Laconia Daily Sun Letter

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...I don't know if the landslide victory by Lynch set a record or not, but the support for Kenney by WinnFabs and their kind evaporated when he needed it...Sounds like WinnFabs and the like are fair weather friends that can't be counted on to me...!"

According to a telephone conversation I had with a Senator Kenney staffer, the Senator wasn't even lukewarm on the issue originally: perhaps the issue could have helped him, but any support he gave was too late.

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

"...They have boats and PWC that can easily exceed 50 mph..."

Depending on conditions, I'd say that the MP06 boat (a "fast" MP boat) cannot exceed 55-MPH.

You and Dave R missed my point: If 55-MPH (max) is consistent with Public Safety, what is 90-MPH, but a blatant disregard for Public Safety?

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

what is 90-MPH, but a blatant disregard for Public Safety?

If the boat can handle it and the conditions warrent why would this be an issue at all?

[OCDACTIVE]

That same letter rebutting Mr. Week's letter appeared in the Concord Monitor today under:

Summer wasn't a true test of speed limits.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

I try to look at the LDS daily but if I miss any (either side of the discussion) let me know and I will look back at the archive and post them.

I guess we all should be looking at the Monitor and other papers as well.

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

That same letter rebutting Mr. Week's letter appeared in the Concord Monitor today under:

Summer wasn't a true test of speed limits.

Here is the link http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...909240319/1017

And the letter:
As I was sitting at the Meredith town docks reading Jack Weeks's column concerning his support for the speed limit law on Lake Winnipesaukee ("All quiet on the big lake," Sunday Monitor Viewpoints, Sept. 20), a few things came to mind.

Weeks attributes the reduced boating activity to the success of the new speed limits. However, recent reports in all the local newspapers, not to mention statements from the Marine Patrol and marina owners, all said that boat traffic was way down this summer, not only on Lake Winnipesaukee, the only lake affected by the speed limits, but across the entire Lakes Region. Not surprising, given the economic recession and the poor weather in June, July and parts of August.

The economy has battered people's retirement accounts and home values, and the unemployment rate has risen to a two-decade high. Not exactly the environment one would expect a lake area to thrive in.

What surprised me the most was Weeks's statement that "We finally had a summer without a high-speed tragedy." This made me wonder, when was the last time a high-speed tragedy occurred on Lake Winnipesaukee? New Hampshire Marine Patrol accident statistics do not list a "high-speed tragedy" in recent memory.

As to his praise for the Marine Patrol, it well is deserved, since their budgets are not thriving in this economy. But I feel the praise was misplaced.

The Marine Patrol director is on the record at least twice in not supporting the speed limits. His reasoning? Speeding is not a problem on the lake. The tests on Winnipesaukee last year pretty much backed up the director's claims.

The law has a sunset provision, a given period of two years.

The supporters now want to make the law permanent, without any data to review. They know full well that the lake traffic this year was pretty low, not to mention that the data would clearly not support the speed limit.

Lake Winnipesaukee is a state treasure, not something that belongs to people with political or ideological agendas. It is a shared resource.

Before anyone buys into Weeks's drama concerning the chaos that has magically disappeared, perhaps you should ask him and the WinnFabs to support any of their previous claims that chaos of speeding boats ever existed in the first place! Drama belongs in the theater, not in the law-making process.

[OCDACTIVE]

To be fair there is also another small letter in the Laconia Daily Sun today from a supporter. Opinion is fine. He doesn't say anything inflameatory. The only issue again is he says they FEEL safer with the limits. Again laws are not supposed to make you feel safer they are supposed to make you safer... I can't stand redundant laws that accomplish nothing.....

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

To be fair there is also another small letter in the Laconia Daily Sun today from a supporter. Opinion is fine. He doesn't say anything inflameatory. The only issue again is he says they FEEL safer with the limits. Again laws are not supposed to make you feel safer they are supposed to make you safer... I can't stand redundant laws that accomplish nothing.....

I'm curious who keeps the count of canoes and kayaks on the lake? According to the author (who is probably a member of WinnFABS - IMO) there were "many" more non powered boats on the lake.

Seems to me it's just another ficticious statistic - similar to all of the high speed accidents from previous years.

[onlywinni]

Originally Posted by Ryan

I'm curious who keeps the count of canoes and kayaks on the lake? According to the author (who is probably a member of WinnFABS - IMO) there were "many" more non powered boats on the lake.

Seems to me it's just another ficticious statistic - similar to all of the high speed accidents from previous years.

Scare tactics, misinformation and right out lies-appear to be the tools utilized by the Extreme Speed Limit Supporters.

I have two questions:

-If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around does it still make a sound?

-If I blast across the broads at 65mph and no one is close enough to hear or see me are people still Traumitzed??????

[Woodsy]

Deleted....

Reason: Poor attempt at sarcastic humor! Sorry guys!

Woodsy

[codeman671]

Woodsy, I am not sure where you were trying to end up with your post. Onlywinni was criticizing supporters of the limit. Maybe you misinterpreted the post, or am I?

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by codeman671

Woodsy, I am not sure where you were trying to end up with your post. Onlywinni was criticizing supporters of the limit. Maybe you misinterpreted the post, or am I?

I was kinda confused as well... Figured it would come out sooner or later.. I believe Woodsy is also a speed limit opposer.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

I was kinda confused as well... Figured it would come out sooner or later.. I believe Woodsy is also a speed limit opposer.

He is, which is why I could not understand where he was going with it.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by codeman671

He is, which is why I could not understand where he was going with it.

If you read it carefully, he was trying to be sarcastic.

However, like all the speed limit threads for the past year, it doesn't really matter what he was trying to convey because nobodies mind is being changed anyway.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

One of the problems I’ve had with all the speed limit rhetoric this year has been the frequent references to “the testing done last year” or “the lake has been paradise these last 2 years”. Apparently, these people don’t realize that the “testing” they keep referring to as taking place in 2008 was actually supposed to be done in 2007! I say “supposed” because they never marked the test zones AND never enforced a temporary speed limit in 2007!! Instead, all the MP did was collect data (on many areas of the lake, not just those intended “test speed limit zones”), recording how many boats were observed and at what rate of speed those boats were traveling. Anyone who was aware of this didn’t have to worry about being ticketed for “speeding” because they knew MP WAS NOT TICKETING! Therefore, there shouldn’t have been any false sense of security supposedly caused by boaters obeying a speed limit; there was no speed limit in 2007 to obey other than the usual posted NWZ’s and speed limits created/set by the 150’ rule. There was also NO speed limit OR testing in 2008!!! The ONLY thing speed-limit-related that happened last year was HB-847 was introduced, passed and signed into law effective 1/1/2009!!!

The “paradise” or “calmness” on the lake last year probably had more to do with the lousy weather, economy tanking and the high price of boat fuel!!!!

Just my 2 cents…………

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by brk-lnt

If you read it carefully, he was trying to be sarcastic.

However, like all the speed limit threads for the past year, it doesn't really matter what he was trying to convey because nobodies mind is being changed anyway.

Yes he was. I do happen to know Woodsy personally and I am confident he was being sarcastic.

He and Onlywinni surely see eye to eye on this issue. I believe Woodsy was merely pointing out that nobody could possibly be Traumatized by any boat traveling at any speed ever. The definition of the word clearly spells that out. That doesn't stop the SL supporters from using terms like that to support their cause.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

OnlyWinni...

I think your a bit off here.... perhaps you need to look up the definition?? I will do it for you...

Main Entry: trau·ma·tize
Pronunciation: \-ˌtīz\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): trau·ma·tized; trau·ma·tiz·ing
Date: 1903
: to inflict a trauma upon


Main Entry: trau·ma
Pronunciation: \ˈtrau̇-mə, ˈtrȯ-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural traumas also trau·ma·ta \-mə-tə\
Etymology: Greek traumat-, trauma wound, alteration of trōma; akin to Greek titrōskein to wound, tetrainein to pierce — more at throw
Date: circa 1693
1 a : an injury (as a wound) to living tissue caused by an extrinsic agent b : a disordered psychic or behavioral state resulting from severe mental or emotional stress or physical injury c : an emotional upset
2 : an agent, force, or mechanism that causes trauma


Of course a tree falling in the forest makes noise so what? What is your point? Nobody was there to witness/hear the tree fall. Nobody will be TRAUMATIZED by this event.... I suppose you walk in the forest just waiting for a tree to fall on you?

On the same note, blasting across the Broads at 65MPH TRAUMATIZES nobody! How can a boat minding its own business inflict any kind of trauma (with exception to the driver/passengers) regardless of what speed it travels? Especially if there isnt anyone around to witness the event!

If I were to apply your logic, you are probably too TRAUMATIZED to operate any sort of motor vehicle on the public roads even though there are speed limits and traffic rules (just as there are on the lake). I mean if 65 is too fast for a boat how do you ever drive on a highway?? Where (GASP) people routinely drive faster than the posted speeds and accidents occur?

Woodsy

This was an obviously poor attempt at sarcastic humor and was certainly not intended to insult OnlyWinni... I would feel awful if I traumatized him. It was an attempt to be sarcastic towards the logic often used by the speed limit supporters.....

Sorry if I offended in any way!

Woodsy

[VtSteve]

I'm not sure it's possible to traumatize him with posts Woodsy.

I was traumatized this morning when I say three to five footers driven from the North here. I thought I was traumatized, but now I'm not so sure

They were going really fast for waves.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

If the boat can handle it and the conditions warrent why would this be an issue at all?

The Marine Patrol's Public Safety officers meet emergency requirements with much less than 55-MPH—perhaps with an MP fleet-average of only 45-MPH. (!)

With emergencies met by Public Safety officers at an average speed of 45-MPH, what is 90-MPH—but a reckless disregard for the naïve boater who occasions Lake Winnipesaukee?
.
.

.
.
.