above are all I need.
It is the concerns of people like the camp director that BI mentions that my position shifted somewhat from anti-speed limit to boating safety. Anti seemed too negative.

I believe most want boating safety. I am also for everyone being able to enjoy the lake.


R2B
Resident 2B is offline  
Old 08-13-2009, 07:30 PM   #16
pm203
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 225
Thanks: 41
Thanked 86 Times in 46 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
I can tell you the exact moment when I knew Winnipesaukee needed a speed limit. I was taking to the director of a non-profit children's camp on the lake and he told me he could not let his small boats go out on the lake on certain days because of the lakes cowboy atmosphere. I have subsequently spoken to other camp directors on the lake that said much the same thing.

Reason number two is that as a former NH camp director I support the New Hampshire's Camp Directors Association endorsement of speed limits.

I have other reasons for supporting a speed limit, but the ones above are all I need.
If the safety of the children is the primary responsibility of the camps, shouldn't the camps restrict themselves to safer parts of the lake? Why should it be the other way around?
pm203 is offline  
Old 08-13-2009, 09:34 PM   #17
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH
Posts: 5,587
Thanks: 3,228
Thanked 1,107 Times in 797 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pm203 View Post
If the safety of the children is the primary responsibility of the camps, shouldn't the camps restrict themselves to safer parts of the lake? Why should it be the other way around?
What part of the lake is safe?????
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 08-13-2009, 10:32 PM   #18
pm203
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 225
Thanks: 41
Thanked 86 Times in 46 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadHopper View Post
What part of the lake is safe?????
Maybe certain coves/bays or other areas that could be roped off.
pm203 is offline  
Old 08-13-2009, 11:23 PM   #19
KTO
Senior Member
 
KTO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Meredith, NH
Posts: 391
Thanks: 30
Thanked 117 Times in 26 Posts
Default

Alright I feel like adding my two cents, most of which will be shot down in a second. I'm also returning to the "compromise" idea about 100 posts back.

1) How about a weekend speed limit? Isn't that statistically when the most accidents/Cap'n Bonehead situations occur? I've been on the lake twice on a weekend this summer and both times we ran into people who can't follow 150' rules (Some apparently can't even measure 20', it seems). The lake is just too crowded on the weekend, unfortunately.

2) My numbers would be 60/30. Have you ever been on a jetski? They are meant to go fast and are pretty easy to control if you know what you are doing. Jetski is my boat of choice, I've been boating on the lake since I was 2, and knew the lake and the rules even before I took the course. I'm still a smarter driver than many older adults who took the course, why punish the responsible? I agree, the lake is pretty small overall and incredible speeds can be unsafe, but 45 is a bit LOW!

3) A costly idea, so this will never work, but getting more marine patrol on the lake to get people for the original rules that STILL aren't followed. It's a GREAT idea to instate new rules when the old ones don't work. I guess it's all about who gets caught and who doesn't.

4) Here's a compromise. It's the best one actually. The worst part is I'm wasting my time writing it: Why can't we just be responsible boaters? Show a little respect and use a little common sense! Read the rules, understand the rules. Just because you passed a 100 question multiple choice test means nothing unless you can prove this knowledge on the lake, assuming you didn't cheat on that online exam. A little responsibility goes a long way and if Cap'n Boneheads didn't exist, would we even be HAVING a discussion about speed limits? REMEMBER: You don't own the lake, you have to share it with 85,000 +/- other boaters. If sharing is too tough for you, TOUGH!
KTO is offline  
Old 08-13-2009, 09:50 PM   #20
Irrigation Guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 484
Thanks: 89
Thanked 138 Times in 72 Posts
Default Bad examples?

BI - Don't you think the camp directors would be more concerned about someone going say 20-40 mph and 100 feet or less from one of their boats, then say someone going may 50mph plus in the broads or in the an open area hundreds if not thousands of feet from the nearest boat?
Irrigation Guy is offline  
Old 08-13-2009, 11:17 PM   #21
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,764
Thanks: 32
Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pm203 View Post
If the safety of the children is the primary responsibility of the camps, shouldn't the camps restrict themselves to safer parts of the lake? Why should it be the other way around?
In the first place - The entire lake should be safe enough for children in a canoe! If it isn't then we need to take whatever step are necessary to make it so.

In the second place - A children's camp on the lake must send its boats out from its own waterfront. How would a camp on Bear Island, for instance, launch its canoes, sailboats etc. from another part of the lake. That is just plain silly.

Thirdly - The camps were here first. The Bear Island camps recently celebrated their 100th anniversary. I hope they can still be in operation in another hundred years. And that is what speed limits are REALLY all about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LocalRealtor View Post
BI - Don't you think the camp directors would be more concerned about someone going say 20-40 mph and 100 feet or less from one of their boats, then say someone going may 50mph plus in the broads or in the an open area hundreds if not thousands of feet from the nearest boat?
You are getting hung up on the actual speeds involved. It's the cowboy atmosphere that is the problem. Not weather a given boat is going 25, 45 or 65.

In a perfect world a camp director wants to send his boats out on a tranquil empty lake. In the real world he looks out at the way the lake is on a summer weekend and makes a hard choice between sending the boats out or keeping them in.

I doubt any Captain Boneheads understand the hundreds and even thousands of children they are keeping off the lake by their antics. It is also true outside the camps. I know many parents, including me, think twice about letting the kids go out on days when the lake is buzzy.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 08-14-2009, 06:11 AM   #22
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,320
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
In the first place - The entire lake should be safe enough for children in a canoe! If it isn't then we need to take whatever step are necessary to make it so.

In the second place - A children's camp on the lake must send its boats out from its own waterfront. How would a camp on Bear Island, for instance, launch its canoes, sailboats etc. from another part of the lake. That is just plain silly.

Thirdly - The camps were here first. The Bear Island camps recently celebrated their 100th anniversary. I hope they can still be in operation in another hundred years. And that is what speed limits are REALLY all about.

You are getting hung up on the actual speeds involved. It's the cowboy atmosphere that is the problem. Not weather a given boat is going 25, 45 or 65.

In a perfect world a camp director wants to send his boats out on a tranquil empty lake. In the real world he looks out at the way the lake is on a summer weekend and makes a hard choice between sending the boats out or keeping them in.

I doubt any Captain Boneheads understand the hundreds and even thousands of children they are keeping off the lake by their antics. It is also true outside the camps. I know many parents, including me, think twice about letting the kids go out on days when the lake is buzzy.
It's been going on for quite some time from what I've read. Looks like the prisoners have taken over the prison.

See guys, BI and I agree on most of the points. He just holds out Hope that the law will do something, because apparently, nobody else on the lake will. Sounds like somebody's not been enforcing anything for quite some time.
VtSteve is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to VtSteve For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (08-14-2009)
Old 08-14-2009, 10:03 AM   #23
Kracken
Senior Member
 
Kracken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton
Posts: 223
Thanks: 46
Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts
Default Acres Per Second

Not bad Acres Per Second.

You know some history.
You want to debate…lets debate.
But let’s make in constructive.

If “my” speed is endangering others isn’t that an accusation that needs to be proved? The legislature seems to thing so. That is why the speed limit law is temporary and it is being used to study the effects. Some people don’t want the results to be analyzed. They want the law made permanent before the facts can be studied. Ramming this law through before the sunset provision is over is irresponsible. Does this sound familiar to you? Adding a law that restricts individual’s action because of a perceived problem is wrong. Making it permanent before getting the facts is ludicrous.

The only true experts here are the marine patrol. They have stated speed is not the problem. If you ask a State Trooper what are the major contributing factors of highway accidents you will get the same answers anyplace in this country.

Alcohol and speed.

So my question to you Acres is simple.
Do you think the law should be made permanent before the facts are studied?

As for the cruiser’s wake, I am unfamiliar with that event.

A couple of questions come to mind.
Was the driver of the cruiser operating his vessel within the law?
Would a speed limit have prevented this accident?
Were the children in the canoe wearing PFDs?
Kracken is offline  
Old 08-14-2009, 10:44 AM   #24
Chimi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 105
Thanks: 51
Thanked 50 Times in 28 Posts
Default Making a moving this weekend.

I will be filming all weekend, and will be sending the film to every state rep and senator. The film will be enlightening to these reps and senators that have never been on a boat, let alone spent the weekend on Winnipesaukee. The documentary will clearly show that the problem is not excessive speed GFBL boats, but rather will provide proof that there are far more serious problems, that jeopardize safety on the water. If these people are going to vote on something, they should vote on facts, not fiction created by a core group of people with an agenda. I'm going to document what really goes on out there and how dangerous these conditions are. If a GFBL boat passes too fast or too close, he'll get filmed too. It's time that the truth be told, and video does not lie.
Chimi is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Chimi For This Useful Post:
EricP (08-15-2009), hazelnut (08-15-2009)
Old 08-14-2009, 12:31 PM   #25
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,764
Thanks: 32
Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimi View Post
I will be filming all weekend, and will be sending the film to every state rep and senator. The film will be enlightening to these reps and senators that have never been on a boat, let alone spent the weekend on Winnipesaukee. The documentary will clearly show that the problem is not excessive speed GFBL boats, but rather will provide proof that there are far more serious problems, that jeopardize safety on the water. If these people are going to vote on something, they should vote on facts, not fiction created by a core group of people with an agenda. I'm going to document what really goes on out there and how dangerous these conditions are. If a GFBL boat passes too fast or too close, he'll get filmed too. It's time that the truth be told, and video does not lie.
Are you aware that some representatives and senators have homes on the lake? That some of them have worked professionally on the lake in commercial and law enforcement boats? That at least one is a former Marine Patrol Officer? That before voting on speed limits many of them were given rides on performance boats?

Who says video doesn't lie. You only see what the camera operator points the camera at. Even then you only see what they choose not to edit out. If you film all weekend you will have to edit out quite a bit. I have been interviewed on camera for up to an hour and then seen my words edited down to 20 seconds.

Even if you were to come up with a video that PROVES the problem is not excessive speed, the argument will be that your video proves the speed limit is working.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 08-14-2009, 12:31 PM   #26
elchase
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default My boat is safe at 25 MPH

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimi View Post
I will be filming all weekend, and will be sending the film to every state rep and senator. The documentary will clearly show that the problem is not excessive speed GFBL boats,
Chimi,
Sounds like you have already decided what the film that you have not yet taken is going to show. That's how Michael Moore sets out to make his "documentaries" too. I wonder if the editing will not help to make that point as well?
It would be telling if a full weekend of filming resulted in only fifteen minutes of violations. Now if you had filmed for 16 hours a couple of years ago before we had a speed limit, you'd have been able to make a real documentary 16 hours long and showing 16 hours of continuous mayhem.
I could surely film far less that "all weekend" and get plenty of footage of go-fast boats obeying the speed limit and other boats enjoying more passive activities as a result. If I do that, would you accept it as "the truth"?
And although I'm sure word has already been sent around to selected boaters telling them just where to go to misbehave and get on the film, it might be nice to post on the forum just where/when you will be filming so other people who want to give the impression that things are really bad out there this year can come by and wreak some havoc for the cameras as well. Of course, this might attract a patrol boat or two, but isn't enforcement and safety, and getting these "captain boneheads" off the lake what we all want anyway?
PS: You might also want to tell your friends to be sure they drape a towel over their bow numbers during filming.
 
Old 08-14-2009, 12:38 PM   #27
Kracken
Senior Member
 
Kracken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton
Posts: 223
Thanks: 46
Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
Chimi,
Sounds like you have already decided what the film that you have not yet taken is going to show. That's how Michael Moore sets out to make his "documentaries" too. I wonder if the editing will not help to make that point as well?
It would be telling if a full weekend of filming resulted in only fifteen minutes of violations. Now if you had filmed for 16 hours a couple of years ago befero we had a speed limit, you'd have been able to make a real documentary 16 hours long and showing 16 hours of continuous mayhem.
I could surely film far less that "all weekend" and get plenty of footage of go-fast boats obeying the speed limit and other boats enjoying more passive activities as a result. If I do that, would you accept it as "the truth"?
And although I'm sure word has already been sent around to selected boaters telling them just where to go to misbehave and get on the film, it might be nice to post on the forum just where/when you will be filming so other people who want to give the impression that things are really bad out there this year can come by and wreak some havoc for the cameras as well. Of course, this might attract a patrol boat or two, but isn't enforcement and safety, and getting these "captain boneheads" off the lake what we all want anyway?
PS: You might also want to tell your friends to be sure they drape a towel over their bow numbers during filming.
WOW,

I actually have to agree with Elchase.
But I have to admit, He had me at Michael Moore comment.
Kracken is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Kracken For This Useful Post:
Old 08-17-2009, 09:18 AM   #28
Chimi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 105
Thanks: 51
Thanked 50 Times in 28 Posts
Default The truth hurts huh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by elchase View Post
Chimi,
Sounds like you have already decided what the film that you have not yet taken is going to show. That's how Michael Moore sets out to make his "documentaries" too. I wonder if the editing will not help to make that point as well?
It would be telling if a full weekend of filming resulted in only fifteen minutes of violations. Now if you had filmed for 16 hours a couple of years ago before we had a speed limit, you'd have been able to make a real documentary 16 hours long and showing 16 hours of continuous mayhem.
I could surely film far less that "all weekend" and get plenty of footage of go-fast boats obeying the speed limit and other boats enjoying more passive activities as a result. If I do that, would you accept it as "the truth"?
And although I'm sure word has already been sent around to selected boaters telling them just where to go to misbehave and get on the film, it might be nice to post on the forum just where/when you will be filming so other people who want to give the impression that things are really bad out there this year can come by and wreak some havoc for the cameras as well. Of course, this might attract a patrol boat or two, but isn't enforcement and safety, and getting these "captain boneheads" off the lake what we all want anyway?
PS: You might also want to tell your friends to be sure they drape a towel over their bow numbers during filming.

Wow, the truth video might actually prove that your blessed speed limit was really just your way of ridding the lake of a certain type of vessel. Nice Michael Moore comment by the way. You know, I never thought of having my friends come by and perform dangerous acts, just so I could manipulate the video. Thanks for the ideas though! I have hours of footage from the weekend, showing every type of vessel involved in dangerous, bonehead moves. Yet there was hardly an occasion where a GFBL boat was either speeding or violating the 150' rule. A jet ski can kill someone just as easy as a 40' boat. Where's the outrage over these bozos?

More filming to take place next weekend. Then the copies get made and sent to every rep and senator. I may even include a bag of microwave popcorn so they can enjoy the entertainment. Bye Bye speed limit - nice knowing ya...
Chimi is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Chimi For This Useful Post:
Old 08-14-2009, 12:32 PM   #29
Kracken
Senior Member
 
Kracken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton
Posts: 223
Thanks: 46
Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts
Default Harrison Bergeron

After reading through the speed limit threads it reminded me of a short story by Kurt Vonnegut. (Some of you might remember him from Rodney Dangerfield’s Back to School.)

Harrison Bergeron is a dystopian story that takes place in the year 2081. In the story, societal equality has been achieved by handicapping the more intelligent, athletic or beautiful members of society down to the level of the lowest common endowment. This is due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th amendments to the U.S Constitution. This process is central to the society, designed so that no one will feel inferior to anyone else.

If you want to check it out here is link: http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html
Kracken is offline  
Old 08-14-2009, 12:33 PM   #30
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,320
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts
Default We do know the problems

Now that BI has come back to engage in his rational voice.

The problems on waterways are well know to those that actually are out on the water, particularly weekends. There are other issues, of course. People should not be afraid to be on the water for fear of getting run over. The rules of the water used to be know by a majority of boaters. The last decade or more brought people into boating that may not have had any prior experience. We probably all forget this, as the water is second nature to some of us.

We have a group of people that thought a SL would be the proper solution to "fix" the problems. Many of us knew that wasn't the answer, but unfortunately, the debate focused only on the SL, and not on the problems.

BI laid out what I think is the single most important aspect of safety on the waterway. He's done that long ago. In doing so, it pinpoints the number one problem on the lake today. ENFORCEMENT. Yes, here I go again.
(To address our lurkers that are knashing their teeth now. Yes, ENFORCEMENT. Which does not mean crowding a boat traveling safely to get him to slow to headway speed. It doesn't mean harassment, not any of that. )

What it does mean is this. If I'm the head of the MP, I've either read about BI's complaints, or heard about them somewhere else. I've heard about some of my MP's doing things that I probably would prefer they don't do. So what's the solution?

Meeting time men, and women. Starting Friday night through Sunday afternoons, you will do the following. Unmarked boats will be around the summer camp areas, with camcorders rolling, and other MP's not that far off, but out of sight. Take notice of what's going on. If you see a boat traveling between canoes and other boats, or dangerously close to anything, STOP THEM. CITE THEM. Then repeat the process.

Guard the NWZ and the camps, and other boaters, like your job depends on it. IT DOES. If I see one of my men traveling at 3.0 mph through the Weirs channel, with dozens of boats floating sideways trying to stay behind, I'll have you picking up trash for the rest of the summer. Don't come back either. I want the BONEHEADS to know we mean business. Instruct them, don't harass them. If a boater is "somewhat" close to another boat, use some judgment. Is it in a narrower portion of the lake? Is he otherwise doing a good job, and not rampaging through the water? Use some common sense. Is he being arrogant? Beer cans?

Now men, we've all read BI's stories about the camps, and have heard directly from the camp directors themselves. I want the camp directors to be put at ease, and the children to be safe. I also want on my desk by the end of the month of August, every patrolman's personal experiences, as well as suggestions for any additional suggestions or rules they may feel would help out in the future.

You have your orders now, and I fully expect them to be followed.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 08-14-2009, 09:07 AM   #31
pm203
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 225
Thanks: 41
Thanked 86 Times in 46 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
In the first place - The entire lake should be safe enough for children in a canoe! If it isn't then we need to take whatever step are necessary to make it so.
Maybe in a perfect world, but this will never be reality. There are too many conditions and situations to allow it. Just like every other place in the world, there are certain places children will always be in danger and shouldn't be exposed to .A lake or any body of water should always be of high concern. A speed limit does not address these concerns, as the data proves.
pm203 is offline  
Old 08-14-2009, 09:42 AM   #32
sunset on the dock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 347
Thanks: 153
Thanked 106 Times in 69 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pm203 View Post
A speed limit does not address these concerns, as the data proves.
A SL is just one (integral) part of the solution for improving conditions on the lake. No SL supporter would argue that it's the only solution. And as was said in an earlier post, we can't just go back to the less crowded conditions on the lake in 1960 when everyone could willy-nilly just do whatever they want on the lake. Times have changed and we have to change with them.
As far as voting out legislators who support the SL...I suspect that those who favor unlimited speeds on Lake Winnipesaukee as their major concern in NH politics represent such a tiny fraction of NH voters that "voting the bums out" is just a pipe-dream, especially if you keep in mind that many of the legislators who opposed HB 162 were voted out. Most NH voters have other bigger concerns than whether a few boaters can go as fast as they want.
sunset on the dock is offline  
Old 08-14-2009, 12:45 PM   #33
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,764
Thanks: 32
Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pm203 View Post
Maybe in a perfect world, but this will never be reality. There are too many conditions and situations to allow it. Just like every other place in the world, there are certain places children will always be in danger and shouldn't be exposed to .A lake or any body of water should always be of high concern. A speed limit does not address these concerns, as the data proves.
This is where our philosophies diverge. You think parts of the lake are not safe for children in a canoe. Therefore we should keep children in canoes away from those areas.

I think the answer is to do whatever is necessary to make the ENTIRE lake safe for children. My original idea has been a 300 horsepower limit. Other people favor a 45/25 speed limit.

You think that if the speed limit is unable to provide this safety then we should get rid of the speed limit. I believe we need to take increasingly drastic steps until the lake IS safe. If 300 HP doesn't work then we need a 200HP limit. If that doesn't work lets try a 100 HP limit. If 45/25 doesn't work we should try 25 mph day and night.

If we had a 100 HP 25 mph limit then the cowboy atmosphere would not exist. You know that, and I know that. I doubt that drastic a step in necessary, but I will support it if need be.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 08-14-2009, 01:10 PM   #34
pm203
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 225
Thanks: 41
Thanked 86 Times in 46 Posts
Default

BI, no offense, but I think you are on the wrong lake for what you would like to see. And, I agree about the cowboy mentality, but that doesn't come from speed and go fast boats. It comes from too many ameteur captains with no regard for the law or respect for others. I see it almost every time I go out on the lake. And, I still don't feel that the whole lake should be made available to the camps. They should have a designated area or time of day deemed safe to be on the lake. The lake doesn't belong to any one group. And, no one group should have to suffer at the expense of the other.
pm203 is offline  
Old 08-14-2009, 01:21 PM   #35
elchase
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pm203 View Post
The lake doesn't belong to any one group. And, no one group should have to suffer at the expense of the other.
Sign this guy up. How do I make this my signature?
 
Old 08-14-2009, 01:53 PM   #36
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH
Posts: 5,587
Thanks: 3,228
Thanked 1,107 Times in 797 Posts
Arrow Agreement

I agree that the boneheads have a 'cowboy' mantality.

I agree that the lake should be safe for all recreational use of the lake.

We need to come up with laws that the MP needs to reign in these outlaws. Creating the speed limit law actually took away the effectiveness of the MP. We notice ther is less presence of the MPO this year and there was an article in the papers of limited fundings available for MP to do their job. Buying the laser guns and training added to the limited fundings and cut back manpower even more! If the law have address additional fundings then this shouldn't have happen.

If the speed limit law will scare away some of these 'cowboys', then it is working but does it have to be at the expense of those who speed reasonably and prudent? Why not increase the 150' rule to 300' to scare off some more cowboys? Then it will effect another group of boaters. Why not make the whole lake a NWZ to scare off the cowboys. That will really p.o. a lot of boaters. I don't think this is the answer.

If we are to enact new laws, we need to do it without putting a burden financially as well as use up the valuable manpower of the MP. A good law makes the MP more sffective not less.

Winnfibs actually made the comment at the Meredith public meeting that a goal to make the lake 'On Golden Pond' is the ultmatum. I think at this stage of lake development it will be impossible to go back 50 years. I'm sure everyone would love this to happen. But we need to be realistic.

We ned to think about the best solution without sacrificing the enjoyment of safe boating on the lake.
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.

Last edited by BroadHopper; 08-14-2009 at 01:58 PM. Reason: spelling
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 08-14-2009, 01:27 PM   #37
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,764
Thanks: 32
Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pm203 View Post
BI, no offense, but I think you are on the wrong lake for what you would like to see. And, I agree about the cowboy mentality, but that doesn't come from speed and go fast boats. It comes from too many ameteur captains with no regard for the law or respect for others. I see it almost every time I go out on the lake. And, I still don't feel that the whole lake should be made available to the camps. They should have a designated area or time of day deemed safe to be on the lake. The lake doesn't belong to any one group. And, no one group should have to suffer at the expense of the other.
Children need to be safe on ALL lakes. If a cowboy mentality exists, you take whatever steps are required to control it.

Are you suggesting that children's camps and performance boats can't exist on the same area of the lake at the same time? If so then it is the performence boats that have to go. PERIOD!

The entire lake is BY LAW available to children's camps. The camps own considerable waterfront property and have every right to use the lake. They are also the "literal owners" of the lake area adjacent to the property they own. Suggesting that camps should be banned from parts of the lake is outrageous and indefensible. I will assume you made that comment without thinking it through.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 08-14-2009, 01:42 PM   #38
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,320
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
In the first place - The entire lake should be safe enough for children in a canoe! If it isn't then we need to take whatever step are necessary to make it so.

In the second place - A children's camp on the lake must send its boats out from its own waterfront. How would a camp on Bear Island, for instance, launch its canoes, sailboats etc. from another part of the lake. That is just plain silly.

Thirdly - The camps were here first. The Bear Island camps recently celebrated their 100th anniversary. I hope they can still be in operation in another hundred years. And that is what speed limits are REALLY all about.



You are getting hung up on the actual speeds involved. It's the cowboy atmosphere that is the problem. Not weather a given boat is going 25, 45 or 65.

In a perfect world a camp director wants to send his boats out on a tranquil empty lake. In the real world he looks out at the way the lake is on a summer weekend and makes a hard choice between sending the boats out or keeping them in.

I doubt any Captain Boneheads understand the hundreds and even thousands of children they are keeping off the lake by their antics. It is also true outside the camps. I know many parents, including me, think twice about letting the kids go out on days when the lake is buzzy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Children need to be safe on ALL lakes. If a cowboy mentality exists, you take whatever steps are required to control it.

Are you suggesting that children's camps and performance boats can't exist on the same area of the lake at the same time? If so then it is the performence boats that have to go. PERIOD!

The entire lake is BY LAW available to children's camps. The camps own considerable waterfront property and have every right to use the lake. They are also the "literal owners" of the lake area adjacent to the property they own. Suggesting that camps should be banned from parts of the lake is outrageous and indefensible. I will assume you made that comment without thinking it through.
I agree with you 100% BI. But I wonder why you went with this, considering the fact that the violations mentioned all occurred at lower speeds Part of the reason everybody isn't totally in agreement at one time or another is that facts that are known, are often not stated consistently in one post or another.

We also agree that "whatever steps are needed to control it" is the proper answer. Whomever the cowboys are, it's THEM that need to be dealt with. But since this discussion seems to be headed in the right direction.......

Appreciate your input, as always.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 08-14-2009, 02:27 PM   #39
pm203
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 225
Thanks: 41
Thanked 86 Times in 46 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Children need to be safe on ALL lakes. If a cowboy mentality exists, you take whatever steps are required to control it.

Are you suggesting that children's camps and performance boats can't exist on the same area of the lake at the same time? If so then it is the performence boats that have to go. PERIOD!

The entire lake is BY LAW available to children's camps. The camps own considerable waterfront property and have every right to use the lake. They are also the "literal owners" of the lake area adjacent to the property they own. Suggesting that camps should be banned from parts of the lake is outrageous and indefensible. I will assume you made that comment without thinking it through.
Of course Children need to be safe on the lake. But, on the same breath, they should not be in the broads on a busy weekend. Or do you think that they should be?
pm203 is offline  
Old 08-14-2009, 03:02 PM   #40
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,764
Thanks: 32
Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pm203 View Post
Of course Children need to be safe on the lake. But, on the same breath, they should not be in the broads on a busy weekend. Or do you think that they should be?
Children's camps have a right to send their boats into the broads, buzzy weekend or no. Suggesting they should be banned from the broads is INSANE!

A responsible camp director may determine the broads to be unsafe for certain boating activity, but that is the director's decision, not yours, or mine.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 08-14-2009, 03:12 PM   #41
pm203
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 225
Thanks: 41
Thanked 86 Times in 46 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Children's camps have a right to send their boats into the broads, buzzy weekend or no. Suggesting they should be banned from the broads is INSANE!

A responsible camp director may determine the broads to be unsafe for certain boating activity, but that is the director's decision, not yours, or mine.
I am not suggesting that anyone be banned. However, sending children into the broads on the weekend wouldn't be the most prudent thing to do. There are even certain adults that stay away from this area on the weekends. All I am saying is that there is a time and place for everything. Sending children into the broads on a busy weekend is wrong. They don't belong there. They belong in a more protected area for their own safety and enjoyment. A responsible camp director would see that.
pm203 is offline  
Old 08-14-2009, 03:49 PM   #42
Kracken
Senior Member
 
Kracken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Alton
Posts: 223
Thanks: 46
Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts
Default

BEAR!!!!

I have read many of your posts and while I may not agree with you on most, I respect your point of view. Your logic seems well thought out and you state your opinions in an objective manner. With that being said…


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
Children's camps have a right to send their boats into the broads, buzzy weekend or no. Suggesting they should be banned from the broads is INSANE!
You lost me on this one.
Kracken is offline  
Old 08-14-2009, 03:21 PM   #43
NoRegrets
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hudson - NH
Posts: 408
Thanks: 233
Thanked 212 Times in 88 Posts
Default wel put pm203

Well put pm203.

Even though this world is shrinking, it is still full of places for the human spirit to explore, challenge, or conquer. The human spirit does not like to be constrained by artificial laws but society does need to insure one person’s freedom does not cause REAL harm to others. This is the fine line we are trying to reconcile.

Life can be or should be led in a manor that extends our conscious thoughts beyond the limits of our forefathers. Technical advances should be used to challenge us as adults. Children need to be “awakened’ into this vast world in a stepped process. They will get burned by the stove, skin their knees, fall off the bike, break the car, tip the canoe, run a jet ski into another boat, and so on. We all try our best to “tell’ kids to be careful but they stay invincible until they start getting personal experiences.

I do not think the speed limit for children’s safety is the pivotal point for deciding the SL issue. I also respect BI for his points made but the world should not slow down to the lowest common denominator.

All boats need to respect the 150’ rule and I think the suggestion on running the Marine Patrol for a few months the way VTSteve suggested is brilliant and is high on my list of actionable suggestions.

The density of population utilizing the lake will not return to past levels. Pedestrians do not play in the road like we did in the fifties or sixties anymore! Today’s children learn real fast that they need to go to the skate park or organized areas now. Shame on parents or designated responsible adults for allowing children to be placed in harms way and I think we should all try to find a solution for the Winni camps. They are important because they build memories and experiences away from tv’s and toys. It should be part of our social responsibility to make this happen.

As far as trying to file boneheads and presenting it to the politicians, I am afraid of them. They may outlaw boats altogether!

Sorry for rambling on but I am closing down so I can join the weekend commuters and head to the lake. Hope to see many of you out there this weekend.
NoRegrets is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to NoRegrets For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (08-14-2009), Dave R (08-14-2009), pm203 (08-14-2009)
Old 08-14-2009, 03:22 PM   #44
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,985
Thanks: 246
Thanked 744 Times in 444 Posts
Default

I think that the camp director decisions to keep kids ashore during busy boating periods are simply examples of good judgement.

When I was teaching my kids to ride their bikes, we went to a parking lot at a nearby state park. If we found the lot busy with cars (such as on a Summer weekend at mid-day), we did not let the kids ride and simply went back when the lot was empty.

I don't recall being upset by this, or ever thinking we needed laws to discourage people in cars from using the parking lot, even though bikes have been around a lot longer than cars, and cyclists have just as much right to use said parking lot as car drivers.

Just to be clear, there is absolutely no history of kids on bikes getting run over in the parking lot we used, even though at times it was pretty crazy with people in sporty cars, in big RVs, and on motorcycles all coming and going. Some people even let their kids bomb around the parking lot on bikes during these crazy times. Still, we felt it was better to wait until the place was empty. I think we were simply using good judgement.
Dave R is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Dave R For This Useful Post:
chmeeee (08-14-2009)
Old 08-15-2009, 12:39 AM   #45
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 508
Thanked 462 Times in 162 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
This is where our philosophies diverge. You think parts of the lake are not safe for children in a canoe. Therefore we should keep children in canoes away from those areas.

I think the answer is to do whatever is necessary to make the ENTIRE lake safe for children. My original idea has been a 300 horsepower limit. Other people favor a 45/25 speed limit.

You think that if the speed limit is unable to provide this safety then we should get rid of the speed limit. I believe we need to take increasingly drastic steps until the lake IS safe. If 300 HP doesn't work then we need a 200HP limit. If that doesn't work lets try a 100 HP limit. If 45/25 doesn't work we should try 25 mph day and night.

If we had a 100 HP 25 mph limit then the cowboy atmosphere would not exist. You know that, and I know that. I doubt that drastic a step in necessary, but I will support it if need be.
For real... So get ready to sell your boat BI. Where does the ludicrousness end? Are we all to drive 12 foot aluminum dinghy's with electric motors? At some point Parental responsibility trumps the whole argument. Or are you a subscriber to the "new" parenting style where everyone else is at fault but me? I give you the benefit of the doubt on this and say no. Seriously though would you send your kid out on a bicycle on I-93? No you wouldn't. Some roadways are not safe for bicycles, just like some parts of the lake. For you to say the "ENTIRE" lake should be safe for children is an extreme reach. Just like the "ENTIRE" world should be safe for children. If that were the case you need to put your 260HP Bowrider in the rack and kayak to and fro the Island. Let's keep this discussion real please. I agree with a bunch of your points and I think you do appreciate safety more than most SL supporters but I do think you have overreached on this point.
hazelnut is offline  
Old 08-15-2009, 12:36 PM   #46
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,764
Thanks: 32
Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post
For real... So get ready to sell your boat BI. Where does the ludicrousness end? Are we all to drive 12 foot aluminum dinghy's with electric motors? At some point Parental responsibility trumps the whole argument. Or are you a subscriber to the "new" parenting style where everyone else is at fault but me? I give you the benefit of the doubt on this and say no. Seriously though would you send your kid out on a bicycle on I-93? No you wouldn't. Some roadways are not safe for bicycles, just like some parts of the lake. For you to say the "ENTIRE" lake should be safe for children is an extreme reach. Just like the "ENTIRE" world should be safe for children. If that were the case you need to put your 260HP Bowrider in the rack and kayak to and fro the Island. Let's keep this discussion real please. I agree with a bunch of your points and I think you do appreciate safety more than most SL supporters but I do think you have overreached on this point.
As usual you are taking my comments a lot further than I ever intended.

There are many lakes where this "cowboy attitude" does not exist. Where 280 HP bowriders and canoes exist in relative harmony.

Many people on this forum think that is not possible on Winnipesaukee. They have "given up" and accept the cowboy mentality as inevitable and unalterable. This is pure BULL! I have not given up. This destructive attitude can and will be changed. I place "No Limits" on what we need to do to end this insanity.

I have given the extreme example to prove a point. If there were a 100 HP 25 mph limit on this lake then you would not have this cowboy atmosphere. Therefore it IS POSSIBLE to legislate away the cowboy attitude on this lake. My extreme example will not be necessary. However I am in favor of increased regulation and enforcement until things change. It seems your answer is to throw up your hands and say the task is impossible. I don't think that way. Besides, I love a good fight.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 08-15-2009, 02:18 PM   #47
hazelnut
Senior Member
 
hazelnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,348
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 508
Thanked 462 Times in 162 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
As usual you are taking my comments a lot further than I ever intended.

There are many lakes where this "cowboy attitude" does not exist. Where 280 HP bowriders and canoes exist in relative harmony.

Many people on this forum think that is not possible on Winnipesaukee. They have "given up" and accept the cowboy mentality as inevitable and unalterable. This is pure BULL! I have not given up. This destructive attitude can and will be changed. I place "No Limits" on what we need to do to end this insanity.

I have given the extreme example to prove a point. If there were a 100 HP 25 mph limit on this lake then you would not have this cowboy atmosphere. Therefore it IS POSSIBLE to legislate away the cowboy attitude on this lake. My extreme example will not be necessary. However I am in favor of increased regulation and enforcement until things change. It seems your answer is to throw up your hands and say the task is impossible. I don't think that way. Besides, I love a good fight.
OK OK I took your post quite literally for sure. Still though there has to be some middle ground. Every activity we do outside sitting in a bubble has a risk to it. I believe in reducing that risk on this lake. I just don't believe that Speed was the risk. It is that Cowboy attitude we speak of. The carelessness of the average boater. While it is POSSIBLE to legislate away the cowboy attitude by limiting boats to 100hp it is ludicrous to even talk about it because it won't happen. Besides even at 100hp limit you could still put a bonehead behind the wheel of a 25hp dinghy and he could kill someone in a kayak.

While you think I may have taken your comments further than you intended I don't see how I could have read it any differently. You actually suggested we keep pushing until we have a 100hp limit and I feel my rebuttal was as extreme as your statement. Where does it end? 0hp? Wind and paddles only? By your own suggestion you have a "No Limit" attitude towards fixing the problem and I think the only true way to eliminate all risk is to wrap everyone in life jackets within 100 feet of water and only allow paddles and wind power and even THAT doesn't guarantee safety.

My focus is and remains on correctly addressing the problem and not throwing law after law at the problem to see what sticks. Lets step back use the data and make and enforce laws that actually target the dangerous drivers on the lake.
hazelnut is offline  
Old 08-15-2009, 03:19 PM   #48
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,764
Thanks: 32
Thanked 441 Times in 207 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hazelnut View Post
OK OK I took your post quite literally for sure. Still though there has to be some middle ground. Every activity we do outside sitting in a bubble has a risk to it. I believe in reducing that risk on this lake. I just don't believe that Speed was the risk. It is that Cowboy attitude we speak of. The carelessness of the average boater. While it is POSSIBLE to legislate away the cowboy attitude by limiting boats to 100hp it is ludicrous to even talk about it because it won't happen. Besides even at 100hp limit you could still put a bonehead behind the wheel of a 25hp dinghy and he could kill someone in a kayak.

While you think I may have taken your comments further than you intended I don't see how I could have read it any differently. You actually suggested we keep pushing until we have a 100hp limit and I feel my rebuttal was as extreme as your statement. Where does it end? 0hp? Wind and paddles only? By your own suggestion you have a "No Limit" attitude toward fixing the problem and I think the only true way to eliminate all risk is to wrap everyone in life jackets within 100 feet of water and only allow paddles and wind power and even THAT doesn't guarantee safety.

My focus is and remains on correctly addressing the problem and not throwing law after law at the problem to see what sticks. Lets step back use the data and make and enforce laws that actually target the dangerous drivers on the lake.
A 100HP lake is unlikely but not impossible. A few years ago a lot of people said a speed limit was impossible. The entire lake has been made "no wake" a few times. And if you will remember it worked. There were very few violations. And although it was a pain getting to and from the island at that time, the lake was a beautiful, tranquil thing to experience during those times. Don't be to quick to say what is impossible. A HP limit is coming.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 08-15-2009, 03:24 PM   #49
Rattlesnake Guy
Senior Member
 
Rattlesnake Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,254
Thanks: 423
Thanked 366 Times in 175 Posts
Default SL Free zone

Maybe the "Broads Free Zone" or "65 Zone" could look like this?
Attached Images
 
Rattlesnake Guy is offline  
Old 08-15-2009, 03:31 PM   #50
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH
Posts: 5,587
Thanks: 3,228
Thanked 1,107 Times in 797 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
There are many lakes where this "cowboy attitude" does not exist. Where 280 HP bowriders and canoes exist in relative harmony.
I hate to ask you to back up this one.................

The only one I know is Lake Dillon in Colorado. It is so frigging cold up there, there is hardly any boating.......................
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 08-14-2009, 09:47 AM   #51
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 2,689
Thanks: 33
Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post
In the first place - The entire lake should be safe enough for children in a canoe! If it isn't then we need to take whatever step are necessary to make it so....
I agree with BI. With obvious exceptions:

This is a two way street, as long as we have large vessels (up to Mt Washington scale) we must contend with the fact that all vessels must follow some rules of the water. Large vessels cannot stop or turn very fast. If a canoe paddles out in front of the Mt Washinton at 150 feet there will be a problem.

Canoes are not very stable. If you paddle your canoe in a busy area or during high winds, you should be safe from collision but waves and wakes are another matter. No law can fix the wind, and short of banning all boats no law can make a canoe stable.

Finally, just because the lake is safe for children to canoe, it doesn't mean that the lake has to be safe for children in a canoe, when they are not there. For example, on the road school zones are 20 mph when children are present, it doesn't mean that every road is 20 mph all the time. If I see a canoe near my path I slow down, I don't slow down because someday someone might want to canoe.
jrc is offline  
Old 08-14-2009, 07:33 PM   #52
Irrigation Guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Moultonborough, NH
Posts: 484
Thanks: 89
Thanked 138 Times in 72 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear Islander View Post

You are getting hung up on the actual speeds involved. It's the cowboy atmosphere that is the problem. Not weather a given boat is going 25, 45 or 65.

In a perfect world a camp director wants to send his boats out on a tranquil empty lake. In the real world he looks out at the way the lake is on a summer weekend and makes a hard choice between sending the boats out or keeping them in.

I doubt any Captain Boneheads understand the hundreds and even thousands of children they are keeping off the lake by their antics. It is also true outside the camps. I know many parents, including me, think twice about letting the kids go out on days when the lake is buzzy.
I think you may have just agreed with many in opposition of the SL. It's not the speed it's the Captain BH not being careful and giving room properly to those that they should. The existing rules do address those issues and just aren't being enforced, a SL isn't gonna change that.
Irrigation Guy is offline  
Old 08-14-2009, 09:29 PM   #53
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,320
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts
Default

Case in point. It's going to be a crazy weekend out there because it's the first weekend of summer

I just witnessed something new here on Lake Champlain. Coming back at twilight, through 15 minutes past sundown, many, many boats heading through the bay. It's about six miles out to the broad lake. Coming in, at 21.5 mph.

I saw

1) six PWC's at full clip (no lights, law says no PWC's) off my port bow.

2) four different boats, no lights, willy nilly, too close, no right of way, etc...

3) worst of all, at the beginning of my return from pizza eating at sunset....

Two boats off my starboard bow, closing quickly. I was apparently in the middle My lights were on, none from theirs. One was a Sea Doo small craft Boat, the other was a quai GF boat around 25/26'. The Sea Doo saw me. I might have actually made a mistake by immediately slowing to headway speed. (I was wondering if I should just turn around and gun it). The other larger boat?

He never changed course, never slowed down, AND NEVER EVEN SAW ME He was standing in the center of the boat, head turned starboard towards the read, TALKING TO A PASSENGER!!!!

Both were doing probably around 35 to 40 mph.


But wait, it gets better.

A POLICE BOAT witnessed the boats and PWC's out at dark with no lights. He just kept going, and HE was too close to me.

Sad, so sad.
VtSteve is offline  
Old 08-14-2009, 09:46 PM   #54
BroadHopper
Senior Member
 
BroadHopper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laconia NH
Posts: 5,587
Thanks: 3,228
Thanked 1,107 Times in 797 Posts
Default Witness this everywhere

Quote:
Originally Posted by VtSteve View Post
A POLICE BOAT witnessed the boats and PWC's out at dark with no lights. He just kept going, and HE was too close to me.

Sad, so sad.
I have witness similar episodes on Lake Sebago in ME. Lake Webster in MA. Lake George in NY, Lake Norman in NC, The intercoastal in FL. No wonder the Boneheads are from out of state!

We just need a law to make sure our MPs are fully funded and have the latest technology to enforce the current laws. Not more laws to burden the MPOs
__________________
Someday may never be an actual day.
BroadHopper is offline  
Old 08-14-2009, 10:14 PM   #55
VtSteve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,320
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 230
Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroadHopper View Post
I have witness similar episodes on Lake Sebago in ME. Lake Webster in MA. Lake George in NY, Lake Norman in NC, The intercoastal in FL. No wonder the Boneheads are from out of state!

We just need a law to make sure our MPs are fully funded and have the latest technology to enforce the current laws. Not more laws to burden the MPOs
It won't happen. I sort of share BI's frustration in this. Many pretty much knew that funding wouldn't increase, and enforcement wouldn't be very good either. So, they reasoned that the SL law might cut down on cowboys and boat traffic, and have some positive impact.

Maybe they're not wrong.

But this is the reason that I'm not out there shouting about heroics on the water either. Some good is done, but bad as well.
VtSteve is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 6.78152 seconds