From the Concord Monitor, 9/8/2009

codeman671 · 10-07-2009, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Both appeared in last year's SL discussion: use of the "ignore" function can reduce exposure to facts, btw.

I recall that SIKSUKER was quoted on that high-speed triple—which happened at night, and had the GFBL inverted into the cottage. (It had first hit a dock to become airborne). In the discussion's follow-ups, some very gruesome details appeared.

I do not have anyone on ignore, especially you. Why would I want to ignore the comedy? Everyone needs a bit of humor in their life.

Having to go back into the 1970's for an example is comical to me, although the results were not. The facts at the end of the day indicate that there are minimal, almost a non-existant number of high speed accidents to support a safety issue on Winnipesaukee. Most of the accidents that have occured were not even high speed related, and most were alcohol related. Where is the real problem here???

How many total accidents have taken place in the last 30 years that are high speed related? How many are alcohol related? Compare it to the number of boats on the lake each year and the percentage is pathetically small...

Ryan · 10-07-2009, 05:23 PM

If speed were an issue that warranted a new law, wouldn't there be data showing an INCREASED amount of high speed accidents in the years leading up to the initial draft of the bill?

If there were even 5 'incidents' in 2004 and 10 'incidents' in 2005, then I would probably have a different opinion.

Opinions, perceptions, spin and outright lies led to a solution without a problem. This just needs to sunset, with no relevant data to support a continuation, as originally written into the bill. Anything else is just a waste of taxpayer $$.

VtSteve · 10-07-2009, 05:52 PM

Not long ago, someone wondered what was wrong in Vermont, since it had a 2008 increase in accidents, whereas NH declined to practically none. Just the year before, people were wondering why VT was so safe, and NH was not. The statistics clearly showed that both states have very few serious accidents or collisions on the water. When the numbers are low, even a small increase will cause a spike in the percentages. This year, Winni in particular has a problem, one that will sow up when the next report comes out.

This year on Winni was particularly telling. The MP said they had 20% fewer calls this summer, virtually everyone said that except for a couple of weekends in August, boat traffic was way down. It was almost unanimous that the weather sucked, and the economy wasn't much better, if any.

Both El and Jack said the lake traffic, and boating weather, were fine. It was also written that the lake just didn't "seem" as busy, because the boats were smaller and traveling slower.

Now I've known a few snake oil salesmen in my day, and a couple of really seeeeeedy political types. You know, the ones that try to convince you that a global depression is just a speed bump, and while they may have really hated you before, they really like you, it's just one or two people they don't like. Perhaps you just misunderstood.

If it looks like a duck, etc.........

10-07-2009, 05:23 PM	#2
Ryan Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Mass/Gilford Posts: 247 Thanks: 216 Thanked 70 Times in 33 Posts	If speed were an issue that warranted a new law, wouldn't there be data showing an INCREASED amount of high speed accidents in the years leading up to the initial draft of the bill? If there were even 5 'incidents' in 2004 and 10 'incidents' in 2005, then I would probably have a different opinion. Opinions, perceptions, spin and outright lies led to a solution without a problem. This just needs to sunset, with no relevant data to support a continuation, as originally written into the bill. Anything else is just a waste of taxpayer $$. __________________ Please do not feel the trolls.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to codeman671 For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (10-07-2009)

10-07-2009, 05:52 PM	#3
VtSteve Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,320 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 230 Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts	Not long ago, someone wondered what was wrong in Vermont, since it had a 2008 increase in accidents, whereas NH declined to practically none. Just the year before, people were wondering why VT was so safe, and NH was not. The statistics clearly showed that both states have very few serious accidents or collisions on the water. When the numbers are low, even a small increase will cause a spike in the percentages. This year, Winni in particular has a problem, one that will sow up when the next report comes out. This year on Winni was particularly telling. The MP said they had 20% fewer calls this summer, virtually everyone said that except for a couple of weekends in August, boat traffic was way down. It was almost unanimous that the weather sucked, and the economy wasn't much better, if any. Both El and Jack said the lake traffic, and boating weather, were fine. It was also written that the lake just didn't "seem" as busy, because the boats were smaller and traveling slower. Now I've known a few snake oil salesmen in my day, and a couple of really seeeeeedy political types. You know, the ones that try to convince you that a global depression is just a speed bump, and while they may have really hated you before, they really like you, it's just one or two people they don't like. Perhaps you just misunderstood. If it looks like a duck, etc.........