Speed Limit

[Seaplane Pilot]

The hearing for this bill is next Wednesday, January 19, 2005 at 11:00 am in Room 305 of the Legislative Office Building in Concord. I'll be there in support of NO SPEED LIMIT . We need more help, so if you are against this please try to show up and stand up for your RIGHTS!

[Tyler]

Thanks for the info SeaPlane Pilot. This will never pass. To bad we have to go through this every year.

[Fat Jack]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

The hearing for this bill is next Wednesday, January 19, 2005 at 11:00 am in Room 305 of the Legislative Office Building in Concord. I'll be there in support of NO SPEED LIMIT . We need more help, so if you are against this please try to show up and stand up for your RIGHTS!

I heard on the news that there is so much interest that they are splitting up the hearing into two separate sessions. Those who are in favor of the bill and a speed limit should show at the above time. Those that are against should show up at 2PM.

[Island Girl]

http://www4.citizen.com/January2005/..._01.15.05a.asp

[Paugus Bay Resident]

Regardless of your position on this, I too urge all of you to write your reps and senator. The ones I've written to have been very responsive, and echo the sentiments that upthesaukee received.

Even if you aren't a "resident", I think they would welcome your opinion.

By the way, here's a link to boating accident statistics (USCG)

USCG 2003 statistics show that the top three causes of boating accidents were operator inattention, careless / reckless operation and operator inexperience. These causes equaled over 43% of all reported accidents. Only 10% or so were caused by excessive speed (which could be 15mph depending on the circumstances). Of the total number of fatalities, 82% were not wearing life jackets. Alcohol was involved in 31% of all boating fatalities. Based on the statistics, it seems that there are other areas of significance to focus on.

[Rose]

Originally Posted by Paugus Bay Resident

USCG 2003 statistics show that the top three causes of boating accidents were operator inattention, careless / reckless operation and operator inexperience. These causes equaled over 43% of all reported accidents.

Since many accidents were caused by operator inattention, carelessness or inexperience, how do people feel about an operator's license (not a certificate) in which an individual would need to pass a basic boating operation test as well the current written test? I'm not necessarily advocating this, just curious. I know I would feel more confident behind the wheel if I took a few lessons.

Rose

[CEP]

I don't think that speed limits and or driving license would be needed.
Most people I know, that operate boats on the lakes, already have a drivers license. However, we all know how some handle themselves on the roads.
Education and Experiance is needed! We all need to have a different attitude tords operating on the lakes. Slow down in tight situations, and be alert, and curtious to the other guy near you. Safety for yourself and the loved ones and passengers you have on board.
God knows we have enough regulations on the books today, we need no more.
A safe cruise, is a good cruise. All's well, that ends well!

CEP

[JG1222]

Paugus Bay Resident posted a great link to statistical data on accidents. Although I personally feel that you can’t address a speed limit until “on the books” laws are better enforced, the statistic that you can’t ignore (and in my opinion is the most important) is the following:

Of the fatalities in 2003, when the status of “Boat Operator Instruction” was known, 77% of the fatalities were because the parties involved had “None”.

[HUH]

The fellow who owns the boat yard that wants this bill is also touting that his boat yard is some enviromental yard stick ..Just the opposite his boat yard is a DUMP with leaking engine blocks , a barrel where they burn trash is going 24/7.There are people living in trailers on the property..
I live just up the shore from this eyesore and there is a constant slick of oil floating buy ..
Yet he claims hes leading the charge for eviro sensitive boat yards
His yard is also a sailboat mecca on the lake and for some reason the sailboaters cant get along with the powerboaters..When in fact I feel the sailboaters can be a great hazard .. When they are leaving the channel from this boat yard they must stick to the wrong side of the channel due to shallow water , sometimes not giving way ..People unfamiliar with this routine are often confused and or forced out of the channel to make way for the big sailboats that are half out of control from there lack of power to size..
Fast power boats create no hazard whatsoever for sailboats ..Its just that they dont feel you are as eviromentaly concious as them and you should mend your ways .Or they feel annoyed that you have driven by them on their tranquil journey around golden pond . This is , "as it turns out" is what the true motive of the person pushing for this bill ..
Take a ride by this boat yard and see for yourself ..

[Silver Duck]

I have a small (26ft.), single engine express cruiser that will not (quite) reach the proposed 45 MPH speed limit, so I personally have no axe to grind in this matter.

However, with that said and for technical reasons, I do not believe that enforcement of the 45 MPH speed limit is as easy as some of you seeem to think because:

Fiberglass boats make poor radar targets at best; fiberglass does not reflect radar signals very well. This is why companies make and sell radar reflecters for ocean-going boats that are likely to need to operate in heavy fog!

So far as I'm aware, hand-held radar guns are intended to compare the speed of an on-coming target to a stationary position (the parked cruiser). I strongly suspect that the readings would be heavily effected by the relative speeds and courses of the MP boat and whatever they were targeting. Getting accurate readings would seem to require a much more sophisticated and expensive technology! (Perhaps Skip could weigh in on this?)

Unless we all start carrying some sort of transponder, the MP boat would need to be close enough to the offending boat to either read the bow numbers or chase it down.

Safe operating speed is determined by circumstances; absolute speed has nothing to do with it! There are plenty of situations in which my 43 MPH top end would constitute reckless operation. And, if an MP officer observes a boat being operated in an unsafe manner, he already has the legal basis to ticket the operator; no further laws are needed!

What's really needed on the lake are more common sense and courtesy, which are difficult to legislate. IMHO, this speed limit is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to drive performance boats off the lake!

Silver Duck

[ApS]

Look at Washington state statistics. They have an equal number of registered hunters and boaters. There, hunting is safer than boating! http://www.tdn.com/articles/2005/01/...day/news02.txt

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

"...However, with that said and for technical reasons, I do not believe that enforcement of the 45 MPH speed limit is as easy as some of you seeem to think because..."

1) Director Barrett is already quoted as saying the MPs can't enforce the proposed law -- see b8caster's http://nhpr.org/view_content/6630/

2) NH laws expect voluntary compliance -- and largely gets it.

3) Director Barrett does not address a VASCAR approach.

Originally Posted by JG1222

Paugus Bay Resident posted a great link to statistical data on accidents. Although I personally feel that you can’t address a speed limit until “on the books” laws are better enforced, the statistic that you can’t ignore (and in my opinion is the most important) is the following:

Of the fatalities in 2003, when the status of “Boat Operator Instruction” was known, 77% of the fatalities were because the parties involved had “None”.

So how is this a big deal?

How many small boaters -- the victims in most instances -- are NOT exempt from Boat Operator Instruction?

I'd fully expect the majority of fatalities to have had "None".

[Islander]

This law does not require ANY enforcement!

When owners of boats that can go 90mph are looking for a lake to visit or dock their boat at they will NOT choose a lake with a 45mph speed limit. So no new fast boats will come to lake winni.

Some die hard owners of fast boats on the lake may stay. But year by year there will be fewer and fewer fast boats on the lake. All this without the Marine Patrol writing even one ticket.

There will be people that go 50 or 60 on the lake and get away with it. Just like people go 75 or 85 on RT93 and usually get away with it. But nobody goes 130 on RT 93 and nobody will be going 90 on the lake anymore.

If you read the article about the people that came up with this legislation you will find that they are already talking about horse power limits.

[Silver Duck]

Per Islander's post, I guess the real purpose of this speed limit is no longer thinly veiled, but out in the open!

[b8tcaster]

If as Islander states, that gradually boaters will gravitate away from the lake due to speed limits or other restrictions, it makes sense that the lake will become less attractive to people with the means to purchase and operate high performance and or luxury boats. What economic impact will that have on the lakes region businesses?(marinas,construction companies boatyards,etc).What impact could it have on the values of properties surrounding the lake. I doubt that people will choose to change the way they enjoy their free time on the water. They may decide to change where they live and or play. Seems to me that the ability to operate these types of boats on the lake is what draws a major amount of the big money to the lakes region. I dont own or operate a large pleasure boat but I dont underestimate how much money people that do must pump into the local economy. Just some things to think about.

[Alton Bay]

Many of your legislators have their Concord emails listed, not their home emails. If you really want to send a message, I suggest you call them at
home. Most reps don't mind and are happy to get input from voters. Many live
off the lake and value your thoughts. I would never rely on email to send a message.
Call them at home!

[Islander]

b8tcaster

Actually I think you are 180 degrees off on your theory. The big boats are probably 2% of the boats on the lake. The loss of their income will be negligible. And many many people will find the lake a more attractive place WITHOUT performance boats. I will!

Anyway property values on the lake are out of site, a few loud boats leaving the community is not going to change that.

And think about this, 35% of the people answering the poll want a speed limit. And this is a BOATING FORUM. I'm sure a speed limit poll on the Three Mile Island Forum would be 99% for a speed limit.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

Islander,

How do you propose people with performance boats deal with the decreased value of boats they purchased prior to a speed limit law? What about marinas with new (and used) inventory that is no longer marketable on the lake? The economic implications are no quite so simplistic.

Also, you mentioned "the big boats are probably 2%", don't know if that's true, but not only big boats are effected. There are plenty of boats in the 21 - 25 foot range that are capable of speeds in the high 60s and 70s. A 24-foot HTM cat with reasonable HP will do 80+. A 20-foot Baja Outlaw with a 7.3L will run in the 60s. An Donzi Sweet 16 will be up there too. Jees, 10 years ago, I had an 18 foot Stingray bowrider that would run in the high 50s.

And least we forget our jet skiing brethren.

Size, al least in this case , is irrelevant.

[Islander]

If the law passes performance boat will not loose any value. But they will have to sell them somewhere else, the market on the lake will be poor.

The boats you talk about are not the norm. Bowriders in the 150 to 250 HP is the norm. Only a small percentage of boats on the lake will do over 60.

There must be over a thousand boats on the islands, but very very few performance boats. They are not the best thing to use when you need to run out for a quart of milk.

28.57% + 6.12% is 35%. These people voted for at least some kind of speed limit.

Less than 50% are "strongly opposed". And again this is from people in a BOATING FORUM!!!

[JG1222]

Originally Posted by JG1222

Of the fatalities in 2003, when the status of “Boat Operator Instruction” was known, 77% of the fatalities were because the parties involved had “None”.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

So how is this a big deal?

Acres, if you can't see how boater education (like driver education for cars and rider education for motorcycles/snowmobiles) plays a significant role in preventing, reducing or avoiding situations where fatalities or injuries could occur (like safe operation and speeding which, in case you haven't noticed, happens to be the subject of this thread), it probably wouldn't make much sense to try to explain it.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

If the law passes performance boat will not loose any value. But they will have to sell them somewhere else, the market on the lake will be poor.

The boats you talk about are not the norm. Bowriders in the 150 to 250 HP is the norm. Only a small percentage of boats on the lake will do over 60.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Island Lover]

How could a speed limit on the lake change the value of a high performance boat? Put it on a trailer and sell it on Cape Cod, Long Island, Miami, Key West ect. OK you will be out the transportation charges.

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by Island Lover

How could a speed limit on the lake change the value of a high performance boat? Put it on a trailer and sell it on Cape Cod, Long Island, Miami, Key West ect. OK you will be out the transportation charges.

Case in point - you just explained how the value of ANY BOAT capable of speeds in excess of 45mph will be adversely effected. CLUE - it costs money to ship a boat elsewhere, it costs money to advertise it elsewhere, it costs money for the boat to be shown elsewhere not to mention time. Do you have ANY idea what transportation charges are to ship a boat to Miami? Do you even know what it entails to do such a thing?

Now the marinas which sell boats capable of speeds in excess of 45mph, of which there are at least 4 of them on the lake I can think of right away, they will have to sell the boats at a reduced cost (if not a loss) and in order to remain in business they will need to pick up another line of boats and in case you are not aware, picking up a line of boats is not like shopping for shoes. There are 'exclusives' involved based on territory and such, so this could be a huge financial undertaking if at all feasible for all those marinas. In short, you could expect the marinas to have lay offs and that I'm sure you would agree this would not be an economical benefit to the states economy.

This speed limit topic and your rebuttals all fall back on the same issue - education and the need for it.

[Audiofn]

Interestingly it is not the "Gofasters" that will only be effected by this law. What about all the bass fishermen? Most boats now days go over 45mph. Even this one goes faster then my "go fast" boat. I guess it is not so fast

[ApS]

Originally Posted by JG1222

Acres, if you can't see how boater education (like driver education for cars and rider education for motorcycles/snowmobiles) plays a significant role in preventing, reducing or avoiding situations where fatalities or injuries could occur (like safe operation and speeding which, in case you haven't noticed, happens to be the subject of this thread), it probably wouldn't make much sense to try to explain it.

My points:
1) If you pilot a boat with less than 25HP, the test is not required.
2) If you pilot a boat with less than 25HP, AND never took the test AND became "roadkill", the MP would put a check-mark in the report-box next to "None"?. (No BoaterEd).
3) Boaters with more than 25HP may know the rules, but are less likely to become "roadkill".
4) Boaters with less than 25HP may-or-may-not know the rules, but are more likely to become "roadkill".

Actually, I've been increasingly surprised at the apparent effect that BoaterEd has had on Winnipesaukee. I still have rental-neighbors who "didn't know our rules" on BoaterEd, and had to "park" their boats. It's still hard to tell if a Big Boat, approaching at warp speed, has taken the test.

The violators seem to be mostly Jet-Skis with underage operators, 30-somethings full of themselves, and the few grey-hairs that aren't required to take the test as of yet.

BTW: I've been to the Marine Mafia site (Yes, Cal, you're right. I think I'll remove my e-mail option at our User CP now).

There are calls there to "push" our little speed-limit poll here.

They've also supposedly "removed the malicious content" from their Winnipesaukee thread; but who could tell Not me.

They've cleaned up their act some since last summer, but still have too many images...um...disrespectful-to-women...plus too much foul language for me to post the URL here. (They've added a new, exclusive, pay-per-view, um, Disrespectful-To-Women link. Tony S. would be proud).

Needless to say, they're calling up their big guns from Massachusetts -- and elsewhere, too -- to Concord. "Don't Go Acting Like an Idiot", they're counciling.

Now why would a Big-Boater site advise that?

[FormulaOutlaw]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

My points:
1) If you pilot a boat with less than 25HP, the test is not required.
2) If you pilot a boat with less than 25HP, AND never took the test AND became "roadkill", the MP would put a check-mark in the report-box next to "None"?. (No BoaterEd).
3) Boaters with more than 25HP may know the rules, but are less likely to become "roadkill".
4) Boaters with less than 25HP may-or-may-not know the rules, but are more likely to become "roadkill".

Actually, I've been increasingly surprised at the apparent effect that BoaterEd has had on Winnipesaukee. I still have rental-neighbors who "didn't know our rules" on BoaterEd, and had to "park" their boats. It's still hard to tell if a Big Boat, approaching at warp speed, has taken the test.

The violators seem to be mostly Jet-Skis with underage operators, 30-somethings full of themselves, and the few grey-hairs that aren't required to take the test as of yet.

BTW: I've been to the Marine Mafia site (Yes, Cal, you're right. I think I'll remove my e-mail option at our User CP now).

There are calls there to "push" our little speed-limit poll here.

They've also supposedly "removed the malicious content" from their Winnipesaukee thread; but who could tell Not me.

They've cleaned up their act some since last summer, but still have too many images...um...disrespectful-to-women...plus too much foul language for me to post the URL here. (They've added a new, exclusive, pay-per-view, um, Disrespectful-To-Women link. Tony S. would be proud).

Needless to say, they're calling up their big guns from Massachusetts -- and elsewhere, too -- to Concord. "Don't Go Acting Like an Idiot", they're counciling.

Now why would a Big-Boater site advise that?

Allow me to answer a few questions or address a few issues if you please.

"The Other Site" is not the Marine Mafia, although we did get quite a chuckle out of that. You must think we are capable of bringing some "serious muscle" to the table. What "we" are is a group of people who share the same common interest: boating. What "we" are is a group of people who like to have fun and joke around with each other. I have made some very very strong friendships in that Forum, people I have never laid eyes on. We are a 25,000 plus "family".

The reason we are paying attention to the issues on "the Lake" is because of the potential of restricting it's use to "all" that enjoy it. Not just us, but everyone. That is the most important issue here people, everyone has the same right to enjoy that lake. Not just the person in a canoe, not just the person on a jet ski, not just the person on a sailboat, and not just the person in one of them big bad "ceegar" boats.

Posting a speed limit on "the Lake" will do nothing, absolutely nothing. Education and awareness are the only two items that will help make the lake safer for all. For the life of me I cannot understand why so many people who have posted in this forum don't, or refuse, to see that. We're not talking rocket science here people, use basic common sense. "High speed" causes very very few accidents. "Inexperience" causes most. Unawareness causes a lot. Alcohol certainly contributes it's share. Not speed.

You must have a "wake law" up there, enforce it. If not, enact a "wake responsibility" law. That will help.

It has been suggested that there is a segment who wish "the Lake" to return to "the 30's". That's just not going to happen. However, if everyone works together for everyone's sake, you just might be amazed at what can can be accomplished. Again, for everyone's benefit.

Stop using speed as your scapegoat for the failure to address the situation properly and wisely.

[FormulaOutlaw]

BearLover: For the Record:

Yes, I list Sarasota over at the other site but actually live in Nokomis, ten miles south. Why? People know Sarasota, but no one would know where Nokomis is located. I lived in the Sarasota city limits for over 20 years graduating from Sarasota High School so I proudly call Sarasota home.

I lived in Maine for 18 years. From 91' to 96' I trailered over to "the Lake" more than 20 times. Loved boating there. I've also boated on Sebago and Moosehead in Maine. And the Atlantic Ocean.

Spent a lot of time in New Hampshire, riding motorcycles through the mountains around North Conway.

New Hampshire is a beautiful state with great people. I always enjoyed myself there and would like to continue to do so. Formula Outlaw

[Bear Lover]

Nice words Formula Outlaw, but the following quotes are by you and better display who you are and what you think of us and me. You are welcome to talk about me, but leave my children alone!

by Formula Outlaw

I just went into the first site to lurk. One rubberhead states that anyone going over 45 "isn't going that fast to get somewhere, but for the thrill of it". What in the hell is wrong with getting a thrill outta life????? They need to put that idiot in a box, put it in the ground, and throw the dirt on it.

It's bad having a thrill? That's one of the absolute stupidest moronic things I have ever read. Thank God I live down here. I couldn't take those azzholes.

______________________________________

No kidding.......going through that Forum last night it was so "Green" my computer felt like it had Kryptonite around it. This one guy who owns, according to others, the biggest dump of a marina on the lake, is juming on the "let's clean up the lake" bandwagon. Wants to put PortaPotties so the ice fisherman won't piss in the lake.

I wonder how he'll train the fish to use the PortaPotties?

I can only imagine the site of all those "weenies" whining about how only THEIR interest in the lake is important. "BearLover" is my favorite. I wonder what his/her kids look like?

[Audiofn]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

BTW: I've been to the Marine Mafia site (Yes, Cal, you're right. I think I'll remove my e-mail option at our User CP now).

There are calls there to "push" our little speed-limit poll here.

They've also supposedly "removed the malicious content" from their Winnipesaukee thread; but who could tell Not me.

They've cleaned up their act some since last summer, but still have too many images...um...disrespectful-to-women...plus too much foul language for me to post the URL here. (They've added a new, exclusive, pay-per-view, um, Disrespectful-To-Women link. Tony S. would be proud).

Needless to say, they're calling up their big guns from Massachusetts -- and elsewhere, too -- to Concord. "Don't Go Acting Like an Idiot", they're counciling.

Now why would a Big-Boater site advise that?

Marine Mafia ROFLOL. You have to be kidding. Let me tell you about the "Marine Mafia" When some one over there is sick we all do what we can to help them out. Letters, Pick me ups, even taking care of their rent. Hmmm actually in the Mafia you do take care of your own so hmmm I guess that fits. Ok lets try this, when a guy ripped me off on some motors that I purchased over there he was ostricised, darn there we go again acting like a mafia. Oh well then people offered to give me, yup that is right GIVE ME very expensive parts to help me recover from being ripped off. Amazing that people in that family will do amazing things to take care of our own. Ya I guess we are like the Mafia

We are a family over there and when something like this will effect one of us we band together as a sapport system. So call in the "big guns from MA".... Why not? People from all over the world boat in Lake Winni so to say that only people from NH can vote in the poll is insane. I pick and choose when I go up to the lake. Some years I only go up once others often.

The Missing content was from myself and Pantera 1. Pantera 1 and I had a disagreement about how to handle this situation. It was not productive for the thread so Pantera 1 and myself pulled our posts. There was nothing about this site that got deleted only the part that said that you guys watch OSO.

Pictures of women? Foul Language? Ok hear is the deal with all that. First off all foul language is blocked from the site. People can use different things like zz instead of ss but there is no way that we can protect against everything. The moderators of the site have always been as hands off as possible and unlike this site there are 25,000+ memebers so it moves MUCH faster then this site does. There are also people from all over the wolds so it is much more of a melting pot then hear just based on its size and location of members. As for the "pay per view area" that was started to protect members that were under age. To make sure that people were of age the board made it Pay Per View with the requirememt of a Credit card so that the people in there were over 18. If poeople over 18 want to see nudity then that is their perogative. It also is not all nudity in there some of it is jokes that we want to keep from younger viewers of the site. As for it being degrading to women, some of the funniest posts are from women.

Now back to the debate at hand.

I would like to know what evidence that you have that shows that by having this speed limit it will help what you are talking about. I would like to know what the EXACT reason is that you think this will help. Is if safty? Is it errosion? How do you enfoce this? Radar guns do not work on boats so it will be up to the MP to learn how to judge speed on the water. Not a easy or cheap thing to do.

There are laws already on the books that cover all of this. You can not go fast near other boats, you can not go fast near shore. You are responsible to for your own wake. If you hit some one at speed you obviously broke the law...... If you go fast near shore you are breaking the law. If you are dragging butt and your wake damages some one's boat tied up to their dock then you are reponsible for it. The fact of the matter is that very few accidents in the area are due to speed.

Jon

[FormulaOutlaw]

Originally Posted by Audiofn

Marine Mafia ROFLOL. You have to be kidding. Let me tell you about the "Marine Mafia" When some one over there is sick we all do what we can to help them out. Letters, Pick me ups, even taking care of their rent. Hmmm actually in the Mafia you do take care of your own so hmmm I guess that fits. Ok lets try this, when a guy ripped me off on some motors that I purchased over there he was ostricised, darn there we go again acting like a mafia. Oh well then people offered to give me, yup that is right GIVE ME very expensive parts to help me recover from being ripped off. Amazing that people in that family will do amazing things to take care of our own. Ya I guess we are like the Mafia

We are a family over there and when something like this will effect one of us we band together as a sapport system. So call in the "big guns from MA".... Why not? People from all over the world boat in Lake Winni so to say that only people from NH can vote in the poll is insane. I pick and choose when I go up to the lake. Some years I only go up once others often.

The Missing content was from myself and Pantera 1. Pantera 1 and I had a disagreement about how to handle this situation. It was not productive for the thread so Pantera 1 and myself pulled our posts. There was nothing about this site that got deleted only the part that said that you guys watch OSO.

Pictures of women? Foul Language? Ok hear is the deal with all that. First off all foul language is blocked from the site. People can use different things like zz instead of ss but there is no way that we can protect against everything. The moderators of the site have always been as hands off as possible and unlike this site there are 25,000+ memebers so it moves MUCH faster then this site does. There are also people from all over the wolds so it is much more of a melting pot then hear just based on its size and location of members. As for the "pay per view area" that was started to protect members that were under age. To make sure that people were of age the board made it Pay Per View with the requirememt of a Credit card so that the people in there were over 18. If poeople over 18 want to see nudity then that is their perogative. It also is not all nudity in there some of it is jokes that we want to keep from younger viewers of the site. As for it being degrading to women, some of the funniest posts are from women.

Now back to the debate at hand.

I would like to know what evidence that you have that shows that by having this speed limit it will help what you are talking about. I would like to know what the EXACT reason is that you think this will help. Is if safty? Is it errosion? How do you enfoce this? Radar guns do not work on boats so it will be up to the MP to learn how to judge speed on the water. Not a easy or cheap thing to do.

There are laws already on the books that cover all of this. You can not go fast near other boats, you can not go fast near shore. You are responsible to for your own wake. If you hit some one at speed you obviously broke the law...... If you go fast near shore you are breaking the law. If you are dragging butt and your wake damages some one's boat tied up to their dock then you are reponsible for it. The fact of the matter is that very few accidents in the area are due to speed.

Jon

Here here Jon. It is "family" like you that make me extremely proud to be a member of OSO.

In this forum, in my own posts, I have been respectful. I will always defend someone's right to disagree with me. I think it's laughable that some have chosen to steal posts from "the other site" in order to try to demean respectfully written posts in this site. Is that the best you can do?????
You can't say anything to dispute what we have written here, so you try to discredit it by blurring the issue and slamming us. Well slam away. The only thing I'm interested in this Forum is standing up for the rights of everyone, even those of you who I strongly disagree with. And that is more than what you would be willing to do for me. I didn't sneak into your forum and steal posts.

Education and awareness will help your situation. Concentrate on the issue at hand, not making others who disagree with you look bad. Won't work.

[BI1]

Originally Posted by FormulaOutlaw

Here here Jon. It is "family" like you that make me extremely proud to be a member of OSO.

In this forum, in my own posts, I have been respectful. I will always defend someone's right to disagree with me. I think it's laughable that some have chosen to steal posts from "the other site" in order to try to demean respectfully written posts in this site. Is that the best you can do?????
You can't say anything to dispute what we have written here, so you try to discredit it by blurring the issue and slamming us. Well slam away. The only thing I'm interested in this Forum is standing up for the rights of everyone, even those of you who I strongly disagree with. And that is more than what you would be willing to do for me. I didn't sneak into your forum and steal posts.

Education and awareness will help your situation. Concentrate on the issue at hand, not making others who disagree with you look bad. Won't work.

Im In for a 3rd vote...Here here Jon..!well said!

[FormulaOutlaw]

Originally Posted by Islander

b8tcaster

Actually I think you are 180 degrees off on your theory. The big boats are probably 2% of the boats on the lake. The loss of their income will be negligible. And many many people will find the lake a more attractive place WITHOUT performance boats. I will!

Anyway property values on the lake are out of site, a few loud boats leaving the community is not going to change that.

And think about this, 35% of the people answering the poll want a speed limit. And this is a BOATING FORUM. I'm sure a speed limit poll on the Three Mile Island Forum would be 99% for a speed limit.

Think about this: 70% of the people don't want a speed limit.

[BI1]

Originally Posted by Islander

b8tcaster

Actually I think you are 180 degrees off on your theory. The big boats are probably 2% of the boats on the lake. The loss of their income will be negligible. And many many people will find the lake a more attractive place WITHOUT performance boats. I will!

Anyway property values on the lake are out of site, a few loud boats leaving the community is not going to change that.

And think about this, 35% of the people answering the poll want a speed limit. And this is a BOATING FORUM. I'm sure a speed limit poll on the Three Mile Island Forum would be 99% for a speed limit.

A speed limit will not cure all the woes of the lake...speed is not the issue or the problem...I have lived on(summers) and boated on Winni most of my life
The increasing problem I see is inexperience!!! not speed the % of people who Buy a jet ski or open bow boat,(runabout) think the lake has few rules and in the process of finding out are a hazard to most everyone else. .education is the first key to the fix...
My .02