Speed Limits

Great Idea · 05-03-2005, 10:41 AM

Woodsy,

" Holes" in my story? Perhaps you need to look at some of the data regarding collisions at various speeds? Would you rather the reckless driver hit you at 45 or 65? Considering your chances of survival and the significantly higher odds of the offender avoiding the collision altogether, your chances of living are greater at 45. You don't see the benefit of slower speeds??? Yikes..... fairly obvious regarding improved safety. And before you go off on the "can't enforce it" bit perhaps you should consider the fact that while reckless operation is extremely subjective and hard to measure or agree as to what is reckless a speedometer is rather objective. A speed limit is far more likely to have an impact on behaviors than a law that doesn't define "reckless". Looking down at one's speedo and seeing the speed will slow many boaters down. The 150ft rule isn't easily measured, speed IS. While many will still violate the speed limit the occurances of speeding would drop dramatically. Why the need for that? To LOWER the odds of fatalities. Worth the price to slow down? I would think so.
As for the suggestion that all of us who support a speed limit "hate" Go Fasts??? Obviously your not reading all the posts? I LOVE Go Fast boats and all things speed. I operate a large such boat often OFF SHORE where it belongs. Once you do that the "excitement" of speeding on Winni dies quick. (Chase1, we don't agree on the "pretty Chase" part of my post). Also the suggestion by the last poster that pro speed limit folks want an accident to push the cause????? Thats pretty sick..... I'd say that proposing a speed limit is an attempt to prevent such an accident from ever happening. A speed limit will lower the odds. Will reckless accidents and perhaps deaths still happen as Codeman suggests after the speed limit is in place? Yes... however reducing the number of speeding boats will reduce the odds and the number of accidents. Perhaps those who want to speed should consider this.... are they really willing to tradc someone's life for their "right" to speed. Kinda selfish maybe?

Mee-n-Mac · 05-04-2005, 12:31 AM

I find it most curious that you would use the concept of a reckless driver and a 45 mph collision being more survivable than a 65 mph one as somehow supporting the SL. Surely then a 25 mph one is yet even more survivable. Using this reasoning how do you decide what's the appropriate allowable speed ? I think using survivability in the case of a collision as a means of supporting a SL is disingenuous. If the Littlefield incident proves nothing else, it proves that even in "low" speed collisions there's a risk of severe injury or death. Better stick to the case where collisions are avoided.

Implying that those who want to "speed" (clever use of a loaded word) are selfish because they are willing to trade peoples lives for their "right" to speed is pretty insulting don't you think ? How about the argument that there are people who moderate their speed appropriate to the conditions and don't see the need to have, what appears to them, an unreasonably low limit placed on them at all times and at all places on the lake. Saying that people who don't agree with a 45 mph limit are putting other peoples lives at risk conveys the unproven (in so far as this or other threads on this topic go) quality of being a fact that speeds above the proposed limit are always dangerous. What others are asking for is just this proof. What they get is hyperbole about 90, 100, 110 and greater speeds and that these demonstrate the appropriateness of a 45 mph (? vs some higher ?) speed limit. I can understand the concerns but concern by itself isn't sufficient for restricting peoples actions. Comments akin to GF boats are "ridiculous" and that people don't "need" to go "that fast" are subjective judgements that by themselves don't lend any weight to the necessity or reasonableness of a 45 mph SL. There are a number of people who don't think that speed > 45 mph is the #1 or even the #10 problem on the lake and diverting resources to combat this issue is perhaps not the best thing to do. I'd rather see the MPs have the funds to buy cameras or camcorders to better prove "recklessness" (stupidity, arrogance, call it what you will) that I see in more abundance, and most always at speeds < 45 mph, than have to them equipped with the latest radar guns catching people who may be guilty of nothing more than violating an arbitrary limit. If "speed" can at times be safe and at other times and under other conditions be reckless, then perhaps what needs beefing up are the anti-recklessness (pardon my inventive wording) laws and not the speed statutes.

From Saf-C 404.12;

(c) No boat operator shall operate his/her vessel in a manner that is unsafe, including the following types of conduct:
(1) Challenging other boaters by heading directly at a vessel and then swerving at the last minute to avoid collision;
(2) Weaving through congested boat traffic at greater than headway speed;
(3) Operating while his/her vision is obstructed; and
(4) Other types of operation that are intended to create erratic operational patterns so that other boaters cannot determine the course or heading of the vessel.

I add that including doesn't mean limited to.

codeman671 · 05-04-2005, 05:41 AM

Well said Mee-n Mac as always...

By the way, Evenstar if you are so worried about your safety on Winni why do you want to kayak on Winni? You seem to have pretty strong opinions against it and also have made some pretty strong statements about boating in general for someone who claimed back on April 2nd to be fairly new to kayaking and boating.

And I quote "I do most of my paddling up here, but I do get down to the Lakes Region fairly often as well, as it’s only about an hour drive for me. I’m new to kayaking (and boating, for that matter), and I still have a great deal to learn."

Searching the internet and reading NH statutes does not make up for on-water experience.

PROPELLER · 05-04-2005, 07:25 AM

Great Idea, as I have said in previous posts I am out every weekend from ice out to mid October & I spend 2 weeks vacation on the lake and I have done this for several years now. I travel all around the lake not just one area all the time & I put over 100 hrs on my boat with several more hours at anchor in different areas around the lake. I think I am qualified to make judgements about what I see on the lake & I do not see high performance boats hurdling around the lake recklessly at speeds of 80 or 90 + mph. I also have never witnessed or experienced a close call with one.

As far as how fast some of these high performance boats are traveling, are you in possession of some kind of equipment thats confirming the speed of these boats? Or are you that good with estimating speed? If you are that good then the marine patrol would love to hire you. If HB162 passes the marine patrol could save a whole lot of money on the equipment that may not even work & just use your powers of estimation.

ITD · 05-04-2005, 08:58 AM

Boating Statistics 2003 from the US Coast Guard

http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2003.pdf

Categories in the accident column Canoe/Kayak also Rowboats, pontoon boat, Sail only, inflatable, among others, all nicely spelled out.

More people died in Canoe/Kayak than PWC, interesting, flies directly in the face of comments by the anti-PWC crowd. Just an interesting point that I would not have suspected had I not looked.

In 2003 in New Hampshire there were 6 fatalities related to boats, 5 were drownings 1 was listed as other. This is for the whole state.

Nationwide, 1469 collisions with other boats, 70 fatalities. Probability of a fatality from a collision with another vessel - 4% you should be much more worried about falling overboard - probability of death - 34%.

The arguement that you need to use only data from Winni just doesn't hold water, pun intended. There are probably not enough "events" for a reasonable statistical study of just Winni and if there were I would be willing to bet that the data would show it is safer to boat/kayak on Winni. than other comparable lakes. (Big reach here, but mild compared to some of the other "estimations" in these threads). NH is ahead of the curve with the boater education requirement, a valid requirement based on the STATISTICS. From the report:

�� Consistent with previous years, nearly 80% of all reported fatalities occurred on
boats where the operator had not received boating safety instruction (Page 19).

Trust me, had the stats in this report pointed to speeds above 45mph as a problem we would have seen this report pasted all over these posts.

I just don't see the need for a speed limit.

Evenstar · 05-04-2005, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITD

Categories in the accident column Canoe/Kayak also Rowboats, pontoon boat, Sail only, inflatable, among others, all nicely spelled out. More people died in Canoe/Kayak than PWC, interesting, flies directly in the face of comments by the anti-PWC crowd. Just an interesting point that I would not have suspected had I not looked.

So how many of these fatalities were white water rives? And how many of these fatalities were caused by a larger boat? This is also from the report, on page 6, under Executive Summary Boating Statistics – 2003:

- The most reported type of accident was a collision with another vessel.

- Overall, operator inattention, carelessness/reckless operation, operator inexperience, and excessive speed are the leading contributing factors of all reported accidents (Pages 7, 37).

- The most common types of boats involved in reported accidents were open motorboats (42%), personal watercraft (PWC) (27%) and cabin motorboats (14%)

I honestly had forgot that row boats and inflatables were in separate catagories. but there is only a single category for canoe/kayak, and this includes all lengths from ~7 to 18+ feet. They are not separated at all, but are just lumped together. And, as I stated in my previous reply; “there’s a huge difference between canoes, recreational kayaks, and sea kayaks, when it comes to seaworthiness.” And you keep leaving out the fact that this is for all types of water, not just lakes. The data is for boats on ponds and on rivers, including white water, where the larger boats don’t even go.

Quote:

The arguement that you need to use only data from Winni just doesn't hold water, pun intended.

I never said that. What I actually wrote was; “To use the data objectively, you would have to use only boating accidents that occur on the larger lakes.”

restauranteer · 05-05-2005, 05:30 AM

Quote: